Which countries abstained or expressed neutrality at the UN over the US strikes on Venezuela?
Executive summary
An emergency UN discussion of the U.S. strikes on Venezuela produced a split international scene: many governments loudly condemned the operation, but a smaller set of states responded with cautious, neutral or noncommittal language—either urging restraint and dialogue or saying they were still studying events—rather than unequivocally backing Washington or Caracas [1] [2]. Reporting does not provide a definitive, exhaustive roll call of abstentions at the UN vote (if any), but several countries are explicitly shown in the reporting to have taken neutral or measured stances, notably Japan, Uganda, Bangladesh, Germany and Singapore [3] [4] [2].
1. The visible neutral voices: language of concern, restraint or “studying it”
Several governments framed their reactions in deliberately measured terms rather than issuing categorical condemnation or support: Japan’s statement emphasized protecting Japanese nationals and upholding international law while pledging close cooperation with relevant countries and diplomatic efforts to restore stability—language that aligns with a cautious, neutral posture rather than an endorsement of U.S. military action [4] [3]. Uganda’s president, Yoweri Museveni, openly said he “didn’t know what they were fighting for” and that he was “still studying it,” a real-time hedging that reporters flagged as neither support nor condemnation [4]. Bangladesh’s foreign ministry expressed “concern” and urged that “diplomacy and dialogue should prevail,” framing its reaction as principled caution rather than an explicit rebuke of the U.S. [4]. Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz’s environment in reporting is mirrored by statements that a legal assessment is “complex” and that Berlin would “take our time” to evaluate the operation—another example of calibrated neutrality in public language [3].
2. Singapore’s caution and the small-state anxiety
Singapore’s foreign ministry expressed “grave concern” and urged restraint, while senior leaders warned about long-term consequences for the international system and smaller states—comments that amount to a neutral but pointed warning about precedent rather than an outright denunciation of the U.S. operation [4]. That posture reflects a diplomatic impulse common among smaller countries: emphasize the rules-based order and de-escalation without taking sides in a great-power confrontation, a stance visible in the reporting but not equivalent to formal abstention on any recorded UN procedural vote cited in these sources [4].
3. The loud condemnations that define the other side of the ledger
By contrast, a broad cohort of states publicly condemned the strikes—Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Eritrea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Spain were explicitly named among critics at the UN meeting, and Russia and Iran were singled out in multiple outlets for strong denunciations—establishing that neutrality was the exception, not the norm, in the immediate global reaction [1] [5]. EU and French officials also accused Washington of violating international law, reinforcing that many influential actors framed the strikes as illegitimate [2] [6].
4. What the sources do not show: formal UN abstentions and a complete roll call
None of the supplied reporting provides a comprehensive roll call of UN Security Council or General Assembly votes showing which members formally abstained or voted neutral on any resolution related to the strikes; coverage instead reports statements and diplomatic tones by named governments [2] [1]. Therefore it is not possible from these sources to assert which countries officially abstained in a procedural vote—only which governments publicly expressed restraint, neutrality, or cautious concern in their initial reactions [4] [3].
5. Reading the subtext: motives, audiences and diplomatic hedging
The neutral-sounding statements tracked here serve multiple purposes: to avoid alienating the U.S., to signal commitment to international law, and to reassure domestic audiences or nationals abroad (Japan’s comment about protecting citizens is explicit), revealing that diplomatic “neutrality” often blends legal caution, practical self-interest and hedging against future alignment pressures—an interpretation grounded in the precise phrasing quoted by Reuters, Wikipedia and other outlets [3] [4].
6. Bottom line and reporting limits
Reporting identifies Japan, Uganda, Bangladesh, Germany and Singapore as among those that took measured, noncommittal public positions—words consistent with neutrality or abstention in rhetoric—but the sources do not provide a definitive list of formal UN abstentions or roll-call votes tied to the strikes, so any claim about formal abstention beyond public statements would exceed the available reporting [4] [3] [2].