Maduro imprisoned, norms tested: Security Council divided as crisis in Venezuela deepens

Some delegations argue that the action was exceptional and justified; others warn that it risks normalizing unilateral force and eroding state sovereignty.

Setting the tone, the UN Secretary-General warned that international peace and security depends on all member states adhering to the UN Charter – language that framed a debate that was likely to expose deep and long-standing divisions within the chamber in New York – all while the Venezuelan leader appeared in a federal courtroom in the city center, just a few miles away.

United States: police operation, not war

The United States rejected characterizations of its actions as military aggression and described the operation as a targeted policing measure facilitated by the military to arrest an accused fugitive.

Ambassador Michael Waltz said:

• Nicolás Maduro is not a legitimate head of state after the controversial 2024 elections.
• Saturday’s operation was necessary to combat narcotics trafficking and transnational organized crime that threatens regional and American security.
• There are historical precedents, including the 1989 arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” he stated. “This was a police operation to further legal accusations that have existed for decades.”

The ambassador of Venezuela, Samuel Moncada, addresses the Security Council.

Venezuela: Sovereignty violated; a dangerous precedent

The Venezuelan ambassador, Samuel Moncada, described his country as the target of an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification, accusing the United States of bombing Venezuelan territory, the loss of civilian and military lives and the “kidnapping” of President Nicolás Maduro and the first lady Cilia Flores.

“We cannot ignore a central element of this American aggression,” he said. “Venezuela is a victim of these attacks because of its natural resources.”

Calling on the Council to act in accordance with the mandate of its Charter, he urged that:

• The United States will be required to respect the immunities of the president and his wife and ensure their immediate release and safe return;
• The use of force against Venezuela be clearly and unequivocally condemned;
• The principle of non-acquisition of territory or resources by force is reaffirmed; and
• Measures are taken to reduce tensions, protect civilians and restore respect for international law.

Concern about the use of force

Several Council members and others invited to participate expressed deep concern about US military action, firmly basing their positions on the Charter of the United Nations.

Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Panama underlined their region’s long-standing declaration as a zone of peace and warned that unilateral military action risked destabilizing the Western Hemisphere and aggravating displacement flows.

• Colombia, in its first intervention as an elected member of the Council, rejected “any unilateral use of force” and warned that civilians invariably pay the highest price.
• Brazil said the bombing and capture of a head of state crossed an “unacceptable line,” warning of the erosion of multilateralism.
• Mexico emphasized that externally imposed regime change violates international law regardless of political disagreements.

The ambassadors also mentioned a worrying human rights situation within Venezuela and the suffering of civilians, highlighting the need to ensure compliance with international law:

• The United Kingdom highlighted years of suffering endured by Venezuelans – poverty, repression and mass displacement – while underlining that respect for the United Nations Charter and the rule of law is essential for global peace and security.
• Denmark and France recognized the imperative to combat organized crime and protect human rights, but warned that counternarcotics efforts and accountability must be carried out through legal and multilateral means.

A broad view of the Security Council meeting on the situation in Venezuela.

Regional voices supporting US action

A smaller group of countries in the region took a different view.

• Argentina praised the US operation as a decisive step against drug trafficking and terrorism, arguing that the operation and the removal of Maduro could open a path towards the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.
• Paraguay also welcomed the removal of Maduro and called for the immediate restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging that the transition be carried out through democratic means.

The credibility of the Charter at stake

Russia and China leveled some of the strongest criticism, characterizing the U.S. action as armed aggression and warning against the normalization of unilateral force.

This position was shared by countries outside the Americas – including South Africa, Pakistan, Iran and Uganda – which warned that the selective application of international law risks undermining the entire system of collective security.

Representatives from Moscow and Beijing called for the immediate release of President Maduro and highlighted the inviolability of the immunity of heads of state under international law, framing the situation as a test of whether the principles of the Charter apply equally to all states.