Why it matters: Council members are split over whether Washington’s move upholds accountability – or undermines a foundational principle of international order.  

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

Setting the tone, the UN Secretary-General cautioned that international peace and security rest on all Member States adhering to the UN Charter – language that framed a debate likely to expose deep and lasting divisions inside the chamber in New York – all as the Venezuelan leader appeared in a downtown federal courtroom just a few miles away.

US: Law-enforcement operation, not war

The United States rejected characterisations of its actions as military aggression, describing the operation as a targeted law enforcement measure facilitated by the military to arrest an indicted fugitive.

Ambassador Michael Waltz said:

• Nicolás Maduro is not a legitimate head of State following disputed 2024 elections.
• Saturday’s operation was necessary to combat narcotics trafficking and transnational organised crime threatening US and regional security.
• Historical precedents exist, including the 1989 arrest of Panama’s former leader Manuel Noriega.

“There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country,” he said. “This was a law-enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades.”

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada addresses the Security Council.

Venezuela: Sovereignty violated; a dangerous precedent

Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada described his country as the target of an illegitimate armed attack lacking any legal justification, accusing the US of bombing Venezuelan territory, the loss of civilian and military lives, and the “kidnapping” of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

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

Calling on the Council to act under its Charter mandate, he urged that:

• The US 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 be reaffirmed; and
• Measures be adopted to de-escalate tensions, protect civilians and restore respect for international law.

Concern over use of force

Several Council members and others invited to take part expressed deep concern over the US military action, grounding their positions firmly in the UN Charter.

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

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

Ambassadors also cited a worrying human rights situation inside 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 underscoring that respect for the UN Charter and the rule of law is essential for global peace and security.
• Denmark and France acknowledged the imperative to combat organised crime and protect human rights – but warned that counter-narcotics efforts and accountability must be pursued through lawful, multilateral means.

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

Regional voices backing US action

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

• Argentina praised the US operation as a decisive step against narcotics trafficking and terrorism, arguing that the operation and Mr. Maduro’s removal could open a path toward restoring democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.
• Paraguay also welcomed Mr. Maduro’s removal, calling for the immediate restoration of democratic institutions and the release of political prisoners, while urging that the transition proceed through democratic means.

Charter credibility at stake

Russia and China delivered some of the strongest criticism, characterising the US action as armed aggression and warning against the normalisation of unilateral force.

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

Representatives of Moscow and Beijing called for the immediate release of President Maduro and stressed the inviolability of head-of-State immunity under international law, framing the situation as a test of whether Charter principles apply equally to all States.