The United States strongly criticized by its enemies and friends for the seizure of Maduro

The U.S. grip on the Venezuelan leader came under heavy criticism from America’s friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

Many member states agreed with the United States that Nicolas Maduro was an illegitimate and repressive leader.

But many also condemned the U.S. military action as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, and demanded a democratic transition that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.

Among the United States’ allies, France was by far the most outspoken. Deputy Ambassador Jay Dharmadhikari said the US capture of Maduro went “against the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes and the principle of non-use of force.”

He told the Council: “The proliferation of violations of the United Nations Charter and violations of international law by States vested with responsibilities as permanent members of the Security Council erodes the very foundations of the international order, contravening the principles of the Charter, including the principle of respect for the independence and territorial integrity of States, undermines the foundations of the United Nations and weakens international peace and security. »

The UN deputy ambassador to Denmark, Sandra Jensen Landi, expressed her country’s “deep concern” about the evolving situation and said: “These developments set a dangerous precedent. International law and the Charter of the United Nations… must be respected.

These two statements – from France and Denmark – represent a significant hardening of European criticism of Maduro’s take after some initial equivocation from many EU members. On the other hand, British and Greek diplomats at the UN did not condemn the American military operation.

Panama’s Ambassador, Eloy Alfaro de Alba, expressed concern about US plans to work with the existing regime, without involving the opposition or holding new elections.

He told the Council: “Any attempt to establish a permanent government led by a figure in the repressive apparatus like Delcy Rodriguez would constitute a continuity of the system and not a real transition.”

Colombian Ambassador Leonor Zalabata Torres said there was no justification for the unilateral use of force to commit an act of aggression: “Such actions constitute 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 there was no justification for “US domination by force” and accused US 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” what he called “the unilateral, illegal and bullying acts of the United States.”

In a statement read on his behalf, Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, said he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected” during the American action: “The power of law must prevail.”

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

He added, without being specific, that the UK “reaffirms its commitment to international law and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter”. Greece’s deputy ambassador, Ioannis Stamatekos, also stopped short of condemning Trump’s takeover of Maduro, instead calling for “dialogue and diplomacy” to resolve the crisis.

For the United States, U.N. Ambassador Mike Waltz said Maduro’s capture was a law enforcement operation against an illegitimate leader responsible for both drug trafficking and terrorism.

“You cannot make Venezuela an operational hub for Iran, for Hezbollah, for gangs, for Cuban intelligence agents and other bad actors who control this country,” Waltz told the Council. “You cannot continue to have the world’s largest energy reserves under the control of America’s adversaries.”

For many European countries, Maduro’s capture posed a difficult diplomatic dilemma.

Some are torn between defending the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter that countries should not violate the sovereignty of others, or a pragmatic and truly political decision to avoid angering the United States, on whose support and security they rely, particularly for Ukraine.

Hence British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s refusal to say whether the American attack on Venezuela constituted a violation of international law. He simply stated that “international law is the framework, the anchor or the benchmark against which we judge the actions of all other governments. And it is, of course, up to the United States to justify the actions it has taken.”

Similarly, the EU issued its own statement, saying that “in all circumstances, the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations must be respected”, without specifying whether this applied in this case.

The EU considers Maduro illegitimate and his drug trafficking a “significant threat to global security”, but the bloc has said nothing about Trump’s declaration that the US will now “run” the country.

French and Danish criticism now places them alongside Spain, which was the only European country to express concerns, with Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez saying his government “would not recognize an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region towards a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence”.

The difficulty for other European leaders, fearful of antagonizing Trump, is that they risk being accused of hypocrisy by other countries.

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

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

The question is how Europe could react in the long term to the US military operation in Venezuela. Will this provide a catalyst for the continent to take greater responsibility for its own security in the face of so much instability from what many view as an unreliable ally?

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

“We must finally believe in our strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must remain united as never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, it’s over.”