It’s not the done thing for the leader of a powerful country to send his people in to arrest the leader of another country, regardless of how awful a human being he is and ship him and his wife back to said powerful country to face trial.
I am not an expert in international law, but this does not seem to follow any kind of due process.
One of the most depressing things about the first year of the second Trump presidency is that Trump and his officials have got away virtually unchecked with horrific abuses of process carried out by his administration particularly in the treatment of immigrants, whether they have documents or not.
Congress has been unwilling to hold him accountable for misuse of his presidential powers over tariffs.
And the international community has treated him with cloying obsequity in the hope of getting a few crumbs from his table.
This is by far the least of the administration’s outrages, but when its Vice President comes over here and attacks this country and European neighbours for suppressing freedom of speech and gets the hospitality of our Deputy PM rather than the riposte he deserves, it is a pretty sad state of affairs.
What Trump should have had from across the world today is a chorus of condemnation. What he’s had is some vapid word salad from Keir Starmer:
Asked if he condemned the US action, as a number of other UK politicians have, he told reporters he wanted to “establish facts” and speak to Trump first about the “fast moving situation”.
The EU’s top diplomat pulled her punches too, though at least she acknowledged the illegality. From the BBC:
The European Union’s top diplomat said the situation in Venezuela was being closely monitored.
Kaja Kallas said the EU had repeatedly stated that Maduro “lacks legitimacy” but defended a peaceful transition.
She said that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected”.
Ed Davey, on the other hand, has been a lot more robust:
Keir Starmer should condemn Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela.
Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate dictator, but unlawful attacks like this make us all less safe.
Trump is giving a green light to the likes of Putin and Xi to attack other countries with impunity.
Just imagine if Xi ordered his troops to arrest Lai Ching-te, the leader of Taiwan.
Or if Putin went in to Kyiv and nabbed Zelensky.
Other Lib Dem MPs have also commented.
Al Pinkerton said:
As if the recent US National Security Strategy wasn’t clear enough, today’s illegal invasion and kidnapping in Venezuela sends a stark signal to dictators everywhere: force works.
That is a lesson Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will be only too happy to learn — and one for which we may all end up paying a very high price.
Make no mistake: Nicolás Maduro is a brutal and illegitimate leader. But that does not and cannot justify acting unilaterally, without allies, and outside international law.
Trump’s actions have further shredded the global order — inflicting serious damage on the legal framework that protects UK interests around the world, precisely at the moment it most needs to be strengthened.
Steve Darling was more succinct:
We need a world governed by the rule of law, not by strong men with big sticks.
Caroline Voaden counselled Starmer to find his backbone:
Where’s the condemnation
@Keir_Starmer?If America can get away with this why not Russia, China, Iran…
Time to find your spine and condemn Trump and his deeply irresponsible actions.
James MacCleary:
Is this seriously it from the Prime Minister?! It’s about 12 hours since Trump’s illegal attack in Venezuela started. He probably knows more about what’s happened than almost anyone else on the planet.
@EdwardJDavey is right to call for clear condemnation of Trump’s actions.
Christine Jardine:
Another week another illegal act from Trump and more instability in the international system.
Trump clearly does not want to be the leader of a liberal democracy. He is only interested in taking part in a willy waving competition with the worst of the world’s dictators and he doesn’t care what laws he breaks in the process. That is a pretty terrifying prospect for everyone who cares about democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The street in Australia named after my great great grandfather
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
David Warren
Roland
David Raw
Peter Chambers
32 Comments
It’s beyond naive and it’s mildly amusing to think that those politicians and political parties – mainly across the West think that international law actually exists. Surely that ideal was finally buried under the rubble in Gaza. Trump embarked on regime change in Venezuela by military means and there’s nothing the EU or any other countries can really do – apart from what they’ve done already – usual diplomatic meaningless responses
The man who tried to steal the 2020 US election arrests a man who tried to steal the Venezuelan election…The world has gone mad!
@ Jenny Smith 3rd Jan ’26 – 6:06pm… I suppose the fact that his presidency was not recognised by the USA
And the fact that Cambodia wasn’t noted for it’s massive oil reserves..
Those in Nuuk must be feeling a little uneasy tonight ..
It looks like we also need to condemn those US oil companies which are complicit in this if not the instigators. Trump was able to announce that they would take over the running of Venezualan oil extraction on a timescale that could only be possible with pre-knowledge.
In spite of comments here about the non-existence or ineffectiveness of international law, Ed Davey is absolutely right to condemn Trump’s actions. The concept of international law and cooperation absolutely must be kept alive for the future of this world and planet and people like Trump must continue to be condemned for actions that are based entirely on self gain and might.
A question for Donald Trump….
What happens if the Venezuelan people decide they don’t want THEIR country to be run by Trump/USA?
@expats We can’t tell what the people want, but if Trump expected the Venezuelan VP to comply, it appears she has already rejected his transition plans. A number of Irish parties have taken the stance of critiquing Maduro, but noting that such interventions are more likely to destabilise the region, rather than the converse:
https://www.socialdemocrats.ie/irish-government-must-unequivocally-condemn-us-military-actions-in-venezuela/
https://labour.ie/news/2026/01/03/us-attacks-on-venezuela-mark-major-international-crisis/
A tough one. Yes, in principle attacking a foreign country in the way the USA has done is awful. But is it really any worse than what we and pretty much all democratic countries have done up to now? …. Basically nothing at all – just watched while Maduro’s dictatorial regime drove fully up to a quarter of its own people to flee as refugees to other countries! It’s all very well saying we should abide by international law, but – as Jenny and Greg have pointed out, no-one is bothering to enforce international law and the UN security council is deadlocked by its silly veto system, which makes international law largely a lame duck.
I think I’d wait to see how the situation unfolds before condemning the US Government’s actions. If they do oversee a transition to democracy and restoration of human rights in Venezuela, then millions of people will be grateful for what has happened. If on the other hand the US washes its hands of the situation and lets Venezuela descend into anarchy, then we’ll be well justified in condemning their actions. But right now we don’t know what Trump’s intentions are or how well he’ll follow through.
I think Marco Rubio is the main driver of this policy, it should shore up support for him amongst the Venezualan and Cuban latino voters in Florida.
However what we know from the past is that the US has always been good at decapitating regimes, but really weak on the follow up. So how are they going to run Venezuala? How are they going to hand it over to the new regime? Will the new regime be democratic? Should the US decide to plunder the oil reserves, might there be an anti-US backlash? With the USA pre-occupied in Venezuala, will China take the opportunity to invade Taiwan? Will the US decide to do this in other countries? Columbia, Greenland, Canada to name a few candidates.
@Simon Robinson: Others having done the same is no excuse. Our closest parallel is probably Suez where we tried to reclaim assets that another nation had nationalised by invading them. The USA was not slow to point out that this was unacceptable.
Requiring a UN Resolution to act means giving China and Russia a veto over your foreign/defence policy.
International law is sadly a myth, only military (and to a lesser extent economic) might matters. The rest is just lip service.
Trump was smart to pick on Maduro, as that gave him a vestige of credibility. Success with Maduro will make it easier next time, when he goes for Greenland, or Lula, or Ramaphosa.
Trump’s alliance with Putin is also “smart”. It means Europe are forced to keep quiet or else lose Ukraine. All the while Trump keeps the endless but unsuccessful Ukrainian peace talks going, he keeps leverage over the UK and Europe. One day perhaps he’ll get bored with maintaining that leverage, and he’ll just carve Ukraine down the middle and share it with Putin.
However vile and illegitimate a President Madura was 2 wrongs never make a right and Trump’s behaviour justifies Putin’s war in Ukraine and any action Xi chooses to take against Taiwan.
Ed is to be congratulated on calling Starmer to account for his weak and obsequious response. Starmer’s sucking up to Trump is sickening.
No, Trump’s war does not remotely justify Putin’s war or Xi invading Taiwan. There is a HUGE difference between (a) removing an illegitimate dictator whom everyone knows is only in power as a result of ignoring elections and suppressing opposition, and (b) invading a country that has a democratically elected and completely legitimate Government in order to suppress the wishes of the population of that country and enforce your own rule.
(b) is never justified. (a) may or may not be a reasonable thing to do depending on the circumstances.
@Simon. 100% agree. Very well said.
Note that the lack of international condemnation of Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 from a democratically elected Ukraine gave Putin the green light to infiltrate Donetsk and Luhansk and ultimately to plan the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Ed Davey is right in condemning Trump’s action in Venezuela and encouraging Keir Starmer to wave Labour’s red flag as a warning to Trump, not the white flag of surrender to him!
It seems pointless to mention international law as far as the USA government is concerned. They abandoned that a long time ago.
The difference with Trump is that he believes that as president of the most powerful nation on earth, and as such the law in general does not apply to him, he can do whatever he likes. He expects his cabinet to break the law.
“It seems pointless to mention international law as far as the USA government is concerned. They abandoned that a long time ago”…..Geoff…
When the US attacked Iraq the UN done nothing
When Russia attacked Ukraine the UN done nothing
If China attacked Taiwan the UN would do nothing ..It’s not a law if it cannot be enforced…
Well done Ed.
@Simon Robinson: It’s not that Trump’s action in Venezuela actually justifies aggression by China or Russia, but that these countries may use it as a fig-leaf “justification” for their actions.
Alex Macfie – Spot on.
And to add – What Trump has now done makes him World Big Swinging Dick Number One. To dicks like Putin and Xinping, who worship their own personal indestructibility and the sacred verdict of history, that matters. They will both feel impelled to snatch back global leadership by doing something even more macho, domineering, and disastrous.
@Alex: I doubt either China or Russia is going to influenced in the slightest in any decision about whether to invade anywhere by whether they can use a fig-leaf excuse for doing to. If – say – China is deciding whether or not to invade Taiwan, then the sole factor likely to determine its decision is, whether it can militarily and economically get away with doing so. The main influence we have in that regard is in our ability to convince China/Russia that, if they invade somewhere, we are likely to take action (either military or economic) sufficient to hurt them. We can only speculate here, but it’s quite possible that Trump’s actions in Venezuela may actually help deter China from invading Taiwan, if the lesson China draws is that America is very willing to engage militarily.
@Simon Robinson: “We”? This is a unilateral and illegal operation by the US. And however bad Maduro may have been, the operation has no noble or moral objective. Trump isn’t even pretending otherwise. It can’t have been to restore democracy in Venezuela, otherwise he would have installed María Corina Machado (the legitimate winner of the last election) as President, not Maduro’s #2. Nor does the claim that it’s about stopping the flow of drugs stack up, seeing as Trump has just pardoned a major druglord. America under Trump only engages militarily for its own benefit. The purpose of its intervention in Venezuela is to gain access to oil. The idea that Trump would ever intervene to protect democracy and maintain international law is crackers. Venezuela shows the opposite. Trump is testing the waters to see what he can get away with. After Venezuela, it’ll be Greenland. And other tyrants are doing the same.
“After Venezuela, it’ll be Greenland.”
Quite. See : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o from yesterday.
“After Venezuela, it’ll be Greenland.” Yes, and if it is, Putin will be laughing his head off.
Our Prime Minister needs to very firmly spell out to Trump, that as a member of Nato, the UK is committed to defending any fellow NATO country (i.e. Denmark) that comes under armed attack. This commitment is the core principle of the North Atlantic Treaty, enshrined in Article 5, which stipulates that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all……… and, Sir Edward Davey needs to spell this out to Sir Keir Starmer,
David; There is absolutely zero chance British, German, Italian, etc troops taking on the US armed forces in regards to Greenland. None whatsoever…Fantasy stuff.
@David Raw
“Our Prime Minister needs to very firmly spell out to Trump, that as a member of Nato, the UK is committed to defending any fellow NATO country (i.e. Denmark) that comes under armed attack.”
It would certainly cause NATO extreme difficulties were the US to attach a signatory country, but it does seem completely unrealistic to expect the UK (or any other NATO country not so attacked for that matter) to use armed force against the US if it were to do so. Especially when so much NATO equipment is actually supplied by the US.
The US has the other NATO countries in a bind because of their (and our) refusal to spend enough on their and our own defence over the last decades.
The only solution is quick rearmament and new military and economic alliances with European states, Canada and Australia. Meanwhile we stay out of US adventures so far as we can and somehow hold the line against Russian expansion as we hope for the US to come to its senses as soon as possible and/or the European states (including us) to forge such alliances.
And we have to capitalise on the the UK electorate’s distrust of Trump and Putin so as to beat off Reform.
Also worrying is the number of posters over on Conservative Home calling for similar intervention by Trump in the UK – combined with relatively little push back.
How best to defend Greenland? Sadly Greg is right: we can’t threaten to attack the US, and European rearmament won’t change that situation. But doing nothing, apart from blustering, should equally be a non-option.
Tristan’s idea of forming new military alliances, in parallel with NATO, might be the best way to go. That could start with multilateral army training exercises. Preferably in Greenland.
@ Tristan Ward Who said, “A quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing “….. on 27 September, 1938 ?
@ David Raw.
Chamberlain obviously. The remedy- argued for by liberals in the 1930s like Archie Sinclair and Churchill argued for rapid rearmament. The party is (rightly) doing the same today.
Guardian has put Trump’s Greenland Rhetoric into perspective….
“Greenland has long been on Trump’s agenda but the reasons behind it have changed over time. In 2019, during his first term, he confirmed reports that he had been urging aides to find out how the US could buy the vast Arctic island, describing a sale as “essentially a large real estate deal”. Last January when Trump, then president-elect, said he needed control of Greenland he said it was for “economic security”. But in recent days he has said he needs Greenland “from the standpoint of national security” – despite the risk this would pose to the future of Nato.