U.S. intervention stirs global backlash and sovereignty pushback

World leaders have mounted robust diplomatic resistance against Washington’s unprecedented military operation that ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and brought him to the United States to face federal charges. Amid escalating rhetoric from President Donald Trump’s administration about extending U. S. influence beyond Venezuela, governments in Latin America, Europe and Asia have criticised what they view as a breach of international norms and a threat to national sovereignty.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum delivered one of the most forceful statements from the Western Hemisphere, condemning U. S. interventionist actions and reaffirming her country’s constitutional commitment to non-intervention. Sheinbaum characterised military intrusion or subordination as unacceptable, even as she welcomed cooperation on shared security challenges such as drug trafficking. She underscored that Mexico’s foreign policy is rooted in respect for national independence and dismissed talk of any U. S. military role on Mexican soil as implausible.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has amplified regional unease, shifting his public posture to confront direct threats from the United States. Petro mobilised security forces along Colombia’s border with Venezuela and responded defiantly to hostile comments from Trump, who criticised Petro’s administration and suggested potential follow-on actions. Petro, a former guerrilla who once pledged never to carry arms again, stated that he was prepared to defend his nation, framing such resolve as necessary in the face of external aggression and rejecting narratives that depict his government as beholden to illicit trade.

The controversy has reverberated far beyond the Americas. At an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, a wide array of countries voiced their apprehensions about the legality of the U. S. operation. Delegates from China, Russia, France, Denmark and others argued that the intervention violated the United Nations Charter and undercut established norms on state sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force. U. N. Secretary-General António Guterres emphasised that such actions could set a dangerous precedent for international conduct.

China’s leadership has been especially outspoken, with President Xi Jinping condemning the United States for what he described as “unilateral and bullying acts”. Beijing’s commentary stressed that no nation should assume the role of global policeman and called for strict adherence to international law. This reflects Beijing’s broader emphasis on a multipolar world order and its opposition to extraterritorial military interventions.

Denmark has also pushed back sharply in response to remarks by Trump about annexing Greenland, a semiautonomous Danish territory. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any attempt by the United States to assert control over Greenland would undermine NATO and violate Danish sovereignty. Her comments highlighted growing concern in Europe about U. S. strategic ambitions that extend beyond Venezuela and into the Arctic.

The fierce global debate has also elicited varied responses from other capitals. Leaders in Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Spain issued a joint statement rejecting unilateral military actions in Venezuelan territory and warning of the implications for regional stability. In contrast, Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, welcomed Maduro’s removal, framing it as a victory for liberty.

European politicians have balanced their critiques with calls for restraint. Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged careful assessment of facts while emphasising respect for international law, and the European Union’s senior foreign policy official has stressed that any transition in Venezuela must be peaceful and consistent with the United Nations Charter. These positions reflect broader concerns in European capitals about the potential erosion of the rules-based order.

The heightened tensions have also drawn attention to broader questions about the international legal framework. Analysts at the United Nations and The Hague cautioned that the Maduro operation might signal a shift towards “might makes right”, threatening the post-World War II edifice of international law designed to prevent such unilateral force. Critics argue that such actions risk emboldening other powers to disregard multilateral mechanisms and could destabilise geopolitical relations across regions.