Skip to main content

A trillion-dollar injustice: Why the US must end six decades long blockade of Cuba

By Bharat Dogra 
 
Despite decades of international condemnation and repeated United Nations resolutions, the United States continues to enforce one of the most enduring and punitive embargoes in modern history against Cuba. The measures have become so sweeping and entrenched that they are best described as a blockade rather than an embargo. This blockade has cost Cuba over a trillion dollars in lost trade and economic opportunities, while also hurting American businesses that could benefit from normal relations with the island nation.
The human cost has been even greater. Essential supplies such as food, medicine, and equipment have often been denied or delayed, creating hardships for ordinary Cubans. The country faced its most severe crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when its trade network fell apart, and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite these enormous challenges, Cuba’s health indicators remain on par with those of the United States, with similar rates of infant and child mortality and a life expectancy of around 78 years. The country also continues to rank in the “high human development” category on the UN Human Development Index.
For more than six decades, this blockade has persisted with only minor, temporary relaxations. Every year for over thirty years, the UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly voted in favor of resolutions condemning the blockade as a violation of the UN Charter and international law. More than 90 percent of member nations—including the European Union, Canada, and nearly all of America’s allies—support these resolutions. Israel remains the only major nation consistently siding with Washington.
Even within the United States, several political and business leaders have opposed the policy. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz called it “insane,” while former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern bluntly described it as “a stupid policy.” Both Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama attempted limited normalization of relations, but their modest achievements were swiftly reversed by their successors. The Trump administration went further, tightening restrictions and deepening the suffering of ordinary Cubans.
Prominent human rights organizations—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—have also called for an end to the blockade. Legal experts have described it as a violation of international law. In a study published in the Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Paul A. Shenyer and Virginia Barta concluded that the blockade “constituted an illegal act” and a “flagrant violation of the contemporary standard founded on economic principles and sovereign equality between states.”
The United States has justified its stance by citing events from the early 1960s, when Cuba nationalized U.S.-owned refineries and other assets without compensation. Yet the broader context reveals that Washington had already taken hostile steps—cutting off oil supplies and refusing to process Soviet crude that Cuba had imported to keep its economy running. When the U.S. abruptly ended sugar imports, Cuba was left with little choice but to nationalize and reorient its economy.
Today, the blockade’s extraterritorial reach extends far beyond U.S. borders, punishing foreign firms that engage with Cuba and discouraging investment in vital sectors like oil exploration. The result has been lost revenue, persistent shortages, and immense hardship for an island nation striving for self-reliance. Despite this, Cuba continues to display remarkable resilience. Its agroecological farming model has earned international praise, and its medical brigades have offered humanitarian aid in over forty countries during crises and disasters.
This enduring policy of isolation and punishment serves no constructive purpose. It has failed to bring political change, undermines the credibility of U.S. foreign policy, and inflicts needless suffering on the Cuban people. After six and a half decades, it is time for Washington to heed global opinion, uphold the principles of international law, and lift the blockade—permanently.
No more. The U.S. blockade of Cuba must go away, and never return.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener of the Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man Over Machine (Mahatma Gandhi’s Ideas for Present Times), When the Two Streams Met (Freedom Movement of India), A Day in 2071, and Planet in Peril

Comments

TRENDING

How strategic is India's commercial expansion in the Mediterranean?

By Vijay Prashad  On 26 October 2026, Greece’s foreign minister George Gerapetritis stood at the United Nations headquarters and rejected the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya. Gerapetritis spoke on behalf of Greece of course, but also Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, the European Union, and the United Arab Emirates. Five days later, the Indian frigate INS Trishul entered Souda Bay in Crete as part of activities with the US Navy installation (Naval Support Activity) and with the NATO Maritime Interdiction Operational Training Centre. The sequence illuminates a developing strategic geography: India’s naval reach, its confrontation with Pakistan’s new Turkish partner, and its ambition to connect Indian capital to European markets increasingly converge in the eastern Mediterranean.

India among targets as China-linked hackers 'exploit' VPNs, firewalls

Counterview News   Cyberattackers grew faster and harder to detect in 2025, increasingly slipping through trusted systems rather than breaking in with obvious malware, claims U.S.-based  cybersecurity technology company CrowdStrike's 2026 Global Threat Report . The report says adversaries "grew more evasive than ever before," exploiting trust in supply chain partners, legitimate software, internal systems and employees. CrowdStrike now tracks 281 adversaries after naming 24 new ones in 2025, plus 150 activity clusters and emerging threat groups.

Letter to Modi seeks cancellation of "coercive" anti-NGO order on foreign funding rules

By A Representative  Around 70 civil rights organizations have come together to strategize “a collective response to the stifling of civil society space” in the wake of the recent Government of India clampdown on NGOs, telling Prime Minister Narendra Modi that government steps are “coercive” in nature, are “without reasonable cause or due process”, and seek to “cripple” the ability of NGOs to “carry on their legitimate and sanctioned work.”