It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, January 06, 2026
‘Patriot’ Tommy Robinson calls on Trump to invade UK after Venezuela attack
'Nothing screams ‘patriot’ like asking a foreign President, Donald Trump, to invade your country.'
Far-right agitator Tommy Robinson’s “patriotic” credentials have been called into question after he called on Donald Trump to invade the UK and remove Keir Starmer as prime minister.
Following Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and removal of its President, Nicolás Maduro, Robinson has made a series of posts describing Starmer as “tyrannical dictator” and calling on Trump to “free us”.
Trump’s attacks on Venezuela have been met with condemnation by the politicians and experts, who have said they were illegal.
On X, Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, instead praised Trump’s actions and condemned drug trafficking.
In one post on 3 January, he said: “73,000 Americans are dead because of venezuelas [sic] drug imports. Trump warned him time & time again to deal with it. Taking out maduro is America 1st.”
The far-right anti-Islam campaigner has a criminal record for possession of cocaine with intent to supply.
In a post yesterday, Robinson said: “Yo, @realDonaldTrump, as you’re doing the rounds removing dodgy communist dictators.
“I know of one who is allowing violent invaders to pour into the country’s communities, who are killing, raping and pillaging.
“On top of that, he’s making the people pay for it, and jailing people who speak out against the regimes’ wrongdoings.
“This is where he hides under armed guard. Coordinates: 51°30’12” N, 0°07’39” W.”
The tweet contained an image of Starmer coming out of the front door of 10 Downing Street.
In another post, Robinson said: “We would now love America & president trump to free us from our tyrannical dictator @Keir_Starmer.”
Journalist and presenter Sangita Myska, wrote in a post on X: “Nothing screams ‘patriot’ like asking a foreign President, Donald Trump, to invade your country.
“Tommy Robinson is a fraud.”
Another X user wrote: “‘I’m a patriot and I want a foreign leader to invade my country’ Says Tommy Robinson.”
In a speech at Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in September, Elon Musk said called for the dissolution of Parliament and for a change of government.
Musk, who has donated money to Robinson to cover his legal costs, also used inflammatory language at the rally, urging people to “fight back or die”.
"So you’re ok with him trotting around the world abducting presidents?"
Reform UK has defended Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela and capture of its President, Nicolás Maduro.
The US government captured Maduro and the first lady Cilia Flores and flew them out of Venezuela on Saturday.
Reform deputy leader Richard Tice said that “it’s good news that a serious enemy of the West” has been removed and that he was “illegitimate”.
On Sky News, Tice claimed that Trump’s overthrow of the government was “clearly in accordance with US domestic law”.
He also cited article 51 of the United Nations charter, which “recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN Member”.
Presenter Trevor Phillips challenged Tice on this, stating: “It seems that this is sort of stretching that a little bit to the point where perhaps any country that the United States disapproves of could expect a visit from the Delta Force on the basis of what you’ve just said”.
Tice again argued that the US constitution allows the US President to act in the self-defense of US citizens.
“So you’re ok with him trotting around the world abducting presidents?,” Phillips asked.
The Reform MP said: “That is a matter for the US President.”
Phillips said it seemed that Tice was backing “a rather active foreign policy” in which the US is able to decide that “a particular leader isn’t really doing the job that the United States thinks it should do as opposed to what its own people say”.
Tice again repeated that Trump had acted to defend the interests of US citizens.
Phillips noted that Russian president Vladimir Putin would make the same argument about NATO’s advance to his borders.
Tice dismissed the comparison as “apples and pears” and “nonsense”, saying Putin wanted to invade the whole of Ukraine and “keep it”.
“President Trump has just said we’re going to run Venezuela until we decide we don’t want to,” Phillips said.
“Until a successful, peaceful transition,” Tice replied.
“And who is going to decide the transition is over?” Phillips asked.
Tice said the challenge was to prevent “chaos from descending into Venezuela”.
Trump initially framed Saturday’s attack on Caracas as an anti-drug operation, with officials calling Maduro and his wife “two indicted fugitives”.
He said the US would run Venezuela until “a safe and proper and judicious transition” was possible.
The US president later made clear that he planned to exploit Venezuela’s vast crude oil reserves, saying American oil companies would move into the country.
Experts have said Trump’s attacks on Venezuela were in breach of international law.
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers, said the attack was against the United Nations charter. Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
US out of Venezuela!
3 January, 2026 - 12:59
Author: Will Roberts
WORKERS LIBERTY
Less than four days after declaring that his new year’s resolution was “peace. Peace on earth”, Donald Trump has bombed Caracas and kidnapped the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.
In a subsequent press conference at Mar a Lago, Trump made a series of baffling claims. Chief among them: the US will "run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition". Trump stated that he was "not afraid of boots on the ground", but also that he didn't envisage a lot of US troops being present.
There seems to be (at least) a difference in emphasis between Trump and Marco Rubio. While Trump has since repeated his claim that “we’re going to run things”, Rubio made different comments to the press on Sunday 4 Jan, while clearly trying not to overtly contradict the president. “It’s not running,” he asserted, “it’s running policy”. For now, the model appears to be that Delcy Rodriguez will be made to follow the White House’s decrees, in order to facilitate American-led restructuring of Venezuelan oil. Trump claimed at the press conference that the US had spoken to Rodriguez and she had agreed to cooperate.
At first, Rodriguez declared that the US had illegally invaded, and that Maduro was the country’s “only” president. In an Instagram post on the evening of Sunday 4 January, she changed tack, inviting the US to “collaborate with us on an agenda of co-operation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law”. This was no doubt influenced by Trump’s threat of a second strike earlier that day.
Rodriguez is an obvious go-between choice: she was central to the discussions during the Biden administration that allowed oil company Chevron to be given special license by the US to operate in Venezuela. She is also a trusted member of the Maduro government. She has helped oversee multiple openly fraudulent elections, and was certainly no opponent to the government arresting and imprisoning thousands of protestors. Although she has ties to America, she is undeniably a “continuity candidate”.
Trump stated that he had not been talking to oppositionist Maria Corina Machado, who he claims lacks support. Machado declared about an hour before the press conference that she wanted Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, who the Venezuelan opposition claimed "actually" won the last election, to be named president.
Trump also declared that "American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again," quipping that the 'Monroe doctrine' should now be called the "Don-roe doctrine".
The US have announced that Maduro will face trial in New York on charges related to “drugs and weapons offences”. Trump also repeated his recent warning to Colombian president Gustavo Petro, who he has accused of similar involvement in cartels and drug trafficking. He repeated and strengthened these threats on Sunday and Monday, 4-5 January, saying that Petro's "time was up" and that a military operation in Colombia "sounds good". He also repeated his statements that Cuba, reliant on Venezuelan oil imports, was due to collapse any day now, without US involvement.
Trump has been framing Venezuela as a “narcostate” since returning to office, and is clearly trying to clean up unfinished business from his first presidential term, where his campaign against Maduro failed to achieve tangible results. The role played here by Trump’s alarmingly simplistic worldview is real and significant: Maduro is a "socialist" (in Trump's eyes) who scorned the US, and Trump sees it as his role to retaliate.
But there are other significant factors at play. Capturing Maduro matches Trump’s general trend of moving America back to a more “hands-on” imperialist force in world politics. This includes both more overt policies – bombing Iran, threatening to capture Greenland – and admixtures of political and economic foreign policy, such as Trump’s garish plans to renovate Gaza, and the direct profiteering proposed in Ukraine peace plans.
Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, around five times those of the US. Since US sanctions imposed in 2017, it has been unable to sell them to much of the global market. In recent years it has pivoted almost entirely towards selling to China (Maduro was kidnapped during the middle of a Chinese diplomatic delegation to Venezuela – something the US government will have been aware of).
In the press conference, Trump was outspoken about the central role American oil companies will play in Venezuela going forward. When asked about how this affected relations with Russia and China, he replied that they were in the oil market, and he would sell it to them. A combined stranglehold on Venezuelan politics and the oil industry would be an incredibly lucrative development and significantly bolster the US's control of global oil markets. The oil companies themselves have been reserved when responding. Chevron first issued a statement saying that they would work with America to "strengthen US energy security", then retracted the statement and released another, stating just "we continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations".
As yet, there is no clear picture what the outcome will be in Venezuela itself. The US lacks even a functioning embassy in Caracas, and there is no visible US military presence on the ground.
Keir Starmer has been even more weaselly than usual on Venezuela. He has refused, in multiple interviews, to call the US attack illegal, and waited until after Trump's press conference to state that Maduro was an illegitimate dictator, and the government would "continue to talk to the US". MP Emily Thornberry has been the most prominent figure to break ranks and declare that the US had violated international law.
Maduro's government has long been a nationalist military rule with Stalinist overtones, reliant on mass repression of political expression and the imposing of austerity on Venezuelan workers. The last Venezuelan presidential election, in 2024, was so clearly corrupt that its critics included not only fellow Latin American left leaders like Gabriel Boric, but even the previously pro-Maduro Communist Party of Venezuela. 2400 people were arrested in protests after that election, the majority of whom have now been released – a tranche of 88 were released just hours before Maduro’s kidnapping. A workers’ alternative to Maduro, a democratic future with open elections and space for workers’ organisations to operate freely, should be the desired goal for socialists the world over.
That future will be won by the Venezuelan working class itself, not by American military intervention. Workers’ democracy cannot be instituted through the barrel of a gun; it is not spread by missile shrapnel.
When asked by the BBC whether Maduro was a “legitimate president”, a former adviser said on the morning of 5 January that the question was “irrelevant”, given the US abducting the elected head of a sovereign nation. It is certainly true that Maduro’s legitimacy or illegitimacy gives the US no right to attack and kidnap him, and Maduro should be released and returned to Venezuela. But the legitimacy of the Chavista government is an entirely “relevant” question for the future of the country.
The demand for free and open elections in Venezuela is not new, and has been necessary throughout Maduro’s presidency. The current US invasion does not negate that fact. Regardless of potential deals and the need to oppose US imposition and invasion, the fundamental question remains: who should rule?
A likely candidate in any free election would be Maria Corina Machado, or Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, the candidate who stood in her place when she was banned from standing in the last election. Given that Machado had previously called for American intervention in Venezuela, and has told Giorgia Meloni that she sees recent events as a positive step towards a “peaceful transition”. Any government under her leadership would still leave the Venezuelan working class under the heel of an oppressive boot, ultimately bending to the wishes of the US. But that does not change the fact that calls for an immediate free election are just and should be supported. The anti-Chavista left is small and disorganised, but it exists, and should be the force we look to.
Socialists must stand against the American intervention in Venezuela: solidarity with the Venezuelan people, defend their right to self defence, and solidarity in particular with any independent forces in the Venezuelan working-class movement.
Postscript
The US operation has no close analogue in previous history. The nearest approximations are the early 1960s CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, accompanied by the "Bay of Pigs" invasion attempt in April 1961; and the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.
The Kennedy-CIA attempts in Cuba must have been premised on a hope that they would spark internal revolt against Castro (Castro's first president, Manuel Urrutia, had resigned in July 1959, and fled to the USA), but, on all evidence, groundless hope.
The USA under Reagan invaded Grenada days after Stalinists led by Bernard Coard and Hudson Austin overthrew the left-wing New Jewel Movement (NJM) government of Maurice Bishop, killed Bishop, and declared martial law. Bishop himself was (literally) a former Islington Labour Party leftie; he had come to power in 1979 in an uprising against the corrupt regime of Eric Gairy, widely condemned as having rigged the 1976 election with his political police. The Americans had Grenada's Governor-General (who had worked with Bishop) appoint a new government (Grenadian, not American, and mild conservatives). Mild conservatives (from parties who had been in electoral alliance with the NJM in 1976) have governed and won elections since. Gairy never got back.
On the evidence, the people of Grenada didn't like Coard; they liked Bishop, but Coard had killed him and others from his faction in the NJM (which collapsed); they didn't like the American invasion and subsequent mild-conservative regime much, but thought that better than Coard and Austin continuing.
For the approximations to "work", Trump's administration must think or hope it has a faction in Venezuela's army that will now cooperate. Whether it has a faction of any substance, and whether it can seize power quickly or throw the country into civil war, we don't know yet.
MT
Dame Emily Thornberry says US action in Venezuela not legal, in strongest criticism yet
'We cannot have breaches of international law like this. We cannot have the law of the jungle.'
Dame Emily Thornberry has become the most senior Labour MP thus far to criticise Donald Trump’s strikes on Venezuela over the weekend, which saw President Nicolas Maduro and his wife captured.
The Trump administration attacked Venezuela on Saturday, saying that the US will now “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” can be ensured. The US president has also said US oil companies would also fix Venezuela’s “broken infrastructure” and “start making money for the country”.
Senior Democrats have criticised Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela, slamming it as an illegal act carried out in the absence of required congressional approval that would lead to disaster for the American people.
The Trump administration has justified the capture of Maduro, who is now awaiting trial in the US, saying that the Venezuelan has engaged in state-sponsored drug trafficking with its support of notorious gangs, including the Cartel of the Suns, which the US declared a terrorist organisation late last year.
Prosecutors say Maduro has conspired for decades with drug trafficking groups and U.S.-designated terrorist organizations to flood the U.S. with thousands of tons of cocaine.
Maduro was first indicted in 2020 as part of a long-running narcotics trafficking case against current and former Venezuelan officials and Colombian guerrillas.
Maduro is charged with narco-terrorism, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices.
However, the Trump administration’s justifications have been met with criticism in some quarters, with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres saying he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected”, his spokesperson said. He also said he was “deeply alarmed” by the strikes, which set a “dangerous precedent.”
Emily Thornberry is among other Labour MPs who have also criticised the actions, with the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee saying that US military action in Venezuela breaches international law and the UK should make clear it is “unacceptable”.
Dame Emily told BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour the strikes were “not a legal action” and she “cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification”.
She said the UK and its allies should collectively say “we cannot have breaches of international law like this. We cannot have the law of the jungle.”
She went on to add: “We condemn Putin for doing it. We need to make clear that Donald Trump shouldn’t be doing it either.
“People just can’t do whatever they want. I mean, we really can’t have a kind of international anarchy.”
Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
Labour MPs raise concerns for international norms as Foreign Secretary responds to US action in Venezuela
James Tibbitts 6th January, 2026
Photo: House of Commons
:
Labour MPs have called on the government to speak out against American intervention in Venezuela as the Prime Minister attempts to balance UK-US relations with upholding international law.
In a statement to MPs last night, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said the government’s position is to “press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy which reflects the will of the Venezuelan people and maintains security in the region and is in line with international law”.
However, she also expressed the importance of a commitment to international law to the House and said she has reminded her American counterpart Marco Rubio of his obligations.
“Those principles guide the decisions that we make and the actions we take as part of Britain’s foreign policy. That commitment to international law as part of our values is also strongly in the UK’s national interest.”
However, several Labour MPs called on the Foreign Secretary to take a tougher stance, including chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and Islington South MP Emily Thornberry – who warned of a “profound risk of international norms changing”.
She said: “If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another, however abhorrent that leader is, and tries to intimidate the smaller country to, as it says itself, gain access to its resources, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that this should be called out not just by Britain, but by our western allies?
“We should be calling it out for what it is – a breach of international law. It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law; it is surely for the west to stand up and call it as it is.”
Other backbenchers joined MPs from across the House in expressing their concern at the government’s response to the situation in Venezuela.
Leeds East MP Richard Burgon, who has been vocal in his opposition to the US overthrow of Maduro, accused the Prime Minister of a “cowardly, craven approach” and of disregarding the United Nations Charter over the American intervention.
He said: “The reality is that if it were Putin doing this, the Prime Minister would not be saying ‘It’s up to the Russians to decide whether or not this is legal’, but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said in relation to Trump’s disgusting attack on Venezuela.”
However, criticism was not solely confined to Labour’s left-wing MPs, with those more loyal to the government also expressing their concern.
Sonia Kumar, MP for Dudley, quoted the UN Charter, which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” She then stressed the need for a “peaceful transition” in Venezuela “in the hands of its people and not dictated by foreign governments, who must follow international law”.
Peter Prinsley, MP for Bury St. Edmunds and Stowmarket, expressed fears that the international order could be uprooted and said: “If we do not condemn the American actions in Venezuela, what is to stop dictators around the world acting in a similar way against our allies and our interests?”
The Foreign Secretary told the House that it was “for the US to set out the legal position behind their actions”.
‘Future of Greenland a matter for Greenlanders and Danes and no one else’
Addressing concerns around Donald Trump’s ambitions to annex the Danish territory of Greenland, the Foreign Secretary said: “Let me be very clear on the UK’s position. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, our close European partners, our longstanding NATO allies and all our countries work closely together on security issues and will always do so. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes and no one else.”
Dan Carden, MP for Liverpool Walton and leader of the Blue Labour parliamentary group, expressed concern that American intervention in Venezuela could lead to further military action against other nations.
“This episode shows the US shifting to the western hemisphere, leaving European security more exposed, and the willingness of the US to interfere in foreign states, with serious implications for our NATO ally Denmark.”
As Greenland is part of the kingdom of Denmark, talk of this nature continues to place uncomfortable strain on both transatlantic and NATO alliances for the Labour government to deal with.
The Foreign Secretary remained clear in her responses regarding Greenland, sticking to the comments outlined in the original statement on the matter and echoing the words of the Prime Minister.
Labour MPs urge Keir Starmer to condemn Trump over Venezuela attack
One MP has accused the prime minister of ‘abandoning international law’ to ‘appease’ Trump
Labour MPs have said Keir Starmer should condemn Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela and the removal of its president on Saturday.
Several left-wing MPs have criticised the UK government’s refusal to say whether striking Venezuela and capturing the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the first lady Cilia Flores was illegal.
Trump has said the US will run Venezuela until “safe, proper and judicious transition” of power can be ensured.
Starmer and his chief secretary, Darren Jones, have said it is up to the Americans to decide to lay out the legal basis for their actions.
Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry told BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour that Trump’s strikes on Venezuela were “not a legal action” and that she “cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification”.
Richard Burgon MP has accused Starmer of abandoning international law “to appease Donald Trump”.
In a post on X, he said: “The Prime Minister is the one who chose to abandon international law over the attack on Venezuela in order to appease Donald Trump.
“Other ministers are simply following his script. So the Prime Minister himself should come to Parliament today to explain that appalling decision.”
Responding to Jones’ interview on LBC this morning, Labour MP John McDonnell said: “When you listen to the prevarication of Keir Starmer and his ministers on a basic point of international law we need to be ruthlessly honest and recognise that effectively our country has been rendered up as a Trump colony.”
In the interview, the prime minister’s secretary refused to say whether he would urge the US President not to abduct other foreign leaders.
The Labour MP for Norwich South, Clive Lewis, said: “Trump has launched an illegal act of aggression against Venezuela.
“A clear breach of the Nuremberg principles – which the UK helped write. Now a Lab govt won’t even defend them. This silence isn’t diplomacy. It’s the moral equivalent of a white flag.”
Green Party leader Zack Polanski responded to the interview, stating: “Darren Jones saying repeatedly the Labour Government won’t comment on a hypothetical.
“It’s not hypothetical – Trump is saying very loudly repeatedly what he’s done and boasting about it.
“And yet the UK Government won’t even say it’s a breach of international rules. Shameful.”
The foreign secretary Yvette Cooper will address MPs on the US operation in Venezuela today.
Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
Prime Minister issues statement on Venezuela
LabourList Staff 3rd January, 2026
Photo: Simon Dawson/No 10 Downing Street
:
Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued the following statement on the ongoing situation following the US strikes on Venezuala:
“The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela. We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate President and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.
“I reiterated my support for international law this morning. The UK government will discuss the evolving situation with US counterparts in the days ahead as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people.
Keir Starmer’s evasiveness towards Donald Trump’s assault on Venezuela is a clarifying example of Britain’s ‘special relationship’ of unthinking submission to the White House’s interests.
Maduro's kidnapping and US attacks on Venezuela are war crimes. (Credit: Donald Trump, Truthsocial)
In 2003, thousands of us took to the streets to oppose the US-led invasion of Iraq. ‘We shall help Iraq move towards democracy’, Tony Blair told us. Perhaps he shared speech notes with George W. Bush, who promised a better future for the Iraqi people. ‘When the dictator has departed’, the President said, ‘they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.’ Ignoring the warnings of ordinary people who could see the catastrophe ahead, and bypassing any approval from the United Nations, the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq resulted in the deaths of more than a million Iraqis, and set off a spiral of hatred, conflict and misery that is still spinning today.
This was the last time a Labour Prime Minister blindly backed the wishes of the United States and its warmongering President. Twenty-three years later, another Labour Prime Minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States. On Saturday, the United States launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela, killing more than 40 people. Our Prime Minister’s response? ‘The UK has long supported a transition of power.’
Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law. It’s really not that complicated: bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal. It is absolutely staggering that a Prime Minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious.
It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: he is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high. When ministers go on air and refuse to say whether it is illegal for the United States to kidnap a sitting President, this is no relationship. It is humiliation.
Just like Iraq, we are being treated to increasingly fragile and ludicrous justifications for illegal acts of war. As self-proclaimed defenders of the free world, the loudest cheerleaders of the Iraq war relied on the same old, tired smears those who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq were giving succour to authoritarian dictators. But millions of ordinary people knew the truth. That was no moral mission. It was an illegal, imperial conquest, hidden behind the language of democracy and human rights.
Today, nations and leaders are once again falling in line behind the United States, making vague appeals to a ‘democratic transition’. It is telling that Trump’s messianic motivations in Latin America do not extend to Argentina, where a right-wing President has plunged the nation into an unprecedented economic crisis characterised by falling employment, soaring poverty and repeated corruption scandals. According to Trump, Venezuela warrants military intervention; Argentina deserves a bail-out.
The United States tells us it needs to abduct a head of state in order to punish him for ‘narco-terrorism’. This is the same line it has used to justify extrajudicial killings at sea over the past few months. The US has not yet provided any information about the people on board the ships, let alone any evidence that they were transporting drugs. Indeed, it is well known that most of the cocaine does not come from Venezuela on small boats, but via major commercial shipments through the Pacific. You can tell how thin these lies are by how quickly they fade. ‘The oil companies are going to go in’, Donald Trump said, ‘and we’re taking back what they stole.’ This was never about drugs. This is about the United States reasserting imperial power in a mineral-rich nation.
I am not alone in finding the UK government’s response utterly pathetic. The failure to stand up to the United States is not just symbolic. By refusing to stand up for international law, the UK has given the green light to the United States to act with impunity. Venezuela first. Who’s next? Is there anything the United States could do that would warrant condemnation from our government? Unfortunately, given that the UK and the US have spent the past two years enabling the genocide in Gaza together, I am not sure there is any point appealing to hypothetical limits of morality.
As Claudia Sheinbaum, President of Mexico, said this week, ‘The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: intervention has never brought democracy, never generated well-being, nor lasting stability. Only the people can build their own future, decide their path, exercise sovereignty over their natural resources, and freely define their form of government.’
The story of US-led foreign interventions is a story of chaos, instability and misery. How many more of these catastrophic failures do we need before we learn the lesson? And what will it take for the UK to finally defend a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty and peace? Contributors
Jeremy Corbyn is the Member of Parliament for Islington North and a member of the Independent Alliance group of MPs.
CND Condemns Illegal US Military Attack on Venezuela
“It is clear that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the Venezuelan government and take control of the country’s huge oil wealth.”
By the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
CND totally condemns the US illegal military aggression against Venezuela. In the early hours of Saturday morning the US launched military attacks on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas as well as other states including Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira – targeting civilian areas. These actions are in breach of international law. Trump has also announced the removal of Venezuela’s President, Nicolas Maduro, from the country.
These illegal actions follow months of a huge military build-up on Venezuela’s coast by the US, including nuclear-capable B52 long-range bombers that have been making flights from the US to the Venezuelan coast.
Alongside this, the US had been carrying out illegal attacks against fishing boats, killing over 100 people in what UN experts say amounts to extrajudicial killings. The seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters have been further violations.
It is clear that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the Venezuelan government and take control of the country’s huge oil wealth.
This attack against the Venezuelan population, also threatens the whole of Latin America. Trump has made this explicit in his National Security Strategy, which states that the US needs to restore its “pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere” so that the US can “assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region”.
Trump’s Strategy aims to install regimes that will ‘work to strengthen our security partnership – from weapons sales, to intelligence sharing to joint exercises.” He wants to turn Latin America into a military alliance, to fight his global war to maintain US dominance.
The result of this would be absolutely horrific. We have all seen the devastating consequences of US military interventions in Latin America before. US sanctions against Venezuela alone have killed over 40,000 people.
The people of Venezuela and Latin America have the right to live in peace, to control their own resources and determine their own future.
We call for an end to this military intervention against Venezuela, its people and its sovereignty. The British government must denounce these illegal actions and call for the release of the Venezuelan President.
“We send our solidarity to the people of Venezuela and stand with them against this violent intervention.”
By the RMT
General secretary Eddie Dempsey said: “We condemn the illegal military attack carried out by the United States of America on Venezuela which resulted in President Maduro being kidnapped by US special forces.
“In accordance with international law and respect for sovereign nations, the UK Government must demand the immediate cessation of military hostilities towards Venezuela and the return of its President.
“Only by following the UN Charter can we create a framework for peace, stability and mutual respect between nations.
“Let us be clear: whatever excuses Donald Trump makes, this military aggression is about control of Venezuela’s oil – the largest proven oil reserves in the world.”
By the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
We utterly condemn the military aggression against Venezuela ordered by Donald Trump — an illegal and dangerous US regime-change operation against a sovereign nation.
This is a flagrant violation of international law and a wholly unjustified attack.
Let us be clear: whatever excuses Donald Trump makes, this military aggression is about control of Venezuela’s oil – the largest proven oil reserves in the world.
It is also part of Trump’s wider attempt to once again turn Latin America into a US colony – as made clear in his recent National Security Strategy.
We demand an immediate end to this illegal US military action against Venezuela and the safe return of President Nicolás Maduro, who has been kidnapped as part of a US regime-change operation aimed at seizing control of Venezuela and its resources.
We call on the UK Government to condemn unequivocally this act of unjustified aggression and blatant violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and international law.
No War on Venezuela Emergency Actions Organised by Solidarity and Peace Activists
“An emergency online rally has been announced for 6pm on Sunday 4th January, with a demonstration outside Downing Street at the same time on the following day.”
By Ben Hayes
Peace and anti-war campaigns are joining together in opposition to the bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of the country’s President Nicolás Maduro as part of a US military offensive.
Challenging the stated motivation behind this attack and stating “it is clear that Donald Trump wants to overthrow the Venezuelan government and take control of the country’s huge oil wealth”, campaigners have also demanded that the British government “denounce these illegal actions and call for the release of the Venezuelan President.”
An emergency online rally has been announced for 6pm on Sunday 4th January, with a demonstration outside Downing Street at the same time on the following day.
No Wat on Venezuela Emergency Online Rally. 6pm Sunday, January 4th.
There is an urgent need for solidarity with Venezuela. Stop the War Coalition is organising with the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign and CND for an online rally on Sunday 4 January.
We demand the British government condemns the forced removal of Maduro and the US attack on Venezuela. The government must call for an immediate cessation of military action by the US and the return of Maduro to his country.
No comments:
Post a Comment