US Hears It From Allies, Foes at UN
People listen as Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada speaks during a meeting of the Security Council on Monday at UN headquarters. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)
The United States came under heavy criticism during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday following its armed operation in Venezuela that resulted in President Nicolás Maduro being taken to New York to face criminal charges.
Representatives from China, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Spain condemned the strikes on Venezuelan territory and the detention of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, describing the action as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and an unlawful use of force. According to the Guardian, Brazil’s UN ambassador said the operation crossed “an unacceptable line,” while France’s representative told the New York Times that the U.S. military action “chips away at the very foundation of international order.”
Colombia’s envoy labeled the operation an “act of aggression” that could not be justified under any circumstances. Russia and China called for the immediate release of Maduro and Flores, accusing Washington of positioning itself as a self-appointed global enforcer. Russia’s ambassador warned that the intervention marked “a turn back to the era of lawlessness,” while China’s representative said the United States had “trampled upon Venezuela’s sovereignty” and urged it to abandon what he described as “bullying and coercive practices.” Venezuela’s ambassador characterized the operation as an “illegitimate armed attack” and described Maduro’s transfer to U.S. custody as a kidnapping.
U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz rejected claims that the mission constituted an act of war, saying it was a lawful operation carried out to enforce long-standing criminal indictments against what he called an illegitimate leader. He cited the 1989 arrest of Panama’s Manuel Noriega as precedent and referenced the UN Charter’s self-defense provisions.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the operation could further destabilize Venezuela and the surrounding region and raised concerns about its compatibility with international law. Legal experts have also questioned the action, pointing to the lack of Security Council authorization, Venezuelan consent, or a clearly defined self-defense justification. With the council divided and the United States holding veto power, no unified response appeared likely.
About Post Author
