U.S. Strikes on Venezuela: International Community Divided Between Condemnation and Support

Global reactions to the U.S. military operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolas Maduro range from condemnation for violating international law to approval of the removal of a “dictator.” The U.S. government has justified this action by arguing the need to restore democracy in Venezuela and by citing actions it claims are in accordance with national security interests.

The U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro early Saturday, has prompted strong international responses. This action could reshape global norms regarding intervention, signaling a potential shift in how military power might be used unilaterally in the future. These reactions highlight a significant divide between Washington’s traditional allies and supporters of multilateralism.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres responded gravely to this unilateral military operation. “These developments constitute a dangerous precedent,” his spokesperson said. “The Secretary-General continues to emphasize the importance of full respect by all of international law, including the UN Charter. He is deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.” Observers point out that this operation potentially breaches several UN Charter provisions, including Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

This warning underscores the UN’s concern that such actions could set a precedent for future unilateral military interventions.

Russia and China, both strategic allies of Venezuela, strongly denounced the U.S. operation. Russia, with its significant arms trade interests in the region, labeled the intervention “an act of armed aggression.” Similarly, China’s strong condemnation is underscored by its considerable oil investments in Venezuela, highlighting that these reactions may not be purely normative.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called the intervention “an act of armed aggression”: “The pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded. Ideological animosity has prevailed over economic pragmatism and the willingness to build relationships based on trust and predictability.”

China said it was “deeply shocked” and “strongly condemns the use of force by the U.S. against a sovereign country and against the president of a country,” according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

Iran also condemned the American attack as “a blatant violation of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Venezuela, calling on the UN Security Council to “act immediately to halt the unlawful aggression.” Tehran drew parallels between the situation in Venezuela and its own past experiences with unilateral strikes, emphasizing how such actions threaten regional security and sovereignty. This historical context strengthens Iran’s alarm and insistence on upholding international norms.

European responses, though varied, consistently emphasize the importance of respecting international law.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot was particularly direct on X: “The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, which underpins international law. France reiterates that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside and that only sovereign peoples themselves can decide their future.”

The German Foreign Ministry called on “all involved parties to avoid an escalation of the situation and to seek ways for a political settlement,” emphasizing that “international law must be respected.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen adopted a more measured tone: “We are following the situation in Venezuela very closely. We stand with the people of Venezuela and support a peaceful, democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made clear that his country was “not involved” in the operation, adding: “I always say and believe we should all uphold international law.”

South American countries hold sharply opposing views, reflecting ongoing ideological divisions in the region.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva unequivocally condemned the intervention: “The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line. These acts represent a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community. Attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.” Lula also highlighted potential ramifications for Mercosur, the South American trade bloc, suggesting that such military actions might exacerbate tensions within the bloc, affecting trade relationships and migration flows. This perspective underscores the tangible regional stakes and ripple effects that could result from the intervention.

Mexico “strongly condemned and rejected the military actions carried out unilaterally” by the United States, calling them “a clear violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro expressed his “deep concern” over “reports of explosions and unusual air activity” and “the escalation of tensions in the region.”

Conversely, Argentine President Javier Milei hailed it as “excellent news for the free world,” declaring: “What we have to understand is that this is the collapse of the regime of a dictator who was rigging elections, who in the last election was badly defeated and, despite that, clung to power.” However, recent surveys indicate mixed feelings among Venezuelans toward the intervention, with a significant portion expressing concerns about foreign interference in their national affairs. While some view the end of Maduro’s leadership as a potential positive change, others question the legitimacy and potential consequences of this external involvement.

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa added on X: “The time is coming for all the narco-Chavista criminals. Their structure will finally collapse across the entire continent.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood out with his enthusiastic support: “Congratulations, President @realDonaldTrump, for your bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice. I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers. This endorsement highlights the complex dynamics of Israel’s reliance on U.S. support. The robust alliance between the two nations often involves strategic considerations, in which mutual interests play a crucial role in shaping Israel’s foreign policy decisions.

Trinidad and Tobago Distances Itself

Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar sought to clarify her country’s position as Venezuela’s immediate neighbor: “Trinidad and Tobago is NOT a participant in any of these ongoing military operations. Trinidad and Tobago continues to maintain peaceful relations with the people of Venezuela.” Meanwhile, the Venezuelan diaspora in Trinidad has voiced concern over the recent events. Maria Gonzalez, a Venezuelan expatriate residing in Trinidad, expressed her anxiety: “While we appreciate Trinidad’s stance, we fear for our families back home. The situation is tense and leaves us worried about their safety and the future of our country.” This statement from the Venezuelan community in Trinidad underscores the human impact of the ongoing geopolitical shifts, contrasting with the diplomatic cautiousness shown by their host nation.

Several leaders highlighted the potential impact of this intervention on the international order.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico stated that “the U.S. military action in Venezuela is further evidence of the breakdown of the world order created after World War II.” He pointed to past interventions, such as those in Kosovo and Iraq, as precedents that have gradually eroded the international norms established post-WWII. These historical events serve as reference points for ongoing concerns about the stability of global governance structures.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide offered a nuanced analysis: “The Maduro regime lacks democratic legitimacy. Despite the 2024 election showing that the regime no longer had the support of the majority of the population, Maduro has clung to power. The regime has become increasingly authoritarian and is responsible for extensive human rights violations.” However, he added, “International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law.”

As President Trump prepares to address the public from Mar-a-Lago, the international community awaits further developments in a crisis that may affect the global order.

Source: Reuters