Global Reactions to the US Seizure of Maduro: A Divided Response

Thu Jan 08 2026 03:26:24 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

The recent seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by US forces has ignited widespread criticism and divided opinions across the international community, raising concerns about the implications for international law and diplomacy.

The US's forced removal of Maduro has resulted in strong condemnation from various nations, including allies and rivals, at a UN Security Council meeting. While some agree with the assessment of Maduro as illegitimate, many criticize the US’s actions as violations of international law. Key statements from France and Denmark highlighted the concern over setting dangerous precedents, while Russia and China strongly condemned US actions. The situation reflects the complex dynamics of international relations and sovereignty.

The US seizing of Venezuela's leader has faced strong criticism from both America's friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

Many member states agreed with the US that Nicolás Maduro had been an illegitimate and repressive leader.

But many also condemned the US military action as a breach of international law and the UN Charter, and they demanded a democratic transition that reflected the will of the Venezuelan people.

Among US allies, France was by far the most outspoken, with deputy ambassador Jay Dharmadhikari stating that Maduro's capture runs counter to the principle of peaceful dispute resolution and the non-use of force.

He emphasized, The proliferation of violations of the Charter of the UN and the violations of international law by states vested with responsibility as permanent members of Security Council chips away at the very foundation of the international order.\

The deputy UN ambassador for Denmark, Sandra Jensen Landi, echoed concerns, stating that the developments constitute a dangerous precedent.

Both France and Denmark's comments indicate a significant shift in European opposition towards the seizure, contrasting with the less critical response from the UK and Greece.

The ambassador for Panama expressed concern about plans to collaborate with Maduro's existing regime without engaging the opposition or fresh elections.

Colombia's ambassador declared that there was no justification for such unilateral actions, labeling them as serious violations of international law.

Russia's ambassador accused the US of international banditry and neo-colonialism, while China's Chargé d'Affaires voiced Beijing's shock and strong condemnation of the US actions.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated he remained deeply concerned that international law wasn't respected during the US operation.

In contrast, the UK's UN ambassador briefly declared the desire for a safe and peaceful transition in Venezuela without directly condemning the US military operation.

US UN ambassador Mike Waltz framed Maduro's capture as a necessary law-enforcement operation against a leader tied to drug trafficking and terrorism.

The responses from European nations illustrate a diplomatic dilemma as they balance their adherence to international law against their reliance on US political support.

The upcoming period will be crucial for how Europe navigates its relationship with the US following this incident, potentially catalyzing a shift towards greater European autonomy in international security matters.