The Caribbean must not leave Cuba standing alone

 The Caribbean must not leave Cuba standing alone

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar November 2026

Every year since 1992, the UNGA has overwhelmingly voted to end the blockade. However, this year, there was a rise in votes against and abstentions, likely reflective of new far-right governments — for example, in Colombia, Chile and Honduras — coming to power since last year’s vote. The US has also ramped up its international efforts to isolate Cuba through sanctions and threats of sanctions against countries that trade with Cuba.

This year’s vote took place as escalating US economic warfare against Cuba is causing a devastating humanitarian crisis. The blockade’s impacts have been characterized as a “silent genocide”, severely restricting Cubans’ access to food, medicine, equipment and fuel, and impacting every aspect of daily life.

Cuba’s treatment is widely attributable to the question of Caribbean sovereignty: whether governments that have benefited from Cuban medical cooperation should allow Washington to dictate their relationships with Havana. The election result provides a timely opening, but I would frame relief from the embargo as an opportunity to organize for—not an outcome already assured.

Two distinctions  make the argument harder to dismiss. Ending a government-to-government medical agreement does not necessarily mean expelling all Cuban health workers: Jamaica now reports employing 200 under individual contracts, while Belize has announced a similar shift toward direct employment. And a Democratic congressional victory is not, by itself, evidence that the party has become socialist or that it will repeal the embargo. Reporting indicates Democrats have won congressional control, but the legal restrictions still require legislative action; election results alone do not remove them.

The Caribbean should not need permission from Washington to remember who helped care for its people. That is the regional question behind the United Nations General Assembly’s October 28 vote calling for an end to the United States’ embargo against Cuba. The resolution passed by 130 votes to 17, with 25 abstentions. Yet alongside that overwhelming rejection of the embargo came a troubling development: support fell sharply from last year’s 165 votes, as American lobbying persuaded more governments to oppose the resolution or stand aside.

For Caribbean societies that have benefited from Cuban medical cooperation, this is not an abstract diplomatic dispute. It concerns the relationship between the principles governments proclaim abroad and the health services their citizens depend upon at home.

Jamaica offers the clearest example of that tension. In March, its government announced the end of its longstanding medical cooperation agreement with Cuba, saying the two sides could not agree on new terms. Then, in October, Jamaica abstained on the UN embargo resolution—the first time it had withheld its support since the annual resolution began in 1992. Former prime minister P. J. Patterson condemned the abstention as “an abominable betrayal.”

The government’s position deserves to be represented accurately. Kingston says abstention does not mean support for the embargo. It also says the revised arrangements for Cuban medical personnel protect direct payment of salaries and workers’ possession of their travel documents. Two hundred Cuban health professionals are now working in Jamaica under individual employment contracts.

Those distinctions matter. Defending Cuba against economic punishment should not require dismissing legitimate concerns about medical workers’ rights. Doctors and nurses deserve fair contracts, control over their documents and freedom over their professional lives.

But protecting workers and resisting American coercion are not competing obligations. A Caribbean government should be capable of doing both.

Belize’s decision not to renew its own medical cooperation agreement, while allowing Cuban professionals to remain through individual contracts, illustrates the wider regional shift. Reporting on these changes also describes the breakdown of Guyana’s longstanding brigade arrangement and the continuation of some Cuban professionals there through direct employment. These are different national cases—not a single, uniform expulsion of Cuban doctors—but they are unfolding amid sustained American pressure against Cuba’s overseas medical programs

The distinction between reform and capitulation must therefore remain central. Improving an agreement to protect healthcare workers is defensible. Reorganizing regional healthcare to satisfy Washington’s campaign against Havana is another matter entirely.

Nor should Caribbean governments have to endorse Cuba’s political system to oppose the embargo. The question is not whether Havana should be immune from criticism. It is whether economic pressure on an entire population is an acceptable instrument for securing political change.

The UN vote does not legally compel Washington to change course. It does, however, demonstrate that a substantial majority of participating governments continue to reject the embargo. The more disturbing development is that this international consensus is weakening under pressure, including in a region with direct experience of Cuban medical assistance.

An opening in Washington—not a guarantee

The Democratic congressional victory creates a new political opportunity. It does not establish that the embargo is about to unravel.

Election reporting indicates that Democrats have won control of both chambers. That changes the setting in which Cuba policy will be debated, but it is not a congressional mandate for any particular Cuba policy. Nor should a broad electoral victory be reduced to the claim that the Democratic Party has collectively embraced socialism.

The stronger argument is practical rather than ideological: opponents of the embargo now have a new Congress to persuade.

The embargo is embedded in legislation, including the Helms–Burton Act. Previous presidential moves to ease particular restrictions have left that statutory framework intact. A different congressional majority can create an opening for repeal or reform, but it must actually enact those changes. Hope is not legislation.

Caribbean governments should therefore treat the election as a moment for coordinated diplomacy, not as permission to wait.

They should press the incoming Congress for concrete changes that protect civilian welfare, reduce obstacles to legitimate commerce and banking, and prevent regional medical cooperation from becoming collateral damage in Washington’s confrontation with Havana. They should also insist that healthcare arrangements meet transparent labor standards, rather than accept the false choice between defending Cuba and defending Cuban workers.

Such an approach would put Caribbean interests first. It would acknowledge Cuba’s contribution without romanticizing its government. It would defend workers without endorsing collective economic punishment. And it would turn regional solidarity from a ceremonial phrase into an independent foreign policy.

The Caribbean’s obligation is not unquestioning loyalty to Havana. It is consistency: the same respect for sovereignty, human dignity and access to healthcare that its governments demand for their own citizens.

A changed Congress may open a door. Caribbean leaders should help push it open—not retreat from Cuba while waiting for Washington to decide what friendship their region is allowed to maintain.