U.S. faces harsh criticism from friends and foes over Maduro’s detention

The U.S. operation to capture the Venezuelan leader was strongly criticized by U.S. friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

Many member states share the U.S. view that Nicolás Maduro is an illegitimate and authoritarian leader.

But many also condemn U.S. military actions as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, and they demand a democratic transition that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.

Among U.S. allies, France is by far the most outspoken. Deputy Ambassador Jay Dharmadhikari said the U.S. arrest of Maduro “violates the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes and the principle of non-use of force.”

He told the Security Council: “As permanent members of the Security Council, responsible countries have increasingly committed violations of the United Nations Charter and international law, weakening the foundation of the international order, violating the principles of the Charter, including respect for national independence and territorial integrity, undermining the foundation of the United Nations, and weakening international peace and security.”

Sandra Jansen-Landy, deputy UN ambassador to Denmark, expressed Denmark’s “deep concern” about the evolving situation and said: “These developments set a dangerous precedent. International law and the UN Charter… must be respected.”

The two statements from France and Denmark signaled a marked intensification of European criticism of Maduro’s capture after initial ambiguity from many EU member states. In contrast, neither British nor Greek diplomats at the United Nations condemned the U.S. military action.

Panamanian Ambassador Eloy Alfaro de Alba expressed concern about U.S. plans to work with the existing regime without involving the opposition or holding new elections.

“Any attempt to establish a permanent government led by repressive establishment figures such as Delcy Rodriguez would constitute continuity in the system rather than a true transition,” he told the council.

Colombian Ambassador Leonor Sarabatta Torres said that the unilateral use of force to commit acts of aggression is unjustified: “Such acts are a serious violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.”

Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzia accused the United States of “international banditry” and “neocolonialism and imperialism.”

He said it was unjustifiable for “the United States to rule by force” and accused U.S. allies of hypocrisy and double standards for failing to criticize Trump.

China’s charge d’affaires Sun Lei said Beijing was “deeply shocked and strongly condemned by the United States’ unilateral illegal bullying”.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement read on his behalf that he remained “deeply concerned that the rules of international law were not respected during the U.S. operation”: “The force of the law must prevail.”

By contrast, acting British ambassador James Kariuki issued a very brief statement, saying the UK simply wanted to see “a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.”

He added that the UK “reaffirms its commitment to international law and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter” without elaborating. Greek deputy ambassador Giannis Stamatkos also stopped short of condemning Trump for detaining Maduro, instead calling for “dialogue and diplomacy” to resolve the crisis.

On the U.S. side, U.N. Ambassador Mike Walz said the capture of Maduro was part of a law enforcement operation targeting an illegitimate leader responsible for drug trafficking and terrorism.

“You cannot turn Venezuela into a center of operations for Iran, Hezbollah, gangs, Cuban intelligence operatives and other malign actors who control the country,” Walz told the Security Council. “You cannot continue to have the world’s largest energy reserves under the control of U.S. adversaries.”

For many European countries, Maduro’s arrest has created a diplomatic dilemma.

Some are torn between defending the fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter that states should not infringe on each other’s sovereignty, or making pragmatic, genuine political decisions that do not anger the U.S. on whom they rely for support and security, especially in Ukraine.

As a result, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer refused to say whether the US attack on Venezuela violated international law. He simply said, “International law is the framework, the anchor or benchmark against which we judge the actions of all other governments. Of course, the United States should also defend the actions it takes.”

Similarly, the European Union issued its own statement, saying that “in all circumstances, the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations must be upheld,” but did not clarify whether this applied to this case.

The EU considers Maduro illegal and his drug trafficking a “major global security threat” but made no mention of Trump’s statement that the United States would now “run” the country.

Criticism from France and Denmark now ranks them alongside Spain, the only European country to express concern, with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez saying his government “will not recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region towards the horizon of uncertainty and belligerence”.

The difficulty for other European leaders worried about angering Trump is that they risk being accused of hypocrisy by other countries.

For years, European powers have argued that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be opposed, in part because it violated international rules on territorial integrity.

Many developing countries reject this argument, citing Western military adventurism from Vietnam to Iraq. They will now add Venezuela to that list.

The question is how Europe will respond to U.S. military action in Venezuela in the long term. Will it be a catalyst for the continent to take greater responsibility for its own security, faced with so much instability from allies that many consider unreliable?

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk certainly hopes so, saying on social media: “No one can take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It’s clear now.”

“We must ultimately believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, and we must come together like never before. One for many, all for one. Otherwise, we are doomed.”