New Delhi: The United Nations Security Council is sharply divided over the legality and implications of a United States operation that resulted in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, as debates in New York unfolded alongside his first court appearance in a federal courtroom in Washington, DC.
According to UN News, the emergency meeting exposed deep and potentially lasting fractures within the Council over whether Washington’s actions represented a legitimate effort to uphold accountability or a dangerous violation of international law that could weaken the foundations of the UN Charter.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned Council members that international peace and security depend on all States adhering strictly to the Charter, a message that framed the intense debate inside the chamber. His remarks underscored concerns that unilateral actions risk eroding the principles of sovereignty and collective security on which the United Nations was built, the UN News reported.
US Stand
The United States firmly rejected accusations of military aggression. Ambassador Michael Waltz told the Council that the operation was a targeted law-enforcement action, supported by the military, to arrest an indicted fugitive accused of narcotics trafficking and transnational organised crime. He argued that Nicolás Maduro could not be considered a legitimate head of State following Venezuela’s disputed 2024 elections and said the operation was necessary to protect US and regional security.
“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” Waltz said, drawing parallels to the 1989 arrest of former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. He stressed that the indictments against Maduro had existed for decades and that the action was conducted within a law-enforcement framework.
Venezuela’s Ambassador Samuel Moncada strongly disputed that account, describing the incident as an unlawful armed attack without any legal basis. He accused the United States of bombing Venezuelan territory, causing civilian and military casualties, and “kidnapping” both President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. Addressing the Council, he claimed that Venezuela was targeted because of its natural resources and urged the body to act under its Charter mandate.
Moncada called on the Council to demand the immediate release and safe return of the Venezuelan president and his wife, to condemn the use of force against Venezuela, to reaffirm the principle that territory and resources cannot be acquired by force, and to adopt measures to de-escalate tensions and protect civilians.
Latam Dissent
A significant number of Council members and invited delegations voiced serious concern over the US action, grounding their objections in the UN Charter. Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Panama emphasized Latin America’s long-standing declaration as a zone of peace, warning that unilateral military actions could destabilize the region and worsen displacement. Colombia, speaking in its first intervention as an elected Council member, rejected any unilateral use of force and warned that civilians invariably bear the highest cost.
Brazil said the bombing of Venezuelan territory and the seizure of a sitting head of State crossed an “unacceptable line” and risked undermining multilateralism. Mexico stressed that externally imposed regime change violates international law regardless of political differences.
European Unease
European members also expressed unease. The United Kingdom highlighted the severe humanitarian situation faced by Venezuelans, including poverty, repression and mass displacement, while insisting that respect for the UN Charter and the rule of law remains essential for global peace. Denmark and France acknowledged the need to combat organised crime and protect human rights but warned that such efforts must be pursued through lawful, multilateral channels, according to the UN News report.
A smaller group of regional States supported Washington’s position. Argentina described the operation as a decisive step against narcotics trafficking and terrorism, suggesting that Maduro’s removal could open the way for democracy, the rule of law and improved human rights in Venezuela. Paraguay also welcomed his removal, calling for the restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging that any transition proceed through democratic means.
Russia and China delivered some of the strongest criticism, characterising the US action as armed aggression and warning that normalising unilateral force would undermine the entire international system. Their stance was echoed by countries including South Africa, Pakistan, Iran and Uganda, which cautioned that selective application of international law threatens the credibility of the UN’s collective security framework.
Representatives from Moscow and Beijing called for Maduro’s immediate release and stressed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity under international law, portraying the situation as a critical test of whether the principles of the UN Charter apply equally to all States, the UN News reported.