PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Venezuela - 5 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to start by associating myself with the condolences expressed by the Foreign Secretary about the awful tragedy in Crans-Montana. I also thank her for her statement on Venezuela, although I am disappointed that it was not the Prime Minister who delivered the statement, because many of us in this House and beyond want to know how he is going to respond to the situation.

Nicolás Maduro was a tyrant who criminally abused the Venezuelan people and destabilised the region. It is no surprise that there is jubilation in the streets, because Venezuelans remember what their country was like before it was ravaged by years of socialist dictatorship. For years, the Conservative Government refused to recognise the legitimacy of Maduro’s horrific regime of brutality and repression, and we were pleased to see the Labour Government follow suit. However, we are in a fundamentally different world. The truth is that while the likes of China have been strategic and aggressive in strengthening their influence across the world, including in South America, the west has been slow.

Foreign policy should serve our national interest. It should be about keeping Britain safe. We should be clear-eyed. The United States is our closest security partner. We must work with it seriously, not snipe from the sidelines. The Opposition understand why the US has taken this action. As the Foreign Secretary said, UK policy has long been to press for a peaceful transition from authoritarian rule to a democracy. That never happened. Instead, Venezuelans have been living under Maduro’s brutal regime for many years.

The US has made it clear that it is acting in its national interest against drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including potential terrorism. We understand that. However, we have concerns about what precedent this sets, especially when there are comments made about the future of Greenland. It is important that the United Kingdom supports its NATO ally Denmark, which has made it categorically clear that Greenland is not for sale, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in that regard.

What is critical now is the stability of the region and the wider world. It is important that we listen to those who have been risking their lives for freedom and democracy in Venezuela. Opposition leader María Corina Machado, when asked about US action, said that Venezuela had already been invaded: by Iran, by Russia, by drug cartels, and by Hamas and Hezbollah. It is clear that Venezuela had become a gangster state.

I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to María Corina Machado, but can she also update the House on whether the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump? I ask that because the Government talk up their relationship with the US, but we keep finding that we are not in the room when big decisions are made.

We should be under no illusions, because a democratic transition in Venezuela will be far from straightforward, so when the Foreign Secretary speaks of democratic transition, what does that actually mean to the Government in practice? Can she also set out what will now happen to the UK’s Venezuela sanctions regime.

In a world changing as it is, we must be serious and responsible about our security and standing. We know what the strategy of the President of the United States is, because his Government set out their national security strategy last year. The US is acting in its national interests, and we need to do the same. We should be working to protect the rules-based order, and we should be standing up to hostile actors that want to undermine us, but what are our Government doing instead? They are giving away the Chagos islands, and paying £35 billion for the privilege, with no strong legal basis to justify doing so.

Last year, the Defence Committee warned that the UK was not adequately prepared to defend herself from attack. The Government are still stalling on defence spending. The Conservatives want to see defence spending increase to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, given the changing world. Why have the Government not matched that commitment?

It has never been more important for the UK to have a coherent foreign policy strategy. Right now, Labour does not have one. If it does, we would like the Foreign Secretary to tell us what it is, because I did not hear anything that sounded remotely like one in her statement. Let us be honest: old strategies will not work. We are living in an increasingly dangerous world, and the axis of authoritarian states seeking to undermine us respects just one thing: strength. Britain must be ready and willing to defend our own interests, to protect ourselves from those who would undermine us, to protect the unity of the western alliance, and to support democracy and freedom around the world.

I must just say to the Leader of the Opposition that, while I obviously welcome her support on Switzerland, Greenland and Denmark and so on, it felt like the tone of her response was very poorly judged. It was really all over the place. Many times when we were in opposition, we set out our agreement with the Government in the national interest and recognised that there are some cross-party issues. I suspect that had the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), responded to our statement, she probably would have done that.

In fact, on the different issues the Leader of the Opposition talked about, she seemed to agree with us. On Venezuela, she said that the Maduro regime has been deeply damaging, corrupt and deeply destructive, and therefore that no one should shed any tears for its going. She also—I think this was implicit when she talked about the rules-based order—recognised the importance of precedents, the importance of international law and the complexity of the world we face. She also said that she thought we should show support for Denmark and Greenland. In fact, I could not see in her response a single detailed thing that she disagreed with, except for the fact that she seemed to want to express opposition for opposition’s sake.

On the overall approach, I think everyone recognises the leadership this Prime Minister has shown on the international stage: chairing the coalition of the willing, and leading the European and international support for Ukraine against Russia; and agreeing three trade deals with India, Europe and the US, after her Government ripped up the trade and co-operation deal and trashed the UK’s reputation across the world. We have the biggest increase in defence investment since the cold war, properly supporting UK security, and we have had the most successful state visit of the US President, leading to major tech investment in the UK. The Prime Minister talks frequently to the US, and we have deep partnerships on security, intelligence and the military. There is now our close working on Gaza and the peace process, on the crisis in Sudan and, of course, fundamentally on Ukraine.

Many times in the past we took a cross-party approach, and I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to do the same on what really matters for the future of this country. This Government will continue to stand up for Britain’s interests, our prosperity and our values.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another, however abhorrent that leader is, and tries to intimidate the smaller country to, as it says itself, gain access to its resources, does the Foreign Secretary not agree that this should be called out not just by Britain, but by our western allies? We should be calling it out for what it is—a breach of international law. It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law; it is surely for the west to stand up and call it as it is. Does she not therefore share my concern that there may be a profound risk of international norms changing? If we do not call it out, this may become okay, and we risk living in a world where might is right, which is surely not in Britain’s interests.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and I recognise that she has been consistent in her opposition to the Maduro regime, even when she was under pressure not to be through many years. She and I would probably agree that a man who is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity and has such a history of political repression, as well as economic destruction and corruption, should not be leading a country.

My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the issues of international law. I have set out our commitment to international law, and she will know that my predecessor as Foreign Secretary talked about progressive realism. We have set out the progressive principles we follow—including how important international law is, because the framework it sets does not just reflect our values, but is in our interests—but also that we have to engage with the world the way it is. I can assure her that, as part of that, I have raised the issue of international law with Secretary of State Rubio and made it clear that we will continue to urge all countries to follow it.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the tragedy in Crans-Montana.

When President Reagan invaded Grenada, Margaret Thatcher said 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.”

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.

Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator, but that does not give President Trump a free pass for illegal action. This was not about liberating the Venezuelan people. Trump’s refusal to back Nobel prize winner María Machado, Maduro’s brave liberal opponent, shows that Trump has no interest in Venezuelan democracy. This is about Trump believing he can grab anything he wants—this time, oil—and get away with it. We know what happens when an American President launches an illegal war under the pretext of an imminent threat. It is why we opposed the Iraq war, and why we condemn Trump today.

National sovereignty matters and international law matters. Without them, the world is far more dangerous and we are all less safe. Anyone who thinks Trump’s actions will make China or Russia think twice is either hopelessly desperate or desperately naive. Putin and Xi will be using this precedent to strengthen their hands in Ukraine and Taiwan. Anyone who thinks Trump will stop with Venezuela has not read his new national security strategy. He is already threatening Colombia, Cuba and Greenland, and even democracies across Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary not realise how ridiculous it looks to refuse to call this what it is: a clear breach of international law? Will she at least publish all the advice the Government have received on the legality of Trump’s actions?

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do, I hope, agree on the brutality of the Maduro dictatorship and that it is better for Venezuela not to be led by somebody like Maduro. Therefore, the most important thing now for Venezuela is for it to have a transition to democracy. I have spoken directly to the US Secretary of State about that and also about the potential role the UK can play. Unusually, we have a very senior and experienced chargé d’affaires in Venezuela, who has long-standing relationships with the Venezuelan opposition and the regime, and also, of course, we have a close relationship with the US. That puts us in a particular position and gives us a particular responsibility to ensure progress keeps being made towards that democratic transition. Stability will not be maintained unless there is a transition that has the will of the people.

We have made very clear our commitment to international law and the way that it must guide our decisions and UK foreign policy. We will continue to raise it with our partners, both in public and in private. It is important that we do so. As for Government legal advice, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the ministerial code is very clear about the Government not publishing or commenting on different legal advice.

Nobody in this Chamber wants to defend the regime of Maduro, but what some of us want to do is to stand up for the importance of a rules-based international order. I might add that because my parents were born overseas, I take the question of national sovereignty extremely seriously. We cannot have a situation where a country, because it is bigger and stronger, walks into a smaller country, snatches its political leadership—whatever people think of that political leadership—helicopters it out and puts it on a show trial in an outside country. That cannot be something that this Government are prepared to support.

Let me add, I know that the Opposition are blithe about what Trump is doing—

Blithe.

I know that the Opposition are blithe about what Trump is doing, but let me say this: there will be countries that will look at Trump’s attitude and carelessness towards issues of sovereignty and think, “What happens if we have that threat? Who will be willing to stand up for us? Who will be willing to stand up for our national sovereignty?” As far as I have heard thus far, it will not necessarily be our Ministers. And there will be individuals—

Order. The right hon. Lady must get to a question shortly, please.

My question is: what would the Foreign Secretary say to British voters—ordinary British voters; not left-wing British voters in particular—who do not understand why a British Prime Minister is not willing to stand up for an international rules-based order and is not willing to defend national sovereignty?

What I would say to my right hon. Friend is that support for a rules-based international order and for international law is a central part of our foreign policy and the decisions the UK Government make and the actions we take. There is an approach that says, “Look, this is a new world of great power politics and spheres of influence,” and rejects the role of international law. That is not our view not only because we believe it is right and part of our progressive values, but because it is in the UK’s interests. It is why we believe not just in the UN charter but, more broadly, in international law and a rules-based framework. It is why we believe in rules-based alliances and the maintenance of those alliances. Contrary to the great power strategic hemispheres approach, we believe in the transatlantic alliance and the NATO alliance. That is why we are taking such a strong position on Greenland and Denmark, but also why we work with close allies and talk to them on many issues privately as well as publicly.

I call the Father of the House.

At the end of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, I am no wiser on whether the Government approve this action, or on whether they believe that it breaks international law. The Prime Minister is such a devotee of international law that he is not prepared to defend our borders from the small boats, and to take the necessary action there. Why is there one law for the American President, when he is doing what is right for his country and defending it, but a different law for us? My simple question is this: do the Government believe that this breaks international law, and do they approve this action?

As I said in my statement, and as the Prime Minister said on Saturday, there can be no tears shed for the Maduro regime, given the damage that it has done over many years. It is for the US to set out the legal position following its actions. We were not involved in those actions. We continue to be guided by international law in our approach, and we continue to work on the most important issue: getting a transition to peaceful democracy in Venezuela.

It was the Prime Minister who decided to disregard the United Nations charter when it came to Trump’s bombing and killing, and his kidnapping the Head of State. It speaks volumes that the Prime Minister has chosen not to come to this House to explain his decision. The reality is that if it were Putin doing this, the Prime Minister would not be saying, “It’s up to the Russians to decide whether or not this is legal,” but that is exactly what the Prime Minister has said in relation to Trump’s disgusting attack on Venezuela. Is not the reality that the Prime Minister is willing to ditch international law and side-step the United Nations charter in order to appease Donald Trump, and does not that cowardly, craven approach drag this country’s reputation through the dirt?

I find it hard not to remember my hon. Friend’s support and welcome for the Maduro regime, a regime that is currently being investigated for crimes against humanity.

Most people’s thoughts on Maduro’s capture will be, “Good riddance”, and I would have liked the Government to have been more categorical in supporting US action to remove an illegitimate and evil dictator, but if the new US approach extends to the annexation of Greenland, the sovereign territory of a NATO member, it could mean the end of the alliance, with disastrous consequences. How much planning is going on at the Foreign Office to make sure that such a disaster does not happen? We understand that discussions between allies have to be private, but from the outside, it looks like Europe is weak and divided. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that the right conversations are happening, and that we are not just hoping for the best?

Let me reiterate our strong support for the Greenlanders and for Denmark. Greenland is part of the kingdom of Denmark, and its future is for them to decide, not anybody else, notwithstanding any of the things that we have heard the US and others say. We are very clear about that. I have raised this issue internationally, and we will continue to do so. We are very firm in our view on this point.

My constituents do not mourn the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who oversaw the violent repression of his people, a fraudulent presidential election and horrific human rights abuses for many years, but they are alarmed about the unilateral regime change sought by the Trump Administration in order to access Venezuelan oil resources. Two wrongs do not make a right. What measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to support Opposition leaders, including 2025 Nobel prize winner, María Corina Machado?

Our country has particularly strong relationships with the Venezuelan Opposition as a result of the work of our chargé d’affaires and our embassy in Venezuela, which we have maintained when other countries have not maintained theirs. As I have said, that puts us in a particularly significant position, in terms of being able to support a transition to democracy, which is what we have always argued for. That is exactly why I have spoken to María Corina today. We will keep in close touch, so that we can recognise, as a first step, their call for an end to political repression in Venezuela, which must happen.

I will not mourn the passing of the Maduro regime, but I will mourn the passing of the rules-based international order. If we accept the premise that a big-power country can do what it wants without any ramifications, anywhere in the world, then we accept the behaviour of Putin over the past two decades, and the behaviour of Xi Jinping in the future. We cannot allow that to stand. It is clear that our future security lies in closer co-operation with our European allies, so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that the UK is in lockstep with those who do share our values?

We have strengthened our relationships with our European partners—indeed, I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today on the issues around Greenland—and we will continue to support the rules-based international order, the UN charter and international law. I would warn Members against making equivalence here with what Putin has done in Ukraine; Russia invaded a country led by a democratically elected President Zelensky, and thousands of children have been kidnapped. We should be careful about what we say and its implications.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on an incredibly complex international situation. Maduro stole elections and murdered opponents, and 9 million Venezuelans were forced to flee their country. Venezuelans will be both fearful and hopeful for the future. This episode shows the US shifting to the western hemisphere, leaving European security more exposed, and the willingness of the US to interfere in foreign states, with serious implications for our NATO ally Denmark. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that what the UK can now usefully do is use any influence we have to pursue Venezuela’s transition to democracy, learn from this event, and accelerate the meeting of our defence and national security commitments?

My hon. Friend is exactly right about the fear and hope felt by many people in Venezuela; we have had that reflected back to us over the weekend. That is why we are doing everything we can—we are in an unusual position, given our experience and relationships —to promote and support a transition to democracy. I also agree about the importance of increasing our defence investment; that is why we now have the biggest increase in defence investment since the end of the cold war.

The Maduro and Chávez regime was characterised by widespread human rights abuse, criminality and economic destitution, and many Venezuelans are rightly and understandably celebrating its end. However, I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that after more than half an hour, it is still not clear whether the UK Government actually agree with what has been done. She referred to the discussion taking place at the UN Security Council at the moment—can she say what the UK’s position will be at that meeting?

I set out our position at the beginning of the statement: we have long supported a peaceful transition from an authoritarian regime to a democracy. We shed no tears for the removal of Maduro, but we want a peaceful transition to the establishment of a democracy, which we do not yet have in Venezuela. That is what we will work towards. We will always argue for the upholding of international law.

Order. Members will be aware that very many of you wish to contribute to this statement. There is another statement to come, and an important debate later. I encourage you to make your questions short.

Whether it is Venezuela, Greenland, Ukraine, Palestine or Taiwan, the UK Government are right to champion international law, but we must face facts. The global rules-based order is crumbling before our eyes, as nations increasingly disregard those rules and national interest trumps long-standing alliances. In this new era of strongman politics, whether we like it or not, military strength is the ultimate guarantor of our security and sovereignty, so I ask the Secretary of State what steps the Government are taking to accelerate investment in defence, and to send a clear signal, so that we are respected by both friend and foe globally.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the global rules-based order is under pressure from different directions, as I said in a speech just before Christmas; however, we believe that it remains important, and is in the interests and nature of our country and history, as well as forming a fundamental part of our values. We believe that international law and the rules-based order are fundamentally a foundation for peace and security across the world. We have to engage with the world as we find it, and not as we would like it to be, which means continuing to advocate for international law with people right across the world, including directly with our allies, and increasing our investment in defence. Fundamentally, protecting our national security has to be the most important priority for the Government.

Surely the real story coming out today and over the past few days is the revelation—one we should all have known—that this country has opted out of protecting the international rules-based system. We have not significantly invested in defence, and even the commitment the Foreign Secretary speaks of does not keep pace with defence inflation. As the Prime Minister revealed on Sunday, he has not even spoken to the American President. Does this not reveal the simple truth that the Americans did this without us because they do not give a damn what this House thinks?

I guess I would just have to ask who it was who did not significantly invest in defence over the past 14 years. This Government are substantially increasing investment in defence, chairing the coalition of the willing, and showing leadership on the international stage. What has struck me since becoming Foreign Secretary, and having had discussions with Governments from across the world over the past few months, is how often those Governments say how welcome it is that Britain is back.

Maduro was an illegitimate president. In The New York Times today, Colette Capriles, writing from Caracas, describes a “struggle for survival”, a “primitive capitalism”, a

“web of bosses, private loyalties, corrupt practices and institutional ruins that have replaced public life”

in Venezuela. I ask the Foreign Secretary: what can the UK do to support the development of strong civic institutions there that can help to build a new Venezuela?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is a real risk of instability in Venezuela now, and it will be crucial to build civil society and give people in Venezuela hope, rather than fear. We should ensure stability, building up capacity and work with Opposition parties and other organisations. That is something we are advocating strongly for. I have discussed this with the US Secretary of State, and said that we will continue to make that a priority, based on the work that our excellent chargé d’affaires has been doing over many years; now we need to do that extensively, including in discussion with Opposition parties.

It would be hard to find an occasion on which a British Prime Minister has looked as irrelevant and spineless on an era-defining international issue as this one does on this occasion. We are witnessing an existential threat to the international rules-based order, and the Prime Minister cannot rouse himself to give it even the meekest of defences. France, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and the UN Secretary-General have all been clear that the Trump Administration have violated international law. When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary find their voices and join that chorus of condemnation?

The Prime Minister’s response has been very much in line with the leaders of countries across not just Europe but the world. We continue to stand up for and highlight the importance of international law and focus on the realities in Venezuela, where huge damage has been done over a long time, including by the interference of Iran and Russia. We are focusing on what should be the priority of all of us now: getting a democratic transition for Venezuela.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. We speak today from the heart of our democracy, where power transfers peacefully according to the will of the people. Does she agree that democracy is the right of all people, no matter where they live? Does she further agree that it is for Venezuelans to decide what their future holds?

I completely agree. The people of Venezuela have been denied that democratic right for far too long. Election results have not been respected, and Venezuelans have faced some of the most horrendous political repression, including on an industrial scale. The July 2024 elections were clearly not respected, and the official results were never published. That is why we are continuing to talk to the opposition parties and others in Venezuela about the importance of getting a democratic transition in place.

Of course quite a lot depends on what now happens, but Mr Maduro stole the elections in Venezuela in plain sight, is a narco-terrorist and has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens and of those more widely and made huge amounts of money out of it. Is not the world a better place with him before the courts in New York, and in this case do not the ends justify the means?

Venezuela is in a stronger position without Maduro leading it, especially given the horrendous human rights abuses and the huge damage to its economy, but as the right hon. Member implied at the beginning of his question, what happens next is really important. The UK is determined to do everything we can to ensure that there is a transition to democracy and stability, because Venezuela will not have stability without a proper democratic transition.

The Secretary of State has said that the role of the Government has been to uphold international law. Part of upholding international law is to call out crimes when they are witnessed. Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter is explicit about the illegality of entering into a foreign state with armed force. That is why I found it shameful, I have to say, that the Prime Minister and Ministers in the news rounds have refused to condemn this action. I think that Trump will interpret our not condemning this action as the green light to go in wherever to steal the national assets of those countries. As a result, we are all in a more dangerous place.

Promoting international law in the most effective way also means promoting the rules-based order and the rules-based alliances that we have. It means being able to raise issues around international law both publicly and privately in a way that has the greatest results to defend the rules-based order. That is what we will continue to do, and that, frankly, is what is in the UK’s interest.

Venezuelans are relieved to be free of Maduro’s tyranny. However, Venezuela risks remaining a failed state, rather than being a free state, unless the international community comes together. Oil companies are not state builders, nor are they capable of democratic capacity building or enabling political transitions. I was surprised that there was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement of plans to evacuate British nationals if possible or of how many British nationals are in country. What phone calls has the Foreign Secretary had since this action with the leader of Guyana, a Commonwealth country and nation with whom we have an important relationship? If she has not spoken to that leader, why has she not?

As I think I set out in my statement, there are an estimated 500 British nationals in Venezuela. We did look at all possible crisis responses over the weekend. We stood up the crisis facility in the Foreign Office to ensure that we were ready to respond if necessary at any point. The response did not go beyond the changed travel advice, and over the weekend British nationals were advised to shelter in place while what might be happening next was assessed. We have had some consular contact, but it has been very limited. We have been available to any British nationals who want our support, as we would continue to be.

We are also in contact with Commonwealth countries and overseas territories. The Minister responsible for the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is following up with overseas territories that are particularly affected by instability in the region.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her remarks. She has talked about instability in the region and the need for grassroots investment in order for there to be a peaceful transition. Will she share with us the assessment she has made about the impact of economic instability in the region and the role of businesses in the region and how that instability could feed into and damage the possibility of a peaceful transition?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The nature of the economic crisis in Venezuela over the last decade has pushed huge numbers of Venezuelans into extreme hardship. It is one of the reasons why so many Venezuelans have left the country; an estimated one in four Venezuelans have left the country over the last 10 years as a result. This should be a country with a very strong economy. It is very important to build that economy up, but crucially it has to be to the benefit of the people of Venezuela, not criminals or corrupt regimes.

This is about being principled. What if we were to learn from the White House that Greenland had been the source of cocaine or fentanyl flowing to the United States? Even if we do not expect a fabricated pretext on Greenland or imminent US intervention there, will the Government please condemn the unilateral action in Venezuela by the Trump Administration before we see a complete breakdown of the rules-based order?

The hon. Member will have heard me setting out very strongly in my statement our position on Greenland and Denmark. We will continue to do so, because we are very clear that this is about the NATO alliance, the rules-based order and our close ally.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that she will abide by international law. I would not expect her to publish the legal advice that she has received from the Law Officers and others, but I would expect her to set out the Government’s own analysis of whether and how the acts of US forces towards Venezuela comply with the rule of law, so will she now do that?

My hon. Friend will know the constraints in the ministerial code regarding discussing legal advice. As I have said, it is for the US to set out publicly its legal basis for the actions that it has taken. We have raised the issue of international law—I have directly raised it with the US Secretary of State—and set out our views and concerns and the importance of urging all partners to abide by international law.

The essay question is not whether Mr Maduro was a good man, which is a clear no-brainer, but whether, as others have asked, the actions of the US President were legal. America cannot be expected to mark her own homework, so I have two questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, what body or bodies would she identify as being responsible to adjudicate on the legality of the American action? Secondly, as the vice-president of Venezuela, whose hands are as tainted with the previous regime as Maduro’s, has this afternoon been sworn in as the new President, what read-across should this House have from that incident?

The UN Security Council has been discussing Venezuela today, and I am sure that those international discussions will continue. On the vice-president being sworn in, we continue not to recognise the legitimacy of the Venezuelan regime. We want to see stability and a transition to democracy. We are urging the vice-president now to take the steps for that transition to a democracy that respects the will and human rights of the Venezuelan people.

I accept that Venezuela is a brutal, failed and highly dangerous state, but the implications of this action will be deeply destabilising across eastern Europe. In the Foreign Secretary’s discussions with the US Secretary of State about international law, did she reference the message that this action sends to Putin about Russia’s ambitions in Europe?

My hon. Friend will know that we continually discuss the threat from Russia and the importance of the transatlantic alliance supporting Ukraine with the US. I have discussed that many times with the US Secretary of State and the Prime Minister has discussed that continually with the US President. We are clear about the importance of defending Ukraine. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will be part of the coalition of the willing, which is exactly about supporting Ukraine. As we build those international alliances, we must ensure that we do so in the most effective way to support Ukraine. I assure my hon. Friend that I raise international law and the concerns we have with the US Secretary of State.

I think it is clear that the Foreign Secretary supports the end, if not the means. I think it is also clear that she accepts the outcome, though she cannot bring herself—nor can the Government—to condone the actions of President Trump. But today we learned that the Chinese have warned against touching Venezuela’s oil resources and demanded the return of President Maduro. Does she see that as sabre rattling, or is she concerned?

I know that there have been many concerns about engagement in the oil industry in Venezuela, particularly of Iran and Russia. The right hon. Member referred to issues around China and the position of the Chinese Government. The oil industry in Venezuela should be benefiting the people of Venezuela, not other countries or corrupt regimes.

The truth is, the warning signs that the rules-based order is at risk have been there for some time. In evidence to Congress during the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, the former White House adviser on Russia and Europe, Fiona Hill, claimed that an informal offer was made by Russia to withdraw its support for Venezuela in exchange for America withdrawing its support for Ukraine. In the light of these events, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that that specific allegation has been raised in her conversations with our American counterparts? What response has she had?

We continue to have important discussions with the US about Ukraine and support for Ukraine. Many of those discussions have been about the security guarantees that the US would provide as part of a peace agreement for Ukraine. Those security guarantees involve the US providing that support, working with other European countries. That will continue to be a central objective of our foreign policy.

To those who still harbour illusions about an idealised world of international rules that will be abided by all, should we not just say, “Welcome to the real world, where might often proves to be right and we have to face the circumstances that we are in”? May I therefore give my support to the Government’s ambivalence, as supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who also rightly criticised—it was all she disagreed with the Government about—the slow pace of rearmament? Will the Foreign Secretary avoid blowing up the bridges we have with the United States and use that influence? Does she not agree it really would be stupid to slag off President Trump now when we want to have influence over what he does next?

Let me address some of the hon. Member’s bigger points about the international rules-based order and global power politics. He and I are old enough to have experience and reflections on the cold war, which was all about great power politics and difficulties. Alongside those big military global tensions, we had worked hard post the second world war to develop a rules-based order. This has been a part of global history for a long time: the tensions between how we maintain international law and an international rules-based order and how we engage with different competing interests, sometimes from some of the biggest countries in the world and sometimes from some of the smaller countries in the world who have particular power in particular areas.

In terms of the UK’s approach, we continue to believe in the importance of a rules-based order and of such an international framework. We also engage with the world as it is—the world as we face it. We need to be able to do so and to be agile in responding to that.

Regardless of what is said in this place, it is clear for all to see that Trump’s illegal actions in Venezuela are a blatant violation of international law, and now he has Greenland clearly in his sight. Frankly, the response from the international community and our own Government has been shameful. How can we pretend to defend international law when we refuse even to condemn the most blatant of violations and do not apply it equally?

The reality is that we are sending a green light to say that international rules no longer apply. Let us call this what it is. Trump’s actions are not about democracy; they are about oil and old-fashioned colonialism. I give the Foreign Secretary the opportunity again. If she truly believes and wants to stand up for international law, she should stand at that Dispatch Box and condemn these illegal actions. If she does not—

Order. I think we have got the gist. We really need to have shorter questions, or not everyone will get in.

I remind my hon. Friend that the Maduro regime was deeply authoritarian and corrupt, and it allowed countries such as Russia and Iran, as well as Hezbollah, to intervene and increase their influence in that country. We should not shed a tear for the end of the Maduro regime; what we should do is work for democracy. That is in our values, and that is what we will continue to do. We will also continue to stand up for international law.

The last time I saw this degree of agreement between Government and Opposition Front Benchers in relation to foreign policy was in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and we all know how that ended. But I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about being clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people. So when she spoke to Secretary Rubio, did she condemn President Trump’s assertion that he should run Venezuela for the foreseeable future?

Obviously, in practice the US does not have boots on the ground in Venezuela, and the vice-president has been sworn in. We continue not to recognise the vice-president’s regime as legitimate in Venezuela and we are continuing to press for a democratic transition. I discussed with the US Secretary of State the importance of a democratic transition, the importance of working with the opposition, and the role that the UK could play in doing that. Ultimately, this has to be about ensuring that the will of the Venezuelan people is respected.

Article 2.4 of the United Nations charter states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, even when a President lacks democratic legitimacy, any peaceful transition in Venezuela must be in the hands of its people and not dictated by foreign Governments, who must follow international law?

A peaceful transition is essential, and it has to be a transition to democracy that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people. That is why I have spoken today to María Corina Machado, and that is what we and our embassy in Caracas will continue to press for.

Will the Government use any influence that their silence on Venezuela is buying to impress on President Trump that, while it may be expedient for the UK to acquiesce in the removal of a hideous old tyrant, Nicolás Maduro, hemispheric proto-colonialism that threatens UK interests or the integrity of any Commonwealth country or European neighbour would destroy the special relationship that has existed between our countries since the second world war?

I think the right hon. Member is referring to Greenland and Denmark. Let me be really clear: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. We have said so extremely strongly and we will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has said so today, and I have been in touch with the Danish Foreign Minister today. The right hon. Member will have seen the strong statements not just from the Danish Prime Minister but from other leaders, particularly across the Nordic states. This is immensely important to us. We are all NATO allies and we all need to work together. That is part of how we strengthen our security.

There is a central question here, which can be simply put: if we do not condemn the American actions in Venezuela, what is to stop dictators around the world acting in a similar way against our allies and our interests? Does the Secretary of State agree that rules do matter?

I think I have been clear not only that rules matter and that international law matters, but that we need to ensure that we look at the different circumstances of different situations and rightly approach each one in turn. That is why we have today set out our position on Greenland. I caution hon. Members against creating equivalence between different situations in different parts of the world and between very different circumstances in very different countries. We have to be realistic about the differences between them in the approach that we take.

Has the Foreign Secretary had an opportunity to study the United States national security statement that was made at the end of November, in which it appears to give itself the right to intervene in any country in the western hemisphere in order to exploit raw materials and minerals? Is she not concerned about the overt threats that are now being made against Colombia and Cuba, as well as about the illegal kidnapping of Maduro? Is she going to make any representations to the USA about that as well?

On Colombia, for example, we have worked closely with the Government of Colombia. We continue to be the penholder on Colombia at the UN and continue to work closely with it. We have also made representations on aspects of the US national security strategy, where we take a very different view from the US. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a long history in this area, but it has included support for the Maduro regime, which is now being investigated for crimes against humanity.

Compliance with international law is not an either/or, and I am extremely concerned that the action of the United States shows utter disdain for international law and leaves enormous uncertainty over the future of Venezuela. It removes a leader whose rule was corrupt and cruel, but rather than celebrating, many people there are now stocking up on food and medicines out of concern for what comes next. Trump’s rationale around stopping drug trafficking rings hollow following his pardon for ex-Honduran President Hernández. What specific actions will the Government take to stabilise the situation so that the Venezuelan people can decide their own future, and also to ensure that President Trump does not act on his threats against Colombia, Cuba and Greenland?

I have responded to questions on the other countries. The critical issue now is to ensure that Venezuela can be on a track towards a democracy that respects the will of the Venezuelan people and also their human rights. The first step has to be the ending of political repression and the release of political prisoners, and that is an issue that I have discussed with the leader of the Venezuelan opposition. I have also raised it with the US Secretary of State, and we will be pursuing that through our embassy, where we have particular weight and expertise.

Can the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about engagement with the Commonwealth? Not only are there two Commonwealth countries immediately adjacent to Venezuela, but there is an important Commonwealth network across the Caribbean. Surely there must be a danger at this moment that some of those countries might think that their interests would be better served by looking to the United States rather than to the Commonwealth and the UK.

We continue to have a very strong engagement with the Commonwealth and are continuing to do so in the light of the weekend’s events. There are Commonwealth countries and overseas territories that have been heavily affected by the instability in the region, including the instability driven by the Maduro regime, as well as by the scale of the narco-trafficking and the criminal gang operations and by the scale and pace of migration, which has been very destabilising. We are also engaging with the Commonwealth countries in order to work with them on ensuring that there can be stability in the region, because that is in everyone’s interest.

There can be no question but that it is for the people of Venezuela to choose its future and for the international community to support democracy and uphold international law. While there is no denying the illegitimacy and brutality of Maduro’s regime, does the Foreign Secretary share my fears that such unilateral action sends the dangerous message to despots and tyrants throughout the world that might is right, and that it endangers peace and democracy throughout the world?

We obviously have to keep in mind that this was an authoritarian dictator who is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, which is why the Prime Minister said that we would shed no tears over the removal of Maduro, but we also believe in the international rules-based order and the importance of countries respecting that. We have raised that with the US.

Maduro was an enemy of the west, and while there is disagreement in this House about the means, I think there is much agreement that the Venezuelan people are better off without him. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary to comment more about the constructive influence that the UK and other western allies can have to ensure an early return to democracy for the Venezuelan people?

The most important issue now is to ensure that Venezuela is on that track to democracy, and that means there has to be stability. Right now we need to prevent further instability and criminality, starting with the end to political repression and the release of political prisoners who are held across Venezuela. Those are some of the things that opposition parties are calling for as urgent first steps, and those are the things that the UK will press for, directly in Venezuela and in our relationship with the US as part of this process.

There is clearly no question about the illegitimacy of Maduro’s presidency, but there are questions about President Trump driving a coach and horses through the global rules-based order. How should the UK now view the United States national security strategy in the light of this recent action?

The US has set out its national security strategy and we have separately set out ours, and they are clearly different. I have raised with the US some particular issues around the US national security strategy. It is obviously for the US to set out its priorities as a democratically elected Government. This comes back to the fact that we believe in the importance not just of hemispheres of interest but of the transatlantic alliance. That has been a cornerstone of UK security. We have a unique security partnership with the US, and that remains important alongside the international rule of law.

I welcome the removal of Nicolás Maduro, who for too long oppressed the people of Venezuela, but history shows that the aftermath of intervention can be as consequential as the intervention itself. What specific steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that there is no vacuum for instability or hostile actors to exploit both within Venezuela and across the wider region, particularly hostile state actors such as Russia, China and Iran?

That is an extremely important issue, and I discussed exactly that with US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday in respect of how we ensure that there is stability in Venezuela and that stability is part of a pathway to democracy. I do not believe stability will be maintained if there is not that route to democracy—there must be a plan and a transition to democracy—but equally, it is hugely important to ensure that we do not have greater destabilisation by countries like Russia and Iran, but also by the criminal gangs that have been so deeply destructive and were allowed to become so powerful under the Maduro regime.

I welcome the confirmation that the Government support international law and now want to see a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate Government that reflects the will of the people in Venezuela, but does the Foreign Secretary at least agree that if Donald Trump’s unilateral action was in breach of international law and the UN charter, it has created a very dangerous precedent?

The reason we stand up for the UN charter and international law is partly because it reflects our values and partly because it reflects our interests, and because that UN charter and international law framework underpin peace and security across the globe. Of course, throughout decades of history, international law and the UN charter have been tested and strained with the reality of different kinds of international affairs all over the world, and they will continue to be, but we still believe in the importance of advocating for international law and doing so with our closest allies.

The US attack on Venezuela is clearly a breach of international law. Of course Maduro’s violent, repressive regime must be held accountable, but the Venezuelan people need and deserve international support that upholds international law, not the unilateral, unlawful US oil imperialism that we have seen. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that a key function of any Foreign Secretary is to defend and uphold international law? Does she recognise that a year of pandering to and pussyfooting around Donald Trump has had no restraining effect and has instead emboldened him? Will she condemn the illegal US action?

Let me just say what is in the interests of the people of Venezuela, because that was where the hon. Member started her question. What I think is in the interests of the people of Venezuela is not the Maduro regime, but a transition to democracy. We have worked for many years for a peaceful transition to democracy in line with international law, and that continues to be our policy, but we will work with the reality on the ground. We will work with all those involved and will use the particular assets we have with our experienced embassy to promote the transition to democracy in as safe and stable a way as possible. That is exactly why we are in touch with the Venezuelan opposition.

The Foreign Secretary set three conditions for judging the transition: that it be peaceful, that it be compliant with international law and that it have the support of the Venezuelan people. All three of those conditions were broken by a lethal attack by a foreign power, planned not in Caracas but in Washington and in breach of the UN charter. Will the Foreign Secretary turn her mind for a second to the President’s idea that he will seize Venezuelan oil and turn the Venezuelan state into a colony, and advise the House of her reaction? None of those things could be supported by any Labour Government.

The Maduro regime did not have the support of the Venezuelan people. That was the consequence of the July 2024 election, for which they have continually refused to publish the results because of all the evidence that Maduro lost the election. We have been very clear that the oil in Venezuela should be used to the benefit of the Venezuelan people—that is what is most important now.

The Foreign Secretary has repeated time after time today that she believes in the rules-based system. Therefore, will she argue for that vociferously at the United Nations so that the world knows what British values are? Will she also discuss with the American Administration a realistic plan to make Venezuela a democracy and make it clear, as she has just said, that the oil should benefit the Venezuelan people and no one else?

Yes is the answer to the hon. Member’s questions. We are continuing to raise and promote international law through the United Nations and the Security Council; we are continuing to raise the importance of international law with the US Administration on a range of issues; and we are continuing to argue for a democratic transition in which Venezuelan assets should be used for the Venezuelan people.

If the Foreign Secretary believes that the rules-based order is important, why have she and the Prime Minister not condemned the actions of Trump? Does she agree that he is nothing more than a megalomaniac and that this is imperialism by another name?

Again, the Maduro regime has been deeply damaging for the people of Venezuela. We do not shed a tear for the end of the Maduro regime. We do believe, however, that it is essential that we get a peaceful transition to democracy in line with the rule of law and international law. That is what we have argued for over many years and continue to argue for now, because that is what is in the interests of the Venezuelan people.

With Donald Trump taking a leaf out of the Putin playbook and becoming an international gangster in the Americas, what assurance can the Secretary of State give the Chamber that the coalition of the willing to protect Ukraine will become the coalition of the capable to defend Ukraine?

Again, I would advise Members against suggesting that there is somehow equivalence between what happened this weekend and Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine—the kidnapping of thousands of children in Ukraine, the targeting of democratically elected President Zelensky and the continued war in Ukraine. We will continue to work with the US in defence of Ukraine. That is why we are pursuing the issue of security guarantees as part of NATO, as part of our transatlantic alliance, which is immensely important to the security of the UK and the security of Ukraine.

President Trump has behaved like a member of a criminal gang—bombing Venezuela, a sovereign country; kidnapping its Head of State and his family; and killing many in the process. Where next—Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, here? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we do not stand up to deviants and bullies like Trump, they will only be emboldened to repeat their illegal acts elsewhere?

I point out to my hon. Friend that Maduro was not recognised as a Head of State by the UK Government and by many Governments, not least because of the deep corruption, the refusal to respect the July 2024 election and the deep damage he had done, including now being investigated for crimes against humanity. My hon. Friend talked about the impact on neighbouring countries. Neighbouring countries have also suffered deep damage as a result of the Maduro regime allowing criminal gangs to operate so extensively from Venezuela, and as a result of the rapid migration of so many people from Venezuela due to the crisis.

I have listened to the Foreign Secretary for the last hour and a half and the Government’s foreign policy position on Venezuela is still completely unclear to me, so I will ask a more direct question: does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United States’ Donroe doctrine?

The Monroe doctrine has been interpreted in many different ways over decades and through generations, and historians will dispute that. What I can set out is the UK’s foreign policy approach, which is to stand up for Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is why we not only stand up for the international rule of law, but maintain crucial security alliances, such as NATO and our transatlantic partnership, which are based on laws and values.

The Foreign Secretary has set out that it is possible to not shed a tear for Maduro’s removal but be concerned about upholding international law. In that regard, this should not be seen as a green light for Greenland. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that when she spoke to Secretary of State Rubio, she specifically registered the UK Government’s position on Greenland?

I have been in touch with the US Secretary of State about our position on Greenland, and the Prime Minister made it extremely clear today. We have made it clear to the House that we feel strongly that it is important that Greenland is part of Denmark and that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and nobody else.

Like the Foreign Secretary, I shed no tears for the fall of the Maduro regime. However, I have fears about the precedent set by President Trump’s actions over the weekend. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment for global stability if dictators and despots across the world take a very simple lesson from the US’s actions this weekend—that might is right?

What we have seen in Maduro is a dictator who is no longer running his country, and the hon. Gentleman and I will, rightly, not shed any tears for that. It is important, however, that we uphold international law, the rules-based order and our values. Those values include recognising democracy and sovereignty for the Venezuelan people, which, frankly, have not been respected by the Maduro regime over many years.

The whole world is now asking, “Who’s next? Who’s on this list? Is it Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, Canada or Colombia?” The attack on Venezuela sparked a wave of regional instability, including in Colombia. The Colombian peace agreement is under threat, exacerbated by the rhetoric from President Trump, who has outrageously smeared Petro as a drug dealer and threatened further military intervention targeting Colombia directly. Given the UK’s role as UN Security Council penholder for the Colombian peace agreement, will the Secretary of State make immediate representations to her US counterparts to cease these reckless threats against a close UK partner?

The instability in the region has been heavily exacerbated and driven by the Maduro regime, given the scale of migration and trafficking, the operations of criminal gangs and the escalating influence of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia in the region. As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are the penholder on Colombia. We support the peace process that was agreed and we have worked closely with the Colombian Government on sustaining that peace process. We believe that is extremely important. We will continue to do that through the UN and with all our allies.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nordic countries, I am very grateful for the comments of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition on Denmark and Greenland. I am also grateful that the Foreign Secretary confirmed just a few moments ago that she and the Prime Minister have been raising directly the issue of respect for the sovereignty of that key NATO ally. Why, then, did it take so long for the Prime Minister to publicly espouse his support, which was so delayed after Sweden, Finland and other countries did so?

The Prime Minister did so this morning when he was asked about it.

The UK’s overriding interest should be to maintain international law, keep as many countries as possible in the global rules-based order and ensure that what has happened in Venezuela is not a gift to Russia or China. Is the Foreign Secretary sure that we can maintain our position at the Security Council and promote our values, our interests and the rules-based order?

That is what we need to continue to do. The approach of progressive realism that my predecessor set out in our manifesto was about not only how we pursue our values, but recognising the world as it is—which is, sadly, often not the way we want it to be—how we continue to pursue those values in the most effective way, both publicly and privately, through our alliances, and how we make sure that our foreign policy and decisions are guided by international law.

Britain is historically America’s best friend, and best friends tell each other when they are acting appallingly; they do not go into toadying mode. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have mentioned, in 2003 in this House, a Labour Government voted, with Conservative support, to illegally invade Iraq. The consequences were the undermining of international law, the emboldening of despots around the world, and the massive degradation of Britain’s security, safety and significance. Have we learned nothing from that lesson of nearly 25 years ago? Have we not learned the one lesson above all of history—that those who appease bullies soon become their victims?

Let me say again to the hon. Member that the continual false equivalence with other issues around the world does not help any of the arguments or the issues that we are dealing with. We have an important issue now: what happened in Venezuela. The UK was not a part of the operations that took place over the weekend. We have set out a different foreign policy approach to Venezuela, based on a peaceful transition, support for democracy and the promotion of international law, which we will continue with. It is right that we do that, given the world that we are in, and the alliances that we need to build in order to pursue our values, our interests and, in this case, democracy for Venezuela.

Democracy and human rights are sacrosanct. A new great game, in which might beats what is right, is replacing the international rules-based order. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that our allies in Ukraine, Taiwan and elsewhere are less secure now than they were a week ago?

Throughout our history, there have been tensions. Since the second world war, there have been tensions around the issues of the rules-based order and the international law that we have championed throughout. During the cold war, there were big tensions between major countries, and there are tensions in some of the debates that take place now about global powers and spheres of interest in different hemispheres. As for how the UK should navigate through that, we continue to maintain and uphold the importance of international law, the rules-based order and the international framework of law because we believe that is in our interests, and is the right thing to do. However, as part of that, we have to maintain rules-based alliances, including the NATO alliance and the transatlantic alliance, which are built on, and underpinned by, our values and laws. That is important too, and it is crucial when it comes to Ukraine, which my hon. Friend has worked on for a long time.

Thirty per cent of the US naval fleet is positioned off the coast of Venezuela, those vessels having been redeployed from many locations. They include the fifth fleet from the joint UK-US deployment in Bahrain. We will be left exposed in certain areas—90% of data cables between Europe and Asia are in that region—if this goes on beyond the middle of January. What risk assessments have been undertaken to ensure that our troops are not more exposed than they need to be?

The undersea cable issue is important, and we have considered it not just in terms of UK defence, but internationally. We have discussed it at NATO, and as part of our alliances. It is why we must continue to take much more seriously the operation of the Russian shadow fleet in our waters.

There has been much discussion of international law, but what matters is that it is upheld at such a dangerous time in the world. Our country is less safe when it is not upheld. In the context of Venezuela and Greenland, will the Government reaffirm their commitment to the UN charter as a key instrument of international law, and will they vote accordingly at the UN Security Council?

We continue to support the UN charter, which is the foundation of our peace and security. We will continue to support it and its principles in all our international debates.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s clarity on the UK’s approach to Greenland, which is that it is up to Greenlanders and Danes to determine its future, and no one else. Could she be equally clear on whether use of any US bases in the UK will be permitted in any potential military action towards Greenland?

We do not want to see any military action in Greenland, and it should not arise, because this is a fellow NATO country. We are NATO members and we should work on our security together.

Order. Let me update Members. I will run this statement until 8.15 pm, so questions and answers will need to be very short if everyone is to get in. The second statement will probably last only about 45 minutes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) has mentioned the threats to Colombia. The Foreign Secretary correctly said that we are the United Nations penholder for the peace accord achieved in 2016, after protracted negotiations between warring factions. The accord is heavily based on our agreements in Northern Ireland. Will she assure me that she has stressed to her American counterparts that the threat to peace in Colombia could unravel that accord?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to support and uphold the 2016 peace accord. We are the penholder, as he says, so we work closely with the Colombian Government on that, and on how to deal with a range of threats to their stability. I recognise that the Maduro regime contributed to instability in Colombia as a result of migration and criminal operations. We will continue to work with the Colombian Government.

In November, I asked the Government what our position would be if the US took military action in Venezuela, in the light of the new US national security strategy, which clearly outlines the US Administration’s position on the western hemisphere and denial of influence to non-hemispheric competitors. The answer was not clear. Following her discussion with Secretary Rubio, what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the risk that Venezuela may be the first domino in a chain across central America, ending with Mexico? If we do not now recognise Delcy Rodríguez as the legitimate President of Venezuela, is it because she is one of the individuals we have already sanctioned?

We want to see regional stability and calm across the region, and partnership working between nations—that is crucial. Delcy Rodríguez has clearly been part of the Maduro regime for a long time. We believe that there needs to be a transition to democracy that engages all the different Opposition parties and players in Venezuela. That is what we will work to do, and it is what I have discussed with Secretary Rubio.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and her stamina. Over the past hour and 40 minutes, no one has regretted the downfall of Nicolás Maduro, but notwithstanding what the Foreign Secretary has said about the tension between practical, progressive realism and political principle, few of us can condone his kidnapping to stand trial in the domestic courts of another country. This has all the hallmarks of a treacherous deal between the remnants of the Maduro regime and the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it signals the end of the rules-based international order, and that the fraying of that order benefits not our friends in the west, but our foes in the east?

I reiterate a point that I have already made: there have always been challenges and strains around frameworks of international law and the realities of particular issues in different parts of the world. The UK has always argued for the maintenance of the rules-based order, and for the alliances that uphold it. For us, one of those alliances is the transatlantic one. We need both to maintain support for the rules-based order and to maintain the crucial partnerships that have upheld that rules-based order—we need to be able to do both.

Two days ago, the United States carried out an illegal and unprovoked military attack on Venezuela, killing at least 40 people. During that attack, the Venezuelan President and his wife were abducted from their home and taken to the US on bogus drug-related charges. The Labour Government are now refusing to assess whether that is legal, so let me ask the Foreign Secretary this question. If a foreign power accused the British Prime Minister of breaking its domestic law, bombed targets in the UK, killed dozens of British citizens and abducted the Prime Minister and his wife in the middle of the night, would the Government be able to say that that was legal, or is international law something that applies only when Donald Trump says it can? If so, are the Prime Minister and this Labour Government anything more than Donald Trump’s poodle?

The hon. Member seems to be drawing an equivalence between the Maduro regime and the democratically elected UK Prime Minister. I think that this equivalence thing is just really inappropriate. We should recognise the huge damage that the Maduro regime has done, and the fact that it is under investigation by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

Order. To give Members an update on my previous announcement, this statement will now run its course, because the Backbench Business debate has been postponed until a future date.

The Maduro Government had no democratic legitimacy, but a return to gunboat diplomacy and strongman-led spheres of influence is not in our national interest. The rules-based international order is not teetering but collapsing, and that is disastrous. However, we cannot just bemoan it; we must respond to that threat by building up the coherence of our own bloc: Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that these developments demonstrate that the absolute priority must be not noises off, but deepening connections, hard and soft, with our own continent?

We should strengthen our European partnerships, which is what we have been doing, and strengthen our investment in defence—again, that is what we are doing. The transatlantic partnership remains important. It is what we will discuss this week with the Americans, when discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. The security guarantees we have been discussing, which involve the US, are also about the security of Europe, Ukraine and the UK, and, ultimately, about the upholding of international law.

The UK continues to argue for international law and to ensure that it guides and frames the decisions that we take as part of our foreign policy, and I have directly raised the issues of international law, particularly around Venezuela, with the US Secretary of State and we continue to do so. Upholding international law also means upholding some of the alliances that sustain that international law, and that is what we will continue to do.

In order to hold up international law, it is important that there is robust accountability on two fronts. First, on how we use the intelligence that we have as a country ahead of actions being taken, can the Foreign Secretary say how she used the UK intelligence before this operation? Secondly, on the question of accountability after an event, how will we call the US President to account in the light of his being a sitting member of the UN Security Council?

The UN Security Council has been discussing Venezuela today, as we would expect the UN Security Council to do on a significant issue. We have deep intelligence and security co-operation with Five Eyes countries. On this particular operation, we were not involved or informed in advance, and nor were other countries.

The US has abducted the leader of Venezuela yet the Government cannot say whether that is legal or illegal. Let us try an easier one: if the US were to abduct the premier of Greenland, would that be legal or illegal?

Again, I would say to the hon. Member that there is a continual searching for equivalence when it is really inappropriate to do so. I have made very clear our position on Greenland: the future of Greenland is for Greenlanders and for the Danes, not for other countries be that the US or any other country around the world.

Like the Foreign Secretary, we want an end to this brutal regime. I hope now that Venezuela can move to a democracy with full control of its oil and other resources following this breach of the UN charter. The Leader of the Opposition says that we live in

“a fundamentally different world and an increasingly dangerous world.”

After all, no UK Prime Minister previously has had to stand up so fulsomely for Greenland and Denmark’s security. So when the facts change, should our stance not change too? Should we not be working more closely with the European Union and EU member states to deepen our security and our economic ties, but do we not also need the European Union to be more flexible and pragmatic about what constitutes alignment with the UK?

We are strengthening our security co-operation with European allies. We have increasing security partnerships and discussions both with groups of other European countries and the EU as a whole, as well as with the NATO members in Europe. That has been crucial; it is a central part of the coalition of the willing, and those partnerships need to continue to deepen.

The Secretary of State justifies in her statement a flagrant breach of international law by citing Venezuela’s drop in GDP, narcotics trafficking and gold trading. These are issues that could affect countless countries around the world. But let me remind the Secretary of State of the words of the person who perpetrated this action, Donald J. Trump, who said that the US is

“going to have a presence in Venezuela as it pertains to oil. We’re going to be taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground”

and is going to “run” Venezuela. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to take a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book and answer a question once: do the Government support US colonial expansionism or do the Government believe in the rules-based world order? Which is it? It cannot be both.

The Government support democracy for Venezuela. The people of Venezuela have been denied that democracy for far too long. We should support that democracy, and we should support international law and the rules-based order, and ensure that a future Government of Venezuela reflect the will of the people and respect the human rights of the Venezuelan people.

Has the Secretary of State reflected on the well-documented difficulties that arise when the US assumes administrative control of occupied territory—difficulties we saw all too clearly during the Iraq conflict? Given these lessons, will the Government press our American allies to ensure we see an early, credible election, one that enfranchises the estimated 7 million Venezuelans who emigrated during Maduro’s time in office? Would that not offer the most legitimate route back to democracy and spare the US the burden and risk inherent in attempting to administer another state? Does not this whole situation, to displace autocracy, demonstrate a need to establish a new consensus that updates the principles that govern intervention in failed states?

The hon. Member makes an important, thoughtful point about the way in which frameworks need to work, but he is also right that there needs to be the transition to democracy at the earliest opportunity. The first stages of that are ensuring that there is stability, and then the release of the political prisoners and the return of political opposition members to Venezuela, because it is not possible to fight a free and fair election while there is still political repression in place.

I have to say that this is one of the most depressing days I have spent in this Chamber in the past few years, because while I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to democracy in Venezuela and her repeated commitment to the rules-based international system and our alliances, I cannot bring that together with this Government’s abject failure to condemn the actions of Donald Trump in breaking international law and the concern it has created, reflected in statements by the leaders of Greenland, Denmark, Sweden and the Foreign Secretary herself at the Dispatch Box. How are the Government going to reconcile that blatant contradiction?

I set out already our clear position on Greenland and the importance of international law, but also the importance of working through our different alliances and being prepared to raise issues around international law and other areas both privately and publicly. We need to ensure we can pursue the UK’s interests and also our values. We do that through the discussions that will be taking place this week on Ukraine and through the pursuit of democracy and our values in Venezuela as well.

I read this morning that a former Under Secretary of Defence for Personnel and Readiness has said that he is not aware of any plans for how the next few days will be managed by the US. May I ask the Foreign Secretary what specific reassurances she has received from US counterparts that that is not the case and that instead there is a plan in place? Will she tell us about the work that we are doing with our international partners, particularly from NATO, to ensure that support is provided?

One reason I spoke to US Secretary of State Rubio yesterday was to engage on what the plans now should be going forward. Given the level of criminal gang operations in Venezuela and the different factions that there have been in the country, preventing greater instability now and ensuring that we can get that stable basis and a plan for democracy is immensely important. There is a very strong civil society, with opposition groups and so on, but they need to be enabled and supported to ensure that we can get that peaceful, democratic transition. It will be crucially important.

Most Members of this House will agree with the Government that there are no tears to be shed over the removal of the brutal regime in Venezuela, but my question for the Foreign Secretary is this: how does such a desirable outcome impact on the Government’s view of what is permissible within international law?

There is always a debate to be had about how to respond to different kinds of hybrid threat and complex threat in different countries, and different interpretations can be made. That is also why we have said that it is for the US to set out its interpretation and its legal basis for any action that it takes, but we continue to promote the importance of international law as it is set out and the UN charter. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have argued for, for example, reforms to the interpretation of the European convention on human rights and for other areas of international law, for other reasons, to modernise, but we continue to stand up for the principles of the UN charter.

From state-sponsored assassination attempts to illegal invasions, in recent years we have seen an alarming rise in the number of countries that are behaving like rogue states, including countries that are permanent members of the Security Council—I name Russia, given what happened on British soil, in Salisbury. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international rules-based order and international law should be a fundamental principle and practice of the UK, and that we expect other countries to uphold that in all circumstances?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It could feel as if the rules-based order is under particular threat and challenge right now, as I raised in my Locarno speech before Christmas. It has probably been under challenge before and it has endured, partly because countries like the UK have continued to advocate for it, and we must continue to do so.

The people of Greenland are concerned today. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement earlier that UK bases that are used by the US air force will not be used for any attack on Greenland. Will she confirm that she will make that clear to Secretary of State Rubio next time that they speak?

Let me be clear: the UK, Denmark and the US are all members of NATO. That is why it is so important that we continue to ensure the sovereignty of Greenland and of Denmark, and why we have made our views on that particularly clear to the US.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. I agree with her that Maduro was a corrupt dictator, who frankly cared nothing for the lives of his own people. I welcome her comments about the importance of upholding international law, so does she agree that if we believe in a world order with clear rules about sovereignty, we cannot pick and choose when those rules do and do not apply? Otherwise, what is to stop others with further bad intentions from taking advantage of that situation and following suit?

We continue to support international law, to promote it, both publicly and privately, with our allies, and to pursue and sustain the alliances that are important as underpinning parts of the rules-based order, including our NATO alliance and our transatlantic alliance. We maintain those long-standing partnerships as part of upholding international law.

The Biden Administration offered a $25 million reward for the capture and detention of President Maduro, and this country has passively supported regime change in Venezuela since we froze the gold reserves held at the Bank of England in 2019. Now that President Trump has followed through on the implicit policy of both our countries and achieved the outcome that the whole world wanted, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what conditions will need to be met for the money that is owned by the Venezuelan people to be returned by the Bank of England?

As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, successive Governments have not recognised the Venezuelan regime, which is the basis on which the independent Bank of England took its decision. We continue not to recognise the Venezuelan regime because it is important that we have the pressure in place to have a transition to a democracy, which is also about the will of the Venezuelan people. Obviously, there are independent decisions for the Bank of England to take, but our principles are about maintaining and pursuing stability and a transition to democracy, and that is what is guiding our approach to recognition.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She has been getting lots of advice in response, but I do not think any of us really envy her position. I thank her for talking to the leader of the opposition, María Corina Machado, which is the right thing to do. The Foreign Secretary outlined how she had spoken to Secretary of State Rubio about a transition to democracy, but is there a timeline associated with that? Will the recognition of the Venezuelan Government only happen once a Government has been democratically elected?

We do not currently have a timeline for that transition. The Venezuelan opposition have said that the first step has to be an end to political repression, the release of political prisoners and the safe return to Venezuela of opposition politicians, because without that there cannot be free and fair elections. So the first step that we are pressing for is an end to political repression, and that is what we are urging the acting President to do.

There is an old warning from Benjamin Franklin: “If you do not hang together, you will hang separately.” Given the events in Venezuela in recent days, and given the active threats against Cuba and Mexico, in the past against Canada, and today against Greenland, I ask the Foreign Secretary, where is the line? For the United Kingdom, what now is the Rubicon, the crossing of which would force us to recognise that our silence today will lead only to greater challenge tomorrow? Is it not time that we hang together with our values-based allies to stand up against Trump’s colonial possession taking in central America, whether that is in the western hemisphere or elsewhere?

Again, to draw equivalence between different countries is the wrong approach. It does not recognise the scale of damage done by the Maduro regime or the fact that, in order to promote international law, we must promote the partnerships that underpin it. We need to work closely with the coalition of the willing, which is meeting tomorrow to discuss Ukraine, and ensure that there are US security guarantees in place, which are an important part of our security alliance with the US. On Greenland, we and other European countries have made our position clear.

The unstoppable machine of American imperialist invasions has killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. From aiding, arming and abetting a genocide in Palestine, to now the invasion and abduction of a leader in Venezuela, for oil, minerals and gold, and to protect the petrodollar, this has nothing to do with democracy or narco-terrorism. With ongoing threats to Greenland, Cuba, Colombia and Mexico, the list of gangsterish aggression continues unopposed. Has the global rules-based order now collapsed, or did it ever even exist for western warmongering powers?

I strongly disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. We have a strong security partnership with the US and other countries, and not just through NATO but through a direct security partnership. The US is our strongest security ally and our alliance is based on values and principles. We continue to sustain that relationship as part of our support and continued respect for international law.

What message does the Foreign Secretary think that this weekend’s outbreak of unilateral acts of violence, kidnap and taking assets outside of international law sent to Valdimir Putin, particularly with reference to Russia’s view of the need to seriously negotiate peace with Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary confer with her Ukrainian counterparts about giving our Ukrainian guests the option of a right to settle in the UK? Will the Minister meet me and Ukrainian guests to discuss options moving forward?

It is fundamentally wrong to draw any kind of equivalence between what is happening in Venezuela and what is happening in Ukraine—they are fundamentally different. The US is playing a hugely important role in pursuing a peace process for Ukraine and in the discussions around security guarantees, which are immensely important. The hon. Member raises the issue of Ukrainians living in the UK. As he may know, we have a Ukrainian family continuing to live with us and I take this issue extremely seriously. He will also recognise that this is now a matter for the Home Secretary, and not for me, as the Foreign Secretary.

The Secretary of State is right that no one should shed any tears at the end of Maduro’s rule. Does it surprise her that Sinn Féin, first of all, defended the fraudulent election as being electorally robust, and then attended the President’s inauguration event in order to show what it said was “solidarity” with him? That highlights once again how it is still wedded to criminality and terrorism.

There is an opportunity, now that the Americans have done good for the Venezuelan people by removing the corrupt cancer that so damaged their country. Will the Foreign Secretary outline what steps our country can take to ensure that democracy is restored in Venezuela? From her discussions with the Americans, can she say how much they will co-operate with us in that venture?

No one should be defending the Maduro regime. I have talked specifically to the US Secretary of State about the transition to democracy. The US has said that this is important, but we need to ensure that those conditions are in place, starting with the ending of political repression.

President Maduro was illegitimate, but Donald Trump’s illegal incursion into Venezuela puts him in the company of Vladimir Putin and will embolden President Xi in his ambitions for Taiwan. More pressing for the UK is the fact that an occupation of Greenland, which has been repeatedly threatened, would see Putin’s ambition for NATO’s disintegration come to pass. Given that there are numerous US assets in the UK, what discussions have the Government had with our European counterparts, including the Danes, to prepare European security against the threat now posed and explicitly stated by the President of the United States?

Trying to make an equivalence between the US and Russia is just totally ridiculous and deeply inappropriate. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. In contrast, we have our relationship with the US, in which it is discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. I think that is hugely important.

Absent international rules-based order leads to chaos. We all know that within chaos there is order; sadly, that order is one in which the strongest survive and the most vulnerable and weak die. That is neither just nor morally right. How can we be champions of and advocates for the international rules-based order yet wholly equivocal when it comes to calling out this flagrant breach of international law?

We have set out our continued commitment to international law and the importance of maintaining some of the underpinning rules-based alliances that are so important for sustaining the rules-based order. That is why we will continue to argue for international law and to maintain things such as the NATO alliance and the partnership, and it is why we will continue to raise these issues publicly and privately with our allies.

President Trump’s actions are not about drugs; they are about oil. They are not about regional stability; they are about regional dominance. They are not about upholding the law; they are about breaking it. The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government have been clear, but she has not been clear on any of those three points. The world has changed this weekend, and it will change again very quickly. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is a single strategic decision or practical step that this Government have taken in the last 72 hours to shore up our national security or that of our allies, especially Denmark?

We have discussions going on in the coalition of the willing. There are preparations for them as we speak, because the discussions are being taken tomorrow. Those are all about strengthening our national security as part of strengthening Ukraine’s national security.

The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly emphasised the Government’s commitment to international law. I remain confused—as, I am sure, do many colleagues across the House—as to her position in respect of President Trump’s actions in Venezuela, whether they were in line with international law and whether she believes that breaching a nation’s sovereignty is, indeed, a breach of international law and order. It could simply be a yes or a no.

As I have said, we will not shed a tear for Maduro and his deeply damaging regime. It is for the US to set out the legal basis of its actions, which we were not involved in. We will promote the democratic transition, which we have continually argued for as part of the policies on Venezuela that we have set out over many years, and we will continue to stand up for international law.

Throughout this statement the Foreign Secretary appears to have taken comfort from the UK not having been involved in the US’s illegal attack in Venezuela, but she cannot escape the reality that for as long as this Government fail to call out Trump for his actions, they are complicit in his demolition of the international rules-based order. When will the Government put their head above the parapet, in the spirit of the likes of Charles Kennedy back in 2003, and condemn the US President’s attempt to turn our world into his wild west?

The hon. Member should not make a false equivalence between different situations; it would be inappropriate to do so. We will continue to work with the US in the discussions this week on the defence of Ukraine, which is in itself about maintaining international law and the rules-based order, just as we will continue to raise issues around international law in our private discussions with it and in public debates.

Few of us regret the departure of Maduro, but many of us are alarmed by the breach of international law. However, I am most alarmed by Trump’s concurrent threat to Greenland and his previous threat to Canada. The Foreign Secretary says that she likes to deal with the world as it is, so precisely how many NATO allies does Donald Trump have to threaten until the Government recognise that he is a clear threat to the survival of liberal democracy in the 21st century?

We are working with the US Administration on support for Ukraine, which is about support for a democratic, sovereign state that has been threatened and invaded by an authoritarian Russian regime. It is the US that is pursuing peace and discussing security guarantees for Ukraine, so I really think the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the world we are in is just wrong.

There has been widespread speculation in recent days and hours about a possible US operation to seize a tanker that previously operated in Venezuela, which the United States has been pursuing and is now off the Irish coast. Any such operation would very likely involve UK air bases. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any deployments of US forces from UK bases, whether in relation to this tanker or other targets that it may define in Europe, are in full compliance with international law?

We always ensure that any action the UK takes is in compliance with international law. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry of Defence also takes issues of international law immensely seriously, and it is for it to comment on the way in which international law is applied.

At the weekend, Donald Trump invoked the Monroe doctrine. From her statement, the Foreign Secretary seems to accept that in some cases, the UN charter is secondary to great powers’ spheres of influence. What criteria does she use to decide when the charter is trumped by 19th-century thinking? She has talked a lot today about alliances; the great game of alliances in the 19th century ended very, very badly.

That is why the alliances we stand up for today are ones that are based on our values and on long-standing rules and relationships. That is what the NATO alliance is—it is based on our values and is immensely important. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he disagrees with the NATO alliance, which has been the cornerstone of our security for a very long time.

This Government have bent over backwards to not criticise President Trump directly, but that only makes him think he can get away with more and more. If President Trump really does invade Greenland, it is the end of NATO and the end of the special relationship, so will the Foreign Secretary accept that the best way for us to protect Greenland today is to explicitly say that President Trump is indeed acting outside international law?

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman wants to draw equivalences between a whole series of different situations. We have been very clear about our view on Greenland.

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question on this statement.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I definitely have the strongest legs in this Chamber—I have been bobbing for over three hours.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement and her strong commitment, but will she further outline what support we can offer our US allies to ensure that democracy is restored—or indeed created—in Venezuela? That nation has great potential to do so much good. Further, what support can our UK Government offer to secure the daily needs of so many young people who have been ignored for many years and left in poverty for far too long?

The hon. Gentleman is right about the future of Venezuela and the future for the Venezuelan people, including young people who have been pushed into hardship and poverty by the corruption and criminality of the regime. There is now an opportunity, but it is very fragile. We have to ensure that we support stability in Venezuela and the transition to democracy, which is crucial. Those are the points we will continue to make as part of our discussions with the US, and that is the work that our embassy will continue to do on the ground.

That concludes the statement on Venezuela. I thank the Foreign Secretary, who has taken over 90 questions and has been on her feet for two and a quarter hours.