The curtain has fallen on the High Level Segment of the 81st General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly, and the balance sheet admits no ambiguity: we find ourselves facing an international scenario marked by the advance of expansionism, dispossession and military and economic aggression.
The United States Government's attempt to impose peace through force is absurd and unrealizable, and the pillars of International Law, in particular sovereign equality between States, remain under systematic attack.
On Tuesday, September 22th, precisely the President of the United States opened the debate with an aggressive speech against Cuba, in which he returned to the usual argument: "a failed state." Faced with these accusations, which place the Island as a threat to U.S. national security, the Cuban delegation left the General Assembly room.
Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, First Secretary of the Party's Central Committee and President of the Republic, denounced the unprecedented disrespect shown to the General Assembly, noting that the body was used as an imperial platform to threaten other nations with annihilation.
Four days later, on September 26, the member of the Political Bureau and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, told the plenary about the intensification of a multidimensional aggression that has lasted almost seven decades.
A CAUSE THAT RALLIES VOICES
Cuba’s denunciation did not go unheeded. Throughout the High-Level Segment, at least ten heads of state explicitly raised their voices against the blockade, joined by statements from Russia and China delivered at the level of foreign minister and vice president.
Brazilian leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was unequivocal: "The UN is failing in one of its most important missions: freeing humanity from the scourge of war. Its credibility has never been lower; it has never been weaker."
Regarding Cuba, he was categorical: the economic and energy blockade constitutes "collective punishment" imposed on ten million people. His statement that "Brazil does not belong in anyone's backyard" encapsulates a doctrine of sovereignty that resonates with the Cuban position.
Vietnam, through the voice of To Lam—General Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Socialist Republic—called for the lifting of the blockade and the energy embargo, as well as the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
On September 24th, Namibian President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah described the blockade as a flagrant violation of sovereignty and the UN Charter, and demanded an end to the energy embargo. The leader affirmed that her country "must stand with Cuba during its most difficult hour."
On September 26th, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China took the floor. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed solidarity with the Cuban people and government and called for the lifting of the naval blockade. He denounced the "unprecedented pressure" Cuba faces from its northern neighbor and stated that urgent measures are required to alleviate its "grave humanitarian situation."
Meanwhile, Chinese Vice President Han Zheng called upon the "relevant country"—a diplomatic turn of phrase referring to the United States—to immediately cease the use of force as a threat against Cuba and to lift the blockade and coercive measures.
Lavrov’s statement constituted firm support for the positions Cuba championed during the debate. Russia not only spoke of the Island but also framed the demand to lift the blockade as part of a broader agenda challenging the hegemonic order, thereby lending strategic significance to our cause.
As for China, given a context in which Washington’s verbal aggression toward the Island was particularly crude, the Asian giant’s support from the UN podium carries undeniable political weight: there is complete alignment regarding multilateralism, Security Council reform, and the centrality of development.
These voices were joined by those of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Guinea-Bissau.
MULTILATERALISM UNDER SIEGE
Beyond the Cuban cause, the debate exposed deep fractures in the international order. On the third day, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas—prevented from attending due to visa denials—addressed the assembly via video; he described the war in Gaza as "genocidal," warning that it threatens "the very existence of the Palestinian people."
A palpable example of the intolerable situation in today's world was the presence of the "war criminal"—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He dismissed accusations of genocide as "the biggest lie of the century," defended West Bank settlements, and justified attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. In protest, delegations from several countries walked out of the hall during his speech.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, in his final general debate at the helm of the UN, identified four challenges linked to the exercise of power: war, inequality, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
He warned that "international law has been cast aside" and that "geopolitical divisions have deepened." Regarding AI, he urged leading nations to share information on emerging risks and to work on common safeguards.
The 81st General Debate has laid bare the profound contradictions of the current international order. In conclusion, the UN must be saved from those who use it as a platform for their hegemonic interests.
