🔗 Share this article International Condemnation Follows US Armed Operation in Venezuela at UN Urgent Meeting Widespread international criticism targeted the US during a swiftly called United Nations Security Council session, with numerous countries branding its recent operation in Venezuela a "act of aggression." Diverse Coalition of Nations Voices Firm Opposition States from Brasilia, China, Russia, and South Africa to Mexico City, Madrid, Cuba, and Colombia collectively denounced the move to carry out lethal strikes and capture the South American country's leader, President Maduro, along with his spouse, First Lady Flores. "The military strikes on Venezuelan soil and the seizure of its head of state transgress an impermissible line," stated the Brasilia's ambassador to the UN. "These acts constitute a very serious insult to the national sovereignty of Venezuela and set an extremely dangerous example for the entire international community." Legal Defense Hotly Disputed In response, the US envoy defended the operation as a legitimate "police" measure aimed at executing long-standing legal charges against what was termed an "illegal" ruler, emphatically claiming it was not an act of war. Yet, the UN chief warned that the capture threatened intensifying unrest in Venezuela and the broader area. He raised doubts about whether the mission respected the principles of global law. "I am deeply worried about the possible intensification of instability in the nation, the possible impact on the area, and the example it may establish for how interactions between states are conducted," the statement read. Veto-Wielding Security Council Members Issue Blunt Reprimands Russia representative characterized the intervention as "a regression to the era of lawlessness" and called on the body to reject such methods. "We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as a form of a ultimate arbiter," the official added. In a similar vein, Beijing's representative charged the US of having "wantonly trampled upon Venezuela's sovereignty" and violated the principle of equal sovereignty. "No nation can act as the world's police," the China's diplomat declared. Cuba ambassador was more direct, calling the attack "an imperialist and fascist aggression with objectives of domination." Caracas Labels Action a "Abduction" The Venezuelan its own UN envoy informed the council that the US had carried out an "illegitimate armed attack without any juridical justification," which included "the kidnapping of the duly elected leader." "No nation can position itself as a judge, prosecutor and enforcer of the international order ... Venezuela is the victim of this aggression because of its natural resources," the ambassador added. Council Paralysis Amidst Profound Divisions In spite of the strong language, the Security Council remained paralysed by divisions among its most powerful members. Any move to formally censure the United States is destined to be vetoed by its own veto power, underscoring the council's constrained ability for collective action in the face of such a dispute. International law scholars point out the operation did not have Security Council authorization, Venezuelan consent, or a defensible self-defense justification, placing it in potential violation of the UN Charter which obliges states to refrain from the threat or use of force.
Widespread international criticism targeted the US during a swiftly called United Nations Security Council session, with numerous countries branding its recent operation in Venezuela a "act of aggression." Diverse Coalition of Nations Voices Firm Opposition States from Brasilia, China, Russia, and South Africa to Mexico City, Madrid, Cuba, and Colombia collectively denounced the move to carry out lethal strikes and capture the South American country's leader, President Maduro, along with his spouse, First Lady Flores. "The military strikes on Venezuelan soil and the seizure of its head of state transgress an impermissible line," stated the Brasilia's ambassador to the UN. "These acts constitute a very serious insult to the national sovereignty of Venezuela and set an extremely dangerous example for the entire international community." Legal Defense Hotly Disputed In response, the US envoy defended the operation as a legitimate "police" measure aimed at executing long-standing legal charges against what was termed an "illegal" ruler, emphatically claiming it was not an act of war. Yet, the UN chief warned that the capture threatened intensifying unrest in Venezuela and the broader area. He raised doubts about whether the mission respected the principles of global law. "I am deeply worried about the possible intensification of instability in the nation, the possible impact on the area, and the example it may establish for how interactions between states are conducted," the statement read. Veto-Wielding Security Council Members Issue Blunt Reprimands Russia representative characterized the intervention as "a regression to the era of lawlessness" and called on the body to reject such methods. "We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as a form of a ultimate arbiter," the official added. In a similar vein, Beijing's representative charged the US of having "wantonly trampled upon Venezuela's sovereignty" and violated the principle of equal sovereignty. "No nation can act as the world's police," the China's diplomat declared. Cuba ambassador was more direct, calling the attack "an imperialist and fascist aggression with objectives of domination." Caracas Labels Action a "Abduction" The Venezuelan its own UN envoy informed the council that the US had carried out an "illegitimate armed attack without any juridical justification," which included "the kidnapping of the duly elected leader." "No nation can position itself as a judge, prosecutor and enforcer of the international order ... Venezuela is the victim of this aggression because of its natural resources," the ambassador added. Council Paralysis Amidst Profound Divisions In spite of the strong language, the Security Council remained paralysed by divisions among its most powerful members. Any move to formally censure the United States is destined to be vetoed by its own veto power, underscoring the council's constrained ability for collective action in the face of such a dispute. International law scholars point out the operation did not have Security Council authorization, Venezuelan consent, or a defensible self-defense justification, placing it in potential violation of the UN Charter which obliges states to refrain from the threat or use of force.