The steady decline in support for the UNGA resolution against the US embargo on Cuba reflects the erosion of multilateralism. Critically examine.

Almost every year since 1992, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has asked the US to end its embargo on Cuba. Support fell from 187–2 (2024) to 165–7–12 (2025) and then to 130–17–25 in October 2026 [1][2]. This decline shows strain on multilateral norms, but it does not show that multilateralism has collapsed.

Decline as erosion of multilateralism

• Coercive diplomacy: States changing their votes under great-power pressure weakens the sovereign equality of members (Art. 2(1), UN Charter). It turns a universal forum into a place for bargaining.
• Extraterritorial sanctions become normal: The resolution names the Helms-Burton Act, 1996 [2], a law that reaches firms in third countries. Weaker opposition makes secondary sanctions easier to impose, and these also affect India's trade with Iran and Russia.
• Bloc conflicts spill over: The US linked Cuba to the Ukraine war, and European states urged Havana to stop its nationals fighting for Russia [2]. Ukraine, Hungary and North Macedonia voted "No" [2].
• Quiet disengagement: The number of members not voting rose from 9 to 21 [1][2]. Staying silent is a form of withdrawal.

Why the "erosion" claim is overstated

• The majority still holds: 130 is about 76% of states voting, well above two-thirds [1].
• Some votes were self-interested, not coerced: Eastern European states acted on their own security fears about Russia. That is independent judgment, not giving in to pressure.
• The debate stayed inside the forum: The US made its case in the Assembly. It cited $876 million of US exports to Cuba and about 800 political prisoners [1], and blamed Cuba's crisis on its own government [2]. Arguing a case rather than walking out is how multilateralism is meant to work.
• The resolution was always non-binding: Under Arts. 10–14 the UNGA can only recommend. Lower numbers weaken the message but do not change the resolution's legal effect.

Overall, the falling vote reflects pressure on specific norms, mainly against extraterritorial sanctions and coercive voting, rather than the collapse of multilateralism itself. India should keep its principled support. It should frame that support around non-intervention and proportionality, not bloc politics, and voice it jointly through the G77 and NAM. Doing so upholds sovereign equality and the rules-based order envisioned in SDG 16.