The persistent, almost ritualistic, annual vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 837—a resolution condemning the United States embargo against Cuba—reveals a deeply entrenched geopolitical struggle. In November 2025, North Macedonia’s staunch opposition to the resolution, largely driven by pragmatic economic considerations and a desire to bolster its standing within the Western alliance, represents a potentially significant shift, highlighting a crucial, albeit often overlooked, element in the evolving dynamics of European security and the influence of smaller states. This strategic move necessitates a reassessment of long-held assumptions regarding the efficacy of multilateralism and the motivations driving nations to navigate increasingly complex global political landscapes.
The resolution, first introduced in 1992, has consistently failed to gain broad international support. While the United States maintains the embargo as a tool of foreign policy, aimed at pressuring the Cuban government to implement democratic reforms, the vote’s outcome reveals a broader struggle between states upholding traditional notions of sovereignty and those prioritizing their economic interests or geopolitical positioning. North Macedonia’s decision to align itself with the US vote demonstrates a calculated attempt to demonstrate solidarity within the NATO alliance and signal its commitment to a transatlantic security framework.
Historical Context: The 837 Resolution and the Balkan Dimension
Resolution 837 emerged during the immediate aftermath of the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. The resolution’s genesis stems from concerns about the potential for destabilization in the Balkans and reflects a broader Western preoccupation with preventing the spread of authoritarianism. The initial impetus was fueled by the US’s desire to prevent any sympathy for the Serbian government under Slobodan Milošević and to prevent the possibility of any Balkan states aligning with Moscow. Over time, the resolution has become largely symbolic, representing a commitment to upholding human rights and democratic principles, although it has seen fluctuating levels of support dependent on evolving US-Cuba relations. The resolution’s continued debate underscores the stubbornness of a long-standing bilateral dispute, resisting significant shifts despite changes in global power dynamics.
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
Several key stakeholders are involved in this evolving scenario. The United States, under the Biden administration, continues to view the resolution as a test of commitment to democratic values and a means of maintaining pressure on the Cuban government. However, concerns about alienating European allies, particularly those dependent on Cuban trade and investment, have somewhat tempered the US’s traditional stance. North Macedonia, under Prime Minister Zoran Zaev, is motivated primarily by economic considerations. The country’s economy is heavily reliant on trade with the European Union, and maintaining a strong relationship with the US, including receiving military assistance and security cooperation, provides a degree of economic security. Furthermore, North Macedonia's strategic location, bordering several unstable regions, reinforces the value of this partnership. “The US-North Macedonia alignment represents a critical strategic move given the persistent instability in the Western Balkans,” stated Dr. Elena Petrova, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Balkan Studies. “It allows North Macedonia to leverage transatlantic security guarantees while simultaneously asserting its independence within the broader NATO framework.”
The European Union's position remains complex. While generally supportive of the US’s democratic values, concerns about the economic impact of the embargo, particularly on nations within the Balkans, have led to a more cautious approach. Several Balkan states, including North Macedonia, have consistently abstained from voting against the resolution, reflecting a pragmatic desire to avoid antagonizing the US. “The EU faces a delicate balancing act,” noted Dr. Markus Schmidt, Professor of International Relations at the University of Vienna. “Maintaining a unified front on human rights while simultaneously addressing the economic realities faced by nations like North Macedonia is a significant challenge.” Russia, through its continued engagement in the Balkans, views the resolution with suspicion, seeing it as a tool of Western influence and a challenge to its own regional ambitions.
Recent Developments (November 2025)
In the months preceding the November 14th vote, North Macedonia’s stance became increasingly resolute. Government officials publicly reiterated their support for the resolution, arguing that it was consistent with the country’s commitment to international law and human rights. There were reports of behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, primarily mediated by the US Ambassador to North Macedonia, to strengthen the country's resolve. The US has also offered increased security assistance, including training and equipment, to North Macedonia, further cementing the strategic partnership. This shift in momentum was partially triggered by escalating tensions surrounding Serbia’s ongoing disputes with Kosovo, where the US has been a key player in mediating the situation, highlighting the importance of North Macedonia's strategic alignment.
Future Impact and Insight (Short-Term & Long-Term)
Short-Term (Next 6 Months): The outcome of the November 14th vote is expected to be close, with several Central and Eastern European nations likely to join North Macedonia in voting against the resolution. This shift could serve as a signal of increased regional divergence within the EU and could further strain relations between Brussels and Washington. The US is expected to increase its diplomatic efforts to counter potential Russian influence in the Balkans. Long-Term (5-10 Years): North Macedonia’s move represents a potentially significant trend—smaller states increasingly using their strategic location and geopolitical leverage to navigate the complex web of global power dynamics. This trend could lead to a fragmentation of the Western alliance and a weakening of the transatlantic security framework. The evolution of this dynamic will depend heavily on the stability of the Balkans, the future of the EU's enlargement policy, and the broader strategic competition between the US and China.
Call to Reflection: The case of North Macedonia and the 837 resolution invites a critical reflection on the limitations of multilateralism in an era of rising geopolitical competition. Can smaller states truly act as independent actors, or are they inevitably pulled into the orbit of larger powers? And, ultimately, can traditional notions of international cooperation be effectively adapted to the realities of a world defined by competing interests and shifting alliances? The ongoing narrative surrounding this seemingly isolated event possesses profound implications for the future of global security.