The use of military force by US president Donald Trump in Venezuela and the implied threat to use force in Greenland risks ending any lingering hope of a happy new year for Keir Starmer, Britain’s prime minister.
Since Trump came to power, Starmer has taken the strategic decision to avoid anything that could be even remotely construed as public criticism of the US leader.
He must bite his lip frequently, such as at Trump’s jibes about making Canada the US’s 51st state. Canadians’ head of state is the same as Starmer’s: King Charles.
The UK prime minister’s determination to see or hear no evil from Washington, no matter what, threatens to further weaken him domestically at a time when he cannot afford to look any weaker than he already does.
The decision by Trump to use military force against president Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, in apparent violation of international law, is obviously problematic for the former human rights lawyer Starmer, who insists international law is his “lodestar”.
Any escalation in White House threats towards the Danish-controlled territory of Greenland, however, would be much more difficult for Starmer to swerve. Denmark is a direct military ally of Britain through the traditionally US-led Nato alliance.
The long-term sustainability of Starmer’s refusal to risk upsetting Trump may be further tested.
The prime minister was mocked by his rivals on the political left at the weekend for the perceived weakness of the statement released by Downing Street in response to Trump’s military flex in Caracas.
[ Starmer willing to bring UK ‘closer’ to EU single marketOpens in new window ]
Starmer waited until almost 8pm on Saturday, hours after the US action, to say he had “reiterated my support for international law”. Reiterated to whom? Not to Trump, to whom the prime minister had not spoken.
Most of Starmer’s statement was concerned with condemnation of Maduro, which many in Westminster construed as even more buttering-up of Trump.
Meanwhile, even Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, an erstwhile close ally of Trump’s who now seems to be outside of his orbit, stole a march on this issue over Starmer. Farage said clearly the US intervention in Venezuela was “contrary to international law”. He just added the rider that it “may be a good thing”.
Farage’s intervention was designed not to join the anti-Trump brigade, but to blunt Labour’s frequent criticisms of him as an admirer of autocrats who ignore international law, such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
The next time Labour tries it, Farage will be able to point to his statement on Trump and international law, and the absence of a similar statement from Starmer.
Farage’s party does not represent the only political threat to Starmer’s Labour Party this year. The Greens, under their rambunctious new leader Zack Polanski, are snapping at Labour’s heels in national polls and also threaten to eat into the government party’s vote in London, where crucial local elections loom on May 7th.
Polanski derided Starmer’s obdurate refusal to criticise Trump as “shameful”. Many of the sort of liberal London voters for whom his party is battling Labour may agree.
[ Venezuela’s opposition leader vows to return home and contest fresh electionsOpens in new window ]
Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, also increased the focus on Starmer’s stubborn approach by lambasting the US president, as he has been doing all year, again to court moderate and liberal voters.
However, Starmer’s main domestic political threat is not external, but inside the Labour Party, where other potential leadership challengers are circling.
Starmer justifies his stance by openly arguing that he tiptoes around Trump to maintain the UK’s interests.
Asked by BBC at the weekend if the US president Trump was creating turmoil, the prime minister only responded: “Our defence, our security, and our intelligence relationship with the US matters probably more than any other relationship that we have in the world, and it would not be in our national interest to weaken that.”
In essence, he accepts the short-term pain of criticism for the long-term gain of maintaining the alliance with the US. That, Starmer’s dwindling band of allies say, is real leadership.
The potential risk is that it also makes his leadership easier to challenge because it makes him appear timid. Strong leaders are less susceptible to being toppled.
Whatever about Starmer’s prevarications on Venezuela, he attempted to sound stronger on the issue of Greenland on Monday, by saying he “stands with” Denmark after Trump has said he was “serious” about wanting to take over the Arctic territory.
Emily Thornberry is Labour’s chair of the foreign relations committee and a senior figure in the party who owes Starmer nothing after he overlooked her for attorney general. She suggested the stance he favours is “meaningless” unless he defends international law.
Thornberry may be no ally of Starmer’s, but she is in no position to rival him. Wes Streeting may be in such a position – the health secretary is seen as the most likely challenger to Starmer.
On Tuesday, Streeting appeared to go further than his boss by warning of the possible “disintegration” of the rules-based international order after the US action.
Starmer’s caution with Trump may solve problems for him internationally, but it creates more at home.
[ Why Trump has refused to back Venezuela’s ‘Iron Lady’Opens in new window ]
