CELAC Emergency meeting on US Intervention in Venezuela ends without consensus

A CELAC emergency meeting on the U.S. intervention in Venezuela ended without consensus and revealed deep ideological divisions between countries.

The meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) held on Sunday, January, 4,2026 exposed to regional scrutiny a clear reality: The profound lack of consensus among countries on how to respond to the U.S. military operation in Venezuela and the detention of its President, Nicolas Maduro.

Convened by Colombia and Brazil in light of the magnitude of the events, the virtual summit sought a common regional stance, but big political and interest-based divergences led to a declaration without agreement, revealing the fractures running through Latin American governments at a critical moment on the hemispheric agenda.

The clash between opposing positions- some governments celebrating Maduro’s arrest and others condemning what they view as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty -gave CELAC a confrontational dynamic that overshadowed any attempt to build a unified voice.

The absence of consensus not only laid bare the ideological tensions within the bloc but also projected outward an image of incapacity to collectively confront the geopolitical challenges shaking the region.

The urgent, ministerial-level meeting was initially requested by Brazil and was held via videoconference under Colombia’s pro tempore presidency.

The formal objective was to define a joint position in response to what several governments have described as a U.S. “attack” and to analyse the implications of the capture of the Venezuelan president and his wife, who now face charges before U.S. courts. However, from the outset, it was evident that expectations of an agreement were slim.

Positions within CELAC were sharply divided. On one side, right-wing leaders in countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, and El Salvador expressed a celebratory stance regarding Maduro’s fall, aligning themselves with Washington’s narrative that presents the operation as a blow against a narco-terrorist regime.

In this regard, presidents such as Javier Milei (Argentina), Daniel Noboa (Ecuador), and Nayib Bukele (El Salvador) celebrated Maduro’s fall, whom they labeled a “narco-terrorist,” in line with the vocabulary used by Donald Trump’s U.S. government, consistently showing their full alignment with the White House.

On the other side, progressive-leaning leaders, including those of Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico, rejected the foreign intervention and denounced what they consider an assault on Venezuelan sovereignty that crosses unacceptable lines of international law. Leaders such as Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Brazil), Gustavo Petro (Colombia), Gabriel Boric (Chile), and Claudia Sheinbaum (Mexico) condemned the action.

In fact, President Lula reiterated what he had already said on Saturday, following the U.S. lightning operation on Venezuelan territory, that the military operation “crossed an unacceptable line” and represented a “very serious affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty.”

In addition, Lula said the United Nations must give a “forceful” response to the events and assured that Brazil “remains available” to “promote the path of dialogue and cooperation.”

The result was a declaration without a common signature. Countries that traditionally maintain positions closer to non-intervention and strict respect for sovereignty refused to adopt a joint statement condemning the U.S. military action or endorsing the narrative promoted by its allies. Argentina, along with nine other countries, blocked the regional condemnation, frustrating the consensus that Petro and Lula sought to build.

CELAC’s inability to speak collectively in the face of one of the most significant events in regional politics in recent years highlights not only the ideological dispersion of its members but also,once again, the fragility of Latin American integration spaces when confronted with external crises.

The U.S. operation in Venezuela has not only generated debates over legality and sovereignty, but has also served as a catalyst for pre-existing tensions among governments with diametrically opposed views on the role of the United States in the region.

For some countries in the region, Maduro’s capture represents an opportunity to eradicate a regime they consider repressive and criminal, aligning themselves with a foreign policy closer to Washington.

For others, the intervention is a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent that threatens the stability and self-determination of Latin American peoples.

The discussion over Venezuela, rather than being an occasion for unity, has laid bare the fault lines running through Latin America and the Caribbean, where political polarization and differing national priorities weigh more heavily than the construction of strategic solidarities.

As the meeting concluded without agreement, the participating governments were forced to return to their respective national positions, each reinforcing its own narrative about the meaning and consequences of the intervention in Venezuela.

(Adapted from Colombia News.Com)