In a high-stakes emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday, January 5, 2026, the diplomatic fallout from the capture of Nicolás Maduro took center stage.1 While the session—convened at the request of Colombia and supported by Russia and China—was intended to address the legality of the U.S. military raid, the discourse quickly shifted toward the long-standing crisis of legitimacy in Caracas.
The representative of Panama delivered a stinging rebuke of the Maduro administration, demanding the immediate and unconditional release of all “unjustly incarcerated political prisoners.” Framing the current instability as the direct result of a “stolen” democratic process, Panama’s envoy argued that the transition toward peace can only begin when the popular will of the people is respected.2
The “70% Mandate” Argument
The cornerstone of Panama’s intervention was the assertion that the July 2024 presidential election yielded a clear winner: opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia.3
- Documented Defeat: Panama reiterated that the opposition had meticulously documented a victory with over 70% of the vote, a result supported by thousands of tally sheets (actas) verified by international observers.
- Overturned Will: The Panamanian delegation decried the Maduro administration’s move to overturn these results through the loyalist Supreme Tribunal of Justice, calling it a “totalitarian subversion” of the ballot box.
- Call for Legitimacy: Panama’s representative emphasized that any “effective change” in Venezuela must be rooted in the legitimacy of the 2024 results rather than the “high-handedness” of the previous regime.
U.S. Reinforces the “Indicted Dictator” Narrative
The United States representative utilized the session to defend its recent military action by double-downing on Maduro’s criminal and political status.
- UN-Validated Fraud: The U.S. envoy reminded the Council that the UN Panel of Experts and the Carter Center had both reported that the 2024 election lacked the “basic transparency and integrity” required for credibility.4
- History of Atrocities: Beyond the election, the U.S. detailed a litany of “grave human rights violations” and “crimes against humanity” allegedly perpetrated by Maduro’s security forces, including extrajudicial killings and systematic torture.
- Illegitimacy Posture: Washington maintained that because Maduro was an “indicted, illegitimate dictator” leading a narco-terrorist organization, he had forfeited the sovereign protections usually afforded to a head of state.
| Diplomatic Standpoint | Core Policy Objective |
| Panama | General amnesty for political prisoners and recognition of the 70% opposition win. |
| United States | Transition oversight and prosecution of Maduro for narco-trafficking. |
| Russia/China | Condemnation of U.S. “aggression” and defense of sovereign non-interference. |
| UN Secretariat5 | Concern over the “dangerous precedent” of abducting sitting leaders.6 |
The Road Ahead: A Divided Discourse in Council
As the meeting concluded, the fundamental divide remained: Does a leader’s domestic illegitimacy justify foreign military intervention? While Panama and the U.S. focused on the moral and democratic imperative to remove a “usurper,” other Council members warned that the “might makes right” approach could dismantle the framework of the UN Charter.7
With Nicolás Maduro currently in New York custody awaiting his first federal court appearance, the pressure now shifts to the Organization of American States (OAS) and regional neighbors to determine if they will recognize the interim presidency of Delcy Rodríguez or move to swear in the opposition leadership as the only legitimate voice of the people.8
The United Nations Headquarters, NY from Flickr UN Photo by Mark Garten.
