Former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson has strongly criticised the Jamaican Government’s decision to abstain from a United Nations (UN) vote calling for an end to the United States’ economic embargo against Cuba, describing the move as an “abominable betrayal” of Jamaica’s longstanding foreign policy position.
Patterson is demanding a full explanation from the Government, questioning how Jamaica moved away from a position it had consistently maintained for more than three decades. He also wants the administration to disclose who made the decision, what advice informed it and whether any external pressure or promises influenced the outcome.
- Advertisement -
Jamaica abstained on October 28, 2026, when the UN General Assembly considered the resolution. The country had voted in favour of ending the embargo since the measure was first introduced in 1992.
Patterson argued that the decision was particularly troubling because Parliament had unanimously passed a motion on October 27 addressing Cuba’s economic and humanitarian situation. He said the Government’s subsequent abstention undermined the Legislature’s position and amounted to a serious disregard for parliamentary authority.
“This is no mere discourtesy. It was an act of deception and a grave parliamentary offence,” Patterson said, adding that the decision represented an “abominable betrayal which history will never forget.”
Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith has defended the abstention, explaining that the Government wanted a broader approach that addressed Cuba’s worsening humanitarian conditions, encouraged dialogue between Washington and Havana, and supported economic and human rights reforms. She also argued that the UN resolution did not incorporate those wider considerations.
Information Minister Dana Morris Dixon separately rejected suggestions that the United States had pressured Jamaica, maintaining that the country made its decision as a sovereign state.
Patterson, however, said the Government’s explanation did not adequately address the abrupt change in position. He questioned what diplomatic initiatives had been pursued since Prime Minister Andrew Holness raised the possibility of dialogue between the United States and Cuba at the CARICOM Heads of Government meeting in St Kitts and Nevis in February.
He also highlighted that he and 11 other former CARICOM heads of government had written to international leaders four days before the vote, urging support for the resolution and describing the embargo as contrary to international law and Cuba’s sovereignty.
The regional voting pattern also reflected a shift. Seven CARICOM countries supported the resolution, while Jamaica, Guyana and Haiti abstained. Trinidad and Tobago voted against it, becoming the first CARICOM member state to oppose the measure. Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and St Lucia did not vote.
The General Assembly ultimately adopted the resolution by 130 votes to 17, with 25 abstentions. This represented a decline in support from the previous year, when 165 countries voted in favour, seven opposed and 12 abstained. Although the resolution is not legally binding, it reflects international opinion on the embargo.
Patterson further warned that Jamaica’s abstention could weaken the country’s international standing, particularly as small states depend on international law and multilateral institutions to protect their sovereignty.
“When a powerful nation imposes its will unilaterally on a small neighbour, and we do not object, we weaken the very shield on which our own sovereignty depends,” he said.
He also pointed to Cuba’s longstanding contributions to Jamaica in education and healthcare, arguing that the relationship should not be disregarded amid the island’s worsening economic and humanitarian difficulties.
Patterson maintained that Jamaica’s foreign policy should be guided by its history and national principles rather than political expediency, insisting that the Government owes Jamaicans and the Diaspora a clear account of its decision.
