A series of military strikes conducted by the United States against targets in Venezuela has triggered a wave of international reactions, ranging from strong condemnation to cautious statements, highlighting deep global divisions over sovereignty, international law, and regional stability.
Firm Condemnation from Major Powers
Leading the criticism, China issued a forceful statement through its Foreign Ministry, expressing it was “deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the U.S. against a sovereign country.” The statement accused the U.S. of “hegemonic behaviour” that “seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.”
Similarly, Russia’s Foreign Ministry labeled the action “an act of armed aggression,” stating, “The pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded.” It emphasized that “Latin America must remain a zone of peace” and called for dialogue to prevent escalation.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei framed the conflict in terms of resistance, stating, “What matters is that when a person realizes the enemy is arrogantly trying to impose something on the country… one must stand firmly against the enemy and bare one’s chest in resistance. We will not yield to the enemy.”
Latin American Nations Divided
The response from within the Western Hemisphere revealed a stark split. Mexico’s government “strongly condemns and rejects the military actions,” calling them a “clear violation” of the UN Charter. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stated on X that the strikes “cross an unacceptable line” and represent “a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent.”
Chile’s President Gabriel Boric echoed this, expressing “concern and condemnation,” while Colombia’s Gustavo Petro noted “deep concern” over the escalation. In a subsequent, more formal statement, Colombia reaffirmed “its unconditional commitment to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” and explicitly rejected “any unilateral military action that could aggravate the situation or put the civilian population at risk.”
Uruguay’s Foreign Ministry formally rejected “military intervention by one country in the territory of another.”
In contrast, Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a close regional ally of the U.S., offered full-throated support, posting “FREEDOM MOVES FORWARD. LONG LIVE FREEDOM DAMMIT” on X. Ecuador’s President Gabriel Noboa also aligned with the action, writing, “The time is coming for all the narco-Chavista criminals.”
Calls for UN Action, Dialogue, and Upholding International Law
Several nations pointed directly to the United Nations and called for diplomacy. South Africa called on the UN Security Council to “urgently convene,” viewing the strikes as “a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.” France’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, wrote on X that the operation “violates the principle of not resorting to force,” adding that “no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside.”
The European Union’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, stated the bloc is “closely monitoring” and that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen similarly stressed that “any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.”
Spain joined these calls, with its Foreign Ministry urging “de-escalation and moderation,” and offering “its good offices to achieve a peaceful and negotiated solution.” Indonesia also called on “all relevant parties to prioritize peaceful resolution through de-escalation and dialogue,” while emphasizing respect for international law.
Cautious, Nuanced, and Critical Positions
Other reactions were more measured or came from non-state and opposition voices. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated, “I want to establish the facts first,” clarifying the UK was not involved and affirming, “we should all uphold international law.”
However, Britain’s Reform UK Party leader Nigel Farage struck a different tone, calling the actions “unorthodox and contrary to international law,” but adding, “if they make China and Russia think twice, it may be a good thing.”
In Italy, opposition leader and former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was unequivocal: “The American aggression against Venezuela has no legal basis. We are facing a blatant violation of international law… if rules only apply to enemies and not to friends, no one can feel safe anymore.”
Legal experts weighed in on the specific breaches. Marc Weller, Programme Director for International Law at UK think tank Chatham House, stated: “International law prohibits the use of force as a means of national policy… Clearly, none of these requirements are fulfilled by the armed operation against Venezuela.”
Regional Neighbors and Non-State Actors
Trinidad and Tobago’s Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar explicitly distanced her nation from the operations, announcing, “Trinidad and Tobago is NOT a participant,” and reaffirming peaceful relations with Venezuela.
From the Middle East, the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah issued a statement “condemn[ing] the terrorist aggression and American thuggery,” and affirming “its full solidarity with Venezuela.”
The global response underscores the profound tensions between principles of national sovereignty and the use of force, setting the stage for a contentious diplomatic confrontation at the United Nations and beyond. The widespread invocation of the UN Charter highlights the central challenge to the international rules-based order posed by the crisis.
