Live: UN Security Council convenes emergency meeting on Venezuela | DW News

Key Concepts

• US Military Intervention in Venezuela: The core issue is a large-scale US military operation resulting in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
• Violation of International Law: The intervention is widely condemned as a breach of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4) prohibiting the threat or use of force, and a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.
• Justification vs. Condemnation: The US justifies the action as a law enforcement operation targeting narco-terrorism, while most other nations view it as an illegal act of aggression.
• Humanitarian & Political Crisis in Venezuela: The existing humanitarian crisis, political instability, and alleged corruption within Venezuela are central to the context of the intervention.
• Regional Stability & “Zone of Peace”: Latin American nations emphasize the importance of maintaining the region as a zone of peace and express concern about the destabilizing effects of the intervention.

---

The Escalation: US Military Action & Initial Reactions (January 3rd, 2026)

The 10,085th session of the UN Security Council convened on January 3rd, 2026, to address the escalating crisis in Venezuela following a “large-scale strike” conducted by the US military across Caracas and northern Venezuelan states (Miranda, Aragua, and La Guaira). This operation resulted in the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores. The meeting began with procedural matters, welcoming new non-permanent members (Bahrain, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Latvia, and Liberia) and acknowledging outgoing members (Algeria, Guyana, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, and Slovenia).

The US representative asserted the operation was a law enforcement effort targeting indicted narco-terrorists, drawing a parallel to the 1989 arrest of Manuel Noriega. They accused Maduro of responsibility for attacks on the US, regional destabilization, and repression of the Venezuelan people, citing charges related to narco-trafficking, weapons trafficking, and conspiracy. President Trump, as referenced, stated the intention to “run the country” until a “safe, proper, and judicious transition” could be achieved.

Initial reactions were sharply divided. Rosemary De Carlo (Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs) expressed deep concern over potential instability and the precedent set by the action, emphasizing adherence to international law. Jeffrey Sachs condemned the intervention as a violation of Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter, citing a history of US regime change operations since 1947 (Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Honduras 2009, Ukraine 2014, Venezuela 2002 onwards) and highlighting the economic impact of US sanctions – a 75% decline in oil production and a 62% drop in GDP per capita between 2016 and 2020. Mercedes Defratas detailed pervasive corruption in Venezuela, involving 73 countries and an estimated $72 billion in public funds, linking the Maduro regime to gold mining, drug trafficking, and extortion.

Justification, Condemnation & Regional Concerns (Continued Discussion)

The debate continued with a focus on the justification for the intervention. The US maintained its position, emphasizing the threat posed by Trenda Aaru, a designated foreign terrorist organization allegedly collaborating with the Maduro regime to weaponize narcotics against the US. They claimed Trenda Aaru has thousands of members, many operating within the US, engaging in violent crimes. The US cited the 2025 UN World Drug Report as evidence of Venezuela’s role as a key drug trafficking route and referenced the reported 70% victory for opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Orrutia in the July 28th, 2024 elections.

However, this justification was met with widespread condemnation. Argentina was the notable exception, explicitly supporting the US actions as a necessary step against narco-terrorism and towards restoring democracy. Other nations, including Chile, Panama, the United Kingdom, and France, expressed concern over the unilateral military action while emphasizing the importance of international law and peaceful resolution. Panama highlighted concerns about Venezuela becoming a base for adversaries of the US, including Iran, Hezbollah, and Cuban intelligence.

The severe humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, with over 8 million refugees, was also highlighted, alongside the reported detention of a Panamanian citizen in Venezuela without due process. The Venezuelan representative vehemently condemned the US actions as a violation of international law and a kidnapping of President Maduro, accusing the US of acting based on resource greed.

The Prevailing Condemnation & Calls for Peaceful Resolution

The final segment of the Security Council meeting saw an overwhelming chorus of condemnation. Representatives from Chile, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Eritrea, Uganda (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Paraguay all characterized the US intervention as a violation of the UN Charter and a dangerous precedent. The abduction of President Maduro was specifically condemned as a breach of diplomatic immunity and sovereign rights.

A central theme was the defense of national sovereignty and the right to self-determination. Brazil argued against the idea of “spheres of influence” and cited historical interventions in Latin America as examples of their negative consequences. Latin American nations emphasized the importance of maintaining the region as a “zone of peace” and expressed concern about the destabilizing effects of the intervention.

Several speakers advocated for a peaceful resolution through dialogue and negotiation, suggesting a role for the UN Secretary-General and Security Council (with the consent of all parties involved). Cuba and Iran dismissed the US justification as a pretext for imperialist ambitions and resource control. South Africa warned that tolerating such actions invites anarchy and a return to a “might makes right” world order. Eritrea, speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, declared the action an act of war against Venezuela.

---

Conclusion

The UN Security Council meeting revealed a deeply fractured international community regarding the US intervention in Venezuela. While the US justified its actions as a necessary response to narco-terrorism, the overwhelming majority of nations condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and a dangerous precedent. The emphasis on sovereignty, non-interference, and peaceful resolution underscores the fundamental principles at stake, highlighting the potential for further instability and the erosion of multilateralism in the wake of this crisis. The future of Venezuela, and the broader implications for international relations, remain uncertain.