The arrest and removal of Nicolas Maduro by the United States is a moment that should chill anyone who believes in international law, the rules-based order, and liberal democracy.
Let’s be absolutely clear from the outset: no one is defending Maduro. He presided over a brutal, corrupt, authoritarian regime that crushed dissent, hollowed out democratic institutions, and inflicted immense suffering on the Venezuelan people. His removal from power will prompt relief in many quarters – understandably so.
But relief cannot become amnesia. What matters here is how power is exercised, not simply who wields it. The unilateral seizure of a foreign head of state, without international legal authority or multilateral backing, is a profound breach of the very system of rules that liberal democracies claim to uphold. The rules-based international order does not exist to protect dictators, it exists to prevent chaos, lawlessness, and the return of “might makes right” geopolitics. Once we decide that international law applies only when it is convenient – or only when the violator is an adversary – we surrender the very moral authority on which liberal democracy depends.
That is why Ed Davey is right to have spoken out clearly and unambiguously. His stance – condemning this action while reaffirming commitment to international law -is precisely what principled leadership looks like. It is possible, and indeed necessary, to oppose authoritarianism without endorsing lawlessness. The same clarity and moral purpose has been evident in his decision to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Denmark in the face of reckless rhetoric over Greenland. Sovereignty matters. Borders matter. International norms matter. We cannot credibly defend democracy abroad if we equivocate when those principles are tested by our friends.
Which brings us to the deeply disappointing response from the British government. Keir Starmer has, in effect, chosen to have no stance at all. Carefully worded evasions, an instinctive reluctance to upset Washington, and a studied vagueness masquerading as responsibility. This is not diplomacy; it is abdication.
There are moments when caution is wise. This is not one of them. Britain has long claimed to be a defender of international law – from the UN Charter to the Geneva Conventions. These commitments are not optional extras, to be set aside when politically inconvenient. They are the foundation of our security, our alliances, and our credibility on the world stage. If we remain silent when a so-called ally breaks the rules, we forfeit the right to object when others do the same. How, then, do we criticise Russia’s aggression, or condemn China’s actions, or defend smaller nations whose sovereignty is threatened? Selective outrage is not a foreign policy; it is a surrender of principle.
Liberal democracy is not just about elections. It is about restraint. About institutions. About accepting limits on power – even when power could be used on those we despise. Indeed, especially then. This is the uncomfortable truth: the rule of law only means something when it protects people we dislike, as well as those we support. Once we cheer its breach because the target is a villain, we normalise the breach itself. And history tells us where that road leads.
Britain should be arguing for accountability through international mechanisms, for multilateral pressure, for lawful paths to justice – not quietly looking the other way because the perpetrator happens to be an ally. So, yes, condemn Maduro’s crimes. Mourn the suffering of the Venezuelan people. Support democratic renewal. But do not pretend that tearing up the rulebook advances those goals. It does not.
At the start of 2026, we face a choice. We can defend a world governed by law, cooperation, and shared norms – or we can drift into a more dangerous era where power alone decides what is right. The Liberal Democrats are right to choose the former. Others should find the courage to do the same.
A confident start – and a clear purpose in opposition
One of the most encouraging signs of the political year so far is that the Lib Dems have begun it with clarity, confidence, and a clear sense of purpose. Too often, smaller parties are told to wait their turn, to tread softly, to pick their moments, to avoid looking “awkward” or “difficult.”. But opposition is not holding a pen. It is a responsibility.
And in recent days, our party has shown we understand that. On social care, the party has been relentless – and rightly so. The government’s continued failure to grip the crisis is no longer merely disappointing; it is indefensible. A system that leaves older people stranded in hospital beds, families exhausted and unsupported, and local services overwhelmed is not just inefficient – it is cruel. Social care is not an optional add-on to the NHS, it is the foundation on which the entire system rests and without it, as my family knows to its great cost, everything else buckles. The Liberal Democrats have been right to say so clearly, and right to keep pressing when others reach for excuses or warm words.
The same is true of the government’s response-or lack of one-to the events in Venezuela. As I argued earlier, moments like this are tests of political character. The refusal of this Labour government to articulate a clear position on international law, on the rules-based order, and on the responsibility of allies is not neutrality; it is evasiveness. Holding the government to account for that is not oppositional theatre – it is our democratic duty.
This matters because, whilst much attention is paid by our leadership on the ever more reckless rightward drift of the Conservatives and Reform UK, the truth is simple and more important: we are ultimately in opposition to this Labour government. That does not mean opposing for the sake of it. Nor does it mean abandoning seriousness or responsibility. It means recognising that progress does not come from silence, triangulation, or managerialism alone.
We Liberal Democrats can – and must – be what others increasingly are not: realistic radicals and pragmatic progressives. We can be radical about outcomes while being realistic about delivery. We can be bold in our values without being reckless in our proposals. We can talk honestly about the scale of the challenges facing Britain-from care and health to housing, climate, and our place in the world-while all the time offering solutions that are grounded, credible, and humane.
That is what liberalism does at its best. It rejects both cynicism and complacency. It believes that people deserve dignity, that power should be constrained, and that communities should be empowered rather than talked down to.
Being brave does not mean shouting the loudest. It means being clear about what kind of country we want to be. A Liberal Britain would be one that treats care as a shared social responsibility, not a private burden. One that defends international law consistently, not selectively. One that decentralises power, invests in people, and trusts citizens with their own futures. One that understands that freedom and fairness are not opposites, but partners.
At the start of 2026, the Liberal Democrats have an opportunity – and an obligation -to articulate that vision with confidence. To challenge the government where it falls short. To confront the Right when it drifts into division and grievance. And to show that there is a credible, compassionate, liberal alternative on offer.
Opposition is not about waiting for failure. It is about preparing for leadership. And this year, we should do so boldly.
A Happy New Year – and let’s get started
As we begin 2026, I want to wish you all a happy New Year – and to say a genuine thank you for reading, challenging, and sharing your thoughts with me. Whether you agree with me or not, your messages, comments, and conversations are always welcome – and they make this column what it is.
Please do join me here each Monday for what promises to be a fascinating, fast-moving, and important political year. There will be plenty to debate, plenty to scrutinise, and plenty to stand up for. As ever, please let me know what you think.
Let’s go!
* Mathew Hulbert is a former Councillor, is a regular commentator on TV and Radio, and is Co-Host of the Political Frenemies podcast.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1538
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
expats
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
18 Comments
It’s beyond naive to think “international law” actually exists. There is no higher authority in law that countries are accountable to. If you think the UN is one think again. The same with rules based order. An elitist luxury belief that’s been dubunked over and over again…
“It’s beyond naive to think “international law” actually exists”
It does exist. The problem is enforceability. If there is no policeman willing to arrest and no court willing or able to pass judgement in accordance with those laws and no body willing to punish those who break it in accordance with those judgements, its power is reduced and becomes merely an appeal to morality and/or a theoretical system instead.
The same applies to all laws. Some of us prefer predictable law to arbitrary exercise of of power. Where do you stand?
The rule of law is “An elitist luxury belief”?
I’d say it is one of the basic requirements of an orderly civilisation.
Tristan – it’s not a law if it cannot be enforced.
Which has been proven time and again.
@ Greg Hyde Membership of NATO is a solemn treaty, Mr Hyde, and it carries mutual and serious obligations which should be respected.
As a Liberal (are you ?) you must know that arrogant bullies appear in all forms of life . It is not beyond the wit of man to find ways of dealing with them.
International Law is really a codeword for diplomatic etiquette, there is no way of enforcing it, but if the biggest country ignores it then it gives the green light to other countries to ignore it.
David; The US is NATO …Without it – it would cease to exist in any meaningful sense.
It’s Air Land and Sea Forces together with it’s logistic capability makes it such. I’m grounded in reality to realise that. The UK struggles to make it’s 2.5% contribution – it’s farcical to think it can be nearer 5 the £ just doesn’t add up …No amount of tub thumping from geo political minnows can change that
“But relief cannot become amnesia. What matters here is how power is exercised, not simply who wields it” is truly excellent piece of writing there Mathew.
By far your strongest piece.
I commend that our Party leader stance on international convention and standards; and share your sentiments on this. Lets not pretend that Venezuela is under a dictatorship that rules with impunity and ruthlessness. But let’s not also not pretend that this action by Truml won’t also invite nuclear armed states to then act also with impunity.
Yes, international law can only work if enforced. Yes, but Western countries should act responsible and its about convention, not necessarily law. Until we have an proper international body signed by all countries or world governance with institutions yes it can’t be enforced. But thats not the point. Like someone said to me “If your parents don’t behave and break the rules, don’t be surprised if the kids don’t follow them”.
So i agree with you mate, great article.
@Greg Hyde.
I see you have changed your ground.
Wearing my solicitors hat, I disagree. The UK has numerous laws that are hardly enforced by the courts but are generally respected by consensus that following the law is a good thing to do do. There are those who routinely disregard the law brazenly but that does not mean the law is unenforceable. Often enforcement would be welcome to enfoce societies norms as in the case of (say) bullies. Getting found out and punished can be the only language such types understand
The issue being Tristan is those laws can be enforced….Trump deciding in removing a head of state (Manduro) to face Narcotics charges in New York using the US military might against the ‘international rules based order’ ….International law , rules based order are just buzzwords – from the rubble in Gaza to the quagmire in Donbas it just doesn’t exist.
Matthew talks about the ;
“Very moral authority on which liberal democracy depends”
China’s genocide in its eastern provinces to middle east regimes with terrible human rights record – liberal democracies espousing those values continue to do lucrative business with both ….Selective outrage indeed.
Of course international law exists. And there are often consequences for breaking it, even if those consequences are imperfect and not as effective as we would like. So we have sanctioned Russia over Ukraine, and we have sanctions on China related specifically to Xinjiang. We even occasionally manage some mild criticism of Israel.
The alternative is that we forget all of that and say ‘might is right’, and if you are powerful enough you can just take what you want and we won’t do anything. I would rather there was an ineffective response than no response at all, because silence is complicity and principles matter.
Russia and China could be expected to be highly critical of US action in Venezuela, and the US can be expected to ignore them. That makes it all the more important that America’s allies call them out over this.
“It’s beyond naive to think “international law” actually exists”
Not a description most people would apply to the late, great, Tom Bingham, who in his classic The Rule of Law states as his eighth principle “The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law” (pp 110-129).
If “international law does not exist” the alternative is simply might is right/anything goes. If “international law does not exist” on what basis do you condemn Russia’s action in Ukraine, on what basis will you condemn Russia when it re-takes the Baltic States, on what basis will you condemn China when it seizes Taiwan, and on what basis will you condemn the USA when it annexes Greenland?
“I’d give the Devil himself benefit of law, for my own safety” as Robert Bolt has Thomas More say in A Man for All Seasons.
“The issue being Tristan is those laws can be enforced”
Exactly International Law can be enforced if the world or individual nations decide it want to do it, and International Law IS are enforced form time to time. For example General Pinochet was prosecuted in the UK for the crime of torture.
You may have noticed that Trump is threatening the ICC with new sanctions unless it promises not to prosecute him (*)
Clearly Trump thinks international law matters even as ignores it.
(*)https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-threatens-new-icc-sanctions-unless-court-pledges-not-prosecute-trump-2025-12-10/
Tristan; International law is fiction.
What you and Matthew are doing is making a moral judgement – that’s fine. Scratch beneath that mortality and it becomes a minefield of contradictions across the Global elite that espouse those rules based values.
It’s not that long ago the EU headquarters was illuminated with the Israeli flag. How things change.
@Neil: The basis on which I would condemn Russia taking Baltic states/China taking Taiwan etc. is the implied suppression of the people who live in those places, denying them the right to choose their destiny/Government/etc. Coincidentally that’s roughly the same reason that I would condemn the Maduro regime. You don’t need some abstract ‘international law’ to provide the moral framework to see how that is wrong.
“Tristan; International law is fiction.”
So why is Trump threatening the ICC in the hope of obtaining assurances that it will not even try to hold him to account?
I agree with you that international public law is what a group of nation states decide it is, and that without enforcement it can just be preaching, but that applies to any law.
International law is not fiction, and it is “beyond naive” to assert that it is.
International law is often difficult to enforce – True! International law can sometimes seem impossible to enforce – True! But even when that is the case, it stands in the shadows as a Sword of Damocles, ready to be applied when circumstances change. As the Nazis found out.
Trump is scared of the ICC. Good.
Ozymandias, King of Kings, ultimately fell. Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Il will fall. That these tyrants talk of living to 150 is revealing. They know in their hearts that they must eventually die, and will then go down in history as evil tyrants.
They are scared that nemesis may strike earlier than that. Good. Let’s keep them scared. International law is still an effective restraint. We must not dismiss it.
Rather late, but I must commend Mathew for an excellent article. “What matters here is how power is exercised, not simply who wields it. The unilateral seizure of a foreign head of state, without international legal authority or multilateral backing, is a profound breach of the very system of rules that liberal democracies claim to uphold.”
“There are moments when caution is wise. This is not one of them.”
“Liberal democracy is not just about elections. It is about restraint. About institutions. About accepting limits on power – even when power could be used on those we despise.”
“Britain should be arguing for accountability through international mechanisms, for multilateral pressure, for lawful paths to justice – not quietly looking the other way because the perpetrator happens to be an ally.” GREAT SENTENCES TO BE QUOTED.