The world has become more dangerous following recent U.S. military action in Venezuela, according to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has issued a strong warning about the long-term consequences of the intervention. The office stated that the operation undermines core principles of international law and threatens global security by normalizing the use of force against sovereign nations.
U.S. forces carried out a surprise operation over the weekend that resulted in the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. Following the operation, Maduro was taken into U.S. custody, where he now faces several criminal charges, including allegations related to narco-terrorism. In the immediate aftermath, Venezuela’s vice president was sworn in as the country’s interim leader, creating a sudden shift in the nation’s political landscape.
Speaking on behalf of the UN Human Rights Office, chief spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani made it clear that the intervention violated a fundamental rule of international relations: states must not threaten or use force against the political independence or territorial integrity of another country. She emphasized that this principle exists to prevent chaos, conflict, and the erosion of global stability.
According to the UN, the issue extends far beyond Venezuela itself. The organization warned that when powerful nations act unilaterally, it weakens the international system designed to protect all countries, large and small alike. The concern is that such actions send a dangerous message that military strength can override legal and diplomatic processes, setting a precedent that could be exploited elsewhere.
The UN Human Rights Office rejected the idea that the intervention represents a victory for human rights. Instead, officials argued that military actions often lead to greater instability, increased militarization, and worsening conditions for civilians. History has shown that abrupt political changes driven by external force frequently result in prolonged unrest rather than lasting peace.
Shamdasani noted that the international community must speak with one voice in defense of international law. Without a collective response, she warned, global norms risk becoming meaningless, leaving weaker states vulnerable and the world increasingly unstable. The responsibility, she said, lies with all nations to uphold the rules that govern peaceful coexistence.
The UN also stressed that Venezuela’s future must be decided by its own people, free from external pressure or coercion. Any sustainable political solution, according to the office, must involve dialogue, internal consensus, and respect for the will of the Venezuelan population. External military involvement, they argued, only complicates an already fragile situation.
Human rights experts expressed concern that further instability could worsen conditions on the ground. Venezuela has already faced years of economic hardship, political division, and social strain. Additional militarization, the UN warned, risks increasing human suffering rather than alleviating it.
The intervention has sparked intense debate within diplomatic circles, with critics arguing that it undermines decades of international agreements meant to prevent unilateral military action. Supporters of strict adherence to international law fear that ignoring these rules could open the door to more conflicts worldwide.
At a meeting of the UN Security Council in New York, Venezuela’s ambassador strongly criticized the U.S. action, describing it as an unlawful use of force. The session highlighted deep divisions among global powers and underscored the difficulty of reaching consensus on issues involving intervention and sovereignty.
The UN Human Rights Office concluded by reiterating that global security depends on respect for international law, restraint in the use of force, and genuine commitment to diplomacy. Without these safeguards, officials warned, the world risks entering a more volatile and unpredictable era, where power outweighs principle and peace becomes increasingly fragile.
0 Comments