‘US can’t act as world’s supreme judge’: Russia, China humiliate ‘bully’ Trump at UN over Maduro

Key Concepts

• Sovereignty: The principle that each state has supreme authority within its own borders and is not subject to external interference.
• Non-Intervention: The principle that states should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.
• Unilateral Use of Force: The use of military force by a state without authorization from the UN Security Council.
• International Law & UN Charter: The body of rules and principles governing relations between states, and the foundational treaty of the United Nations.
• Zone of Peace: The declared commitment of Latin America and the Caribbean to resolve conflicts peacefully.
• Neocolonialism/Imperialism: The use of economic, political, and cultural power to control or influence other countries, often without direct military occupation.
• Chapter 7 of the UN Charter: Allows the Security Council to authorize enforcement measures, including the use of force, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Condemnation of US Military Action Against Venezuela – Security Council Meeting Transcript Summary

I. Initial Allegations & Condemnation (Colombia, China, Russian Federation)

The emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was convened following what was described as a large-scale military attack by the United States against Venezuela on January 3rd. Colombia, initiating the discussion, “categorically condemns” the events, detailing explosions and air activity over Caracas and other areas, including bombings of civilian and military infrastructure. This action is presented as a clear violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity. Colombia emphasized that unilateral use of force is unacceptable under international law and the UN Charter, except in cases of legitimate self-defense or with explicit Security Council authorization under Chapter 7. They highlighted the importance of the UN Charter’s principles – peaceful settlement of disputes, prohibition of force, sovereign equality, and respect for territorial integrity – as a “common obligation” to preserve international peace and security. Colombia, as a new non-permanent member (2026-2027), pledged to defend these principles. They also noted proactive measures taken to protect civilian populations and prepare for potential mass migration resulting from the conflict.

China echoed this condemnation, characterizing the US actions as “unilateral, illegal, and bullying,” and a disregard for the concerns of the international community. China specifically criticized the US for trampling upon Venezuela’s sovereignty, security, and legitimate rights, violating core principles of international relations. They argued the US prioritized power over multilateralism and military action over diplomacy, posing a threat to regional and international peace. China demanded the US ensure the safety of President Maduro and his wife and release them immediately.

The Russian Federation’s representative presented an even stronger indictment, framing the US actions as a return to an “era of lawlessness and US domination by force, chaos, and lawlessness.” They condemned the “crimes cynically perpetrated by the United States” and highlighted the deaths of Venezuelan and Cuban citizens. The Russian Federation called for an objective assessment of the situation at the international legal level, criticizing what they perceived as hypocrisy from those selectively applying international law. They accused the US of aiming for “unbridled control over Venezuela’s natural resources” and reviving “neocolonialism and imperialism.” They also warned that the situation sets a dangerous precedent for the international order.

II. Specific Concerns & Demands (China, Russian Federation)

Both China and the Russian Federation focused on the abduction of President Maduro and his wife, demanding their immediate release. The Russian Federation specifically noted reports of their presence in New York. Both nations stressed that any disputes should be resolved through dialogue and negotiation, as enshrined in the UN Charter.

China detailed a history of US interventions – Iraq, Iran, and Latin America – arguing they have consistently failed to bring peace, stability, development, or prosperity. They emphasized Venezuela’s right to defend its sovereignty and the right of Latin American and Caribbean nations to choose their own development paths. China rejected the notion of any country acting as a “world’s police” or “international judge.”

The Russian Federation warned that the situation “tolls for every country of the Western Hemisphere” and for the UN itself, questioning the organization’s relevance if powerful nations disregard international law. They challenged the US to reconsider its actions and recognize the sovereignty of other states.

III. Underlying Principles & Historical Context

Throughout the statements, a consistent theme emerged: the inviolability of national sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force without UN Security Council authorization. The speakers repeatedly referenced the UN Charter as the foundational document governing international relations.

Colombia highlighted the “zone of peace” declaration by Latin American and Caribbean nations, emphasizing the need to respect this regional commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes.

China drew on historical examples of US interventions to argue that military force is not a solution and often exacerbates conflict and suffering. The Russian Federation explicitly linked the US actions to a resurgence of neocolonialism and imperialism, referencing past interference in the region.

IV. Call for De-escalation & Diplomatic Resolution

All three representatives – Colombia, China, and the Russian Federation – called for de-escalation and a return to diplomatic solutions. Colombia offered its “good offices” for a diplomatic way out of the crisis and expressed support for the UN Secretary-General’s efforts to mediate. China urged the US to “cease infringing upon the sovereignty and security of other countries” and return to the path of political solutions. The Russian Federation reiterated the need for dialogue and negotiation.

V. Concluding Remarks & Concerns about the International Order

The statements concluded with a shared concern about the potential erosion of the international order based on international law and multilateralism. The Russian Federation posed a direct challenge to the US, questioning the future role of the Security Council if powerful nations can unilaterally disregard international law. Colombia reaffirmed its commitment to upholding these principles in its new role as a non-permanent member. China emphasized the need for solidarity and cooperation to safeguard peace and stability in the region and beyond.

Synthesis:

The emergency Security Council meeting revealed a strong consensus among Colombia, China, and the Russian Federation in condemning the US military actions against Venezuela. The core argument centered on the violation of international law, specifically the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. The speakers expressed deep concern about the potential for escalation, the humanitarian consequences, and the broader implications for the international order. The overarching message was a call for de-escalation, diplomatic resolution, and a reaffirmation of the UN Charter as the foundation for peaceful relations between states. The statements collectively signaled a challenge to perceived US unilateralism and a defense of multilateralism and the rule of law.