Venezuela: US Military

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on imminent US military strikes on land targets in Venezuela, and the implications for UK foreign policy.

As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for north America—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—told the House yesterday, questions about United States military action in the Caribbean and Pacific are questions for the US. The UK has not been involved in US strikes in the Caribbean. The Foreign Office currently advises against all but essential travel to Venezuela due to ongoing crime and instability. As always, our travel advice remains under regular review to ensure that it reflects our latest assessments of risks to British nationals.

The UK stands with the Venezuelan people in their pursuit of a fair, democratic and prosperous future. Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. The UK continues to call on the Venezuelan authorities to publish the results of the 2024 presidential election in full. The Government announced sanctions against 15 more members of Maduro’s regime in January. The UK will continue to work with our international partners to achieve a peaceful negotiated transition in Venezuela which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected.

I am grateful for the granting of this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to the Minister for that answer.

At oral questions yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) both stated that the UK was committed to upholding international law. Last night, Donald Trump announced that US military strikes against Venezuelan land targets would “start…very soon”. Does the Minister believe that such an action would be legal?

Over recent weeks, the US has acted with complete impunity in the Caribbean, conducting unilateral military strikes in international waters with no due process. Let me be very clear. President Maduro is a threat to democracy and civil liberty. He is an ally only to dictators such as Vladimir Putin and President Xi. Yet the UK’s response to the culture of impunity in the Oval Office must be robust and consistent. We must always hold accountable those who breach international law. By failing to do so, we risk normalising abuses that are eroding the international liberal order, all to the benefit of strong men such as Maduro who reject entirely the rule of law.

I have several questions for the Minister. Have US strikes in the Caribbean already violated international law? What steps are the Government taking, including on halting intelligence sharing, to ensure that the UK cannot be complicit in other US violations? Has the UK been complicit in illegal actions already taken by the US, including the alleged “double tap” operations authorised by War Secretary Hegseth? Does the Minister believe that War Secretary Hegseth has authorised the commitment of war crimes? Finally, will the Minister confirm what further steps the Government are taking to sanction Maduro and his associates, and to work with international allies to strengthen our collective diplomatic and economic pressure on his regime?

As this House will understand, we must be very careful on making assessments. We, of course, continue to stand by international law. I am not in a position to provide a detailed assessment of the strikes conducted by the US, which are clearly a matter for the US, as the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State said during oral questions yesterday. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks whether we were involved in the strikes. I confirm again, as we confirmed yesterday, that we were not. He will understand that I will not comment on intelligence matters from the Dispatch Box. He asks about our policy towards Venezuela. As I set out, we do not accept the legitimacy of the current Administration put in place by Nicolás Maduro, but we do maintain limited engagement with Venezuelan officials where necessary.

This is an enormous military build-up under Trump, one of the largest in decades. Retired US generals, along with US politicians including Republicans, are warning that Trump’s strikes off the coast of Venezuela are already violating international law. Yesterday, the Government told me that no British troops are aboard the US warships near oil-rich Venezuela, despite reports to the contrary. What are the Government doing to try to stop Trump from taking this dangerous, escalatory path, which he now says could include land strikes?

As the Minister of State made clear to my hon. Friend yesterday, the UK is not involved in these operations. There has been, as my hon. Friend mentions, much reporting and speculation in the US media and the US Congress. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the deliberations of their House on these questions.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this urgent question. Venezuela may be thousands of miles away, but instability there has a direct impact on the safety and prosperity of the British people here. The restoration of democratic institutions is essential if Venezuela is to escape the political, economic and humanitarian crises imposed on its people by Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian regime. The Maduro regime is propped up by the same axis of authoritarian states that undermine the rules-based international order and foster instability around the world. We know the shocking level of smuggling that comes out of Venezuela, and at a moment when our allies appear to be taking quite decisive action, the world is watching how Britain responds.

What discussions are taking place with President Trump’s Administration about the objectives and scope of any imminent US military action? What would be the implications for the wider UK-US defence partnership, particularly our joint counter-narcotics operations?

The House will also expect clarity on how the Government intend to hold the Maduro regime to account. What further diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions and co-ordinated international action is the UK pursuing to support Venezuelans fighting for a peaceful, democratic transition?

Will the Minister also update the House on the Government’s position regarding Venezuela’s provocation and aggression towards Guyana, the risks of escalation and the steps being taken with CARICOM—Caribbean Community—partners?

Finally, given the scale of organised crime linked to the regime, what additional measures are being deployed to disrupt drug flows, money laundering and criminal networks that threaten communities here in the UK? Are Interpol and our intelligence partnerships being fully leveraged? Britain cannot afford to be a bystander. The Government must demonstrate clarity, conviction and leadership at this critical moment.

I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The US is of course the UK’s principal defence and security partner. We have extensive discussions on a wide range of shared security objectives, including counter-narcotics. We are committed to fighting the scourge of drugs and organised crime, including with our partners in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are, of course, continuing to work with our international partners to achieve a peaceful negotiated transition in Venezuela, which ensures that the will of all Venezuelans is respected.

One of my guilty secrets is that I like to listen to CNN in the evening, so I know that people in the United States are divided on this issue. The Minister started by talking about sanctions. Have we assessed the impact of the sanctions on Venezuela? What efforts are we making with civil society there to protect human rights? I really respect the fact that we are not engaging with the way in which the United States is trying to deal with the drug trade there, but are we able to show leadership in the region by trying to restrict the drugs trade in a way that definitely fits with international law? When did he last speak to his counterpart in the US in an effort to reach a peaceful solution on this issue?

On my hon. Friend’s last question, I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been in discussions with her US counterparts in recent days on these questions. He asks an important question about civil society. We strongly condemn the ongoing repression of civil society and members of the opposition in Venezuela. We continue to call for the unconditional release of those arbitrarily detained, including members of civil society and independent media, such as through the UK’s published statement to the UN Human Rights Council in its most recent session.

President Trump would no doubt argue that there is a parallel between this situation and George Bush senior’s invasion of Panama in late 1989, but does the Minister agree with me that it will be interesting to see, if something like this goes ahead, what sort of outcry there is from either Russia or China? If there is no sort of outcry, would that not suggest that there is some sort of understanding between these three major powers that they each leave each other to get on with, shall we say, unilateral actions within what they regard as their own spheres of influence?

The right hon. Gentleman is learned and offers the opportunity both to make historical comparisons and comment on the conduct of other powers. I will avoid the temptation on both. Clearly, the British position is that international law is vital. Counter-narcotics action is important and we support that.

Nicolás Maduro’s presidency clearly has no legitimacy after he was so roundly defeated in last year’s elections; he has continued to refuse to release any evidence to show that he was victorious, as he claims. However, does the Minister agree that the presidency of Venezuela is a decision for the Venezuelan people to make in a peaceful, democratic way, supported by the international community—not a decision for the US President to make, under threat of military force?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing an opportunity for me to give a slightly fuller commentary. The UK is clear that the outcome of the 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela was neither free nor fair, and therefore Nicolás Maduro’s claim to power is fraudulent. While the National Electoral Council of Venezuela has not yet published the results of the elections, the results published by the opposition appear to show Edmundo González securing the most votes in the presidential election by a significant margin. Clearly, proper process and a free and fair election is the way to determine the leadership in Venezuela.

On data sharing with our allies, does the Minister agree that signals intelligence and human intelligence are not a pick and mix when it comes to the Five Eyes community? Will he assure the House that we will continue to provide the information that the US needs in order to deal with Venezuelan cocaine, most of which lands up in Europe? I need not remind the Minister that cocaine deaths in this country were up by a third in 2022-23. Will he ensure that we do not apply an overly lawyerly approach in our dealings with an ally doing its best to tackle the scourge of drugs in the US and the rest of Europe, and in particular on the streets of Britain?

I thank the hon. Gentleman—my predecessor—for his question. The Government stand by the principles of international law. I will not provide a detailed commentary on intelligence matters, obviously, but I will say that the Five Eyes remains a vital, vibrant and free-flowing intelligence sharing arrangement that allows us to tackle a range of threats. That includes the illegal drug trade, which is having such an impact in both America and the UK; like many others across the House, I see that impact in my constituency.

Nicolás Maduro is no respecter of the international rules-based system, but we must be. We do not want to see chaos in Latin America, but we are seeing the biggest military build-up in the Caribbean since the Cuban missile crisis and the biggest US military build-up since the war in Iraq. What lessons would the Minister draw from previous regime change that the UK Government have been involved in, and what advice would he give his US counterparts?

Again, it is tempting to indulge in some historical analysis, but the advice we give our friends and allies is mostly done in private. Clearly, it is important that the rights of Venezuelans to free and fair elections are respected in the way that I outlined in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).

I will continue with what has been a bit of a history lesson today. President Reagan had his famous wobble over the Falkland Islands but eventually he came to the right decision, supporting the UK at that time. This issue is about how we liaise with the United States as its closest ally—certainly, in our eyes we are its closest ally; whether it is the same the other way around, let us wait and see.

It could be Venezuela today but Cuba tomorrow, and then Haiti and so on and so forth. We need to be candid with the United States, to uphold international law and to encourage our cousins across the water to show restraint, while recognising the need for them to counter the very bad drugs trade going into the United States, which affects crime on the streets in many cities there.

Among the potential impacts of this action are the growing malign influence of both China and Russia in the region and how that might affect proximate Commonwealth countries such as Trinidad and Tobago or Guyana. There are unintended consequences from something that the United States might feel is completely legitimate. Finally, there is the issue of whether this legitimises Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

I am grateful for the experience that the right hon. Member brings to these questions. I want to be absolutely clear about the pre-eminent role of international law and how important that is to this Government and the actions we take. Those are, of course, points that we make to our allies as well.

I say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that I suspect he grants President Trump far too much credit when it comes to understanding the Munroe doctrine—but that is an aside.

What legal advice have the Government received or obtained in regard to the legality or possible legal implications of support for the US, albeit through intelligence sharing, for any potential strikes on Venezuela?

As the House will know, Ministers receive legal advice on a range of matters relating to foreign policy, and that advice is subject to legal and professional privilege.

I compliment the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) on securing this urgent question.

Could the Minister be very clear? What the US is doing, in bombing vessels at sea in both international and potentially territorial waters, is illegal, as is the harassment of Trinidadian fishing communities. The threat now of bombardment on the Venezuelan mainland is completely illegal within all sections of international law. Have the British Government made any representations to the US on this, and what role do the British Government play at the United Nations in the discussions about this issue? Does the Minister accept that this is an incredibly dangerous, massive build-up of military force in the Caribbean, and that it can only be dangerous to the people not just of Venezuela but of every other country and island within the region? Surely there should be some move towards peace, rather than allowing this military confrontation to develop.

The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of Latin American issues to this House. On the legal position, I do not have much more to add. There has been extensive reporting over the last few days of some specific US strikes. I reiterate to him that they were not strikes in which the UK had any role, so we are not in a position to provide the fuller explanation that we would have, had we been involved—which we were not. On his wider question about build-up in the region, the House has heard his views.

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I reiterate the question of the legality of the US bombing ships that are simply accused of carrying drugs. Is the Minister willing to actually say whether he thinks that is legal or not legal in international waters?

I want to be absolutely clear that the UK Government stand behind international law, in relation to both the law of the sea and international humanitarian law. In every forum, that is what we stand for. I am not in a position to make assessments on individual strikes, for the reasons that I have set out, but I once again underline our position on IHL and the law of the sea.

I thank the Minister for his careful and thoughtful answers on an issue that concerns us greatly. Given the widespread concern about the potential for civilian casualties from these strikes near Venezuela, what assessment has been made to ensure that UK co-operation in the region does not in any way contribute to harming civilians, and remains fully consistent with our human rights obligations?

As ever, the hon. Gentleman asks an important question in a courteous way. The prospects for the people of Venezuela must be at the heart of our deliberations. We have been engaged with civil society and, where necessary, with the Venezuelan Government. We will continue to keep the human rights of the people of Venezuela in our minds.