U.S. condemned at UN Security Council Meeting for Bringing Narco-Terrorist Maduro to Justice

The meeting droned on for hours

In a statement kicking off the meeting, which Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo read on behalf of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General expressed deep concern that “rules of international law have not been respected with regard to the 3 January military action.” He said, “I have consistently stressed the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The meeting droned on for hours, featuring dueling narratives that pitted two principles enshrined in the UN Charter against each other.

Article 2 of the UN Charter focuses on principles of “sovereign equality,” the settlement of “international disputes by peaceful means,” and refraining in international relations “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Secretary General Guterres relied on these principles of international law in criticizing the U.S. operation.

Article 51, on the other hand, enshrines the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” But Secretary General Guterres did not allude to Article 51 in his statement. His spokesperson responded to my question as to whether the Secretary General rejects the U.S. argument that Article 51 is applicable by saying: “I'm well aware of that provision in the Charter, which is clear. But I can tell you that we have not received any official communication from the United States regarding the justification for what happened.”

The Venezuelan regime and others invoked Article 2 multiple times during the meeting, condemning the U.S. operation as a unilateral act of aggression against a sovereign member state of the UN.

More than 50 countries have rejected the legitimacy of Maduro's so-called “re-election”

“The events of January 3 constitute a flagrant violation of the UN Charter perpetrated by the US government, in particular, the principal violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states, of the absolute prohibition of the use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Venezuela’s UN Ambassador Samuel Moncada exclaimed. “This is not a law enforcement operation. This is 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.”

What world does Ambassador Moncada inhabit? Does he really think that any sane person would believe that Maduro is the legitimate head of state of Venezuela after he refused to peacefully cede power following the Venezuelan people’s overwhelming vote to remove him from office in the 2024 election. More than fifty countries, including the European Union and a number of Latin American countries, in addition to the United States, have rejected the legitimacy of Maduro's so-called “re-election” and do not recognize him as Venezuela's legitimately elected president.

Ambassador Moncada criticized the Security Council for allowing Merchy de Freitas, founder and executive director of Transparencia Venezuela, to speak. She told the Security Council members some hard truths about the horrible living conditions suffered by ordinary Venezuelans under Maduro’s corrupt regime that has ruled the Venezuelan people with an iron fist. She said that there was a “symbiotic relationship” between the Maduro regime and criminal organizations. “The government has captured all institutions, beginning with the justice institutions,” Ms. De Freitas observed.

Predictably, China lined up squarely against the United States

The Maduro regime could count on strong support from Colombia, its co-conspirator in illicit drug trafficking. Right on cue, Colombia’s UN Ambassador Leonor Zalabata denounced the U.S. operation, calling it an act of “aggression” in violation the UN Charter’s provisions upholding the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of each UN member state. This ambassador declared that democracy cannot be defended by violence and coercion, but only by the will of the people and their institutions. Of course, it was Maduro – not the United States – who used force and coercion to illegally overturn the results of the 2024 election in which the people of Venezuela overwhelmingly rejected the continuation of his rule.

Russia’s hypocrisy took the cake. Its UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya, lashed out against the U.S. action as a return to “lawlessness” and a violation of “international norms.” He said that “We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge, which alone bears the right to invade any country, to label culprits, to hand down and to enforce punishments irrespective of notions of international law, sovereignty and nonintervention.” This is the same man who zealously defended, on repeated occasions, the Putin regime’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine’s sovereign territory in a military campaign aimed at taking control of the nation.

Predictably, China lined up squarely against the United States, as well as some other Security Council members and invited speakers.

France’s Deputy UN Permanent Representative, while criticizing Maduro’s repression of the Venezuelan people, said that the “military operation that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro contravenes the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes and non-use of force.” Denmark’s UN representative, probably with President Trump’s statements about Greenland in mind, was also critical of the U.S. operation while condemning the Maduro regime and making clear that Denmark does not recognize its legitimacy.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz was unfazed by all the criticisms

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz was unfazed by all the criticisms. He told the Security Council that “You are going to hear a lot of hand-wringing today about Article 2 of the UN Charter. But I will remind everyone of Article 51, which enshrined a nation’s inherent right to self-defense. The United States will not waver in its actions to protect Americans from the scourge of narcoterrorism and seeks peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela.”

“Maduro and his cronies have partnered with some of the most violent and prolific drug traffickers and narco-terrorists in the world for decades facilitating the flood of illegal drugs coming into the United States, estimated to be several hundred tons annually,” Ambassador Walz said. “He has become rich, incredibly wealthy, off the misery of untold numbers of Americans, Venezuelans, and others, aiding and abetting international terrorist organizations like Hizballah, coordinating with corrupt Iranian officials, and other malign actors to influence not only the region but to malignly influence the United States.” (Emphasis added)

The United States is not occupying Venezuela and has left elements of the Maduro regime in place for now, pending a transition to absolutely free, fair, and transparent elections.

Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), which is legally binding under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, requires that all member states “Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice.”

The Maduro regime has blatantly violated this UN Security Council resolution by enabling terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah to finance their terrorist acts with laundered money from the Maduro regime’s illicit drug trafficking activities.

Venezuela’s illegitimate dictator Nicolas Maduro, the erstwhile head of his narco-terrorist regime, has finally been brought to justice.