Minister rejects claims government refusing to call Maduro extradition illegal to placate Trump – UK politics live | Politics

by Rachel Morgan News Editor

Keir Starmer, in a lengthy BBC interview yesterday, repeatedly addressed questions regarding his reluctance to condemn the intervention in Venezuela led by the United States, even as concerns arose about its legality under international law. Starmer positioned himself as “a lifelong advocate of international law and the importance of compliance with international law,” but maintained he needed to fully understand “all the material facts” before commenting on the legality of the situation.

A Prioritized Relationship

Pressed by interviewer Laura Kuenssberg, even after she pointed out the readily available key facts, Starmer appeared to suggest his reluctance to criticize the US stemmed from a desire not to harm the vital relationship between the two countries. He stated, “The relationship between the US and the UK is one of the closest relationships in the world. It is vitally important for our defence, for our security, for our intelligence.”

Did You Know? Keir Starmer had planned to begin the parliamentary week focusing on the cost of living crisis, but this agenda was overtaken by developments surrounding the US intervention in Venezuela.

Starmer emphasized his responsibility to ensure this relationship functions effectively, stating, “It is my responsibility to make sure that relationship works, as the prime minister of this country, working with the president of the United States.” He acknowledged differing viewpoints but underscored the paramount importance of the defense, security, and intelligence ties with the US, asserting it would not be in the UK’s “national interest to weaken that in any way.”

International Concerns

The UK’s measured response contrasts with the stance taken by the European Union. All EU states, with the exception of Hungary, issued a joint statement stressing the importance of upholding international law in the wake of the US intervention. The statement called for “calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.”

Expert Insight: The situation highlights the complex balancing act faced by governments when navigating alliances with powerful nations. Prioritizing a strong bilateral relationship, particularly in areas of defense and intelligence, can lead to a reluctance to publicly criticize actions that may be legally questionable, even when those actions conflict with stated principles of international law.

Emily Thornberry, chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, expressed concern that the US approach could embolden other global powers, such as Russia and China, to take similar unilateral actions. The UK government, through Migration Minister Mike Tapp, has maintained that it is in conversation with the US and is assessing the legal basis for the intervention.

Looking Ahead

The coming days will likely see continued scrutiny of the UK’s position. Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, is expected to address Parliament regarding Venezuela after 3:30pm. Depending on the US justification for its actions, and the evolving international response, the UK government may face increasing pressure to clarify its stance on the legality of the intervention. It remains to be seen whether Starmer will maintain his current position, or if further developments will compel a more direct condemnation of the US actions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was Keir Starmer’s initial response to questions about the Venezuela intervention?

Starmer initially stated he needed to gather “all the material facts” and establish “the full picture” before commenting on the legality of the intervention.

What did Mike Tapp say regarding criticism of Starmer’s position?

Mike Tapp stated that the British government is in conversation with the Americans and that it is for the US to lay out the legal basis for its actions.

What was the EU’s response to the intervention?

All EU states, except Hungary, issued a joint statement stressing the importance of upholding international law and calling for a peaceful solution to the crisis.

Given the delicate balance between international alliances and adherence to legal principles, how should governments navigate situations where the actions of close allies appear to conflict with international law?

You may also like

Leave a Comment