Venezuela

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:58

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 5 January.

“I want to begin by expressing my condolences to all those affected by the terrible tragedy in Crans-Montana, and my support for the Swiss authorities. The British embassy has been supporting the family of Charlotte Niddam, who was educated in Hertfordshire and in north-west London. I can confirm that yesterday Charlotte’s family were given the devastating news that her remains had been identified. Charlotte was just 15. The whole House will be thinking of her and her friends and family now.

Let me turn to Venezuela. Over the weekend, the United States conducted air strikes on a series of Venezuelan targets, and confirmed that it had captured Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They have been indicted on narcoterrorism, drug smuggling and weapons charges. I can confirm to the House that the United Kingdom was not involved in these operations.

UK policy on Venezuela has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people, maintains security in the region and is in line with international law. That remains our position and our determined view about what must happen in Venezuela now. Over the weekend I discussed this with the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the UK Government are in close contact with our international partners on the issue.

The first duty of government is the safety and security of our citizens, and my department is working tirelessly to ensure the safety of British nationals. Over the weekend I also spoke to the UK chargé d’affaires in Caracas. All our embassy staff are safe and accounted for, and working to support the approximately 500 British nationals in Venezuela. Our travel guidance currently advises against all travel to Venezuela, and British nationals in Venezuela should closely follow that travel advice, which will be kept up to date.

We should be under no illusion as to the nature of the Maduro regime. A once functioning democracy has become a hub for very dangerous organised criminal gangs—corrupt links have involved Iran, with Hezbollah increasingly present in recent years, as well as malign support from Russia—and a regime that has facilitated illicit finance, sanctions evasion and organised criminal activity, including narcotics trafficking and illegal gold trading. That undermines the security of the whole region, including UK overseas territories, as well as the United States and other regional partners. The country has been driven into economic ruin, with an 80% drop in its GDP in a decade. More than 8 million people have left, which has caused instability elsewhere in the region.

We have seen Maduro’s regime systematically dismantle democratic institutions, silencing dissent and weaponising state resources to maintain power through fear and corruption. The International Criminal Court has opened an investigation into possible crimes against humanity, following reports of hundreds of extrajudicial killings, including at the hands of Venezuela’s security services and paramilitary groups under the regime’s command. UN investigators have repeatedly reported a pattern of arbitrary detentions, tortures and killings.

In the July 2024 presidential election, millions of Venezuelans voted, but the official results have never been published. The opposition leader, María Corina Machado, was banned from standing by Maduro. International observers cited basic failures of election integrity. Independent tallies covering 80% of polling stations showed a clear victory for Edmundo González, yet Maduro claimed victory.

Most recently, in October, the UN independent fact-finding mission reported on state security forces using firearms against protesters after the elections 18 months ago, where 25 people died. González has been forced to leave the country and claim political asylum in Spain. Machado was forced into hiding for her own safety and had to be spirited out of the country to receive her Nobel Peace Prize in Norway last month.

These are the hallmarks of a regime that clings to power through fear, coercion and violence, not through democratic consent. That is why, as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, we can shed no tears for the end of Maduro’s rule.

Let me turn to UK policy. The UK has long been an advocate for a democratic Venezuela and a vocal critic of the Maduro regime. Since 2019, successive UK Governments have refused to recognise the regime. Through the G7 and the UN, with partners and directly, we have continued to call out the Maduro regime and its appalling human rights violations.

We have also, in some areas, taken a different policy approach from some of our allies. Our other Five Eyes partners have closed their embassies, but we have maintained our diplomatic mission in Caracas at a much more senior level than many of our partners and are seeking dialogue, sustaining direct contact with the opposition, supporting Venezuelan civil society and advocating for British interests.

A year ago, around Maduro’s inauguration, the UK acted alongside partners and announced a wave of new sanctions. We targeted 15 individuals, including judges and senior-ranking officials in Maduro’s regime responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law, and for human rights violations. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, but not on sectors of the economy, and we have not supported or been involved in blockades or strikes against drug boats. We have continued to directly promote the interests of the British Overseas Territories, which need to see stability in the region.

Of course, throughout we have promoted and maintained support for international law. The commitment to international law, as the Prime Minister set out on Saturday, is immensely important to this Government. Those principles guide the decisions that we make and the actions that we take as part of Britain’s foreign policy. That commitment to international law is part of our values; it is also strongly in the UK’s national interest. Our manifesto talked about a foreign policy that is progressive and is also realistic, engaging with the world as we find it, in the interests of UK security, prosperity and our values. That means upholding international law and defending democracy, and it means confronting the complex, evolving and hybrid threats that we and our allies face in the world today.

Those principles and values also guide the conversations that we have with our allies across a range of issues where we agree and disagree. In my discussions with Secretary Rubio, I raised the importance of complying with international law, and we will continue to urge all partners to do so at every stage. It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions. The UN Security Council is discussing Venezuela this afternoon. These issues will continue to be matters for international discussion.

I discussed with Secretary Rubio what should happen next and our continued commitment to a transition to a peaceful and stable democracy. Our collective immediate focus must be on avoiding any deterioration in Venezuela into further instability, criminality, repression or violence. That would be deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela, our own overseas territories, our allies in the US and other regional partners.

The UK has long been clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people, so the international community must come together to help achieve a peaceful transition to a democratic Government who respect the rights and will of their people. That must mean action on the economic crisis, the release of political prisoners, the return of opposition politicians, an end to political repression, respect for human rights, and plans for the holding of free and fair elections. I urge the acting President, Delcy Rodríguez, to take these steps forward, because the people of Venezuela have a right to decide their own future.

The US Secretary of State and I discussed the particular role that the UK can play to support a peaceful democratic transition and stability. Drawing on our embassy in Caracas and on the work that we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities and regime, and of course our relationship with the US, to that end I have also spoken today with Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado. Her unwavering fight for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Venezuela, and against oppression, is inspirational. We will keep in touch over the days and weeks ahead.

Finally, let me turn briefly to another matter. The House will have seen recent comments from the United States and from Denmark regarding Greenland. Let me be very clear on the UK’s position: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Our close European partners, our long-standing NATO allies and all our countries work closely together on security issues and will always do so. The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary in the other place following the appalling tragedy in Crans-Montana. I know that the victims of that tragic fire, their friends and their families will be in all our thoughts at this very difficult time.

The Government and the Opposition shared profound concerns about the Maduro regime. Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant responsible for unspeakable criminal abuses against the Venezuelan people. His was an appalling socialist dictatorship that destroyed the prospects of Venezuela and reduced it to penury. The brutality and repression suffered by the Venezuelan people under Maduro’s regime were appalling. When in government we refused to recognise it, and the Government are right to have continued that long-standing policy. In our view, the Government should always put Britain’s interests first, and national security is the first duty of government.

We know that the United States is our closest security partner. It is the Government’s duty to work with the United States constructively in the interests of the British people. We on these Benches understand the United States’ reasons for taking this step. It is acting in its stated national interest against sustained drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. While we understand that there remain questions about the precedent that this sets, that much is clear.

Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with their US counterparts on this point? Increasingly, it seems that the United States acts and Britain finds out later. When major decisions are made, Britain is not in the room. Has the Prime Minister even spoken with President Trump since the US action in Venezuela? Perhaps the Minister could update the House.

In the same vein, can she confirm what conversations the Prime Minister has had with our European partners since the US action? I know that they are meeting and doing good work today on Ukraine, and I cannot believe that this issue has not been discussed, at least in the margins.

The security of the British people can be served only if the UK shows leadership, working proactively and constructively with our international partners. The Government were slow to respond in this case; the PM did not seem even to have an opinion on it for many hours. If we are to protect the interests of the British people, we must be a leader on the world stage. In this case, the Government failed to provide that leadership.

That said, I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear statement on Greenland yesterday. It is good to have at least some clarity from the Government although, again, it could have come sooner. On the question of the US rhetoric towards Greenland, in the other place the Foreign Secretary said that

“Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark … The future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and Danes, and no one else”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 76.]

I agree with her, but if the future of Greenland is solely a matter for the Greenlanders and for the Danes, as she correctly said, then, using the Government’s own logic, the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory is surely a matter for the Chagossians and the British people. Can the Minister please explain how the Government’s approach to Greenland’s sovereignty is consistent with their position on the Chagos Islands?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I also associate these Benches with the condolences on the terrible incident in Switzerland.

I start by simply quoting from my right honourable friend Ed Davey, speaking in the House of Commons last evening, when he referred to President Reagan and the United States Administration’s invasion of Grenada. He quoted Margaret Thatcher, who said of that incident that

“we in … the Western democracies … use our force to defend our way of life, we do not use it to walk into other people’s countries … We try to extend our beliefs not by force but by persuasion”.

He went on:

“I am disappointed that we have heard nothing as clear and courageous from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, or from today’s Conservative Party”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 79.]


I agree with him. Why can our Ministers not be clear that we see what happened in Venezuela as something contrary to international law, which sets dangerous precedents and might likely perpetuate human rights abuses in that country?

We all know that the Maduro regime was brutal, repressive, dictatorial and corrupt, and that the actions of that regime led nearly 9 million Venezuelans to flee the country. They must be in a state of confusion as to whether the country will be safe for them to return to if it is now being administered, as President Trump has said, by the United States.

Today, the regime in Venezuela continues to abuse powers even more, with paramilitary forces repressing journalists and seeking out democracy activists for persecution. Apparently, this is under the authority of the United States Government themselves, if we believe what President Trump and the Secretary of State said on Sunday.

In response to Ed Davey, the Foreign Secretary said,

“the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy”.

I agree with her, but she went on to say:

“I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that and also about the potential role the UK can play”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/1/26; col. 80.]


She did not elucidate further. Can the Minister state in what way the United Kingdom will play a role in a democratic transition in Venezuela, especially in the context that President Trump has undermined the Nobel Prize winner María Machado, a member of our sister party, a liberal in Venezuela, who now is also in a state of confusion as to what the intentions of the US Administration are?

The Prime Minister had said after the news of the attack on Venezuela that he wanted to gain the facts before speaking to President Trump. What other facts do we now need for the Prime Minister to state categorically to President Trump that this action is contrary to international law? Can the Minister restate whether one of the founding principles of the special relationship of the UK and the United States—that we are consulted and informed on US security actions when they are connected with UK interests—still applies? Given our diplomatic location in Caracas, which was bombed, were we informed? Were our diplomats informed that they were operating in an area of risk? Are we informed if UK bases and personnel are being used for monitoring Venezuelan shipping? Is our airspace potentially being used and overflown by US assets for the ongoing operations of the US Administration in that area? Are our close Commonwealth partner assets in the Caribbean being overflown and are we being informed?

Finally, President Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, which are causing significant concern, are wholly unacceptable. Can we now say categorically that we condemn the US economic and diplomatic coercion of a key European and NATO ally? The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, indicated that precedents may be set but gave a slight indication that they support them. We do not support these precedents. We support the international rule of law. We support our allies. We support democracy and human rights in Venezuela. We support our sister party and the democratically elected president, not to be a vassal state but a vibrant, democratic state, with human rights at its core.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their support for the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the tragic loss of life that we saw on New Year’s Eve in Switzerland. I am grateful to them for echoing what she said.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about discussions with our US counterparts ahead of the action that was taken in Caracas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. We are clear that the UK was not informed. We were not involved in any way. None of our assets were involved in any way at all. It is important that we are very straightforward and clear about that. We would not expect to be informed of an action such as this either.

To respond to the noble Lord’s questions about the communications between the Prime Minister and the US and counterparts in Europe, the Prime Minister talks constantly with his counterparts in Europe and in the US, as do the Foreign Secretary and Ministers throughout the Government. We will continue to do that in connection to this. Vitally, today, Ukraine is at the front of our minds, along with making sure we continue to do what we believe to be right in Ukraine.

One of the things in my mind when listening to the noble Lord opposite was this. Many people said when this Government came to office that we would be unable to work with President Trump and that our relationship with the US would be impossible to manage. I think most people give the Prime Minister credit for being able to manage his relationship with President Trump very well. They have a very good relationship, and I think that has surprised many people, though it did not surprise me; it is something that puts British interests first. Many people will wish to hear the Government say various things or make statements, but, sometimes, the right thing to do is not to use megaphone diplomacy. The right thing to do is to respect our close partners and allies, and give whatever messages we want to give in the right way.

As for parallels with Chagos, that is frankly ridiculous. There is no parallel with Chagos. Chagos happened because there was a state-to-state negotiation between the British Government and the Government of Mauritius. Should Denmark ever wish to enter into such a negotiation, it is free to do so with the consent of the people of Greenland. This is completely different, and the noble Lord should know better. I am sad that he does not.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly reminds us, 9 million Venezuelans have left their country. I have met many of them in Mexico, Ecuador, Chile, the UK and Colombia. They are devastated by what has happened to their country over recent years. There will be a range of views on the actions the United States has taken. It is very early days, but some who I have spoken to see hope for their country. They want to see a return to democracy. They want to see an outcome of the elections that were held in 2024 that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is not what we saw at the time.

The noble Lord is right to suggest, and I agree, that we put the people of Venezuela front and centre and find a way for them to get a Government who reflect their wishes and enable them to live in safety and with the prosperity that country should have. There needs, therefore, to be a transition to democracy. As for how that takes place, who leads it and the exact timetable for all that, it is impossible to say from where we are today, but we certainly share his view that there needs to be a transition to democracy.

How can the UK help? We will help in any way that is right at the time. As noble Lords will know, we are the only Five Eyes country to have maintained a presence in Caracas throughout recent years. Our chargé d’affaires there is extremely capable. He has good relationships across the political spectrum in Venezuela and he would be very well placed to advise on how it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom to support strengthening democratic institutions, as we do in many countries across the world, although I accept that this is a unique situation.

María Corina Machado is one of the most inspirational, courageous women I have ever had the privilege to speak to. The way that she conducted herself, led her campaign and continued to make the arguments that she does, often from hiding in Venezuela and from overseas, is extraordinary. Others will comment about her fitness to lead Venezuela, but she is an incredibly impressive person. I do not think it would do her any favours to have an endorsement from the President of the United States, but as for what happens there and whether María Corina becomes the leader, let us remember that she was not the candidate in the 2024 election. She was not the leader of the opposition at that point. The role she chooses to play in the future of her country and whether she takes part in any future democratic process and in what capacity is a matter for her.

On Greenland, we could not have been clearer on the position that we have taken, alongside others, about the fact that it is clearly for the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland to decide their future.

20:14

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, was sworn in as the Attorney-General on 15 July 2024, he gave a speech in which he said that

“from the Prime Minister down, the new government is comprised of individuals who have the rule of law imprinted into their DNA … We will seek to promote international law and the rule of law in the international legal order”.

Does she really think that today’s Statement on the Venezuela episode advances these objectives when it says supinely:

“It is, of course, for the US to set out the legal basis for its actions”?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The words that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, said in his speech remain true. Our position on the rule of law has not changed and will not change.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, surely we should stop being mealy-mouthed about this issue. There is no basis in the international framework of law that can justify this action. If Russia had marched into Ukraine a few years ago, kidnapped its President, put him on trial in Moscow and locked him up, we would be shouting blue murder. Our voices should be heard loud and clear condemning this action by the United States.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no moral equivalence whatever between the illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened in Venezuela, the legal arguments for which are for the US to defend. These are not UK actions and our commitment to international law remains.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

If a family member makes what one thinks is a serious mistake, it is often the case that one tries to avoid saying so in public. The Prime Minister is quite right not to attack President Trump in public. What matters now is that the Venezuelans get to decide who runs their country. Surely we can all agree that the country cannot be run from Washington and should not be run by Maduro’s associates, except in the unlikely event that they were to win the free and fair election the country so badly needs. Can the Minister confirm that our chargé in Caracas is still able to maintain the excellent contacts he has with the opposition parties in the country?

As for Greenland, rows within the family are the worst. The Kingdom of Denmark is also one of our closest friends and allies. The Danish Government are clear that they are ready to discuss an increase in the American military presence in Greenland—perhaps back to its previous level in the thousands, not the low hundreds where it is now. Can the Minister confirm that we are suggesting to our American friends that this might be the best solution to their security concerns?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord that our chargé in Caracas, Colin, is continuing to do the outstanding job that he has been doing for the last few years. He has excellent relationships that justify the fact that we kept our team there throughout this period.

On Greenland, rather than it being for me from this Dispatch Box, it is for the Kingdom of Denmark and its leadership to have whatever negotiations they feel inclined to have. If they wish us to support them in any way—diplomatically perhaps—then we will of course be interested to talk to them about that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, first, could the Minister tell us how she thinks that democracy can be introduced in Venezuela? Clearly, the agenda of President Trump is not about liberating Venezuela or bringing in democracy, so how do our Government see that happening? Repression and banditry are continuing on the streets of Caracas—how are we going to get from there to democracy? Secondly, the Minister praised the Prime Minister for managing the relationship with President Trump. What will it take for the Prime Minister to switch from managing his relationship with President Trump to challenging President Trump?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has an excellent relationship with President Trump, and sometimes that involves challenge and sometimes it does not; that is how relationships work.

On the transition to democracy, the frustrating thing is that Venezuela has the capacity, mechanisms and structures to hold a ballot in a way that is verifiable. The problem was that it did not count ballots properly or publish the results. This is not a situation where there is no infrastructure on which to hold a democratic process; that does exist. How exactly we support that, the timing of it and who leads it—all those questions— I cannot answer as of today, but they are the right questions and they will need to be answered to move forward to the proper democracy that we all want to see.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we well understand the difficulties of criticising our close ally, President Trump. However, is there not a real danger that many will now see this as an acquiescence to the rather crude reassertion of the Monroe doctrine of the United States? Is there not a danger also that it will give succour to President Putin when he demands his own sphere of influence in the world? It will certainly be more difficult for all of us to criticise President Putin, given this precedent.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think that is right. I do not have any difficulty in criticising President Putin for his illegal act of launching a full invasion of Ukraine, stealing children from Ukraine, bombing civilians, and destroying infrastructure and energy in the depths of winter. I have no issue complaining about that, and I do not see the moral equivalence between the two events. It is a good thing that Nicolás Maduro is no longer running the country.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept the commendation of a quotation from a previous Secretary General of the United Nations in a different context, where he observed that that military operation was not in accordance with the provisions of the UN charter?

I have two questions for the Minister. First, Vice-President Rodríguez, who has now been sworn in as the interim president, was elected on a joint ticket with Nicolás Maduro. We made it clear that the 2024 election, in which the two of them were elected, was corrupt and falsified, and that we did not recognise it. Does that still apply to the interim president now? Secondly—I think the Minister almost answered this question already—can the Minister confirm that the only strategic objective for us and other Europeans, and, I would hope, for the United States in due course, is for Venezuela to hold free and fair elections under international scrutiny, so that we do not have a repeat of 2024?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Certainly, any elections that are to be held must be free and fair and not any kind of repeat of what we saw the year before last. I take what the noble Lord says about the circumstances of the election of the now President Delcy Rodríguez, but I feel that we are very much in a transitional period right now and there needs to be a degree of pragmatism exercised here. This is one route that is being taken at the moment. Nobody wants to see a descent into a country being run even more than it has been by gangs and narco-terrorists; what we need is stability in order to then move forward through to some democratic process. Clearly, I hope that happens sooner rather than later, but it does need to be done safely in a way that means that the outcome is sustainable and that Venezuela can then move forward for the benefit of all its people.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to follow up on the previous question, because it seems to me that it is very good news to know that we are in touch with the opposition parties. There has always been a problem in Venezuela about uniting the opposition parties and that is why they are in the position they are in at this moment. But in terms of having proper democratic elections in Venezuela, will it not be necessary to have contact with the acting President? Can the Minister confirm whether or not our Government have made any attempt to contact the new acting President of Venezuela?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying, from the last time I spoke to our chargé in Caracas, that he has had contact with Delcy Rodríguez previously. I am not aware whether this contact has been re-established since the events of the weekend. It is only Tuesday, so it is quite possible that that has not happened. But should that be something which would be helpful in moving things forward in a stable way, then that is a role that the UK may be prepared to do, if that should be helpful.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, speaking about the international implications of this, I think that Venezuela is not the only nation that is badly governed and managed, and this sends a signal from His Majesty’s Government, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If we soft glove our close ally America and allow it to take action, what implications will there be—I am not just talking about Russia and China but in Africa and in the Middle East—and what standing will we have as a country and a permanent member of the UN Security Council to challenge those nations when they will simply point to our actions right now?

Similarly, I talk about the parallels that some people have drawn between President Trump’s desire to get hold of the oil in Venezuela and George W Bush’s aims—it was WMD, but it ended up being oil. How can we learn those lessons from Iraq, so we do not leave Venezuela in a far worse situation than we have inherited at the moment? When I say “we”, I mean the US, not the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I know what the noble Lord is getting at. As far as parallels go, the UK is judged on the UK’s actions, and I do not think that this makes any difference at all to our ability to make the case for international law to partners—he mentioned Africa—and certainly it would not make our ability to make those cases any different.

I have heard people trying to draw some sort of parallel with events in 2003 in Iraq. Clearly, no two situations are precisely the same, but the situation as it exists today in Venezuela is very different to what happened after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the entire infrastructure in Baghdad. I do not know whether lessons have been learned, and hence the change of approach that we are seeing, but it is well understood that, with the Government in Venezuela, the elite that remains and the way that that Government are still being led today, there is such a different situation. There needs to be a transition; we cannot just leave things as they are, but there is the capability, and the stability is sufficient to allow for that transition. That is the hope, and that is what we need to see.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, this is not the first occasion when the United States has invaded another country and taken the leader for trial in the United States of America. Manuel Noriega was a military dictator in Panama in the 1980s and, in 1990, following the United States invasion of Panama, he was arrested and brought to the USA for trial for racketeering, drug smuggling and money laundering. He was convicted before a US federal court and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, of which he served 17 years.

I have been a lawyer for a long time and, like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of my areas of practice was international law. But unlike, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I have always had doubt about the veracity of international law on the sovereignty of states. When one country, particularly a neighbouring country—

[Noble Lords]

Question.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am putting it in the form of a question. When one country, particularly a neighbouring country, perpetrates gross human rights errors on its people—for example, as Idi Amin did in Uganda— I put to the Minister: do we not have a duty to interfere? Are we not one human race? This Government are entirely right not to be preaching issues of international law but leaving the United States of America to explain or justify its own conduct.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord started with Panama. I am not really sure what to say to him. I take his point to be in support of the Government’s pragmatic position and thank him for that.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the “Bella 1” oil tanker, now labelled the “Marinera”, for which US officials have obtained a seizure warrant for allegedly breaking sanctions, and which they tried to intercept off Venezuela, is now reported to be in the north Atlantic, within striking distance of the US bases in the United Kingdom. The BBC is reporting that if any US military operation were to be launched against this vessel, Washington would be expected to inform us about what they are doing. Can the Minister reassure me that we would not just expect to be informed but that we would be informed? At what stage in the operation would we be informed: in the planning stage, as it was launched or afterwards? Would we have any say on the nature of that operation?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords will understand that we talk all the time to our American friends about security issues, but we would not comment on specifics, as the noble Baroness is encouraging me to do.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, the idea that this is the end of the world order is fantastical. As we have just heard, previous American Presidents have intervened; for instance, in Grenada and in Panama. The difference is that President Trump does not really mind letting people know that he does not give a monkey’s about world opinion or international law.

The real danger is if this marks a departure from previous policy, in that if Trump sees spheres of influence—which we have heard much talk about—and the reassertion of the Monroe doctrine, would that possibly mean that he would see the Americas as his sphere of influence, eastern Europe as belonging to the Russian sphere of influence, and so on? That is the real danger of what has happened.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not recognise that characterisation of the world, but it is right that we ask ourselves these big strategic questions, because the world is changing. The most significant example of that has been Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and its stated intention to expand Russia. It is legitimate that we concern ourselves with questions of spheres of influence. I do not think it is as simple as the characterisation the noble Lord just put forward, and I do not think that is what he believes either, but it is absolutely right that we continue to ask ourselves these really important geopolitical questions.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the Maduro regime is responsible for permitting corrupt links with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which was responsible, obviously, for funding proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah and, in turn, for the attacks on Israel on 7 October. Does the Minister agree with me that the actions taken by the USA may go some way to preventing illicit funding finding its way to Iran and, I hope, clipping its wings?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do think it is a good thing that Maduro is no longer running Venezuela. There is a long way to go, and there will still be money laundering, illicit finance, trade in narcotics and guns, people trafficking and all manners of abuse happening in that country. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot at stake. As the noble Baroness says, and I agree with her, the issues emanating from Venezuela were global, and it is good that there is now the prospect of a different future for Venezuela.