Group 1 - The Chinese government opposes unilateral sanctions that lack international legal basis and are not authorized by the UN Security Council, particularly regarding the situation in Venezuela [1] - The U.S. actions to forcibly control President Maduro and his wife are seen as a clear violation of international law and fundamental principles of international relations, as well as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter [1] - China calls for the immediate release of President Maduro and his wife, advocating for dialogue and negotiation to resolve the issues at hand [1]

针对有媒体报道称美国政府要求委内瑞拉必须切断与中国、俄罗斯、伊朗、古巴的经济联系，在石油生 产上只与美国合作，外交部发言人毛宁7日表示，委内瑞拉是主权国家，对本国的自然资源和一切经济 活动拥有充分的永久主权。 "我要强调的是，中国和其他国家在委内瑞拉的合法权益必须得到保护。"毛宁说。 （文章来源：新华网） 毛宁表示，美国悍然对委内瑞拉动武，并要求委内瑞拉处置自身石油资源时"美国优先"，是典型的霸凌 行径，严重违反国际法，严重侵犯委内瑞拉主权，严重损害委内瑞拉人民的权利，中方对此强烈谴责。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The current Venezuelan president, Maduro, is asserted to have absolute personal immunity under international law, which protects him from arrest or prosecution by foreign courts [1][2]. Group 1 - The Attorney General of Venezuela, Saab, emphasized that Maduro's position as president grants him absolute personal immunity, which is a constitutional principle and a fundamental tenet of international law [1]. - Saab called for the immediate and unconditional release of President Maduro and his wife, stating that any attempt to forcibly remove them from Venezuela constitutes international kidnapping and is illegal under international law [2]. - The U.S. military actions against Venezuela are described as illegal armed aggression and terrorism, violating the United Nations Charter, as they were conducted without a declaration of war or a resolution from the UN Security Council [1][2]. Group 2 - Saab highlighted that the U.S. Constitution does not grant jurisdiction over Venezuelan territory, and the military actions taken against Maduro lack congressional authorization, thus violating U.S. law [2]. - A special investigation team has been appointed by Saab to thoroughly investigate the war crimes resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and military personnel during these actions [2].

Core Viewpoint - The recent U.S. military intervention in Venezuela represents a significant and direct violation of international law and sovereignty, reminiscent of past interventions in Latin America, and is unlikely to result in long-term stability [1][2][5]. Group 1: Tactical Outcomes - The U.S. action achieved immediate tactical goals, creating a narrative of decisiveness and success domestically, but such unilateral military actions historically fail to maintain stability [1][2]. - The intervention reflects a shift in U.S. strategy from pressure tactics to outright destruction, indicating a depletion of diplomatic options and raising geopolitical costs [2]. Group 2: Economic and Resource Considerations - The intervention is driven by practical economic interests, particularly in Venezuela's vast oil reserves, which have been underutilized due to sanctions and mismanagement [2]. - The U.S. aims to facilitate its energy companies' entry into Venezuela to restore oil production, which raises concerns about sovereignty and equitable resource management [2]. Group 3: Domestic Political Implications - The military action aligns with U.S. domestic political logic, where demonstrating a strong foreign policy can bolster political capital and support among voters [3]. - This approach, while temporarily effective in rallying domestic support, risks undermining long-term diplomatic strategies and responsibilities for regional stability [3]. Group 4: Geopolitical Repercussions - The intervention revives the "Monroe Doctrine" mindset, suggesting that the U.S. views Latin America as a region for unilateral intervention, which could lead to increased regional tensions and a reevaluation of security and development strategies among Latin American countries [5]. - The U.S. risks further damaging its international credibility by violating its own principles of a rules-based international order, which could have long-lasting effects on its global standing [5][6]. Group 5: Structural Consequences - The intervention may accelerate the restructuring of geopolitical and economic alliances, as countries seek to reduce reliance on the U.S. and explore alternative partnerships and financial systems [6]. - The reliance on military intervention reflects a dangerous mindset that undermines international law and the principles of mutual respect and cooperation necessary for global stability [7].

国务院台办7日上午举行2026年首场新闻发布会，发言人陈斌华回答记者提问。 有记者问，美国日前派兵强行控制委内瑞拉总统马杜罗夫妇并移送出境，引发关注。岛内有舆论担忧大 陆仿照美国做法来合理化对台采取行动。对此有何评论？ 陈斌华表示，美方悍然对一个主权国家使用武力，严重违反国际法，侵犯他国主权，威胁地区和平与安 全。我们坚决反对。台湾是中国的台湾。解决台湾问题是中国人自己的事，不容任何外来干涉。如 果"台独"分裂势力胆敢铤而走险、触碰红线，我们必将采取断然措施，予以迎头痛击。 责任编辑：凌辰 有记者问，美国日前派兵强行控制委内瑞拉总统马杜罗夫妇并移送出境，引发关注。岛内有舆论担忧大 陆仿照美国做法来合理化对台采取行动。对此有何评论？ 陈斌华表示，美方悍然对一个主权国家使用武力，严重违反国际法，侵犯他国主权，威胁地区和平与安 全。我们坚决反对。台湾是中国的台湾。解决台湾问题是中国人自己的事，不容任何外来干涉。如 果"台独"分裂势力胆敢铤而走险、触碰红线，我们必将采取断然措施，予以迎头痛击。 责任编辑：凌辰 国务院台办7日上午举行2026年首场新闻发布会，发言人陈斌华回答记者提问。 ...

5日，遭美国强行控制的马杜罗夫妇在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院首次出庭，拒绝美方所谓"犯罪"指 控。 另据美联社报道，美国总统特朗普6日在其社交媒体上表示，委内瑞拉"临时当局"将以市场价格向美国 出售3000万至5000万桶"优质"石油。特朗普称，这笔资金将由其作为总统进行掌控，但将用于造福委内 瑞拉和美国民众。 中新社北京1月7日电综合消息：据委内瑞拉《国民报》报道，委内瑞拉临时总统罗德里格斯6日表示， 没有"外部势力"控制这个国家。此前，美国总统特朗普表示，美国政府将负责协调委内瑞拉的权力过 渡。 截至目前，委内瑞拉方面尚未对此作出回应。(完) （文章来源：中国新闻网） 当天，她再次谴责美国3日的侵略行为以及对委总统马杜罗和第一夫人西利娅·弗洛雷斯的非法绑架，并 重申主权，表示委内瑞拉人将继续抵抗美国政府违反国际法的行为。 委内瑞拉通讯社报道称，委内瑞拉总检察长萨博6日呼吁负责审理马杜罗总统案件的美国法官阿尔文·赫 勒斯坦尊重国际法，承认其法庭无权审判一位主权国家的国家元首。 罗德里格斯说："委内瑞拉政府治理着我们的国家，除此之外没有任何人，没有任何外部势力可以统治 委内瑞拉。" 委内瑞拉南方电视台报道称，委 ...

此外，南非总统拉马福萨6日表示，南非"完全反对"美国对委军事行动，呼吁立即释放马杜罗及其 妻子。古巴外长当天表示，古巴人民将抵御侵略捍卫祖国。 央广网北京1月7日消息 据中央广播电视总台中国之声《新闻和报纸摘要》报道，美洲国家组织6日 就委内瑞拉局势召开特别会议。会上，多国声援委内瑞拉，强烈谴责美国袭击委内瑞拉，称此举违反国 际法。 总台记者6日获悉，美国3日对委内瑞拉的军事打击共造成古巴和委内瑞拉55名军人阵亡。委国民警 卫队当天称，已在全国范围内部署兵力，同时，国家警察局也在外部动荡状态下加强安保。 乌拉圭代表发言称，美国相关行为明显违反了国际法以及《联合国宪章》和《美洲国家组织宪章》 所确立的基本原则。哥伦比亚外交部当天向美国发出抗议照会。哥伦比亚代表称，强烈反对美方针对哥 总统佩特罗的诽谤性、毫无依据的声明。巴西代表将马杜罗被强行控制一事定性为"绑架"，表示美方行 为是对委内瑞拉主权的严重侵犯，并为国际社会树立了一个极其危险的先例。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The UN Human Rights Office expressed concern over the US intervention in Venezuela, stating it violates Venezuela's sovereignty and the UN Charter [1] Group 1: US Intervention - The US intervention in Venezuela is deemed a violation of a fundamental principle of international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force against any country's sovereignty or political independence [1] - The justification provided by the US, citing human rights violations by the Venezuelan government, was rejected by the UN Human Rights Office [1] Group 2: Impact on International Security - The US actions are said to undermine the international security framework, increasing security risks for all nations [1] - The intervention has led to instability in the current situation, with potential for further deterioration [1] Group 3: Call for Respect of International Law - The UN Human Rights Office urged all parties to remain vigilant and ensure full respect for international law and human rights [1] - It emphasized that the US intervention sends a dangerous signal that might encourage other nations to act with impunity [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for countries to uphold international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, firmly opposing unilateral bullying actions, particularly by the United States in Venezuela [1][2][3][4] Group 1: U.S. Actions in Venezuela - The U.S. has conducted military strikes against Venezuela and forcibly controlled President Maduro and his wife, which has drawn widespread condemnation from multiple countries [1] - The U.S. openly declared its intention to "manage" Venezuela, indicating a predatory approach to its resources, reminiscent of past interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan [2] - The actions taken by the U.S. are seen as a dangerous precedent that undermines international law and threatens regional peace and security [2][3] Group 2: International Response - Several countries, including Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, and Spain, have issued a joint statement condemning the U.S. military actions as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability [3] - The European Union and various international leaders have stressed the importance of respecting international law and the principles of the UN Charter in addressing the situation in Venezuela [3] - The article highlights a growing global consensus against unilateralism and hegemonic practices, indicating a shift in international sentiment towards a more equitable global order [3][4]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for countries to uphold international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, firmly opposing unilateral bullying actions, particularly in the context of the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela [1][2][3][4]. Group 1: U.S. Actions and International Response - The U.S. has conducted military strikes against Venezuela, forcibly controlling President Maduro and his wife, which has drawn widespread condemnation from multiple countries at a UN Security Council meeting [1][2]. - The U.S. has openly declared its intention to "manage" Venezuela, indicating a predatory approach to its resources, reminiscent of past interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan [2]. - Several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Brazil, and Chile, have issued a joint statement condemning the U.S. military actions as a dangerous precedent that violates international law [3]. Group 2: Implications for Global Order - The article warns that allowing hegemonic practices to spread will undermine global stability, and all nations should resist living under "jungle law" [4]. - The Secretary-General of the United Nations has cautioned that U.S. actions in Venezuela set a dangerous precedent for international relations [2][3]. - The article calls for a commitment to international fairness and justice, emphasizing that no country should act as an international police force or judge [3].