### U.S. Claims Law Enforcement Justification for Maduro Capture Amidst International Criticism - The U.S. government, represented by Ambassador Mike Waltz at the United Nations, has characterized the recent military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a "law enforcement operation" rather than an act of war or occupation. This assertion comes in the wake of significant backlash from the international community, which views the action as a blatant attempt at regime change in Venezuela. Waltz emphasized that the U.S. does not intend to occupy Venezuela, framing the operation within the context of international law and previous precedents, such as the U.S. intervention in Panama to capture Manuel Noriega [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/01/06/world/politics/trump-occupy-venezuela-un][https://www.tampafp.com/law-enforcement-not-war-u-s-defends-maduro-capture-citing-noriega-precedent]. ### Breakdown of U.S. Position and International Response 1. **U.S. Justification for Action** - The U.S. claims the operation was lawful and necessary due to Maduro's illegitimate presidency, which was characterized as fraudulent by Waltz [https://europennews.com/maduro-was-a-ilegtimate-so-called-president-ambassador-waltz-says-venezuela-politics]. 2. **International Criticism** - The U.N. Security Council meeting saw Waltz facing a barrage of criticism from various member states who condemned the U.S. actions as aggressive and imperialistic [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/foreign-policy/4407112/mike-waltz-criticism-nicolas-maduro-capture-united-nations-emergency-meeting]. 3. **Clarification of U.S. Intentions** - Waltz reiterated that the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, aiming to dispel notions of an occupation and asserting that the operation was strictly a law enforcement matter [https://floridianpress.com/2026/01/mike-waltz-declares-we-are-not-at-war-with-venezuela]. ### Supporting Evidence and Data - **Key Statements from U.S. Officials** - Mike Waltz stated, "We are not at war with Venezuela," and described the operation as a necessary action against a "so-called president" [https://europennews.com/trump-does-not-want-to-occupy-venezuela-waltz-says]. - The U.S. invoked the Noriega precedent to justify its actions, suggesting that similar interventions have been deemed lawful in the past [https://www.tampafp.com/law-enforcement-not-war-u-s-defends-maduro-capture-citing-noriega-precedent]. - **International Reactions** - Various countries expressed their disapproval during the U.N. meeting, highlighting the potential for escalating tensions in the region and questioning the legality of U.S. actions [https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/un-ambassador-waltz-calls-venezuela-action-law-enforcement-after-rubio-legal-stumble]. ### Conclusion: Analyzing the U.S. Stance on Venezuela 1. **U.S. Position** - The U.S. maintains that its actions in Venezuela are justified under international law and are not intended as an occupation or declaration of war. 2. **International Backlash** - The operation has drawn significant criticism from the global community, raising concerns about U.S. foreign policy and its implications for international relations. 3. **Future Implications** - The situation remains tense, with potential ramifications for U.S.-Venezuela relations and broader geopolitical stability in Latin America. The U.S. must navigate these criticisms while asserting its narrative of law enforcement and legitimacy [https://newrepublic.com/post/204924/trump-un-ambassador-waltz-defends-venezuela-coup][https://townhall.com/tipsheet/dmitri-bolt/2026/01/05/mike-waltz-slams-un-for-defending-maduro-n2668906].