博客

In a striking address to the United Nations Security Council, renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs delivered a forceful condemnation of United States foreign policy during an emergency session concerning Venezuela. The Columbia University professor and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network asserted that Washington stands in serious breach of fundamental international law principles.

Sachs presented a comprehensive critique of decades-long American foreign policy approaches, characterizing them as systematically employing military force, covert operations, and political manipulation to achieve regime change objectives. These practices, he argued, represent direct violations of the United Nations Charter that governs international conduct among sovereign states.

During his briefing, the sustainable development expert called for immediate cessation of all illegal military actions and threats against Venezuela, emphasizing that such conduct undermines global governance structures. Sachs’s testimony before the Security Council marks a significant moment of scholarly criticism regarding interventionist policies from within the halls of international diplomacy.

The emergency meeting provided a platform for examining the broader implications of power projection in international relations, with Sachs’s analysis extending beyond the immediate Venezuela situation to address systemic patterns in great power behavior. His remarks highlighted the tension between unilateral actions and multilateral governance frameworks established in the post-World War II international order.

In a forceful address to the United Nations Security Council, Mexico’s Ambassador to the UN, Héctor Enrique Vasconcelos y Cruz, delivered a stern condemnation of recent military operations against Venezuela. The emergency session, convened on January 5, 2026, at UN headquarters in New York, addressed the escalating situation following military strikes and the reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

Ambassador Vasconcelos articulated Mexico’s official position, characterizing the January 3rd military intervention as an act of aggression that blatantly violates Article 2 of the UN Charter. The Mexican diplomat asserted that such operations represent not merely isolated incidents but a fundamental assault on international law and the principles of multilateral diplomacy.

The ambassador issued a grave warning regarding rhetoric suggesting potential expansion of military operations to other nations within the Latin American region, emphasizing that such discourse poses a direct threat to regional stability and security frameworks. He further challenged the concept of externally imposed regime change, describing extraterritorial measures as historically counterproductive actions that typically exacerbate conflicts and weaken national social and political structures.

Vasconcelos concluded with a poignant observation that the current violation of international norms dangerously jeopardizes the political equilibrium of the region while simultaneously disregarding the hard-won independent history of Latin American and Caribbean nations. The address positioned Mexico as a vocal defender of sovereignty principles within international governance structures.

In a forceful address to the United Nations Security Council, Brazil’s Ambassador to the UN Sergio Franca Danese delivered a scathing condemnation of recent military actions against Venezuela. The emergency session, convened on January 5, 2026, addressed the unprecedented capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores following military strikes on Venezuelan territory.

Ambassador Danese characterized the intervention as a ‘flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law,’ emphasizing that the bombings and presidential capture represent an unacceptable breach of Venezuelan sovereignty. The Brazilian diplomat warned that these actions establish an ‘extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.’

Highlighting the geographical significance, Danese noted this marks the first instance of external armed aggression in South America involving troop deployments and aerial bombings in a country sharing a 2,000-kilometer border with Brazil. The ambassador stressed that governing norms between states are ‘mandatory and universal,’ not subject to exceptions based on ideological, geopolitical, or economic interests.

Brazil’s position maintains that neither natural resource exploitation nor economic considerations justify the use of force or illegal government changes. Danese called upon the Security Council to ‘assume its responsibility and react with determination, clarity, and obedience to international law’ to prevent the ‘law of force from prevailing over the force of law.’

The ambassador concluded by affirming Brazil’s belief that Venezuela’s future should be determined exclusively by the Venezuelan people through dialogue, without external interference and within established international legal frameworks.

In a forceful diplomatic statement at the United Nations Security Council, Chile’s representative Paula Narvaez Ojeda delivered a stern condemnation of United States military operations within Venezuelan territory. The emergency session, convened to address escalating tensions in the region, became a platform for Chile’s vehement opposition to unilateral armed intervention.

Speaking before the international body on Monday, Narvaez articulated Chile’s position that Latin America and the Caribbean must maintain their status as a ‘zone of peace’—a concept she emphasized benefits not only regional stability but global security as a whole. The Chilean diplomat warned that military confrontation would precipitate devastating humanitarian consequences, exacerbating civilian suffering while intensifying existing patterns of displacement, insecurity, and vulnerability throughout Venezuela and neighboring nations.

Narvaez reiterated Chile’s firm conviction that international disputes must be resolved exclusively through peaceful mechanisms that respect established legal frameworks. She emphasized the fundamental principles of state sovereignty and the prohibition against using or threatening force—cornerstones of international law that she argued were being undermined by recent military actions.

Echoing concerns previously voiced by the leaders of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain, the Chilean representative expressed apprehension about any attempts to control governmental administration or establish foreign ownership over strategic national assets. Such actions, she contended, would violate international legal standards while jeopardizing the political, economic, and social stability of the entire Latin American region.