CARACAS/NEW YORK — Venezuela's acting president on Sunday offered to collaborate with the United States on an agenda focused on "shared development" as US President Donald Trump demanded "full access" to the South American country's oil.

In a statement posted on social media, Acting President Delcy Rodriguez said her government was prioritizing a move toward respectful relations with the United States, having earlier criticized the raid on Saturday as an "illegal grab" of the country's national resources.

"We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented toward shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence," Rodriguez said. "President Donald Trump, our peoples and our region deserve peace, and dialogue, not war."

Rodriguez, who also serves as oil minister, has long been considered the most pragmatic member of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's inner circle.

Trump had urged Rodriguez to grant the United States "total access", especially to Venezuela's oil resources.

"We need total access. We need access to the oil and to other things in their country that allow us to rebuild their country," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Trump said he had not spoken directly with Rodriguez, but would do so "at the right time".

Meanwhile, Trump claimed the US was "in charge" of Venezuela and "dealing with the people that just got sworn in".

"Don't ask me who's in charge, because I'll give you an answer, and it'll be very controversial," Trump said. "It means we're in charge. We're in charge."

Trump reiterated comments made earlier on Sunday in a phone interview with The Atlantic, warning that Rodriguez would face a fate worse than that of Maduro if she failed to "do the right thing".

"She will face a situation probably worse than Maduro," Trump said.

However, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested on Sunday that the US would not take a dayto-day role in governing Venezuela, a turnaround after Trump announced earlier that the US would be running Venezuela.

More nuanced take

Rubio's statements seemed designed to temper concerns about whether the assertive US action might again produce a prolonged foreign intervention or failed attempt at nation-building.

But Rubio offered a more nuanced take, saying the US would continue to enforce an oil quarantine that is already in place on sanctioned tankers and use that leverage as a means to press policy changes in Venezuela.

"And so that's the sort of control the president is pointing to when he says that," Rubio said on CBS'Face the Nation.

"We continue with that quarantine, and we expect to see that there will be changes, not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking."

In New York, Maduro arrived at federal courthouse on Monday to appear in court.

Maduro, 63, faces charges that accuse him of providing support to major drug trafficking groups, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Tren de Aragua gang.

Maduro has denied wrongdoing.

Venezuela's government kept operating as usual over the weekend as ministers remained in their posts.

The capital was unusually quiet on Sunday, with few vehicles moving around and convenience stores, gas stations and other businesses closed.

Maduro's son, lawmaker Nicolas Ernesto Guerra, has not appeared in public since the attack.

On Saturday, he posted on Instagram a government statement repudiating the capture of his father and stepmother.

The country's incoming National Assembly is set to be sworn in at the legislative palace in Caracas. The unicameral assembly will remain under the control of the ruling party.

In a related development, Switzerland has frozen any assets held in the country by Maduro and associates, the Federal Council said on Monday.

The asset freeze does not affect members of the current Venezuelan government, the statement said.

AGENCIES - XINHUA

Experts have questioned whether the Latin American country is actually a major source of drugs in the United States.

Jonathan Winer, a former senior US diplomat, told The New York Times that the cocaine moving through Venezuela likely accounts for less than 10 percent of the drug exported to the United States.

Phil Gunson, senior analyst for the Andes Region at International Crisis Group, told PolitiFact that the US administration conflated several situations to conclude that a cartel runs Venezuela in order to justify US military action.

There is no evidence to suggest that Venezuela's government is engaged in a war of terror against the US, or that it is using drugs and violent criminals to undermine the US, Gunson said.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were forcibly captured by US military forces during a raid on Caracas early Saturday morning.

The charges against them include narco-terrorism, cocaine importation and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.

US authorities alleged that Maduro and his family helped cartels such as Tren de Aragua move as much as 250 metric tons of cocaine through Venezuela a year, according to the indictment, adding that the drugs were moved on fast vessels, fishing boats and container ships, or on planes from clandestine airstrips, the indictment says.

Classified assessment

However, according to a classified assessment from the National Intelligence Council released in April, no coordination between Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan government was found, The Associated Press reported.

The assessment drew from 18 agencies that comprise the intelligence community.

It repeatedly stated that Tren de Aragua is not coordinated with or supported by Venezuela's president or senior officials in the government.

While it found minimal contact between some members of the gang and low-level members of the government, there was a consensus that there was no coordination or direct role between the gang and the government, The Associated Press reported.

According to The New York Times, Venezuela is not a major source of drugs in the US. It does not produce fentanyl or cocaine, narcotics experts said. "Venezuela is more of a transshipment point to Europe, and that doesn't necessarily make it our problem in exactly the same way," Annie Pforzheimer, a former senior US diplomat who specialized in counter-narcotics and Venezuela, told The New York Times.

Asia-Pacific nations widely condemned the United States' forcible capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, saying the shocking move over the weekend undermines peace and stability in Latin America and beyond.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said in a post on X that he was following the developments in Venezuela with "grave concern", noting that Maduro and his wife were forcibly seized in a US military operation of "unusual scope and nature" and that such actions "constitute a clear violation of international law and amount to an unlawful use of force against a sovereign state".

"President Maduro and his wife must be released without any undue delay", Anwar said, adding that history has shown that abrupt changes in leadership brought about through external force will bring more harm than good.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea strongly denounced the US action. A spokesperson from its Foreign Ministry said Washington "wildly violated the sovereignty of Venezuela" and the act shows "the rogue and brutal nature of the US".

The Iranian foreign ministry said in a statement that it "strongly condemns the US military attack on Venezuela and the blatant violation of the country's national sovereignty and territorial integrity", and stressed that the attack must "be explicitly and immediately condemned by the UN and by all states that are committed to the rule of law, as well as to international peace and security".

Singapore's foreign ministry said that while there were no Singaporeans e-registered with the ministry in Venezuela, it is "gravely concerned about the US intervention" on Saturday in the nation.

"Singapore has consistently opposed actions contrary to international law by any parties, including foreign military intervention in any country. Singapore urges all parties to exercise restraint and hopes for a peaceful resolution to the situation in Venezuela in accordance with international law and the principles of the UN Charter," the ministry said in a statement.

'Dangerous precedent'

Among other Southeast Asian nations, Indonesia expressed grave concern "over any actions involving the use or threat of force, which risk setting a dangerous precedent in international relations and could undermine regional stability, peace, and the principles of sovereignty and diplomacy".

A statement by the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines said Manila views with concern the evolving events in Venezuela and "their consequential impact on peace and stability in the region and rules-based international order".

Thailand's foreign ministry urged all parties involved to resolve the conflict peacefully with full respect for the UN Charter and international law.

Elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his country has long held concerns about the situation in Venezuela, and urged all parties to support dialogue and diplomacy to secure regional stability and prevent escalation.

New Zealand's Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters echoed a similar view, saying his nation expects all parties "to act in accordance with international law". Meanwhile, he advised New Zealand nationals not to travel to Venezuela.

India's Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that recent developments in Venezuela are a matter of deep concern. "We are closely monitoring the evolving situation," it said.

Arie Afriansyah, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Indonesia, told China Daily that the US can be held accountable under international law.

"But the questions are: which state is brave enough to start the process against the US, and which forum for this effort? The US will surely veto any effort at the UNSC," said Afriansyah, referring to the UN Security Council.

The recent, deeply disturbing reports surrounding the forcible detention of Venezuela's president serve as a stark reminder of the widening gap between the rhetoric of a so-called "rules-based international order" and the realities of contemporary power politics.

While global governance frameworks are routinely invoked to legitimize intervention, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, their application remains selective and contingent. This asymmetry exposes the extent to which the rules-based order functions less as a neutral system of law and more as a flexible instrument of hierarchy — one that increasingly struggles to conceal its underlying coercive logic. Incidents such as these do not merely challenge international norms; they reveal how far norms have already eroded.

This is not an anomaly, but part of a well-worn playbook: a decades-long pattern of unilateral interventions and coercive regime changes authored by the United States and its close circle of Western allies. From Cold War coups to 21st century wars, the justificatory language has shifted between containment, democracy promotion, humanitarianism, and counterterrorism — but the underlying logic has remained remarkably consistent. The outcomes are equally familiar: the erosion of national sovereignty, entrenched instability, humanitarian catastrophes, the extraction or appropriation of national resources, and a steady global loss of trust in the very principals these interventions claim to defend.

This recurring pattern does more than condemn past actions; it offers a powerful indictment of the unipolar moment itself. The concentration of disproportionate power in the hands of a single state and its allies has not produced stability, restraint, or universal adherence to international law. Instead, it has generated a system in which the rules are applied selectively, and violations are normalized when committed by those at the apex of the global hierarchy.

In this sense, unilateral intervention is not a failure of the unipolar order, but its most revealing feature. Therefore, it provides the strongest argument for why the international community must move beyond unipolarity and work toward a genuine multipolar world order — one in which power is more evenly distributed, sovereignty is meaningfully respected, and no single actor can unilaterally define legality, legitimacy, or justice on behalf of the rest of humanity.

A world in which overwhelming power is concentrated on a single pole or even within a tightly aligned bipolar block creates a permissive environment in which the geopolitical interests of the few are laundered through claims of universal good. It sustains a system where "might makes right" is obscured by the rhetoric of shared values, and where the United Nations' foundational principle of the sovereign equality of states is reduced to a hollow promise for those far from the levers of power.

The consequences are visible in the fractured states and refugee crises that now dot the global landscape as monuments to the failure of imposed solutions. This model of international relations is exhausted, morally bankrupt, and empirically disastrous. It is a recipe for perpetual conflict and resentment, not for lasting peace or shared prosperity.

Yet an alternative vision is emerging. This vision is reflected in China's Global Governance Initiative and its complementary Global Security Initiative. Together, they propose a paradigm shift away from domination and toward dialogue, away from zero-sum confrontation and toward mutual security. At their core lies a renewed commitment to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter so often ignored by interventionist practices: the inviolable sovereignty of states and the imperative of non-interference in internal affairs. This framework asserts that stability and legitimacy must emerge organically from within societies themselves, rather than being imposed through external force or subversion.

This is not an argument for isolationism, but for a more equitable and effective form of engagement. It calls for inclusive, reformed multilateralism where global challenges are addressed through deliberation in representative institutions rather than dictated by self-appointed coalitions. It emphasizes win-win cooperation, prioritizing shared development through connectivity, infrastructure, and economic integration, rather than enforcing political conditionalities or carving out spheres of influence. Unsurprisingly, this approach resonates deeply across the Global South, where many nations have grown weary of being treated as instruments rather than partners.

The path forward is clear: the collapsing legacy of unilateral regime change demands a conscious choice for a different future. Supporting the transition to a multipolar world does not mean replacing one hegemon with another; it means cultivating a system with multiple centers of political, economic, and civilizational gravity. Such diffusion of power offers the most effective safeguard against the excesses of any single state and lays the foundation for a fairer, more representative international order in which all nations — regardless of size or power — have a meaningful voice.

Ironically, it is precisely this pattern of coercive US behavior — selective legality, interventionism, and a blatant disregard for sovereignty — that continues to strengthen China's standing across the Global South. Each episode reinforces the perception that the existing order serves the interests of a few rather than the needs of the many. As a result, more countries are gravitating toward alternative frameworks that promise respect, equality, and development without domination. The accelerating shift toward multipolarity is therefore not driven by ideology alone, but by lived experience.

A multipolar world order — one that serves all nations irrespective of size or power — is no longer an abstract aspiration. It is an emerging reality — shaped as much by the failures of unipolar conduct as by the growing demand across the Global South for a more just, inclusive, and balanced international system.

Maya Majueran is the founding director of the Belt and Road Initiative Sri Lanka (BRISL), a pioneering organization dedicated to research, dialogue, and engagement on China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). 

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

The abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on Saturday, through the United States' "Operation Absolute Resolve", and their arraignment in New York on Monday on federal charges related to "drug trafficking" and working with gangs designated as "terrorist organizations" mark a dangerous escalation in Washington's long-running campaign against Venezuela. Whatever justifications the US administration trumps up for its acts, there is no disguising their nature: the extraterritorial abduction of a head of state and his spouse using military force.

Such conduct is a flagrant violation of international law that the US claims to uphold. Speaking on Sunday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made clear that China opposes the use of or threat of force to impose one country's will on another. "We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge," Wang said, adding that the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected by international law.

Beijing's stance was further underlined by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, who stressed that the US moves are in clear violation of international law, the basic norms of international relations and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

China has called on the US to ensure the personal safety of Maduro and his wife, to release them at once, to cease its attempts to topple the government of Venezuela, and to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation. These are not abstract diplomatic phrases, but a sober reminder of the red lines of the international order.

These remarks are given additional weight by the hollow ring of the counternarcotics justification the US administration is citing. US oil companies are going to take control of Venezuela's crude oil, according to US media reports, while policy discussions about US exploitation of Venezuela's vast oil reserves are underway in Washington.

While taking questions on the US moves' influence on China-Venezuela cooperation at a news conference on Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson stressed that bilateral cooperation is between sovereign states and protected by international law and the laws of both countries. Regardless of changes in Venezuela's political situation, China's willingness to deepen practical cooperation in various fields between the two countries will not change, and China's legitimate interests in Venezuela will continue to be protected by law, the spokesperson added.

Likewise, openness, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation are the defining characteristics of China-Latin America cooperation. Latin American and Caribbean countries have the right to independently choose their development paths and partners.

Spain and several Latin American countries have issued a joint communique condemning the US operation in Venezuela and urging the US administration to heed the voice of the international community.

What the world has witnessed is a worrying signal that the US will do whatever it takes to seize the resources it covets. The White House is seeking to normalize actions that it would denounce as the actions of a dangerous "rogue state" if carried out by any other country. This double standard not only undermines the credibility of US claims to champion a "rules-based order" but also heralds instability, mistrust and future confrontations. No wonder after senior US officials again mentioned the US' longing for Greenland, the Danish government questioned the nature of their alliance.

The international community should be clear-eyed about the implications of the US' lawlessness. Respect for sovereignty, opposition to the use of force and adherence to international law are not optional if the fragile balance on which global peace and security depend is to be maintained.

If the 21st century has had a single "red line", it was supposed to be this: Sovereign borders cannot be redrawn, or sovereign governments "rerun", by force. Yet that line has been blurred repeatedly, often by the very powers that lecture others about a "rules-based order". The recent events in Venezuela have brought that contradiction to a breaking point.

On Saturday, the United States carried out a special forces operation in Caracas that seized Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and the president was held and questioned at a detention center in New York. The US administration publicly declared that Washington would "run" Venezuela, and US energy companies would play a central role in managing and rebuilding the country's oil sector.

United Nations officials and many in the international community have said the US attack set an alarming precedent for international law and sovereignty.

Even if one dislikes Maduro's rule, method matters. In international politics, "how" is often more consequential than "who". The public framing from Washington matters, too. This was not presented merely as a narrow law enforcement action, but as an assertion of administrative authority over a country of nearly 30 million people.

The US government claimed that it was going to run the country, implying open-ended control until a transition meets US standards.

That phrasing is not the language of cooperation, nor of multilateral diplomacy. It is the vocabulary of protectorates, an older world that the UN Charter was designed to bury.

This is where the US' Monroe Doctrine returns, not necessarily as a historical document, but as a political instinct. The original 1823 Monroe Doctrine drew a line against European colonization in the Western Hemisphere. Over time, it was repeatedly reinterpreted as a license for US dominance in "America's backyard". In the discourse of the current US administration, that instinct has been resurfacing explicitly.

Senior US officials openly revived the idea during the first term of President Donald Trump, with then national security adviser John Bolton declaring the Monroe Doctrine "alive and well". More recently, commentary in US and international media has described an emerging "Donroe Doctrine", a US-style corollary that prioritizes coercion in the hemisphere.

Venezuela, of course, sits at the intersection of two obsessions in Washington: drugs and oil, although oil and its way of transaction, as some have argued, are the main concern of the US.

For years, US policy has combined sanctions, indictments and security framing targeting Venezuelan elites, while the country's immense reserves remain an unspoken gravitational pull in the background. In this episode, the subtext became text: The US president linked the seizure of a foreign head of state to a plan in which "major US oil companies" would "move into" Venezuela to refurbish infrastructure and restart production. When resource management is discussed as part of a military operation, the world hears an old message — regime change is the door; extraction is the room behind it.

Supporters of the operation argue that Washington is acting against a "narco-terrorist" state and that exceptional threats justify exceptional measures. But international law is designed precisely to prevent the strong from unilaterally deciding what counts as "exceptional".

The UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force is not a decoration; it is the foundation of modern interstate order. A claimed justification under self-defense is already contested in diplomatic debate, and many states see the operation as a breach of sovereignty, regardless of the target's reputation. If powerful countries can seize leaders abroad and then announce they will "run" the seized leader's country, what stops others from adopting the same logic elsewhere?

Defenders of the US administration may also insist that this is not "another endless war", and that it will be quick, meaning surgical, limited and efficient. Yet history warns that the first day of intervention is always the easiest. What does it mean to "run" Venezuela without "boots on the ground"?And if it does require boots, how does that square with the US administration's repeated messaging in recent years that the US would avoid ground deployments abroad?

In August, for instance, the US government publicly said there would be "no … boots on the ground" in Ukraine, aligning itself with a broader promise to reduce open-ended overseas entanglements. Even during earlier crises, Washington emphasized "no boots on the ground" as a principle. Now, by contrast, Trump has reportedly said he is "not afraid" of boots on the ground in Venezuela if necessary. The inconsistency is not merely rhetorical; it is strategic. It suggests policy driven by impulse and spectacle, two dangerous ingredients in a world of brittle alliances and nuclear-armed competitors.

The wider geopolitical fallout will not be confined to Caracas.

For Latin America, the episode revives memories of interventions justified as anti-communist or antidrug campaigns or for "restoring order", often leaving institutional wreckage in their wake. For the Global South, it reinforces the suspicion that international rules apply selectively; sovereignty is sacred until it obstructs the interests of the strong. For great-power competition, it hands rhetorical ammunition to those who argue that Western talk of legality is conditional and self-serving.

There is also a practical risk: destabilization. Removing or detaining a leader does not automatically produce a legitimate replacement, a functioning state or social reconciliation, especially when the intervening power openly claims managerial control. The immediate question is not only who governs next, but also who is seen as governing.

A transition branded as a US project may harden nationalist resistance, fracture the opposition and invite proxy competition. If Venezuela becomes the stage for a new cycle of sanctions, sabotage and external sponsorship, the result will not be order, but prolonged volatility spilling across borders through migration, energy shocks and criminal networks. So what should the world do?

Regional organizations and major developing states should push for a negotiated pathway that is Venezuelan-led and internationally monitored, but surely not administered.

In addition, any anti-drug cooperation should be rebuilt as multilateral law enforcement, not a pretext for occupation or resource control.

Finally, the global community should treat this as a precedent-setting moment: If it is normalized, the international system will tilt further from law and toward power.

A stable world order cannot survive on slogans, whether "America First" or "rules-based order", when actions contradict principles. The question posed by Venezuela is larger than the US leader, larger than Maduro, and even larger than oil. Will the world accept a return to hemispheric hierarchy dressed up as counternarcotics and "transition management"? Or will it insist that peace and stability require something more boring but more vital: law, restraint and genuine multilateralism?

The author is a scholar at the Department of Journalism of Hong Kong Baptist University in Hong Kong. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

CARACAS -- Gunfire was heard near Venezuela's presidential palace, media reports said on Monday.

Venezuelan government buildings were evacuated amid the incident.

The situation was under control, according to a source close to the government.

The source added that unidentified drones flew over the presidential palace in central Caracas, prompting security forces to open fire in response.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Uganda's representative at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement representing 121 member states, united by the shared principle of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.

The Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement categorically condemns the act of aggression perpetuated by the United States of America against the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela since the early hours of the Jan 3, 2026, which included armed attacks against civilian and military locations in the capital city of Caracas as well as in various other cities of the Venezuelan territory.

The Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement notes that the attacks in question, which blatantly violate the purposes and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as the norms of international law, constitute an act of war against the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela that undermines both regional and international peace, security and stability while also threatening the very right to life of the Venezuelan people.

The Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement reiterates its full solidarity with the people and government of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela at this critical time and insists that military solutions are not viable avenues for addressing any issues that may be of concern between members of the international community.

On the morning of Jan 5, Ambassador Sun Lei briefed the UN Security Council at an emergency meeting on the situation in Venezuela. He said the US is wantonly violating Venezuela's sovereignty and seriously breaching the UN Charter. China firmly supports Venezuela in safeguarding its sovereignty and stands ready to work with regional countries and the international community to maintain peace and stability in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, appeared on Monday at a hearing in federal court in New York City for the first time since they were taken from their residence in the middle of the night on Saturday.

Large crowds of protesters gathered outside the courthouse, many voicing opposition to the US action against Venezuela. Protest signs read "USA hands off Venezuela," "No US war on Venezuela," "US hands off Venezuela oil" and "Free Pres. Nicolas Maduro."

The US government carried out what US President Donald Trump described as a "large-scale strike", capturing Maduro and his wife and flying them out of the country. The couple was subsequently confirmed to have been transported to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

Rae Lee, who had been outside the courthouse since 9 am, three hours before Maduro's arraignment, told China Daily she believes the action constituted an international crime. Lee said she visited Venezuela in December.

"It was really remarkable. Here in the US, they are only ever talking about terrible conditions like people are oppressed by their government … They've been building their resilience through the years, and economically they have grown really powerfully, like their housing projects. It's incredible what we saw," she said.

"It (US) desperately wants its oil, and its natural resources, so they want to install a puppet regime … These charges, they are just seeing what sticks. But we know that it is fundamentally, if we look at the basic picture, the US going to a sovereign nation and kidnapping their head of state, who has been elected twice democratically, their election, much more transparent and accurate and representative than ours. It is a crime. It is an international crime. We have to condemn it."

Many protesters said they believe the US intervention in Venezuela is driven not by "justice" but by "oil." Among them was Imani Henry, who said he has been to Venezuela and "experienced firsthand the rally there that supports Maduro."

"It's about oil. (Like) Iran, Afghanistan, it's about oil … Steal a sovereign president and declare to run their country, and declare that we are gonna steal oil reserves. It's about people and people's needs, not about stealing the reserves for your own profit," Henry told China Daily.

He added: "We have seen this kind of complete and utter disruption of people's sovereignty. Why am I here today? Because I'm tired of Latin America and the Caribbean being completely usurped of our power, our independence by the US government."

Maduro and his wife were charged with narco-terrorism. According to the 25-page indictment, Maduro and others allegedly worked with drug cartels to ship thousands of tons of cocaine into the US.

Maduro pleaded not guilty. Speaking in Spanish, he said: "I'm innocent. I am not guilty. I am a decent man, the president of my country," while emphasizing that he had been "kidnapped." Flores appeared in court with bandages on her temple and forehead, and her lawyer said she suffered "significant injuries" during the capture.

"We wanted to support president Maduro, he's been illegally captured by President Donald Trump … Maduro has won every election for years following Hugo Chavez. Nicolas Maduro has been a legitimate president of Venezuela elected by the Venezuelan people," protester Lallan Schoenstein told China Daily.

Schoenstein added: "His (Trump's) all interest in Venezuela is stealing the resources, precious metals, and oil from Venezuela … He is stealing a president of a sovereign nation, it is a criminal activity."

shiguang@chinadailyusa.com

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

First, the Islamic Republic of Iran condemns in the strongest possible terms the military attack carried out by the United States of America against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This illegal act constitutes state terrorism, a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations — particularly Article 2, paragraphs 4 and 7 — and peremptory norms of international law, and amounts to an internationally wrongful act and a full-fledged act of aggression.

Such military aggression against an independent member state of the United Nations establishes a serious breach of regional and international peace and security with far-reaching consequences for the international system as a whole.

Second, the abduction of the democratically elected president and the first lady of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela by the United States constitutes a flagrant violation of customary international law, including the principles of the inviolability of the immunities accorded to heads of state and government under international law, and represents a grave assault on the sovereign equality of states. Third, the United States is openly seeking to substitute its domestic law for international law and the Charter of the United Nations. This represents a serious warning to the international community and to all member states. Such unlawful conduct strikes at the very foundations of the Charter-based international legal order and establishes a dangerous precedent that must be categorically and unequivocally rejected.

The so-called declared US policy of "peace through strength" prescribes the law of the jungle and the rule of force instead of the rule of law, and if tolerated and normalized, would render the collective security system established by the Charter ineffective and devoid of purpose.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Ambassador Zalabata Torres, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

These actions that we have seen remind us of the worst interference in our area in the past, in our zone of peace.

It's also important to understand the dimension of this situation for international peace and security beyond our region, particularly when a permanent member of the Security Council takes the decision to use force and assume control unilaterally of another sovereign state with the aim, amongst other things, of taking its natural and strategic resources.

This is very worrisome for the international community, the international order that was established after the Second World War and flagrantly violates international law and is in clear contradiction with the United Nations Charter and the very goal for which this Council was created.

Venezuela deserves to live in peace, in democracy, prosperity and dignity with a government that is defined in sovereignty by no one else than the Venezuelan people and their institutions.

Jeffrey Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, briefed the UN Security Council at an emergency meeting on the situation in Venezuela Monday. Sachs said that the United States is in serious violation of the United Nations Charter and must immediately cease its illegal military actions and threats. He noted that for decades, US foreign policy has repeatedly "employed force, covert action and political manipulation to bring about regime change in other countries," which violates international law.

China has urged the United States to heed the "overwhelming voice" of the international community, cease infringing on other countries' sovereignty and security, stop toppling Venezuela's government, and return to dialogue and negotiations for political solutions.

Speaking at an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting on Monday, two days after US military strikes on Venezuela, Sun Lei, charge d'affaires of China's UN Mission, urged the US to ensure the safety of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and to release them immediately.

Maduro pleaded not guilty in New York federal court to charges of narco-terrorism on Monday.

The emergency session was convened after a large-scale US military operation on Saturday, during which US forces seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and transported them out of the country.

Addressing the Council, Sun expressed China's "deep shock" and strong condemnation of what he called the "unilateral, illegal and bullying acts" of the United States.

"The US has placed its own power above multilateralism and military actions above diplomatic efforts," Sun said, warning that such actions pose a grave threat to peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean and even internationally.

He emphasized that the US military strikes "wantonly trampled" upon Venezuela's sovereignty and violated core tenets of the UN Charter, including the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

"The lessons of history are a stark warning," Sun said, noting that military means are not the solution to international problems and that the indiscriminate use of force would only lead to greater crises.

He cited past US actions, including bypassing the Security Council to launch military operations against Iraq, attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, and the imposition of economic sanctions, military strikes and armed occupations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Those actions caused persistent conflict, instability and immense suffering for ordinary people. "Did these actions bring peace and stability? Did they bring development and prosperity?" he asked, saying the international community could see the answers clearly.

The envoy noted that Venezuela is an independent sovereign state with every right to defend its sovereignty and national dignity.

Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are important forces in maintaining world peace and stability and promoting global development and prosperity and have the right to independently choose their development paths and partners, he said.

"No country can act as the world's police, nor can any country presume to be the international judge," Sun said.

In his speech, Sun reiterated that China firmly supports the Venezuelan government and people in safeguarding their sovereignty, security and legitimate rights and interests, he said, and supports regional countries in upholding Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace.

He called on the United States to change course, cease bullying and coercive practices, and develop relations and cooperation with regional countries on the basis of mutual respect, equality and noninterference.

China stands ready to work with regional countries and the international community to strengthen solidarity and cooperation, uphold fairness and justice, and jointly safeguard peace and stability in Latin America and the Caribbean, he concluded.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Ambassador Sophia Tesfamariam Yohannes, Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

The member states of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations expressed their serious concern at the impact of these series of armed attacks, particularly on civilians and their human rights to life, which have included military assaults with US special forces, while emphasizing that such acts constitute a clear breach of international law and of each and every principle governing international relations, including those foreseen in the Charter of the United Nations.

The group of friends of the Charter of the United Nations firmly reject the remarks delivered by the President of the United States of America during the afternoon of Jan 3 2026, in which he not only threatened with additional airstrikes against the Venezuelan territory, but also claimed to resolve to occupy and govern the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and to exploit the natural resources and administer the wealth of that sisterly nation in what can only be described as the confession of a clear plan of annexation that foresees, among others, the complete obliteration of the inalienable rights of the Venezuelan people as well as the fundamental rights of the Venezuelan state as a whole.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Ambassador Hector Vasconcelos, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

The government of Mexico has already made its position clear with regard to our condemnation of the military aggression of Jan 3 against targets in the territory of Venezuela in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.

These actions must not be allowed as they constitute a severe blow to the Charter and to multilateralism.

Rhetoric pointing towards the escalation or expansion of military actions, including to other countries in our region, threatens regional stability.

Regime change by external actors and the application of extra-territorial measures are not only acts contrary to international law, but historically, all they've done is exacerbate conflicts and weakened the social and political fabric of nations.

The current violation of this fragile balance gravely endangers the political stability and the security of the region, as well as the well-being of our peoples. Those who justify these acts deny the independent history of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Sergio Franca Danese, Brazil's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

Brazil categorically and firmly rejects the armed intervention in Venezuelan territory in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its President crossed an unacceptable line. These acts constitute a very serious affront to the sovereignty of Venezuela and set an extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.

As Brazil has reiterated on numerous occasions, the norms that govern coexistence among states are mandatory and universal. They do not admit exceptions based on ideological, geopolitical, political, economic, or any other kind of interests or projects. They do not admit that the exploitation of natural or economic resources justifies the use of force or the illegal change of a government.

For the first time in South America, a profoundly alarming event has occurred. An external armed aggression with the deployment of troops and bombings in a neighboring country contiguous with Brazil, with which we share more than 2,000 kilometers of border.

The events of January 3rd transcend the regional sphere. The attack on the sovereignty of any country, regardless of the direction of its government, affects the entire international community. This and other cases of armed intervention against the sovereignty of a country, its territorial integrity, or its institutions must be vehemently condemned.

It is up to this Council to assume its responsibility and react with determination, clarity, and obedience to international law in order to prevent the law of force from prevailing over the force of law.

Brazil trusts that the future of Venezuela will be built by the Venezuelan people through dialogue, without external interference and within the framework of international law.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Paula Narvaez Ojeda, Chile's representative to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

Chile would like to express our deep concern and firm condemnation of the unilateral military action taken by the United States in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

We're also convinced that Latin America and the Caribbean must continue to be a zone of peace, because that zone of peace not only serves Latin America and the Caribbean, but the entire world. An armed conflict will have devastating humanitarian consequences in Venezuela and in the region. It will worsen the suffering of the civilian population and worsen even further the displacement, insecurity and vulnerability aspects of the situation.

We reiterate that any differences must be dealt with exclusively through peaceful means in respect of international law, the sovereignty of states, and the prohibition of the use or the threat of the use of force.

As was recently indicated by the heads of state of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Spain, we express our concern with regard to any attempt to control government administration or foreign ownership of strategic assets. This would be against international law and would threaten the political, economic and social stability of the region.

Here is an excerpt of the remarks by Ambassador Hector Gomez Hernandez, representative of Spain to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council emergency meeting on Venezuela in New York on Monday:

Spain would like to express our profound concern about what's happened in Venezuela, and as the secretary general of the United Nations has noted, it constitutes a very worrying precedent with implications for the region and for the world.

We consider that these actions constitute a very troubling precedent for regional peace and security, and we recall that the natural resources of a country are part of its sovereignty.

We share the view that the fight against organized crime in the region is a priority, but that fight can only be waged through international cooperation.

UNITED NATIONS -- Venezuelan UN ambassador Samuel Moncada on Monday requested action from the Security Council following US strikes against his country over the weekend.

Venezuela urges the Security Council to fully assume its responsibility and act in accordance with the mandate conferred on it by the UN Charter, Moncada told an emergency meeting of the council.

"In that regard, we request that the government of the United States of America be demanded to fully respect the immunities of (Venezuelan) President Nicolas Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, as well as their immediate release and safe return to Venezuela," said the ambassador.

Maduro and his wife were forcibly removed from Venezuela and brought to the United States.

Moncada demanded that the use of force against Venezuela be clearly and unequivocally condemned by the Security Council, and that the principle of non-acquisition of territory or resources by force be reaffirmed.

He also called for measures aimed at de-escalation, the protection of the civilian population, and the restoration of international law.

"Venezuela comes before this Council today with a deep conviction that international peace can only be sustained if international law is respected without exception, without double standards, and without selective interpretations," said Moncada.

He said that Saturday's military action against Venezuela constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, in particular, the violation of the principle of sovereign equality of states, of the prohibition of threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and of the duty to settle disputes by peaceful means.

The US move also seriously violates the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, the ambassador said.

"When force is used to control resources, impose governments, or redesign states, we are faced with a logic that harks back to the worst practices of colonialism and neocolonialism," he said. "This scenario not only threatens Venezuela, it threatens international peace and security as a whole."

If the kidnapping of a head of state, the bombing of a sovereign country, and the open threat of further armed action are tolerated or downplayed, the message sent to the world is a devastating one, namely that law is optional, and that force is the true arbiter of international relations, Moncada warned.