'I am sick of hearing European leaders bleating on – we need to wake up’
Keir Starmer’s diplomatic response to Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela has drawn criticism from some of his own MPs. Why have European leaders offered such a muted response to major action?
Listen to this article
Read time: 4 mins
In brief…
- Keir Starmer, and leaders of EU countries have refused to condemn Trump’s military action in Venezuela for fear of making the US president “furious” and jeopardising their own relationships.
- The News Agents say they are “sick” of world leaders “bleating on” about the collapse of a rules-based order in global relations, previously upheld by the US, and that what matters today in the Trump era is ‘hard power’.
- Jon Sopel and Lewis Goodall say the time has come for Starmer, and other leaders, to admit the world has changed, which they must accept and adapt to.
What’s the story?
There have been celebrations among many people both inside and outside of Venezuela, after President Nicolás Maduro was removed from power after 13 years.
The methods the US took to make this happen (invasion, kidnapping) in the oil-rich country have proven more controversial.
Many world leaders – including the UK’s Keir Starmer – have said they would wait to see what the experts decided over whether international law had been broken.
Starmer has been treading carefully around the subject, stating that the UK has "supported the transition of power" in Venezuela, and that Maduro was considered an "illegitimate president".
"We shed no tears about the end of his regime," the PM said, adding that the Labour government will speak with American counterparts to seek a "safe and peaceful" transition of power in the country, and stressing that the UK had no involvement with US military action.
But Starmer's stance was contradicted by some of his own MPs, who believe the strike was illegal, and want the UK government to condemn Trump's actions.
The US president was accused of carrying out "gangster politics" by Richard Burgon MP, chairman of the Socialist Campaign Group, who called on Starmer to respond in the same way he would to an attack by Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Diane Abbott said that if Starmer was unable – or unwilling – to call the strike illegal then his talk of "human rights, the law and democracy" was nothing but "hot air".
Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Kim Johnson and Kate Osborne have also called on the Prime Minister to take a tougher stance against the actions of the US.
Why not condemn Trump's invasion and 'kidnapping' of Maduro?
Much has been made about the UK's 'special relationship' with America, from Keir Starmer and the Tory Prime Ministers who preceded him – and it is this which prevents the Prime Minister from taking a stronger stance against military action in Venezuela.
"If Starmer and the other European leaders condemn Trump in this way, he will clearly be furious about it," says Lewis Goodall.
"He will not forget it. We have some big security asks from him at the moment – not least with Ukraine, which is still ongoing – and we are fearful of eviscerating any goodwill he has through doing this."
Before returning to power in January 2025, Donald Trump promised to make massive cuts to the aid sent from the US to Ukraine, but in the months that followed his inauguration, instead made demands of NATO members to increase their support to amounts closer to American contributions.
Lewis accuses Starmer, and other leaders across Europe, of complaining about the lack of support from America, instead of challenging Trump on his actions.
"I am really sick of hearing European government leaders bleating about the rules-based order – insofar as the rules-based order existed," he says.
The rules-based order is a set of structured relationships which has existed since the 1940s, and involves international cooperation between major organisations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, and the countries involved in these.
It was established after the end of World War II, and was led – and largely implemented in the years after – by America.
"That is clearly gone in the sense that the guarantor of that order – the United States – currently and for the foreseeable future, is not interested in policing that order," Lewis adds.
"It does not exist at the moment. We are in a world now of un-reconstituted hard power. What matters is how much hard power, both economic and military, you have."
The UK, and Europe, has benefitted greatly from the rules-based order, having "outsourced" security requirements to the US for decades.
"That was always risky because it relied on United States goodwill and a willingness to enforce that order, which it no longer does," Lewis adds.
"There is no point in us bleating and crying about it.
"We need to wake up to the new reality – the United States has changed, and we need to change with it."
Does the UK have any 'hard power' to wield?
Trump has made no secret of what's next on his territory wish-list – he's had Greenland (and its rare earth minerals and global trade opportunities) in his sights since returning to power.
The News Agents believe that should Trump make moves on Greenland, which is part of Europe, then Starmer and other leaders would be compelled to take a stronger stance.
"If we in Europe, we in Britain, want a seat at the table, and if we want to make sure that Trump doesn't go after Greenland, we're going to have to start showing some hard power and a willingness to deploy hard power," Lewis says.
Jon Sopel says the US invasion of Venezuela signifies how much the US has “fundamentally changed” under Trump’s second administration.
"The shamelessness, and unapologetic, nature of it should make Europeans think, yes, we have got to stop bleating about this.
"We've got to recognise it, and with all the policy considerations that flow from that."