The United States faces mounting international condemnation following its controversial military intervention in Venezuela and the apprehension of President Nicolas Maduro. During an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council on Monday, numerous nations denounced Washington’s unilateral actions as flagrant violations of the UN Charter and established international legal norms.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed profound apprehension regarding the apparent disregard for international law demonstrated by Saturday’s military operation. He emphasized concerns about potential regional destabilization and the dangerous precedent set for future inter-state relations.
Eritrean Permanent Representative Sophia Tesfamariam Yohannes characterized American actions as “a clear breach of international law and fundamental principles governing international relations.” Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani went further, labeling the operation “state terrorism” and “a full-fledged act of aggression” that violated peremptory norms of international law.
Venezuelan UN Ambassador Samuel Moncada appealed for decisive Security Council action, asserting that international peace can only be maintained through consistent application of international law without “double standards or selective interpretations.”
The operation has drawn criticism even from traditional US allies. In Japan, political figures and media outlets warned that the intervention undermines international law and the postwar rules-based order. Opposition leader Yoshihiko Noda expressed “serious doubts” about the operation’s legal justification, while the Nikkei newspaper suggested it disregarded three core pillars of legal order: national sovereignty respect, congressional oversight, and the rules-based system.
International legal scholar Hadi Rahmat Purnama from Universitas Indonesia cautioned that “applying national jurisdiction against other sovereign countries constitutes an act of war,” adding that Washington’s non-recognition of the Maduro government provides no legal basis for the apprehension.