Tag: UN Security Council

Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

In this piece, we review the arguments made by members of the United Nations Security Council regarding the US attack on Venezuela on January 3.

The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting on January 3 in response to the US attack on Venezuela, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of people and the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The high-level diplomatic meeting was marked by two clearly distinguishable positions: those who supported Washington’s actions and those who rejected them, claiming they violated international law and the South American country’s national sovereignty.

Rosemary DiCarlo, representative of the Secretary-General, said that the actions could generate greater instability in the nation: “We meet at a grave time following the January 3 United States military action in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” In addition, DiCarlo, following the statements of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, emphasized that the attack constituted a military aggression that violates the UN Charter.

Future of the UN Charter at stake

Renowned scholar Jeffrey D. Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, also addressed the session and highlighted that beyond the immediate violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, the US actions constitute an existential threat to the entire UN system. “The issue before the Council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela. The issue is whether any Member State—by force, coercion, or economic strangulation—has the right to determine Venezuela’s political future or to exercise control over its affairs. This question goes directly to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Sachs implored the UNSC to take action and call on the US to end its military threats and attacks against Venezuela, end its naval blockade, and withdraw its military forces from the Caribbean which have been amassing since August.

Sachs affirmed that, “Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance.”

Neocolonialism, illegality and imperialism: condemnation of the attack

Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s representative to the Security Council, strongly condemned the US military actions against his country. He stated that what happened on January 3 constituted an “illegitimate armed attack” that lacked legal justification and violated the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the principles of sovereignty. The situation also calls into question the “credibility of international law,” as it seems that “the law is optional” when it is one country and not another that “kidnaps a head of state”.

China

Along the same lines, Fu Cong, representative of China, said: “[China] strongly condemns the unilateral, illegal, and bullying acts against Venezuela.” “[The United States] wantonly tramples upon Venezuela’s sovereignty, security, and legitimate rights and interests,” he said. He also called on the United States to return to dialogue to reach a peaceful solution.

Cuba

Cuba, for its part, categorically rejected the “imperialist and fascist aggressions” of the United States and warned of “criminal and hegemonic plans” that Washington is carrying out. In addition, the Cuban representative stated that the United States commits acts of economic suffocation and maritime terrorism against the governments it seeks to overthrow, which is in flagrant contradiction with the UN Charter and international law. He asserted that the objective behind the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is to gain “control over Venezuela’s land and natural resources.”

Russia

Likewise, the representative of the Russian Federation, Vassily Nebenzia, condemned the “armed aggression” against Venezuela for violating international law and demanded the immediate release of the “legitimately-elected president”, Nicolás Maduro. He also called for an end to fear and hypocrisy in the face of US actions that seek to justify “such an egregious act of aggression [out of fear of the] American global gendarme.” Finally, he stated that the actions of the United States constitute new examples of “neocolonialism and imperialism”.

Colombia

For her part, Leonor Zalabata said that her country, Colombia, strongly condemns the actions of January 3, and affirmed that the use of force, according to the UN Charter, can only be used in exceptional situations, such as self-defense, but never to take political control of another state, as Trump said he would do with Venezuela. The attacks, she added, could lead to a large-scale migration that would require significant budget allocations to care for the migrants. Colombia shares thousands of kilometers of border with Venezuela, and Trump has directly threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro with carrying out a similar attack on Colombian territory.

Mexico

Mexico also strongly criticized the military attack and stated that such actions “should not be allowed” because they jeopardize multilateralism and international law. It called on members to abandon double standards and “act decisively” in respect for the national sovereignty of the peoples of each country, who are the only ones authorized to decide “their destiny”.

Brazil

Brazil also joined in the criticism. Representative Sérgio França stated that “South America is a zone of peace,” and therefore his country rejects military intervention in Venezuela, which “crossed an unacceptable line”, and violates the UN Charter and international law.

Read more: “We’re going to run the country”: Trump hints at possible US occupation of Venezuela

The violation of international law: moderate criticism of the United States

Several members of the Security Council also criticized Washington’s actions, albeit indirectly or less forcefully. 

United Kingdom

Among them was the United Kingdom, whose representative, James Kariuki, stated that his country reaffirms its commitment to international law and the principles of the United Nations. However, he also criticized the actions of the Maduro government for allegedly increasing poverty, repressing the opposition, and the illegitimacy of his government.

Panama

Along the same lines, Panama’s representative, Eloy Alfaro de Alba, condemned the US attack. He stated that US military actions could have very serious consequences for peace in the Latin American region. He also stressed that his country, which suffered a US invasion between 1989 and 1990, reaffirms its respect for the sovereignty of nations. However, he also took the time to criticize what he called Maduro’s illegitimate and authoritarian government, which he said had eroded the democratic system after the 2024 elections.

Chile

Chile was another country that criticized the US military actions “unilaterally in Venezuela,” according to the South American country’s representative, Paula Narváez. “Chile does not recognize the Maduro regime, but serious human rights violations… cannot be resolved militarily and can only be addressed through peaceful, gradual, and incisive processes.”

“There is no war”: in defense of the US attack

For his part, US representative Michael Waltz defended his government’s actions and stated that “there is no war against Venezuela or its people”. On the contrary, Waltz argued that the attack was “a surgical law enforcement operation to apprehend two indicted fugitives, [the] narco-terrorist Nicolás Maduro and Celia Flores.”

Argentina

Another country that openly supported the attack was Argentina. Its representative, Francisco Tropepi, welcomed Trump’s “decisive action” and stated that it was justified by Maduro’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking. However, he called for the situation to be normalized and for institutional order to be restored as soon as possible.

Latvia

Along the same lines, Latvia’s representative, Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, indirectly justified the radical measure taken by the United States when she told the Security Council that Maduro’s government had violated human rights and encouraged drug trafficking and corruption.

The international community and international law are under threat

However, despite some direct and indirect support, the United States’ actions have not been well received by the majority of the United Nations Security Council. Several of its members understand that if such actions are not strongly condemned, they could pave the way for similar military actions in other parts of the world.

Asian and African countries fear a new wave of colonialism in their lands, and Europeans, many of whom do not support Maduro, see expansionist arguments looming over Greenland, which have not been heard in Europe for centuries.

Read more: Africa voices outrage against US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Maduro

Thus, the international community and international law (both structured after the defeat of the Axis in 1945) face an immense challenge following the attack on Venezuela. Whether they will emerge stronger or weakened will become clear in the coming months.

Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.