On 5 January 2026, the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session in New York following the U.S. military operation of 3 January 2026 in Caracas, during which President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were seized and transferred to the United States. The meeting revealed deep fractures in geopolitical alignment, but also a rare moment: a civil society voice—Jeffrey Sachs—provided the Council with the only concrete, operational roadmap for de-escalation anchored explicitly in the UN Charter.

Although many states reaffirmed legal principles, only one speaker converted them into actionable obligations for the Security Council and Member States. This intervention deserves particular attention.

---

Summary of Member Positions

China (P5)

China condemned the U.S. military strikes and the removal of President Maduro and his spouse as unilateral, illegal, and coercive. It stressed the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful dispute settlement, and the prohibition on the use of force, calling for Maduro’s immediate release and return and urging a political solution through dialogue and negotiation.

France (P5)

France expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people, recalling that the 28 July 2024 presidential election was marked by serious irregularities and a flagrant lack of transparency, followed by systematic repression and arbitrary detentions. France stated that the military operation leading to Maduro’s capture contravened the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use of force. It reiterated that any transition must be peaceful, democratic, and Venezuelan-led, and affirmed readiness to support dialogue to restore democratic expression and regional stability.

Russian Federation (P5)

Russia “firmly condemned” the U.S. operation as an act of armed aggression violating international law. It framed the operation as hegemonic and resource-driven, demanded the immediate release of Maduro and Cilia Flores, and urged the international community to reject unilateral military foreign policy instruments and reaffirm sovereign equality and non-intervention.

United Kingdom (P5)

The United Kingdom delivered a detailed statement through Ambassador James Kariuki, warning that Maduro’s claim to power was fraudulent. The UK cited the failure of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council to publish full election results from July 2024, along with independent domestic and international reports observing significant irregularities and lack of transparency. The UK called for a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government reflecting the sovereign vote of Venezuelans, reaffirming that the UN Charter and international law are essential foundations for maintaining global peace, security, and rule of law.

United States (P5)

The United States framed the operation as a “surgical law enforcement operation facilitated by the U.S. military” against indicted fugitives. It rejected the characterization of occupation and invoked historical precedent from 1989 (Manuel Noriega). The U.S. argued that Maduro was not a legitimate head of state following disputed 2024 elections and non-recognition by more than 50 states. The U.S. emphasized narco-terrorism, weapons trafficking, organized crime, and the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to protect American citizens from the regional destabilization caused by criminal networks such as the Cartel de los Soles and Tren de Aragua.

Colombia (Non-Permanent, 2027)

Colombia condemned categorically the U.S. military attack as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity. It reaffirmed that no justification exists under any circumstances for unilateral use of force constituting an act of aggression, recalling that the UN Charter principles—sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, and the prohibition of force—are obligations that bind states from day one of Colombia’s term.

Denmark (Non-Permanent, 2026)

Denmark expressed “deep concern” and warned that the 3 January operation set a “dangerous precedent.” Denmark reaffirmed the obligation to respect the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), and stressed that borders are inviolable. It urged urgent de-escalation, maximum restraint, and dialogue, while noting that counter-narcotics operations must also comply strictly with international law. Denmark rejected recognition of Maduro as legitimate president due to lack of transparency and integrity in the 2024 electoral process and emphasized the right of Venezuelans to self-determination through peaceful and credible democratic processes.

Greece (Non-Permanent, 2026)

Greece urged all actors to exercise maximum restraint and recalled the obligation to protect civilians in heightened tensions. Greece reaffirmed that the UN Charter and international law—including human rights law—must be respected under all circumstances. It supported addressing transnational organized crime only through Charter-consistent cooperation mechanisms and called for inclusive dialogue and Venezuelan-owned democratic transition.

Latvia (Non-Permanent, 2027)

Latvia expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people’s right to democracy and freedom. It encouraged diplomatic engagement for de-escalation and stability through inclusive democratic dialogue. Latvia reaffirmed sustained cooperation against transnational organized crime only in full respect of international law and stated it remains prepared to support a peaceful democratic transition reflecting Venezuelan aspirations.

Pakistan (Non-Permanent, 2026)

Pakistan welcomed new members joining the Council (excluding Bahrain and Liberia), congratulated Somalia for assuming the Council Presidency, thanked USG DiCarlo for the briefing, and acknowledged the remarks by Jeffrey Sachs and Mercedes de Freitas. Pakistan stated clearly that unilateral military action violates the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful settlement of disputes, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, risking unpredictable long-term instability. Pakistan urged maximum restraint, mediation, dialogue, and affirmed that Venezuela’s welfare, prosperity, and stability must be the overriding objective of all efforts, and that any transition must be Venezuelan-led.

Panama (Non-Permanent, 2026)

Panama condemned the U.S. military action and the abduction of President Maduro and his spouse as a “wanton violation” of Venezuela’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. It reaffirmed unwavering commitment to multilateralism and international law, emphasizing UN Charter Article 2 principles, including non-intervention and the prohibition of the use of force. Panama highlighted the arbitrary detention of a Panamanian citizen, Olmedo Nuñez, without charges, due process, or consular guarantees, and stressed the human impact of the Venezuelan crisis that has forced approximately 9 million people into displacement. Panama insisted that any political solution must be peaceful, democratic, and Venezuelan-led, with a strictly time-limited interim period enabling self-determination, and rejected any continuity of repressive power structures as “nominal, not genuine transition.” Panama affirmed that peace requires legitimacy, legitimacy requires democracy, and that democracy rests on respect for the popular sovereign will already expressed at the polls on 28 July 2024.

Somalia (Council President, January 2026)

Somalia chaired the meeting. As Council President, its institutional role is to convene, moderate, and ensure procedural continuity. For this publication, we summarize Somalia’s role, not a national statement.

---

The Jeffrey Sachs Intervention — Why It Matters

Jeffrey Sachs opened by reframing the entire debate:

“The issue before the Council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela. The issue is whether any government can be imposed by force, or economic strangulation, or military might. International law contains tools to address illicit narcotics, disputes over resources, and human rights concerns. This is the route we need to take.”

His core argument was that the real question is systemic: whether the UN Charter’s prohibition on force (Article 2(4)) remains binding or becomes optional. Sachs grounded his intervention in:

• Sovereign equality of states
• Non-interference in internal affairs
• Peaceful settlement of disputes
• Rejection of unilateral force
• Sovereign immunity doctrine
• Protection of civilians

But—unlike any other speaker—he then drafted a roadmap of obligations for the Council itself:

Sachs’ Proposed Actions

1. The Security Council should cease all threats or use of force outside Charter authorization.
2. The Council should terminate coercive military measures not authorized by the UNSC.
3. All efforts must prioritize a peaceful, democratic, Venezuelan-owned interim transition strictly limited in time.
4. The UN Secretary-General should appoint a Special Envoy to report back within 14 days with Charter-consistent recommendations.
5. The Council should reaffirm that “the power of the law must prevail.”

This intervention was the only one that treated the Council as an actor with obligations, not just a forum for condemnation.

---

What This Means for Geopolitics and International Law

The meeting showed that:

• Most states reaffirmed the Charter, but only Sachs operationalized it.
• The geopolitical divide is not East vs West, but Law vs unilateral power politics.
• Even states that reject Maduro’s legitimacy (UK, Denmark, Greece, Latvia, and others) still recognize that illegal force cannot be the procedural shortcut to regime change.

---

Call to Action

If international law is to remain the stabilizing architecture of global order, analysts, lawyers, policymakers, and civil society voices must continue translating legal principles into operational accountability, not merely rhetorical reaffirmation.

How can international institutions enforce legality without destroying sovereignty, rights, and civilian stability?

That is the question geopolitics must answer in 2026.

  maduro, trump, united nations security council, venezuela