US strike-and-seizure of Maduro splits global reaction
The United States’ early-morning military operation in Venezuela on Saturday (January 3), which ended with President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores taken out of the country to face criminal charges in the US, has triggered sharply divided reactions across capitals and renewed arguments over what international law permits when a major power uses force against a sovereign state.
President Donald Trump has defended the operation as tied to US security and drug-trafficking allegations, while critics, including some US lawmakers and international legal specialists, have questioned whether those claims can justify cross-border force without UN Security Council authorisation or a valid self-defence rationale.
Condemnation from China, Russia and Mexico
Beijing and Moscow moved quickly to denounce the US action. China’s foreign ministry said it was “deeply shocked” and “strongly condemns” what it called the use of force against a sovereign country and its president, urging Washington to abide by the UN Charter.
Russia’s foreign ministry called the operation an “act of armed aggression, saying the justifications offered were unfounded and warning against escalation.
Mexico’s foreign ministry said the US actions violated Article 2 of the UN Charter and argued dialogue and negotiation were the only legitimate path.
Europe: restraint, de-escalation, but no consensus
European responses were more varied, with many leaders stressing legality and restraint while avoiding endorsement of the intervention.
EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc was monitoring events and called for restraint, stressing that “the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected.”
Spain’s foreign ministry urged “de-escalation and moderation” and offered its good offices for a negotiated solution.
In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the legal assessment was complex and that Berlin would take time to evaluate it, while stressing that international law must apply and warning against instability.
A prominent CDU lawmaker, Roderich Kiesewetter, was blunter, warning that under Trump, the US was abandoning the rules-based order that has shaped the post-1945 era.
Italy’s debate also exposed divisions. Opposition leader and former prime minister Giuseppe Conte called the action lacking a legal basis and warned that if rules are applied selectively, “no one can feel safe.
Calls for calm in Latin America, and support from some leaders
Across Latin America, several governments warned of regional instability, with multiple leaders emphasising sovereignty and peaceful settlement.
But there was also support from some right-leaning leaders. Argentina’s President Javier Milei described Maduro’s removal as “excellent news for the free world” and said opposition figure Edmundo González Urrutia should assume power.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly praised Trump’s “bold and historic leadership.
Indonesia and others urge dialogue and civilian protection
In Southeast Asia, Indonesia said it was closely monitoring developments and urged a peaceful resolution “through de-escalation and dialogue, while prioritising civilian protection and respect for international law and the UN Charter.
UN warning: a “dangerous precedent”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, through a spokesperson, warned the developments were a “dangerous precedent” and said he was “deeply concerned” that the rules of international law had not been respected.
Several countries, including South Africa, called for the UN Security Council to convene urgently.
Legal scrutiny: Can “war on drugs” justify force?
International law specialists cited by Reuters said drug-trafficking allegations do not, by themselves, meet the narrow legal exceptions that allow the use of force, typically UN Security Council authorisation or self-defence against an armed attack.
Marc Weller, a Chatham House programme director for international law, said force is generally barred as an instrument of national policy absent a UN mandate, self-defence, or an extreme scenario such as rescuing a population under imminent threat, and argued those conditions were not met in Venezuela.
Reuters’ legal analysis also noted criticism that the US administration appeared to frame the operation both as a law-enforcement action tied to indictments and as a step towards political control, prompting questions over coherence and legal grounding.
The China factor: envoy visit hours before the strike
Adding a geopolitical edge, US media reported that the operation came only hours after a Chinese envoy met Maduro in Caracas, as Beijing reaffirmed its ties with Venezuela, one reason analysts said the episode is being read by some governments as part of wider US-China-Russia competition.
