United Nations human-rights experts have urged the international community to act quickly to prevent a “silent Gaza” from unfolding in Cuba. Their warning followed the tightening of United States measures against the island, including sanctions and restrictions that have made it increasingly difficult for Cuba to obtain fuel and other essential supplies.
The experts argue that the humanitarian consequences are already spreading across Cuba’s energy, food, healthcare, transport and water systems. Although the situation is not identical to Gaza, they believe the same pattern of civilian deprivation could emerge if fuel shortages continue to weaken the infrastructure required for daily life.
The comparison with Gaza is therefore being used as a warning rather than a claim that the two crises have the same causes. Gaza’s catastrophe has developed through armed conflict, military operations, displacement and restrictions on humanitarian access. Cuba’s crisis is unfolding through fuel shortages, economic pressure, sanctions, weak infrastructure and the consequences of prolonged isolation.
The central concern is that the Cuban population may be deprived of essential services without the international visibility normally associated with a war. This is why the phrase “silent Gaza” has become central to the United Nation’s warning and to the wider political debate surrounding Cuba.
Fuel shortages threaten essential services
Fuel is the foundation of Cuba’s electricity generation, public transport, agriculture, food distribution, water systems and healthcare. When fuel supplies began to decline, the impact quickly moved beyond petrol stations and affected nearly every aspect of civilian life.
By mid-May, daily blackouts were reportedly exceeding 20 hours in some parts of the country. Cuba’s electricity system was also reported to be capable of generating only about 27% of expected peak demand, creating a projected shortfall of approximately 2,380 megawatts. The island experienced several nationwide blackouts as well as prolonged local power cuts.
The energy shortage has affected hospitals that depend on electricity for operating theatres, refrigeration, diagnostic equipment, dialysis machines and emergency treatment. It has also made it harder for ambulances, patients and medical staff to travel. Where hospitals have generators, the lack of diesel limits how long those generators can operate.
Food production has suffered as agricultural machinery, irrigation systems, storage facilities and distribution networks face fuel shortages. Food output was reportedly down by 60%, while the cost of basic goods rose sharply. This has transformed the dispute from a question of energy policy into a direct threat to food security.
The chain of effects is clear: a shortage of fuel reduces electricity generation; blackouts affect water pumps and hospitals; transport disruptions limit food distribution; and higher costs make essential goods less affordable. This interdependence explains why United Nations officials have warned about a possible humanitarian collapse rather than simply an economic slowdown.
Humanitarian consequences for civilians
The most vulnerable Cubans are facing the greatest risks. Children, older people, pregnant women, patients with chronic illnesses and people requiring regular medical treatment are particularly exposed to the effects of shortages and blackouts.
According to figures cited by the United Nations human-rights office, essential medicines were available at only around 30% of normal supply levels. Infant mortality was reported to have doubled to 9.9 per 1,000 live births, while childhood cancer survival rates declined from 85% to 65%. The health system was also reported to be carrying more than 96,000 pending surgeries, including approximately 11,000 involving children.
The crisis is affecting treatment in several ways. Doctors lack medicines and medical supplies, hospitals struggle to maintain power, and families have difficulty reaching medical facilities because of reduced public transport and fuel scarcity. Interruptions to vaccination programmes and the refrigeration of medicines add further pressure to a health system already suffering from shortages.
“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable,”
UN human-rights chief Volker Türk said.
Türk also warned that the impact was falling disproportionately on ordinary people rather than only on the officials and institutions targeted by US sanctions.
“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,”
Volker Türk said.
These statements form the core of the humanitarian analysis. Even where sanctions are formally aimed at government entities, their practical effects can spread through banks, insurers, shipping companies, traders and suppliers. If companies refuse to deal with Cuba because of compliance risks, the population can lose access to goods that are not formally prohibited.
Water, transport and food security
Cuba’s water infrastructure is highly dependent on electricity. Approximately 84% of water-pumping equipment reportedly requires electric power, while nearly one million people have depended on tanker trucks for drinking water. Extended blackouts therefore threaten not only comfort but also sanitation, hygiene and disease prevention.
Hospitals require reliable water supplies for cleaning, surgery and infection control. Schools, care facilities and households are similarly affected. Where water deliveries fail, families may be forced to rely on unsafe sources or wait for irregular tanker supplies.
Transport shortages have intensified the problem. Fewer buses and cars are operating, making it more difficult for people to reach hospitals, markets and workplaces. Food and medicine may be available at ports or warehouses but remain inaccessible to communities if there is not enough fuel to transport them.
Francisco Pichón, the United Nations’ senior official in Cuba, warned that the crisis could produce acute humanitarian risks.
“The risk to people’s lives is not rhetorical; those who suffer first and suffer most are ordinary people, especially the most vulnerable,”
Francisco Pichón said.
Pichón also expressed “concern that the crisis could deepen”, warning that the shortages posed “acute humanitarian risks” for vulnerable communities.
The significance of these remarks is that the crisis is being assessed through its effect on basic rights. Food, water, healthcare, transport and electricity are not separate political commodities; they are connected requirements for the right to life and a dignified existence.
The dispute over United States sanctions
Washington argues that its measures are directed at Cuba’s political leadership, military-linked economic structures and officials accused of repression. The US administration has cited national-security concerns, Cuba’s alleged links with hostile states and groups, and restrictions on political freedoms as reasons for maintaining pressure.
The policy began with measures announced in January 2026 that sought to obstruct oil supplies reaching Cuba. Later restrictions reportedly extended to traders, insurers, shipping companies and financial institutions. Cuba’s state oil company, Unión Cuba-Petróleo, was also sanctioned in June, creating further obstacles for fuel imports.
The US position is that economic pressure can weaken the resources available to Cuba’s government and encourage political reform. Washington has rejected the United Nations experts’ description of the policy as “energy starvation” and maintains that responsibility for Cuba’s crisis also rests with the government’s economic mismanagement and state-controlled system.
However, the humanitarian criticism focuses on the gap between the intended target and the actual effect. If restrictions on an oil company prevent hospitals, water systems and public transport from obtaining fuel, the consequences extend beyond the political leadership. The issue is therefore not only whether sanctions are formally targeted, but whether their foreseeable results are broad, indiscriminate and harmful to civilians.
UN experts have argued that measures which affect entire economic sectors may conflict with fundamental human-rights principles.
“Food must never be used as an instrument of political pressure. Measures that knowingly deprive a population of the means to survive strike at the most basic guarantees of the rights to life and diminish the core of human dignity,”
the UN experts said.
This statement does not remove the Cuban government’s own human-rights responsibilities. Havana continues to face criticism over political repression, arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedom of expression. The humanitarian consequences of sanctions and the Cuban government’s treatment of political opponents are separate issues, and both require scrutiny.
Cuba’s response and economic reforms
The Cuban government has described the US policy as a blockade and blamed it for worsening shortages of fuel, food and medicine. Authorities have introduced conservation measures, attempted to increase domestic oil production and promoted renewable energy, including solar power, for essential services.
Cuba has also begun relaxing some restrictions on private business. The government has allowed private participation in parts of the fuel-distribution system and opened selected sectors, including pharmacies, gas stations, imports and wholesale trade, to private and foreign investment. These reforms are intended to attract capital, improve distribution and reduce pressure on the state-controlled economy.
The measures may provide limited relief, but they cannot fully resolve the country’s energy crisis if Cuba remains unable to secure regular oil supplies and international payment channels. Private companies still need banks, insurers, shipping services and suppliers willing to operate in a heavily sanctioned environment.
The reforms also raise a political question: whether economic liberalisation is being introduced as a long-term transformation or as an emergency response to pressure from Washington. Either way, the immediate humanitarian priority is to guarantee civilians access to fuel, food, medicines and water.
Why Gaza matters to the analysis
The Gaza comparison reflects the United Nations’ concern about the way restrictions on fuel, food and medical supplies can gradually destroy civilian living conditions. OCHA reported that more than 1.2 million people, or approximately 59% of Gaza’s population, faced Crisis-level food insecurity or worse between mid-April and the end of June 2026. The figure was projected to rise to approximately 1.4 million, or 67% of the population, between July and December if aid access and funding deteriorated.
Gaza has also faced shortages of insulin, cardiac-care materials, dialysis supplies and diagnostic equipment. Households have reported difficulty accessing markets, while many families have relied on burning waste when cooking fuel was unavailable. These developments show how restrictions and conflict can turn basic necessities into instruments of survival.
The comparison must nevertheless remain precise. Gaza’s crisis is connected to armed conflict, military attacks, displacement and restrictions on humanitarian assistance. Cuba is not a war zone, and its crisis has different political, economic and legal causes. The UN warning is about the potential reproduction of a pattern of deprivation, not an assertion that Cuba and Gaza are the same situation.
The analytical value of the comparison lies in its focus on consequences. When civilians cannot obtain fuel, food, water or medicine, the distinction between economic pressure and humanitarian harm becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.
International responsibility and humanitarian access
The crisis raises wider questions about the effectiveness and morality of sanctions. Supporters argue that sanctions offer an alternative to military intervention and can pressure governments accused of repression. Critics respond that sanctions often weaken public services and harm civilians before they change the behaviour of political elites.
Humanitarian exemptions are frequently included in sanctions regimes, but they may not work in practice. Banks, insurers, shipping firms and suppliers may avoid permitted transactions because of the risk of penalties or complicated compliance requirements. A formal exemption is therefore insufficient if humanitarian organisations cannot obtain fuel, transfer money or transport supplies.
The United Nations has called for diplomatic engagement and safe humanitarian access. A credible mechanism would need to protect fuel, medicine and food shipments from political interference while also ensuring that supplies reach civilians. Independent monitoring could help address concerns about diversion by government or military-linked bodies.
The immediate priority should be preventing a further deterioration of health, food and water systems. The long-term political dispute between Washington and Havana cannot be resolved by allowing hospitals to run without fuel or families to live without reliable access to food and electricity.
The United Nations warning about a “silent Gaza” in Cuba is an appeal for preventive action before shortages become irreversible. Fuel restrictions have already contributed to blackouts, medical shortages, transport disruption, food-production difficulties and serious risks to water services.
Washington says its measures target Cuba’s government and are intended to promote political change. Havana calls them a blockade and is introducing limited economic reforms to manage the pressure. Meanwhile, UN experts argue that political objectives cannot justify measures that deprive civilians of the means to survive.
The central issue is whether international pressure can be applied without destroying the civilian infrastructure on which human rights depend. If fuel, food, medicine, electricity and water remain inaccessible, Cuba’s crisis could deepen quietly—without the destruction associated with a conventional war but with consequences that still threaten the rights to life, health, food and human dignity.
