UK MPs Criticise Ministers Over Venezuela Attack Response

Published: 06 January 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Pressure is intensifying across Westminster as MPs from multiple parties criticise ministers over their response to the Venezuela attack. The controversy follows the United States’ dramatic capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro, an action ordered by Donald Trump that has triggered international alarm. At the centre of the dispute is the British government’s cautious tone, which critics say risks undermining international law while projecting uncertainty to allies and adversaries alike. The Venezuela attack has become a defining test of how the UK balances legal principles against strategic dependence on Washington.

During a heated Commons session on Monday evening, frustration spilled across party lines as Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative MPs challenged Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper. Many expressed disbelief that ministers refused to clearly condemn the Venezuela attack or comment on its legality. Critics argued that silence, even when framed as diplomatic restraint, could set a dangerous precedent in global affairs. They warned that failure to speak clearly may embolden authoritarian states watching closely for Western resolve.

Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs select committee, delivered one of the strongest interventions. Addressing the Commons, she described the Venezuela attack as an alarming example of power politics overriding established norms. She questioned whether Britain should remain silent when a powerful country abducts another nation’s leader, regardless of that leader’s record. Thornberry insisted that international law must apply consistently, warning that selective enforcement weakens its authority worldwide.

Her comments were met with nods from MPs across the chamber. Several Labour backbenchers echoed her concern, arguing that Britain’s moral credibility is at stake. Liberal Democrat MPs added that the Venezuela attack risks reshaping global behaviour if left unchallenged. Even Conservative voices, usually cautious about criticising Washington, voiced unease about the government’s apparent reluctance to speak plainly.

Richard Burgon, a Labour MP, accused the prime minister of avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. He argued that the decision not to address the House directly after the Venezuela attack sent the wrong signal. According to Burgon, the lack of transparency fuels suspicion that strategic convenience is outweighing democratic accountability. His remarks underscored a broader fear that Parliament is being sidelined during moments of profound international consequence.

The criticism was not confined to the opposition benches. Former Conservative foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt delivered a stark warning about the long-term implications of recent US actions. He argued that if Western allies fail to confront the Venezuela attack, they may struggle to resist future territorial ambitions elsewhere. Hunt pointed specifically to Greenland, cautioning that any attempt to annex the Danish territory could threaten Nato’s cohesion.

Hunt’s intervention highlighted anxieties about alliance politics in an increasingly unpredictable world. He suggested that visible European unity is essential to deter further destabilising actions. Without it, he warned, Nato could face an existential crisis with consequences extending far beyond the Venezuela attack. His remarks resonated with MPs who fear that quiet diplomacy may be mistaken for weakness.

The government, however, has defended its measured approach. Yvette Cooper told MPs she had spoken directly with US secretary of state Marco Rubio, emphasising the importance of international law. Yet she stopped short of declaring the Venezuela attack illegal, insisting that Washington must first explain its legal justification. This position has frustrated critics who believe Britain should articulate its own assessment rather than defer to American explanations.

Cooper also confirmed discussions with María Machado, a prominent Venezuelan opposition figure, as part of wider diplomatic efforts. Ministers argue these conversations demonstrate active engagement rather than indifference. Nonetheless, opponents counter that engagement without clarity risks blurring Britain’s stance on fundamental legal principles. For them, the Venezuela attack demands a clearer moral response.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to navigate an especially narrow path. On Monday, he said it was essential to establish all facts before judging whether international law was breached. Starmer’s caution reflects broader concerns about maintaining cooperation with Washington, particularly as the United States plays a central role in European security. Yet critics argue that facts surrounding the Venezuela attack are already sufficiently clear to warrant condemnation.

Starmer’s day was dominated by preparations for a meeting of the so-called coalition of the willing, a group committed to Ukraine’s long-term security. With potential peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv on the horizon, British officials are anxious to keep the US fully engaged. Some MPs acknowledge this delicate context, yet insist it should not silence Britain’s voice on the Venezuela attack.

Despite his restraint on Caracas, Starmer adopted a firmer tone when addressing comments about Greenland. After Trump again suggested the territory could be annexed, the prime minister offered an unequivocal defence of Denmark. He stressed that Greenland’s future belongs solely to its people and the Danish kingdom, reaffirming Nato solidarity. This contrast has prompted questions about why similar clarity is absent regarding the Venezuela attack.

Earlier in the day, Home Office minister Mike Tapp drew criticism during broadcast interviews. He declined to say whether Britain would defend Denmark if Greenland faced external pressure, citing the delicacy of diplomacy. His remarks were widely interpreted as evasive, adding to perceptions that ministers are unwilling to confront uncomfortable scenarios directly. For critics, this reinforced concerns raised by the Venezuela attack debate.

International observers are watching Britain’s response closely. Analysts suggest that ambiguity from a leading Western democracy may influence how global powers calculate risks. China and Russia, in particular, are believed to be monitoring reactions to the Venezuela attack as indicators of Western unity. MPs fear that hesitation could encourage further challenges to the rules-based order.

Within Westminster, the episode has reopened longstanding debates about Britain’s foreign policy identity after Brexit. Some MPs argue that independence should empower the UK to speak more freely on international law. Others caution that influence depends on relationships, especially with the United States. The Venezuela attack has exposed these tensions more sharply than any recent event.

As discussions continue, pressure is mounting for ministers to clarify their position. Several MPs have called for an urgent statement setting out Britain’s legal assessment of the Venezuela attack. They argue that Parliament and the public deserve transparency on an issue with profound global implications. Whether the government will shift its stance remains uncertain.

What is clear is that the controversy has already reshaped political discourse. The Venezuela attack has become a symbol of wider anxieties about power, principle, and partnership in an unstable world. How Britain responds may define its diplomatic posture for years to come, influencing both allies’ trust and adversaries’ calculations.

Check our latest news