On October 30, 2024, at the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, and for the 32^nd consecutive year, 187 countries demanded the lifting of unilateral U.S. economic sanctions that have been suffocating the Cuban population since 1960. As usual, only Israel aligned itself with Washington, opposing the resolution put forward by Havana. Moldova, for its part, chose to abstain.

Imposed by President Eisenhower with the aim of overthrowing Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government, the sanctions have been maintained and reinforced by various U.S. governments. They have extraterritorial characteristics – the Torricelli Act of 1992, for example – which means they apply beyond national borders, affecting every country in the world. For instance, any foreign ship that docks in a Cuban port is banned from entering the United States for six months. The aim of this legislation is to prevent the development of Cuba’s international trade with the rest of the world.

Sanctions are also retroactive under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which penalizes foreign companies investing in property in Cuba that belonged to U.S. citizens in the 1960s. This is a legal aberration, as a law cannot normally be applied to facts that predate its adoption. The aim of this legislation – which undermines Cuba’s sovereignty as well as that of countries wishing to maintain normal relations with Havana – is to deprive the island of foreign investment.

U.S. diplomatic rhetoric to justify the maintenance of a hostile policy towards Cuba has continued to evolve over time. In 1960, when Eisenhower imposed the first unilateral coercive measures, he justified his decision by referring to the nationalization of U.S. property. In 1962, when his successor, John F. Kennedy, enacted total sanctions against the island, he invoked the alliance with the Soviet Union. In the 1970s and 1980s, Washington explained that Havana’s support for revolutionary and independence movements around the world was an obstacle to policy change. Finally, since the collapse of the USSR, the United States has used the issue of democracy and human rights to prolong its economic war.

While a truce was observed during Barack Obama’s second term, the arrival of Donald Trump marked an upsurge in sanctions against the island. Over the course of his presidency, Trump imposed no fewer than 243 new coercive measures, including 50 during the Covid-19 pandemic – an average of one additional sanction per week for four years. Joe Biden, instead of returning to a more constructive approach, as in the 2014-2016 period when he was Vice President, chose to maintain the measures implemented by his predecessor.

More than 80% of the Cuban population was born under the sanctions imposed by Washington. These have cost the island a total of $164 billion, a sum that would cover the food basket for every Cuban family for 100 years! Under the Biden administration, economic sanctions have cost Cuba an average of $15 million a day, or almost $10,000 a minute. Each year, they represent a loss of more than $5 billion for the island.

Just days before the end of his term, Trump placed Cuba on the list of countries supporting terrorism. Since then, more than 1,000 international banks have refused to collaborate with the island, which is in crucial need of credit and foreign investment, for fear of reprisals.

According to the UN, “fundamental human rights, including the right to food, health, education, economic and social rights, the right to life, and development, are suffering the consequences” of the anachronistic, cruel and illegal state of siege imposed by Washington on 10 million Cubans. The widespread blackout that hit the island in October 2024 is a direct consequence of U.S. coercive measures, which contravene the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter.

Economic sanctions illustrate the United States’ inability to recognize Cuba’s independence and accept that the island has chosen a different political system and socio-economic model. There is only one way out of this asymmetrical conflict between Washington and Havana: a respectful dialogue based on sovereign equality, reciprocity, and non-interference in internal affairs.

---