"Last weekend, I asked two British foreign-policy officials what had been the most troubling moment, so far, of President Donald Trump's world-destabilizing start to 2026. Both said (despite the British government's refusal to acknowledge this out loud) that it was the United States' seizure of the Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, from Caracas, in the early hours of January 3rd. Trump "surprised us on the downside," one said. "Just not having had an inkling that Venezuela was coming," the other observed."
"The suddenness-and the likely illegality-of the U.S. operation was disquieting because the British government has spent the past year contorting itself in order to stay in Trump's good books, while professing belief in things like the U.N. Charter and what used to be called the rules-based order. In public, Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, has said only that he "sheds no tears" for Maduro, and that he also believes in international law."
American forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from Caracas on January 3rd, an operation that surprised and unsettled British officials and raised legal concerns. The British government has prioritized maintaining access to the U.S. administration while publicly professing commitment to international law and the U.N. Charter. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has expressed no sympathy for Maduro but stopped short of criticizing the U.S. seizure, citing the risks of losing military and intelligence cooperation. British diplomats and Labour officials cultivated a deferential posture toward Donald Trump beginning in 2024. Officials describe the balancing act as exhausting and increasingly fraught given reliance on U.S. support.
Read at The New Yorker
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]