UNSC meets today amid alarm over US action in Venezuela

Risk to international system

UNITED NATIONS: The United Nations Security Council is holding an emergency session today (Monday) amid mounting international alarm over the United States’ military action in Venezuela and concerns that the crisis has now moved beyond bilateral tensions.

On Saturday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that the crisis in Venezuela could undermine the foundations of international law by setting a “dangerous precedent“ for similar actions in the near future.

The meeting was requested by Colombia and supported by China and the Russian Federation, with Venezuela also formally appealing to the Council. According to the Council presidency, the session will be held under the agenda item “Threats to International Peace and Security,” and the secretary general is expected to brief the members.

In a statement issued through his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, Secretary General Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed by the recent escalation in Venezuela, culminating with today’s (Saturday) United The statement added: “Independently of the situation in Venezuela, these developments constitute a dangerous precedent.“

“The secretary general continues to emphasise the importance of full respect — by all — of international law, including the UN Charter,” Dujarric said. “He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

The decision to convene the Council reflects a growing view among several UN members that the crisis has moved beyond bilateral tensions and now poses broader risks to regional stability and the international system itself.

For many governments, however, the manner of Maduro’s removal — rather than his record — lies at the heart of the controversy.

“Full respect — by all — of international law” remains essential, Dujarric said, warning that departures from those principles weaken the rules-based international order.

In a letter to the Security Council, Venezuela’s UN ambassador Samuel Moncada wrote that the operation amounted to “a colonial war aimed at destroying our republican form of government, freely chosen by our people,” and at imposing “a puppet government that allows the plundering of our natural resources, including the world’s largest oil reserves.”

Moncada cited the UN Charter directly, recalling that it states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

China and Russia have echoed those concerns in unusually blunt language. China’s foreign ministry said it was “deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the US against a sovereign country and the use of force against the president of a country.” It added that China “firmly opposes such hegemonic behaviour by the US, which seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean,” and called on Washington to “abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.”

Russia’s foreign ministry described the operation as an act of aggression. “This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela,” it said, adding that “the pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded.” Moscow warned that Latin America must remain “a zone of peace” and insisted that Venezuela be allowed “to determine its own destiny without any destructive, let alone military, interference from outside.”

Both Beijing and Moscow have stressed that their objections are rooted not in support for Maduro personally, but in the defence of what they describe as core principles of international law.

Reactions across Latin America have been shaped by a long history of external intervention. While some governments have welcomed Maduro’s removal as the end of a repressive era, others have warned that the US action risks renewed instability. Colombia, which requested the Council meeting, has highlighted concerns about border security and possible displacement. Monitoring Desk