标签： North America

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.

At an emergency session of the UN Security Council convened to address the escalating situation in Venezuela, Spain’s ambassador to the United Nations delivered a stern warning about the potential global ramifications. Ambassador Hector Gomez Hernandez articulated Spain’s position during the Monday meeting held at UN headquarters in New York, characterizing recent developments in the South American nation as deeply troubling.

The Spanish representative emphasized that the unfolding events establish ‘a very worrying precedent’ with significant implications extending beyond Venezuela’s borders to affect regional stability and international security frameworks. This assessment aligned with concerns previously raised by the United Nations Secretary-General regarding the gravity of the situation.

Ambassador Hernandez underscored the principle of national sovereignty regarding natural resources while simultaneously expressing apprehension about how recent actions might undermine regional peace and security architectures. The Spanish diplomat further addressed the complex challenge of organized crime in the region, acknowledging its priority status while insisting that effective countermeasures must be pursued exclusively through established international cooperation mechanisms rather than unilateral actions that might compromise broader stability.

The emergency session reflected growing international apprehension about Venezuela’s political and economic trajectory, with Spain’s statement representing a significant European perspective on the crisis. The ambassador’s remarks highlighted the delicate balance between respecting national sovereignty and addressing security concerns that transcend national boundaries, positioning the Venezuela situation as a test case for international diplomatic response protocols.

Venezuela has formally requested urgent intervention from the United Nations Security Council following what it characterizes as unlawful military strikes by the United States and the forcible extraction of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. The extraordinary diplomatic confrontation unfolded during an emergency session at UN headquarters in New York on Monday.

Ambassador Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s permanent representative to the UN, presented a comprehensive condemnation of Washington’s actions over the weekend, describing them as a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter. The ambassador articulated three primary demands: the immediate release and safe repatriation of President Maduro and his spouse with full respect for their diplomatic immunities; an unambiguous Security Council condemnation of the use of force against Venezuela; and the reaffirmation of the principle prohibiting territorial acquisition through military means.

Moncada framed the situation as extending beyond bilateral tensions, warning that tolerance of such actions would establish a dangerous precedent undermining global security architecture. “When force is used to control resources, impose governments, or redesign states, we are faced with a logic that harks back to the worst practices of colonialism,” he stated during his address to the fifteen-member council.

The Venezuelan diplomat further asserted that the military operation constituted multiple violations of fundamental international principles, including the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition against territorial aggression, and the obligation to resolve disputes through peaceful means. He additionally cited breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols governing armed conflict.

Characterizing the situation as a critical test for multilateralism, Moncada cautioned that failure to respond adequately would signal that “law is optional, and that force is the true arbiter of international relations.” The emergency session represents one of the most significant confrontations between a Latin American nation and a permanent Security Council member in recent history, with potential implications for international norms regarding state sovereignty and great power conduct.

In a forceful address to the United Nations Security Council, South Africa’s representative delivered a scathing critique of recent United States military operations targeting Venezuela. The emergency session, convened on Monday in New York, addressed what the South African delegation characterized as unlawful cross-border enforcement actions.

The African nation’s statement condemned American unilateral strikes against Venezuelan territory and the reported abduction of President Nicolas Maduro alongside his spouse, describing these actions as flagrant violations of Venezuela’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. The representative emphasized that such operations fundamentally contradict established international legal norms and dangerously reinforce the principle that ‘might makes right’ while simultaneously undermining diplomatic resolution mechanisms.

Citing foundational principles of international jurisprudence, the South African delegation underscored that states maintain exclusive jurisdiction over persons and conduct within their territorial boundaries. Any enforcement of domestic law—including arrest operations—by one nation within another’s territory without explicit consent constitutes an unlawful breach of sovereignty, according to the statement.

The address highlighted available recourse mechanisms under international law, including bringing cases before the International Court of Justice or seeking authorized action through the UN Security Council itself. South Africa warned that bypassing these established channels represents a dangerous regression to a pre-UN world order—one that precipitated two catastrophic world wars and fostered systemic international instability and lawlessness.

The statement concluded with a stark warning about the perils of abandoning the international legal framework, asserting that the global community cannot navigate an increasingly complex future without the stability and protection afforded by respecting international law and multilateral institutions.