Maybe we should look on the bright side. He’s now set a precedent that you can kidnap world leaders you don’t like…
1 Like
I wonder how all of this could play out with the ICC.
Yes, I know the US isn’t under the jurisdiction of the ICC, but then neither is Russia nor Israel and both of their presidents have been indicted by the court.
Would this lead to Trump deploying troops to The Hague?
ETA: Trump is now saying the US will run Venezuela in the interim, but the Americans don’t currently have control of the Venezuelan functions of state. Can control of Venezuela be attained without a land invasion?
Sir Kier is really rushing to get off the fence - not!
What would you do in his shoes?
It’s an impossible task to deal with the US at the moment, especially for it’s allies.
4 Likes
Yep damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, even Farage has said “this is illegal but in a good way”.
3 Likes
Interesting article here that whilst it probably is about Oil it can be more about hampering the Chinese oil industry
This then affects their military operations particularly they are still importing oil from Russia & Iran.
1 Like
He’s done the right thing and say let’s wait for the facts first. Rather than come out blurting something that jeopardises a somewhat stable relationship with the most volatile world leader. If he says naaaa mate that’s bang out of order trumps the type of guy to go F you, have a 100% tariff.
3 Likes
Don’t know what other facts are needed.
Conduct a military operation in other country & remove the head of government.
He’s bought himself a little bit of time, but in doing so could cause our own allies to question British commitments to international agreements.
As the UK is still rebuilding international trading partnerships post-Brexit, the risk is those same partners become more reluctant to trust that we would stick to the terms of any future agreement.
The government is probably working out whether it’s better economically to accept higher tariffs from the US or worse terms from a wider number of partners before determining their furure phrasing.
What has been the comments from our allies?
besides the US the principle (military ones) are Canada, Australia, france & Spain so would be interesting to hear what statement they have made & wheather we differ before assuming too much.
Whilst they may make a lot of noise - long term they won’t care (& are only probably putting on a show).
It’s not in Europes interest to involve themselves or condemn this, although Spain taking the lead to offer to mediate sounds like there was a quick diplomatic conflab & Spain was nominated as the lead).
realpolitik means that countries have interests not principles.
I also wonder if any of the US allies were made aware just before hand so everyone could get their ducks in a row.
1 Like
This is how it’s been since the end of the Cold War, I agree - but we’re now in a period that echoes the interbellum quite strongly on the international stage.
Those countries that want to stick to principles of liberal international cooperation do so because peace brings prosperity through trade. States acting contrary to the principles of peace jeopardise that key principles - this isn’t values, this itself is an economic interest.
It is in their own economic interests to bring rogue major states like the US back into the international liberal world order. This cannot be achieved militarily, ruling out interventionalism, therefore has to be achieved economically.
Whatever action these allied states take will inevitably harm themselves in the short-term, but doing nothing will lead to greater harm in the long-term.
I asked ChatGPT to compare & contrast uk position with other countries - so far it doesn’t look like we are out of step albeit a bit fence sitting - probably on a par with Germany.
(It seems to have put Australia twice when it mean EU)
2 Likes
Clearly, ChatGPT is a fan of Eurovision.
4 Likes
I disagree with your conclusion. I would interpret the chart as saying that most of our allies are explicitly disagreeing with the action, whilst the UK is sitting on the fence.
Germany does indeed appear to have the closest response to our own, however.
France is a good example of divergence, particularly from the French foreign minister:
“The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro contravenes the principle of non-use of force which Found International Law. France recalls that none durable political solution cannot be imposed of the outside and that the sovereign people decide alone on their own future.
The multiplication of violations of this principle by nations invested with the primary responsibility of a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council will have heavy consequences on the security of the world”
Get ready to take him to A&E - he’s got so many splinters stuck in his backside for sitting on the fence!
1 Like
Productive response
2 Likes
I wouldn’t have that interpretation as I would rank the responses as
- Supportive
- Cautious
- Concerned
- Critical
- Condemns
Most of the Anglo-phone counties are diplomaticly “concerned” but not critical or accusative.
Italy has been quite supportive so I would say that the UK is generally aligned with the nations we have most in common with.
Interestingly UK & France were doing joint strikes in Syrian at the same time as Venezuela
1 Like
I’m not sure any European country can be neutral on this though, thinking logically ahead.
Trump hasn’t exactly hidden his desire to take Greenland. If that goes ahead (and there’s now no logical reason to assume armed force is off the table) then Denmark could reasonably request European military involvement to defend its territory (yes there’s technicalities about Greenland not being part of the EU, but I’m not certain the EU would decline the request).