The United Nations Security Council found itself in a state of sharp disagreement on Monday, January 6, 2026, during an urgent meeting called to address the dramatic capture of Venezuela's President, Nicolás Maduro, by United States forces.
Emergency Session Follows Military Operation
The emergency session was convened in direct response to the weekend military action by Washington, which resulted in the removal of President Maduro from the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. This bold move has sent shockwaves across Latin America, unsettling regional governments and sparking widespread diplomatic concern on a global scale.
Inside the council chamber, a clear rift emerged among the member states. Several delegations openly challenged the legality of the U.S.-led operation, expressing grave doubts about its foundation in international law. Conversely, other nations defended the action, framing it as a necessary response to what they described as alleged criminal activities by Venezuela's leadership.
The Council's Role and Composition
The Security Council, which holds the primary responsibility under the UN Charter for maintaining international peace and security, possesses the authority to sanction measures including economic penalties, peacekeeping missions, and approved military interventions.
The council is composed of 15 member states. This includes five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—each wielding the powerful right of veto. The remaining ten members are elected to serve two-year terms and do not have veto power.
Divergent Views on the Crisis
During the heated debates, the United Kingdom's Ambassador, James Kariuki, articulated a firm position in support of the action against Maduro. He stated that Maduro's claim to power was "fraudulent" and blamed his governance for creating severe poverty, violent repression, and the collapse of essential public services in Venezuela.
Ambassador Kariuki further argued that these domestic failures had triggered a significant regional displacement crisis, placing immense strain on Venezuela's neighbouring countries. He expressed Britain's desire for "a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate Government reflecting the will of the Venezuelan people."
Reaffirming the UK's commitment to the principles of international law and the UN Charter, Kariuki emphasised that "these foundations are essential for maintaining global peace, security and the rule of law."
For its part, the United States pushed back against characterisations of its operation as an act of aggression. U.S. representatives insisted that "there is no war against Venezuela or its people," seeking to frame the capture as a targeted action against a specific leadership rather than a conflict with the nation.
The deep divisions within the Security Council highlight the profound international ramifications of the event and underscore the challenging path ahead for achieving a diplomatic consensus on the Venezuelan crisis.
