BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA
An extraordinary U.S. military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro drew sharp criticism and unease at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Monday, with both allies and adversaries of Washington warning that the action risked undermining international law and destabilizing global norms.
Addressing the council, diplomats from across the political spectrum questioned the legality and implications of the raid, even as some governments stopped short of directly naming the United States.
Much of the concern centered not only on Maduro’s seizure but also on recent remarks by President Donald Trump suggesting that Washington could expand military action elsewhere in the region, including Colombia and Mexico, over allegations tied to drug trafficking. Trump has also renewed statements about asserting control over Greenland, a mineral-rich territory governed by Denmark, arguing it is vital to U.S. security interests.
Denmark’s ambassador to the United Nations, Christina Markus Lassen, delivered a pointed reminder of international principles without explicitly singling out Washington. She stressed that borders cannot be altered by force and that sovereignty remains a cornerstone of the international system. “The inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation,” she said, adding that no country should seek to shape Venezuela’s political future through threats or actions that violate international law.
France, a U.S. ally whose president had previously expressed support for Maduro’s capture, adopted a more cautious tone during the meeting. Jay Dharmadhikari, France’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, warned that when any of the five permanent members of the Security Council disregard international law, it weakens the foundations of the global order. He said the operation that led to Maduro’s arrest conflicted with the principles of peaceful dispute resolution and the prohibition on the use of force.
The United States forcefully rejected the criticism. U.S. ambassador Mike Waltz defended the raid as a narrowly targeted and justified action, describing it as a “surgical law enforcement operation.” He accused members of the Security Council of legitimizing what he called an illegitimate leader by treating Maduro as they would a democratically elected head of state. Waltz pointed to the widespread dispute over Maduro’s 2024 reelection as evidence that Venezuela’s leader lacked lawful authority.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres struck a more measured but clearly concerned note, saying he was deeply troubled by indications that international law had not been respected during the Jan. 3 operation. In a statement, he warned that the gravity of the action could set a dangerous precedent for how states conduct relations and resolve conflicts in the future.
Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, urged the Security Council to move beyond diplomatic caution and take concrete action.
He called on the body to demand the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, arguing that tolerating such conduct would send a devastating message to the world. If the detention of a head of state and the bombing of a sovereign country were minimized or accepted, Moncada said, it would signal that international law is optional and that force, rather than rules, governs global affairs. He warned that accepting such a logic would usher in a deeply unstable world.
Colombia, Venezuela’s neighbor and a key U.S. partner in the region, expressed alarm over the operation’s broader implications. Ambassador Leonor Zalabata described the raid as echoing some of the most troubling episodes of foreign interference in Latin America’s past. She cautioned that democracy cannot be defended or promoted through violence or coercion, nor should it be overridden by economic interests.
China and Russia, longstanding critics of U.S. foreign policy and permanent members of the Security Council, delivered some of the strongest condemnations. Both urged the council to present a unified rejection of what they described as a return to an era of lawlessness.
Russian ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused Washington of acting as a self-appointed global judge, claiming the authority to invade other countries, assign blame, and impose punishment without regard for sovereignty or nonintervention. His remarks came despite ongoing criticism of Russia’s own invasion of Ukraine, even as the Trump administration has sought engagement with Moscow in hopes of ending the conflict there.
Maduro, who cultivated close ties with Russia and oversaw an oil industry heavily linked to China, was seized alongside his wife early Saturday at their residence on a Venezuelan military base. U.S. forces transferred them to a U.S. warship before flying them to New York, where prosecutors unveiled an indictment accusing the couple of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy. Appearing in a Manhattan courtroom on Monday, Maduro declared his innocence.
The dramatic operation followed months of escalating U.S. military activity near Venezuela, including the buildup of forces off its coast and the destruction of vessels Washington said were linked to drug trafficking. Trump has asserted that the United States would temporarily administer Venezuela and exploit its vast oil reserves for international sale. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later sought to clarify policy, saying Washington would instead enforce an existing oil quarantine on sanctioned tankers and use that leverage to push for political change in Caracas.
As the Security Council adjourned, divisions remained stark, with no consensus on how to respond. The debate underscored the far-reaching consequences of the U.S. action, raising questions about sovereignty, accountability, and the future balance between power and law on the world stage.
Original article
Comments