Cuba Accuses Rubio of ‘Blackmailing’ World Leaders Ahead of UN Vote on US Embargo

Cuba is accusing US Secretary of State Marco Rubio of pressuring and blackmailing heads of state and government before a UN General Assembly vote. The vote concerns a resolution calling for the removal of the US economic embargo against Cuba. Havana says Washington wants to weaken international opposition and silence criticism of policies it considers collective punishment.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla made the claim in a post on X. He said Rubio was anxious about another expected defeat at the United Nations. Reports also said Rubio spoke with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele on October 13 about shared UN priorities, including Cuba. That contact does not prove threats or blackmail.

The dispute is likely to intensify before the vote. Cuba wants countries to maintain their opposition to the embargo. The United States is trying to persuade governments to reconsider their support for the resolution. Neither side has established that countries changed, or will change, their votes because of US pressure.

The US economic embargo is a long-running set of American restrictions designed to pressure Cuba. The article dates it to 1962 and describes it as a central source of tension between Washington and Havana. It does not provide a complete legal list of the embargo’s measures. It does show that the policy restricts economic activity and includes pressure affecting fuel supplies.

Fuel restrictions are the clearest concrete example in the article. Cuba says tighter US restrictions on fuel worsen electricity shortages and disrupt transport, healthcare, production and water services. Washington defends this pressure as a way to encourage political and economic reforms in Cuba. Havana rejects that reasoning and says the restrictions violate its sovereignty.

The embargo therefore involves economic pressure with effects beyond trade. Its consequences are part of the diplomatic argument at the UN. The article does not establish that every shortage comes from the embargo alone, but it records Cuba’s claim that tightened restrictions have aggravated existing difficulties.

Cuba has received substantial international backing at the UN General Assembly. The assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions calling for an end to the US embargo. These votes show broad international opposition to Washington’s policy, even though they do not legally force the United States to remove the restrictions.

The 2025 vote produced 165 votes in favour, seven against and 12 abstentions. Those figures show that support remained very strong, while also indicating a reduction compared with earlier years. The article does not identify every country in each voting category. It presents the result as an important measure of international opinion on US policy toward Havana.

The next vote will test whether that support holds. Cuba is facing mounting economic difficulties, while the United States is renewing efforts to persuade governments to reconsider their positions. The outcome may affect diplomatic messaging, but it will not by itself change the embargo because the resolution is nonbinding.

The embargo has remained in place since 1962 because the United States continues to defend economic pressure as a tool for encouraging change in Cuba. Washington argues that Cuba needs political and economic reforms. The article presents this as the main current reason for maintaining pressure, rather than giving a full history of every policy decision since 1962.

Cuba strongly rejects that approach. Its government says US restrictions violate Cuban sovereignty and worsen hardship for ordinary people. It also describes the measures as collective punishment. This disagreement explains why the embargo remains both a policy instrument for Washington and a central diplomatic grievance for Havana.

The article does not say that the embargo’s continuation rests on one single event or decision. Instead, it shows an unresolved clash over whether pressure produces reform or causes harm. The annual UN vote keeps that disagreement visible, while the United States continues defending the restrictions and Cuba continues seeking their removal.

The embargo and related restrictions affect daily life by limiting supplies that Cuba says are needed to keep essential systems running. Cuba specifically blames tighter US restrictions on fuel for aggravating electricity shortages. This makes the dispute more than an argument about trade or diplomacy: it reaches homes, workplaces and public services.

The article names several consequences. Fuel shortages can disrupt transport and production, while electricity problems can interfere with healthcare and water services. These systems depend on reliable energy, so pressure on fuel supplies can create wider disruptions across the economy and public life. Cuba describes the measures as collective punishment against its population.

Washington continues to argue that pressure is necessary to encourage political and economic changes. The article does not independently establish that the embargo caused every listed problem. It records Cuba’s claim and the US response. As the UN vote approaches, these competing accounts will remain central to international debate over the embargo.

A UN General Assembly resolution is not legally binding, so it cannot order the United States to remove its embargo. Its power is diplomatic rather than compulsory. A large vote can show how widely countries oppose a policy and can increase political pressure on the country being criticized.

The article gives a clear example. In 2025, a resolution calling for an end to the embargo received 165 votes in favour, seven against and 12 abstentions. That result demonstrated substantial international support for Cuba. The resolution did not automatically change US policy, but it became an important public measure of global opinion.

The coming vote will therefore matter even without direct legal consequences. Cuba will use the result to reinforce its case that the embargo lacks international support. Washington will seek to reduce that support by persuading governments to reconsider their positions. The vote may shape diplomacy, but it cannot itself lift the restrictions.

Voting against the embargo does not necessarily mean supporting Cuba’s government. A country can disagree with Havana’s political or economic system while also opposing US restrictions. The article presents these as separate questions: whether Cuba needs reforms, and whether economic pressure is an acceptable way to pursue them.

The humanitarian concern is central. Cuba says the embargo worsens hardship for ordinary citizens and contributes to shortages affecting electricity, transport, healthcare, production and water services. A government might therefore oppose the embargo because it objects to those effects or believes restrictions violate sovereignty. That position can coexist with criticism of Cuba’s leadership.

The 2025 result illustrates how broad the opposition was, with 165 votes in favour. The vote measures views on the embargo, not automatic approval of every Cuban policy. Because the resolution is nonbinding, countries can express opposition to US pressure while maintaining separate diplomatic disagreements with Havana.