Members of the UN Security Council are sharply divided over whether Washington’s recent move strengthens accountability or weakens a core pillar of the international system. Some delegations argue the action was an extraordinary but justified step, while others caution it could normalize unilateral force and undermine state sovereignty—a cornerstone of global order.
Setting the tone, the Secretary-General of the United Nations warned that lasting international peace and security depend on all Member States respecting the UN Charter. His remarks framed a debate exposing deep and potentially lasting divisions in New York, unfolding as Venezuela’s leader appeared in a federal courtroom just miles away.
United States: “A Law-Enforcement Operation, Not a War”
The United States rejected claims that it carried out military aggression, insisting the action was a targeted law-enforcement operation supported by the military to apprehend an indicted fugitive.
US Ambassador Michael Waltz outlined Washington’s position:
- Nicolás Maduro is not recognized as a legitimate head of State following disputed 2024 elections.
- The operation was required to confront narcotics trafficking and transnational organized crime posing risks to US and regional security.
- There are historical precedents, including the 1989 arrest of Panama’s former leader Manuel Noriega.
“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” Waltz said, emphasizing that the action enforced long-standing legal indictments.
Venezuela: “Sovereignty Breached and a Dangerous Precedent Set”
Venezuela’s ambassador, Samuel Moncada, condemned the action as an illegitimate armed attack with no legal basis. He accused the US of bombing Venezuelan territory, causing civilian and military deaths, and forcibly detaining President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.
Moncada argued Venezuela was targeted because of its natural resources and urged the Council to act under its Charter mandate by:
- Requiring the US to respect presidential immunities and ensure the immediate release and safe return of Maduro and his wife.
- Condemning the use of force against Venezuela without ambiguity.
- Reaffirming the principle that territory or resources cannot be acquired through force.
- Adopting measures to de-escalate tensions, protect civilians, and restore respect for international law.
Broad Concern Over the Use of Force
Several Council members and invited delegations grounded their objections firmly in the UN Charter, warning of wider instability.
Countries including Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Panama highlighted Latin America’s long-standing designation as a zone of peace. They warned that unilateral military actions could destabilize the Western Hemisphere and worsen displacement.
- Colombia, in its first intervention as an elected Council member, rejected any unilateral use of force and cautioned that civilians invariably bear the greatest cost.
- Brazil said bombing and seizing a head of State crossed an “unacceptable line,” eroding multilateralism.
- Mexico stressed that externally imposed regime change violates international law regardless of political disagreements.
Humanitarian concerns were also raised. The United Kingdom cited years of poverty, repression, and mass displacement in Venezuela while stressing that adherence to international law remains essential for global security. Denmark and France acknowledged the need to fight organized crime and protect human rights but warned that accountability must be pursued through lawful, multilateral channels.
Regional Support for the US Position
A smaller group of regional states expressed support for Washington.
Argentina described the operation as a decisive blow against narcotics trafficking and terrorism, arguing that Maduro’s removal could help restore democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Paraguay also welcomed the move, calling for the re-establishment of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging a transition through democratic means.
Charter Credibility on the Line
The strongest criticism came from Russia and China, which labeled the US action as armed aggression and warned against making unilateral force acceptable. Their stance was echoed by South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, and Uganda, all cautioning that selective application of international law could undermine the entire collective security system.
Moscow and Beijing demanded the immediate release of President Maduro and reaffirmed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity, framing the crisis as a defining test of whether Charter principles apply equally to all nations.
