U.N. Security Council Warns U.S. Action in Venezuela Risks Regional Instability, Tests International Law
- ATN
- 5 days ago
- 3 min read
By: ATN News Team
UNHQ, New York — The U.N. Security Council met in emergency session on Friday amid sharp divisions over the United States’ military action in Venezuela, with senior U.N. officials and a majority of Council members warning the operation risks regional instability and sets a dangerous precedent for the use of force under international law.
Briefing the Council on behalf of Secretary-General António Guterres, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo said the situation following the January 3 U.S. action was “grave,” cautioning that further escalation could trigger a wider regional crisis.
“We meet at a critical moment,”
DiCarlo said, noting that Venezuela has described the incident as a military aggression and a violation of the U.N. Charter. She warned of the “possible intensification of instability” in a region already strained by years of political and economic turmoil that has forced millions of Venezuelans to flee.
While emphasizing that the situation remains reversible, DiCarlo urged restraint, inclusive dialogue and strict respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. “The power of the law must prevail,” she told the Council.
The meeting was requested by Colombia and supported by China and the Russian Federation and convened under the agenda item “Threats to International Peace and Security.”
Speaking as an independent briefer, Jeffrey Sachs, president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, framed the crisis as a direct test of the Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.
“The issue is not Venezuela’s character,” Sachs said. “The issue is whether any Member State has the right, by force, coercion or economic strangulation, to determine Venezuela’s political future.”
A representative of Venezuelan civil society painted a bleak picture of conditions inside the country. Mercedes De Freitas, founder of Transparencia Venezuela, told the Council that corruption and impunity have hollowed out state institutions, leaving millions facing hunger, repression and daily extortion by armed groups.
“So many families rely on only one meal per day,”
she said, linking worsening conditions to torture, arbitrary detentions and deaths from lack of medical care, abuses she said have been documented by the United Nations. She called for accountability, the release of political prisoners and the creation of a transparent state.
Colombia’s ambassador Leonor Zalabata Torres strongly condemned the January 3 events, warning they could spark new waves of migration across the region. She stressed that the U.N. Charter permits the use of force only in exceptional circumstances, such as self-defense, and not for seizing political control of another state.
Russia and China delivered some of the strongest rebukes of Washington.
Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia described the operation as armed aggression and demanded the immediate release of Venezuela’s “legitimately elected president” and his spouse. He accused the United States of pursuing control over Venezuela’s natural resources and warned of a resurgence of “neocolonialism.”
China’s representative said Beijing was “deeply shocked” by what it called unilateral, illegal and bullying acts, warning the action posed a grave threat to peace in Latin America and beyond.
The United States rejected accusations of aggression. U.S. Ambassador Michael Waltz said Washington had carried out a “surgical law-enforcement operation” to apprehend two indicted fugitives, naming Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
“There is no war against Venezuela or its people,”
Waltz said, comparing the operation to the 1989 arrest of Panama’s Manuel Noriega. He described Maduro as the leader of a “foreign terrorist organization” tied to drug trafficking networks and cited allegations of extrajudicial killings, torture and mass displacement.
Latin American members expressed deep concern over the implications of the action.
Brazil’s ambassador warned that “South America is a zone of peace” and said the capture of a sitting president crossed an unacceptable line under international law. Mexico said the action violated the Charter and urged the Council to act “without double standards,” cautioning that regime-change efforts by external actors have historically worsened conflicts.
Chile, Panama and Cuba also criticized the U.S. action, though Panama called for a forward-looking approach focused on a peaceful democratic transition reflecting the will of Venezuelan voters.
Argentina stood apart, welcoming President Donald Trump’s “decisive action” and arguing it could help end repression and drug trafficking emanating from Venezuela.
Venezuela’s ambassador Samuel Moncada accused the United States of carrying out an illegitimate armed attack and warned that tolerating what he called the “kidnapping of a head of state” would make
international law optional.
“The credibility of international law and the authority of the United Nations are at stake,” Moncada said.
As the meeting concluded, no immediate Council action was announced, underscoring deep divisions over legality, legitimacy and the future of Venezuela — and raising broader questions about the durability of the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force in an increasingly polarized world.