Why Starmer was quiet on Venezuela but bold against Trump on Greenland
The Labor government came into office promising to “use realistic methods to achieve progressive aims”. US president Donald Trump’s recent actions regarding Venezuela and Greenland have tested Keir Starmer’s ability to deliver on that promise.
When the prime minister said he was a “lifelong defender of international law,” there was a reasonable expectation that he would condemn U.S. action in Venezuela. Some feared that his uncertainty on this issue was a betrayal of progressive values.
But US action in Venezuela comes at a sensitive time for Britain’s efforts to phase out the war in Ukraine. US cooperation is vital if Russia is forced to negotiate a peace that respects Ukraine’s right to self-determination. This means convincing the United States to put pressure on Russia; This would have been impossible if Starmer had alienated Trump by condemning his illegal action in Venezuela.
Starmer has shown he can cope with Trump’s unpredictable personality. His uncertainty about Venezuela just before the Paris meeting, where security guarantees for Ukraine were agreed, can be interpreted this way. He knew that progressive strategy toward Ukraine depended on the precise alignment of U.S. power.
The risks rose when it was revealed that British forces had helped the US seize a Russian-flagged oil tanker bound for Venezuela. Trump’s actions were certainly a usurpation of Venezuelan oil, but their consequences could work toward progressive outcomes if Russia’s investments in the Venezuelan oil industry are wiped out and Russia’s ability to evade sanctions by operating a “shadow fleet” is weakened. For the progressive realist, then, Starmer’s uncertainty about Trump’s illegal action in Venezuela may be a valuable, if regrettable, trade-off.
The word “regret” should not be used lightly. Progressive realists need not be “theological” in their application of international law, and Starmer knows that good legal prosecutors exercise political judgment. But there is a danger.
The risk of Trump not being properly condemned over Venezuela was that this would leave the world on slippery ground. This can only encourage Trump’s imperialist ambitions. This appears to have happened too quickly, and Starmer’s speech in Greenland was designed to halt this slide.
Starmer reminded us that “Britain is a pragmatic country”. In other words, it will make compromises with the USA to find solutions to problems such as Russia. However, as Starmer said, “being pragmatic does not mean being passive. Partnership does not mean giving up on principle.”
The principle at stake in Greenland is the same as in Venezuela: the right to national self-determination. So why draw the line now?
As a realist, Starmer has shown a willingness to compromise on Venezuela. He listened to Trump’s concerns about Ukraine and argued for increased defense spending across Europe. However, as a progressive person, he showed that there was a limit to reconciliation with the USA and drew a line to Greenland.
About the author
Jason Ralph is Professor of International Relations at the University of Leeds. Jamie Gaskarth is Professor of Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Open University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read original article.
Because the claim that the US should annex Greenland to put pressure on Russia makes no sense. Greenland is already part of an anti-Russian alliance: NATO. Nothing positive can come out of the US pressure on Greenland.
European governments made this clear in Paris, and Starmer’s speech reinforced the point. The short-sightedness of Trump’s statement linking the Greenland issue to Norway’s decision not to award him the Nobel Prize reinforces the sense that US policy is now based on the personal ambitions of an imperial president. In this context, progressive realism means no longer compromising with the USA.
breach of trust
Another principle at stake in Greenland is multilateral cooperation based on respect. International relations scholars have long called the transatlantic region a “security community” because it goes beyond trade agreements. It is based on trust arising from the feeling of “we”. Starmer seeks to preserve this community by speaking through Trump and invoking the narrative of transatlantic solidarity that existed throughout the second world war, the cold war and the war on terror.
But the question is whether this narrative still holds true in the United States. Trump intends to “put America first” and is not interested in niceties like respect, trust and gratitude. It may seem difficult to imagine that the rest of his country would follow, but remember that America’s founding father, Alexander Hamilton, famously rejected Thomas Jefferson’s claim that the United States owed a debt of gratitude to France for its support during the revolutionary wars. Hamilton argued that the former allies were left on their own when it came to matters of war and peace.
The UK has sided with the US for decades because it shares common values and can leverage US power for both its material and moral interests. If the Trump administration and the broader Maga movement in Congress continue to undermine the transatlantic security community and the international community more generally, then this relationship may no longer serve Britain’s interests. Progressive realism may have justified strategic ambiguity over Venezuela, but the opposite now appears to be true when it comes to US imperialism towards Greenland.
