Wednesday, 4 November 2026

PNP Regarding Jamaican's Abstention To US Embargo at UN

Press Release From The PNP - November 3, 2026


Opposition Leader Golding gives background


Notice of Motion

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOTICE OF MOTION

Censure of the Government for failing to disclose to this Honourable House a change in Jamaica's longstanding policy on the United States embargo against Cuba

Moved by: G. Anthony Hylton, Member of Parliament for St. Andrew Western

Seconded by: Phillip Paulwell, Member of Parliament for East Kingston & Port Royal

WHEREAS for more than three decades Jamaica has voted in the United Nations General Assembly in favour of the annual resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, and that policy has enjoyed the support of both sides of this Honourable House;

AND WHEREAS this Honourable House, through its annual debate on the matter, has given the people of Jamaica, through their elected representatives, the opportunity to examine and affirm that policy;

AND WHEREAS on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade moved, and this Honourable House approved without dissent, a Resolution on the economic and humanitarian situation in Cuba;

AND WHEREAS at no time during the debate did the Minister of State, or any other Member of the Government, inform this Honourable House that the Government was considering a change in Jamaica's vote at the United Nations;

AND WHEREAS on Wednesday, 28 October 2026, the day after the Resolution was approved, Jamaica abstained for the first time on the United Nations resolution, and the Permanent Representative of Jamaica delivered a prepared explanation of that vote;

AND WHEREAS on 28 October 2026 the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade publicly acknowledged that the abstention was "a shift in policy" on which the Government had "been reflecting . for some time", which establishes that the change was under consideration when the Resolution was moved and debated in this House;

AND WHEREAS the Government, while citing the deficiencies of the United Nations resolution as its reason for abstaining, made no known approach to the Government of Cuba, as sponsor of that resolution, and proposed no amendment in the General Assembly to secure the changes it now says were required;

AND WHEREAS by withholding its intention the Government denied this Honourable House the opportunity to debate a fundamental change in Jamaica's foreign policy before it was made, and caused the House to approve the Resolution on an incomplete and misleading basis;

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House:

1.     Censures the Government for failing to disclose to this House, during the debate on the Resolution of 27 October 2026, the change in Jamaica's long-standing policy that it was then considering, and thereby misleading the House;

2.     Calls on the Government to make a full statement to this House, within seven days of the passing of this Resolution, setting out— (a) when, and by whom, the decision to abstain was taken; (b) when instructions were sent to the Permanent Mission of Jamaica to the United Nations, and when the explanation of vote was prepared and approved; and (c) whether any approach was made to the Government of Cuba, or any amendment proposed, before the vote and, if so, when and in what terms;

3.     Calls on the Government to apologise to this Honourable House; and

4.     Affirms that, where this House is considering a motion on a matter of foreign policy, the Government has a duty to disclose to the House any change in that policy which it is then contemplating.

Submitted by: G. Anthony

Date: 2nd November, 2026


Opposition PNP Press Conference


Anthony Hylton's Statement 


Censure motion on the UN Cuba vote
 
Good evening, and thank you for coming. 
You were invited here to hear why the Opposition has taken the serious step of moving a motion of censure against the Government. 
Let me be clear at the outset: this motion is not a quarrel about Cuba. Reasonable people may differ on how Jamaica should vote at the United Nations. This is about Parliament, and about whether a Government may ask the people's House to speak on foreign policy while hiding from it the one thing that matters. 
Here are the facts. 

On Tuesday, 27 October, the Government brought a resolution on Cuba to the House of Representatives. The House approved it without dissent. Cuba's Ambassador was invited to hear the debate. Not one word was said to the House or to her, about any change in Jamaica's policy or vote. 

The next morning, Jamaica abstained at the United Nations, for the first time in more than three decades. The explanation of that vote had been written in advance. And that same day, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the country that the Government had been "reflecting on this issue for some time." 
For some time. The Government knew on Tuesday what it would do on Wednesday, and it chose not to tell Parliament.
 
The Minister says the House did not instruct the Government how to vote. That is true, but it misses the point. We do not say Parliament directed the vote. We say Parliament was entitled to know. A House can be misled not only by what is said, but by what is left unsaid. 

The Government also let a friendly Ambassador leave our Parliament believing Jamaica's support was unchanged. And while it says it abstained because the resolution could not be amended, there is no sign it approached Havana as the sponsor of the resolution or proposed a single amendment at the UN. 
Nearly twenty years ago I moved the first resolution in our Parliament in support of the UN call to end the embargo; to my knowledge, it remains the first such in any CARICOM or developingcountry parliament. It has been carried across party lines ever since. So yes, I feel aggrieved, and I feel betrayed, as do many Jamaicans at home and in the diaspora.
 
Today the motion was tabled. It asks the House to censure the Government; to require it, within seven days, to say when and by whom the decision was taken, when instructions went to New York, and whether Cuba was ever approached; to apologise to the House; and to affirm that Parliament must be told when a foreign policy it is asked to consider is about to change. 

Let me end where I began. The question is not whether you agree with the abstention. It is whether any Government should ask Parliament to vote without telling it the whole story. On that, Jamaica deserves an answer, and an apology.

Thank you. 

Question For The Prime Minister

   
In accordance with SO 17B, I ask the Hon. Prime Minister the following Questions of Urgent public policy: 
  
1) When and by whom was the decision made to abstain from the vote on UN Resolution A/81/L.5 entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States of 
America against Cuba” that was taken on 28th October 2026; 
  
2) When were instructions sent/given to the Permanent Mission of Jamaica to the United Nations consequent on the decision to abstain, and when was the explanation of the vote provided by the Ambassador to the UN prepared and approved; 
  
3) Was any approach made to the Government of Cuba by or on behalf of Jamaican authorities concerning any proposed amendment to the said UN resolution before the vote and, if so, when and in what terms? 
 
 
Submitted by: G. Anthony Hylton, CD, MP 
                       Western St. Andrew 
 
Dated: 3rd November, 2026 
 
 _____________________

Click here and learn about the exciting gadget, Alexa. Learn how to turn on your house lights using your phone from anywhere in the world. Purchase an Alexa today.

______________________

______________________

Keep abreast of the news and information in the world. Bark Di Trute, a Jamaican blog, is packed with accurate information. Click the following link and get information at your fingertips. WhatsApp link is: 

_________________



_________________

It's best to view this blog on your computer at https://vderby.blogspot.com.

_________________



_________________

Subscribe Now!

Without your support, Bark Di Trute could fail to bark one day. Send your ideas, stories, and news by WhatsApp at (876) 816-5261.

You can view the blog on your computer at https://vderby.blogspot.com, and you will be able to see the various links. For example, there is a link that takes you to the calendar to see what is happening on the weekend. You can even search the site for articles. There is also a weather link, which you can use to track hurricanes.

_____________________



 


3 comments:

  1. The vote was a survival vote no risk taking with a Trump as head of the country from which most of our tourism,trading dollars etc is derived from the USA.
    Jamaica played it safe with their posit I on on Cuba "no voting".

    An arrogant Trump could as punishment even impose a limited embargo could create a dog eat dog sufferation.on Jamsica.
    The government played it safe taking a middle ground.

    Have you heard the latest on Iran if you have anything to do with Iran.or a friend /trading partner of Iran you are liable to be sanctioned also immediately

    ReplyDelete
  2. The government is elected to lead, and it has a responsibility to formulate its own foreign policy. The opposition has a right to object. The people will decide if the government has made a correct decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No. They did not make a correct or moral decision. tRump has no loyalty to anyone. If he and his team decide to move against Jamaica because they finally figure and the same lesson will be imposed on you. And betraying Afrikan d out that Jamaicans are a n Afrikan derivec people, they will. So why give up principles? Why does the current leadership of Jamaica keep supporting white supremacy and its sister, zionism? It is a terrible look for Afrikan people like that monster leading the UK conservatives, supporting racists and antiBlack positions. We have nothing in common with white supremacists. Our powee lies with a pan-Afrikan social, political and economic posture. It truly now is pan-Afrikanism or perish. So we must be seen as aligned with other exploited and sufferinh peoples. This government and its support for zionism and white supremacy is beyond cowardly, it is reprehensible. And ultimately as history keeps screamung at us; we will acquire zero benefit from Holness' positive alignment with white supremacy. History will again teach this wayward, self-hating Afrikan and his white supremacy supporting foreign minister that lesson. This woman HATES Afrikan people. She pursues a racism supporting foreign policy because of her hatred of Afrikan people and her desperate need to be accepted in to white supremacy. Lady, history shows that path is closed to you. Betray Afrikans as much as you have and do. They will never love you or accept you. They will manupulate your desire for their acceptance to make you act in their interests, but you will never be white. History taught your precedessors that lesson. You are no different. Betraying Afrikan people will not lead to your being subsumed in to white supremacy.

    ReplyDelete

Blogs will be forwarded to national leaders, business leaders and others who might need to see such blogs.

Most Popular Posts.