Morocco voted on October 28, 2026, against the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba. The result placed the Kingdom among 17 states opposing the text, while 130 countries supported it and 25 abstained from the vote.
The adopted draft is identified as A/81/L.5 and titled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The verified ballot establishes that Morocco and the United States took the same position on this specific resolution. It does not, however, provide any official explanation of Rabat’s reasons for doing so.
More opposition than in 2025
Morocco was not the only country to oppose the text. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Paraguay and Slovenia were also among the states voting no. The list illustrates the expansion of the opposing group, but it does not by itself establish that all of these governments acted for the same reasons or shared a broader policy.
A comparison with the previous ballot shows a substantial change in the distribution of votes. The equivalent resolution passed on October 29, 2025, by 165 votes to 7, with 12 abstentions. In 2026, it received 130 votes in favor, 17 against and 25 abstentions. Those figures show reduced support for the resolution, but do not automatically prove declining political support for Cuba.
From support to abstention and opposition
The official 2025 voting record shows that Morocco abstained on the annual resolution that year. Its negative vote in 2026 therefore represents a further change between the two substantive ballots. The date of the earlier episode is important: the 2025 vote took place on October 29, rather than in September, as stated in an account that the official record does not support.
Another signal had preceded this shift. On July 9, 2026, Morocco voted against opening the General Assembly debate on the embargo, after previously supporting resolutions urging its removal. The procedural ballot in July and the October vote on the substantive annual resolution were nevertheless separate decisions. They provide relevant context, but should not be treated as the same vote.
A resolution without binding legal effect
The 2026 ballot represented the General Assembly’s 34th annual condemnation of the embargo, or its 34th annual call for the measure to end. Despite its diplomatic significance, the resolution is not legally binding. It communicates the position of the Assembly but does not change United States law, and it cannot by itself lift, preserve or otherwise modify the embargo.
This distinction is central to understanding the practical consequences of the vote. According to the verified information, only the United States Congress can lift the statutory embargo. Adoption by a majority of UN member states therefore does not directly produce that outcome. Morocco’s opposing vote likewise does not alter the applicable legal regime; it records the country’s position in this multilateral ballot.
A US campaign and competing arguments
Before the vote, the United States conducted a diplomatic campaign aimed at persuading more governments either to oppose the resolution or to abstain. After the ballot, US Ambassador Mike Waltz said he was satisfied that countries including Germany and South Korea had changed their positions. He also said he expected that trend to continue in future voting.
Washington portrayed the resolution as political propaganda and argued that Cuba’s economic problems stemmed primarily from the country’s communist government. Cuba offered the opposite assessment. Speaking before the vote, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez argued that the country was being subjected to economic warfare and maintained that the embargo, rather than Cuba itself, constituted the threat in this dispute.
What the vote establishes, and what it does not
The United States has opposed the annual resolutions since 1992, with one stated exception: it abstained in 2016 during the Obama-era rapprochement. The 2026 ballot therefore belongs to a long-running diplomatic confrontation. Its result was nevertheless distinct from the previous year because the opposing camp and the group of abstaining states were both larger than they had been in 2025.
For Morocco, the verified conclusion must remain narrow: Rabat joined Washington in voting against this resolution after abstaining one year earlier. Because no official Moroccan explanation is available in the supplied record, it would be speculative to describe the choice as proof of comprehensive foreign-policy alignment or to assign a specific motive to the Kingdom. The reasoning behind its decision remains unconfirmed.
