Diplomats facing a sticky vote in the United Nations General Assembly have been known to rush to the restroom or come down with “stomach troubles” at the very moment the vote is to be taken.

A more popular route is the abstention vote that says neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’. But this fence-sitting approach leaves the abstainer in the neither fish nor foul situation, meaning satisfying no one, whether friend or foe.

Still, it is the one position that cannot be accused of being for or against a dicey resolution that has potentially dire consequences for countries choosing the up or down vote.

On October 28, 2026, the very day that Jamaica was marking the first anniversary of the worst storm to hit the island — Hurricane Melissa — Jamaican envoys stayed in the room and voted to abstain from condemning the United States’ financial embargo against Cuba. Twenty-four other countries opted to abstain — the lowest abstention vote in two decades. Last year, there were only 12 such votes.

This abstention has set off a debate about the shift in Jamaica’s foreign policy and what is the reason behind it, given that Cuba has been such a long-time ally and benefactor, at a time when its health system, food supply, and energy infrastructure have been buckling under the embargo. It is argued that the country needs its friends now.

Among the enduring gifts that Cuba has made to Jamaica, under the 1972-80 Michael Manley Government, are: G C Foster College of Physical Education and Sports; Jose Marti Technical High School; Garvey Maceo High School; hundreds of nurses, doctors, free eye care and medical scholarships in Cuba.

Jamaica faced a similar debate when the US took a position against Venezuela which, under the late President Hugo Chavez, provided vital oil supplies to Jamaica through its concessionary PetroCaribe programme.

Also relevant to this discussion is the Government’s recent decision to sign an agreement with the US to handle the transit of third-country nationals (TCNs) who entered America illegally. Jamaican taxpayers cover no costs and operations and housing are funded by the US and managed via the International Organisation of Migration.

Depending on one’s political or moral position, the present Government has been accused of foreign policy cowardice or pragmatism. In our view, if the political blinkers are removed, it will be seen that either position is simplistic.

Many Jamaicans are nostalgic about Cuba, Venezuela, and the Manley years. But while our better angels lead us to believe that we should always support friends, especially when they are down, it is important to understand the power dynamics of geopolitical realities.

Indeed, the response of the US to Mr Manley’s alliance with Cuba in the 1970s was devastating for the economy. The question to be asked is whether today’s response would be any different, and whether the current population would be as accepting of the consequences?

How many Jamaicans would be willing to tolerate a reduced lifestyle, or a loss of US visas, or to watch as their compatriots flee for greener pastures. The very people who are now advocates for radicalism would be the loudest ones to reject the consequences.

It’s a tough call, but we owe it to our people to be sensible. Surely, there’ll be other ways to repay our friends.