Below is an article published today in Labour List by Luke Akehurst and Graham Jones. It deals with questions I had about the U.S. incursion in Venezuela. I think it is a perceptive and valid perspective.

The problem, of course, is that Trump is involved who has no qualms about revealing his underlying motives. Having removed an illegitimate President, the U.S. now needs to quickly facilitate free and fair elections and support the resultant regime. It won’t. Trump has already openly declared that he envisions the U.S. ‘running’ Venezuela for the foreseeable future, while they facilitate the plunder of Venezuelan oil reserves.

The other problem is his declared intentions towards other territories in the Western Hemisphere: Columbia, Panama, Cuba, Canada and, probably imminently, Greenland.

Thus, as much as I welcome and agree with Luke and Graham’s analysis below, it offers no relief to the discomforting and disturbing feelings that arseholes like Trump and Putin are leading us into the most volatile and dangerous era of my lifetime.

Here is the article:

There is much commentary on the legality of the US action in Venezuela which confuses many issues.

 The rules are clear. You cannot invade another country. You can be invited in. The UK is in Ukraine legally not because of the UN, but because the Ukrainian sovereign government has invited us in. Putin may say it’s illegal, but it isn’t.

Only a sovereign nation can determine an intervention as to whether it is by friend or foe. In this case, the government of Venezuela.

This is the point where it all gets confused and where it pivots to the question of who is the sovereign body for Venezuela under the legal principle of ‘One Voice?’. Who runs Venezuela?

Too many don’t realise or don’t want to realise what this legal framework means.

Venezuela is an odd case. 65 countries recognise the opposition as the winners of the 2024 election and legitimate (legal) sovereign body.

This UK government, like previous governments, has repeatedly stated that Maduro is not the President and refuse to refer to him as such, instead referring to him as illegitimate.

Broadly speaking, those with the opposite view, countries who recognise Maduro, are led by those with democratic deficits: Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang.

And you know where this is going. The Venezuelan opposition (and election winners) call it a liberation and the Maduro regime (losers) an invasion.

Here in the UK, we are bound by law and we recognise the sovereign government as being the opposition. We have a robust legal framework here. There is opportunity to challenge the government and challenge this assertion in parliament and in the courts. But this recognition has been the policy of the last five prime ministers and crucially has already, for rare reasons, been tested in UK courts.

This is because the Bank of England holds vast quantities of Venezuelan gold bars in its vaults and both sides contested their sovereignty.

Maduro wanted it returned, the opposition wanted it to remain stored in the vaults. The court had to decide the principle of who represents Venezuela and held up the UK Government’s position that the Venezuelan opposition won the election and the gold must therefore stay in the UK.

The legal principle established here was who is the sovereign body in Venezuela to which the courts decided it was the opposition and not the Maduro government. In short, the UK government’s clear position as determined by the courts is that it can only take instruction from the Venezuelan opposition. The UK has therefore abided by the law and the gold bars remain in the BoE. This principle is at the crux of legality. 

The UK government has and continues to uphold this legal judgement. The alternative would be to recognise the Maduro regime as legitimate.

It’s a factor in the US too where Maduro’s defence rests on whether he has sovereign immunity as head of state, or, as indited, an alleged drug trafficker involved in corruption facing the same laws as everyone else.

And the Venezuelan opposition has been quite clear on the US. They do not see the US action as an illegal incursion into their sovereignty. Not before, not during and not now. They have colluded with US authorities and described the action as “liberation”.

The pragmatic reality of this is straightforward.

The democratic representatives of the Venezuelan people decide, they are sovereign on this issue, not UK politicians. And that should be the election winners for that is the fundamental principle we hold.

Furthermore, should Maria Marchado win the next election, she’s more than likely to be on the White House lawn thanking the US leadership before going to the UN to celebrate liberation.

The Venezuelans are unlikely to pursue Maduro’s claims of invasion, or an illegal incursion on sovereign Venuzeula.