The United Nations Security Council held an emergency closed-door session amid deep divisions following a U.S. military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The development has triggered widespread diplomatic fallout and exposed sharp fractures within the world’s primary body for maintaining international peace and security.
The meeting, convened at the request of several member states, was dominated by intense debate over the legality and justification of the U.S. action. President Maduro was reportedly removed from Caracas and detained by U.S. forces, an event that has sent shockwaves across Latin America and drawn global attention.
Discussions revealed starkly opposing positions among the Security Council’s permanent members. The United States and the United Kingdom defended the operation, while China and Russia strongly condemned it as a violation of international law and Venezuelan sovereignty.
U.S. Ambassador Michael Waltz rejected claims of aggression, describing the mission as a “targeted law enforcement operation” to apprehend what he called indicted fugitives, including President Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores. He compared the operation to the 1989 arrest of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, accusing Maduro of leading a criminal network involved in drug trafficking, human rights abuses, and extrajudicial killings. Ambassador Waltz cited the displacement of more than eight million Venezuelans as evidence of systemic governance failure.
UK Ambassador James Kariuki echoed the U.S. position, stating that Maduro’s hold on power lacked legitimacy. He pointed to economic collapse, violent repression, and the breakdown of public services under Maduro’s leadership, which he said had fueled a regional humanitarian crisis. Kariuki reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to a peaceful political transition in line with the UN Charter.
In contrast, China’s representative expressed strong condemnation, describing the U.S. action as unilateral and unlawful. He warned that the use of force undermined diplomatic solutions, threatened regional stability, and set a dangerous precedent for international relations.
Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia also denounced the operation, calling it an act of armed aggression and a breach of international law. He demanded Maduro’s immediate release, insisting that the action reflected renewed imperial ambitions and interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs.
With veto power held by the five permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the deep divisions made any unified response impossible. The remaining ten elected members were left navigating a stalemate that underscored long-standing disagreements over sovereignty, intervention, and the interpretation of international law.
The emergency session ended without a resolution, leaving the international community facing heightened uncertainty. Beyond its immediate impact on Venezuela, the incident has intensified geopolitical tensions and raised serious questions about the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations in managing global crises.
