The UN Security Council is deeply divided over the recent US operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro. Council members debated whether Washington’s actions uphold accountability or undermine the principles of international law. Some delegations viewed the operation as an exceptional, justified measure, while others warned it risks normalizing unilateral use of force and eroding state sovereignty. The UN Secretary-General emphasized that global peace and security depend on all Member States adhering to the UN Charter, framing the operation as a test of multilateral norms, even as Maduro appeared in a federal courtroom in Caracas.
The United States defended the action as a law-enforcement operation, not an act of war. Officials stressed that Maduro’s disputed 2024 election rendered him illegitimate and that the operation targeted narcotics trafficking and organized crime threatening US and regional security. US representatives cited historical precedents, including the 1989 arrest of Panama’s Manuel Noriega, and emphasized that there was no occupation or broader military campaign against Venezuela.
Venezuela, in contrast, described the US operation as an illegitimate armed attack, accusing Washington of violating sovereignty, bombing territory, causing civilian and military casualties, and “kidnapping” Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Venezuelan representatives called on the Council to ensure the immediate release of the president and his wife, condemn the use of force, reaffirm the principle against acquiring territory or resources by force, and take measures to de-escalate tensions and protect civilians.
Several Council members expressed concern over the US military action, grounding their opposition in the UN Charter. Countries in the region, including Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Panama, highlighted the Western Hemisphere’s status as a long-standing zone of peace and warned that unilateral force risks destabilizing the region and worsening displacement flows. Brazil condemned the operation as crossing an “unacceptable line,” Mexico emphasized that externally imposed regime change violates international law, and Colombia cautioned that civilians always bear the highest cost. European members, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, and France, stressed the need to respect the Charter while combating organized crime and protecting human rights through multilateral channels.
A smaller group of countries expressed support for the US action. Argentina described the operation as a decisive step against narcotics and terrorism, potentially opening a path to restore democracy and human rights in Venezuela. Paraguay also welcomed Maduro’s removal, urging the restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners through democratic means.
Russia and China strongly criticized the operation as armed aggression, warning against the normalization of unilateral military force. This concern was shared by countries beyond the Americas, including South Africa, Pakistan, Iran, and Uganda, who highlighted that selective application of international law threatens the credibility of the collective security system. Both Moscow and Beijing called for Maduro’s immediate release and stressed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity, framing the situation as a test of whether UN Charter principles are applied equally to all states.
