Britain, Venezuela, and the Duty of Consistency

At moments of international tension, Britain is often tempted to fall back on habit: alignment first, scrutiny later. Yet history — and Labour history in particular — teaches that the gravest mistakes occur precisely when judgment is suspended in the name of loyalty.

The growing risk of military escalation against Venezuela presents such a moment.

For a Labour government rooted in the trade union movement, anti-imperial traditions, and a deep respect for international law, the question is not whether Britain should support the United States reflexively — but whether it should act consistently with its own values, interests, and hard-won lessons.

The Iraq Lesson: Credibility Is Not Obedience

Labour does not need reminding of the cost of Iraq.

The acceptance — largely unchallenged — of claims about weapons of mass destruction was not merely a factual error; it was a failure of political judgment. Intelligence was treated as certainty, alignment as inevitability, and scepticism as disloyalty. The result was a war whose consequences still destabilise entire regions and whose moral and legal legacy continues to haunt British foreign policy.

Today, we again hear claims of imminent threats, criminal states, and urgent necessity. We again see pressure to accept narratives framed elsewhere, with limited public evidence and little international consensus.

A Labour government worthy of its name must ask: what has changed to justify abandoning caution now?

Scepticism is not weakness. It is the first duty of responsible government.

British Interests in the Caribbean Are Direct — and at Risk

This is not a distant conflict.

Britain is a Caribbean power. Through Overseas Territories such as Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos, the UK has citizens, infrastructure, trade routes, and security responsibilities in immediate proximity to Venezuela.

Any military escalation risks: the disruption of maritime trade and energy flows; refugee pressures destabilising small island economies; increased militarisation of regional waters; and blowback from intensified interdiction operations already affecting Caribbean fishermen and commercial traffic under the banner of counter-narcotics enforcement

The Caribbean has long paid the price for great-power interventions conducted "elsewhere." A Labour government should be listening closely to Caribbean leaders — many of whom have already expressed alarm — rather than assuming their interests align automatically with Washington's.

Protecting British interests means preventing conflict, not managing its consequences after the fact.

The Rule of Law Cannot Be Selective

Britain has rightly been a vocal defender of Ukraine's sovereignty. It has insisted — correctly — that borders cannot be changed by force, that regime change is not a lawful objective, and that international law applies equally to all states.

Those principles cannot be suspended when the target is a Latin American country rather than a European one.

If the UK tolerates or supports military escalation against Venezuela without clear UN Security Council authorisation, the exhaustion of diplomatic remedies, and transparent legal justification, then it weakens every legal argument it has made elsewhere.

Consistency is not idealism; it is strategic necessity. The moment international law becomes optional, it ceases to protect anyone — including Britain.

Labour's Foreign Policy Tradition: Diplomacy First

From Clement Attlee to Robin Cook, Labour's best moments in foreign policy have been defined not by moral posturing or blind alignment, but by patient diplomacy, multilateralism, and restraint.

Britain's strength has never been brute force. It lies in legal credibility, diplomatic skill, institutional influence, and the ability to convene, mediate, and de-escalate.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Britain has both the authority and the obligation to slow the rush to conflict — not accelerate it. That means pressing for renewed regional dialogue, confidence-building measures, and sanctions review tied to humanitarian outcomes.

Opposing escalation does not mean endorsing the Venezuelan government. It means refusing to abandon law, reason, and regional stability for the illusion of quick solutions.

A Choice About Britain's Role in the World

This is not simply about Venezuela. It is about what kind of Britain Labour wants to lead.

A Britain that repeats the mistakes of Iraq will find its voice diminished, its credibility eroded, and its values questioned — at home and abroad.

A Britain that insists on evidence, legality, and diplomacy will not be isolated. It will be respected.

Labour was not founded to rubber-stamp wars. It was founded to protect working people from the consequences of elite recklessness — including wars fought on false premises.

Now is the moment to remember that.