Cuba calls on the world to resist the US blockade. Norway has held its position for 33 years

According to the embassy’s statement, nine months of tighter energy restrictions have helped create a situation in which the question is no longer primarily how long the power is off, but how few hours it is actually available.

The embassy describes limited access to food and basic necessities, high prices, transport problems, difficulties with water supplies and serious consequences for healthcare and education.

It cites Cuban estimates of economic losses exceeding eight billion dollars over the past year, equivalent to more than 20 million dollars a day. The embassy also says that more than 7,000 containers holding goods already paid for are stranded in various ports because shipping companies and other foreign businesses have cut ties with Cuba for fear of US sanctions.

This information comes from the Cuban authorities. The consequences of the sanctions policy have also drawn the attention of UN experts.

In February 2026, UN-appointed human rights experts condemned a US executive order issued on 29 January that opened the way for punitive tariffs on countries supplying oil to Cuba. The experts described the measure as a serious violation of international law, highlighting its potential impact on third countries wishing to maintain lawful trade relations with Cuba.

In May, UN experts again warned that fuel restrictions threatened fundamental rights and essential services. A report by the UN Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures, published in July, examines the broader effects of sanctions on areas including health, food supplies and public services.

The conflict is therefore about more than the US decision to restrict its own trade with Cuba. It is also about Washington’s ability to influence other countries’ trade through threats of economic sanctions.

It is precisely this extraterritorial effect that the UN has repeatedly drawn attention to.

When the UN General Assembly first adopted a resolution against the blockade on 24 November 1992, the result was far less clear-cut than it would later become. Resolution 47/19 received 59 votes in favour, three against and 71 abstentions.

Norway abstained.

The following year, Norway changed its position and voted for the resolution. Since 1993, it has continued to support the call to end the blockade, whether governed by the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or various coalition governments.

This represents a remarkable continuity in Norwegian foreign policy. For more than three decades, Norway has supported a UN resolution criticising one of the longest-standing foreign policy instruments of its most important security ally.

In 1995, 117 countries supported the resolution. By 1998, that number had risen to 157. Opposition was by then effectively concentrated in the United States and Israel.

Over time, the vote became an almost annual demonstration of Washington’s isolation on the issue.

In 2023, 187 countries voted to end the blockade. Only the United States and Israel voted against, while Ukraine abstained.

Support was lower in 2025. 165 countries voted in favour, seven against and twelve abstained. Those voting against included the United States, Israel, Argentina, Hungary, North Macedonia, Paraguay and Ukraine.

Norway continued to vote in favour.

This means that, through successive international crises, US administrations and upheavals in the security landscape, the Norwegian authorities have maintained a position that puts principles of international law and trade policy ahead of the desire for agreement with Washington.

There is a clear expression of Norway’s position this year, too.

When the EU delivered its statement to the UN General Assembly on 7 July 2026, Norway joined several other European countries in aligning itself with the statement.

The EU acknowledged the adverse humanitarian consequences of the US economic, commercial and financial blockade and underlined the importance of the UN Charter.

Norway therefore has more than its historical voting record to point to. In 2026, it has also aligned itself with an international statement expressing concern about the blockade’s effects.

Yet there is a difference between voting for a non-binding resolution and helping to bring about an actual change in policy.

General Assembly resolutions do not require the United States to lift the blockade. They express member states’ political assessments and views on international law, but do not change US legislation. This explains why the same conflict has returned to the UN year after year, despite an overwhelming international majority.

The question, then, is not only how Norway votes, but what the Norwegian authorities believe their support for the resolution should mean in practice.

The question of Norway’s role has already been raised in the Norwegian parliament, the Storting.

On 23 October, Bjørnar Moxnes of the Red Party (Rødt) submitted a written question to the foreign minister.

He asks the government to confirm that Norway will again support the resolution, but also asks what it is doing in response to UN-appointed human rights experts’ warnings of an induced humanitarian crisis.

Moxnes also refers to a US government document from 1960 that described how economic pressure could be used to create shortages and desperation among the Cuban population.

His question thus connects today’s sanctions policy to its historical origins and raises a question of principle about economic coercion directed at a civilian population.

This is also the emphasis of the Cuban embassy’s statement. It presents the vote not as a symbolic diplomatic victory, but as a question of states’ right to determine their own future without economic coercion by a major power.

The embassy characterises the policy as genocidal and compares the suffering in Cuba with the situation of Palestinians in Gaza and other occupied territories. These are the embassy’s characterisations, not legal conclusions established by an international court.

The statement’s central message is nevertheless unequivocal: Cuba believes the blockade has ceased to be merely an instrument of economic pressure and has become a direct threat to essential services and human life.

Norway has been on the same side of this issue since 1993. It has been possible to maintain close security cooperation with the United States while voting against US sanctions policy towards Cuba.

This year’s vote, however, takes place in different circumstances. New energy restrictions have intensified the conflict, UN experts have warned of serious humanitarian consequences, and Cuba has reported US pressure to influence the vote itself.

For Norway, this is therefore about more than repeating a vote it has already cast over thirty times.

If the Norwegian authorities believe that economic coercion affecting third countries and essential civilian services runs counter to the principles they defend at the UN, it is also reasonable to ask how those principles are to be upheld beyond the General Assembly chamber.

Through its voting record, Norway has made its position clear.

The question now is what that position means as the humanitarian situation in Cuba deteriorates and the same resolution is once again put before a world that has spent decades calling on the United States to end the blockade.