Council have strongly criticised the operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, warning that the incident could have serious consequences for international law and global order.
The emergency session, held in New York, brought together representatives from both critics and long-time allies of the United States.
Several delegations expressed concern that the action crossed legal boundaries and undermined the principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention.
Venezuela’s ambassador to the UN described the operation as an unlawful armed action, arguing that it lacked any legitimate legal basis.
His remarks were echoed by multiple countries, including Cuba, Colombia, Russia, and China, all of whom warned that allowing such actions to go unchallenged could set a dangerous precedent.
. Russia’s representative stated that no single nation has the authority to act as a global judge, stressing that enforcing domestic laws beyond national borders through force contradicts international norms.
China also emphasized the need to respect territorial integrity and peaceful conflict resolution.
Notably, criticism was not limited to traditional US adversaries. Mexico and Denmark, both considered close US partners, voiced serious reservations.
Mexico called on the Security Council to act without double standards, insisting that nations must be free to determine their own political futures.
Denmark highlighted that influencing political outcomes through military pressure violates fundamental principles of international law, including the inviolability of borders.
France, another permanent member of the Security Council, also distanced itself from the operation. French officials stated that the use of force contradicts the—
of peaceful dispute settlement and non-aggression, marking a shift from earlier, more cautious reactions.
Meanwhile, representatives from the United Kingdom and Latvia focused their statements on Venezuela’s internal situation, accusing Maduro’s government of repression, corruption, and involvement in organized crime
They argued that these conditions have contributed to instability both regionally and internationally.
The United States defended the operation as a precise law-enforcement action, portraying Maduro and his wife as fugitives facing serious criminal charges.
Washington also justified related military actions as necessary to safeguard national security, citing alleged links between the Venezuelan leadership and criminal networks.
As divisions deepen within the Security Council, the incident has become a focal point of a broader debate over the limits of power, legality of cross-border operations, and the future of international norms.
About the Author
