An emergency session of the U.N. Security Council convened Monday following a U.S. military action in Venezuela targeting President Nicolás Maduro over the weekend. The United Nations chief has expressed concern that the action may have violated international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty.
International Condemnation and Defense
The intervention drew criticism from both allies and adversaries before the U.N.’s most powerful body. President Donald Trump also signaled the possibility of expanding military action to Colombia and Mexico based on accusations of drug trafficking. He also reiterated a threat to take control of Greenland, citing U.S. security interests.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated he was “deeply concerned that rules of international law have not been respected with regard to the 3 January military action.” He added that the action could establish a precedent for future international relations.
Denmark, which has jurisdiction over Greenland, echoed these concerns, asserting that the “inviolability of borders is not up for negotiation.” Danish ambassador to the U.N., Christina Markus Lassen, stated, “No state should seek to influence political outcomes in Venezuela through the use of threat of force or through other means inconsistent with international law.”
Colombian Ambassador Leonor Zalabata characterized the raid as reminiscent of “the worst interference in our area in the past,” and argued that “Democracy cannot be defended or promoted through violence and coercion, and it cannot be superseded, either, by economic interests.”
Russia’s ambassador to the U.N., Vasily Nebenzya, went further, calling the U.S. intervention a “turn back to the era of lawlessness.” He argued against the U.S. acting as “some kind of a supreme judge” with the right to invade and punish nations.
U.S. envoy Mike Waltz defended the action as a “surgical law enforcement operation,” questioning the council’s criticism of targeting Maduro.
Maduro made his first appearance in a Manhattan courthouse on Monday, facing charges related to a Justice Department indictment accusing him of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy. The U.S. had been building a military presence off Venezuela’s coast for months, and had previously destroyed alleged drug trafficking boats.
Future Implications
President Trump has stated the U.S. could temporarily run Venezuela and utilize its oil reserves. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated the U.S. would instead enforce an existing oil quarantine to leverage policy changes in Venezuela.
The situation could lead to further diplomatic clashes within the U.N. Security Council. It is also possible that other nations may feel emboldened to pursue similar unilateral actions, or that the U.S. may face increased pressure to justify its actions under international law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the U.S. military action?
The U.S. carried out the action following a Justice Department indictment accusing President Maduro of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.
What was the reaction from the U.N. Security Council?
The U.N. Security Council convened an emergency session where both allies and adversaries of the U.S. criticized the intervention, with the U.N. Secretary-General expressing concern over potential violations of international law.
What are the U.S.’s stated plans for Venezuela?
President Trump has suggested the U.S. could run Venezuela temporarily and access its oil reserves, while Secretary of State Rubio indicated the U.S. would enforce an existing oil quarantine.
How will this action impact the established norms of international relations?
