Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, was interviewed on CNN’s The Lead on 5 January. Asked if the US was really serious about running Venezuela, he replied:
‘What the President said is true. The United States of America is running Venezuela. By definition that’s true. We live in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.
‘What I’m saying is that by definition we are in charge because we have the United States military stationed outside the country. We set the terms and conditions. We have a complete embargo on all of their oil and their ability to do commerce. So for them to do commerce, they need our permission. For them to be able to run the economy, they need our permission.’
Transcribed from Novara Media Live podcast, 6 January, with Steven Methan and Kieran Andreu.
American economist and UN adviser Jeffrey Sachs delivered a scorching attack on US actions at the emergency UNSC meeting on Venezuela on 5 January, urging the Security Council to defend international law. The issue,’ he said, is not the character of the government of Venezuela’.
The issue is whether any UN member state has the right to determine Venezuela’s political future or to exercise control over its affairs. Sachs urged the UNSC to uphold, not abandon, the foundational principles of territorial integrity and political independence enshrined in the Charter.
The world’s leading nations had failed to defend international law in the 1930s, Sachs said, leading to renewed global war. The United Nations emerged from that catastrophe as the second attempt to put international law above international anarchy.
‘Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated. Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance.’
Quoting the introduction to the Charter – the UN was created ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind – Sachs argued: ‘Given that we are in the nuclear age, failure cannot be repeated. Humanity would perish. There would be no third chance.’
All member states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the UN Security Council. Sachs concluded that to fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter, the Security Council should immediately affirm the following actions:
The United States shall:
immediately cease and desist from all explicit and implicit threats or use of force against Venezuela
terminate its naval quarantine and all related coercive military measures undertaken in the absence of authorization by the UN Security Council
immediately withdraw its military forces from within and along the perimeter of Venezuela, including intelligence, naval, air, and other forward-deployed assets positioned for coercive purposes.
Venezuela shall adhere to the UN Charter and to the human rights protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Sach’s recommend, the UN Secretary General should appoint a special envoy to engage relevant Venezuelan and international stakeholders, who would report back to the Security Council making recommendations consistent with the Charter.
All member states should refrain from unilateral threats, coercive measures, or armed actions undertaken outside the authority of the UN Security Council.
Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the UN Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance, he concluded. That is the choice before this Council today.
Watch Jeffrey Sachs full speech below, courtesy of DMR News
Early in the morning of Saturday 3 January, the US military led an air and land attack in and around Venezuela’s capital city Caracas and elsewhere, including on civilian targets. This resulted in the kidnap of President Nicolas Maduro, who is now held in the United States. He said in his press conference that the US intends to
President Trump claimed the Maduro government lacked legitimacy, and that the US acted to prevent drug trafficking backed by Maduro, whom Trump says will now faces charges in the US. During his press conference following the kidnap, Trump offered another ‘justification’, citing Venezuela’s nationalisation of oil assets held by US firms in 2007 by which then President Hugo Chávez consolidated state control of Venezuela’s oil industry.
At his press conference following the attack, Trump said the US will ‘run’ Venezuela until a ‘safe, proper and judicious transition’ can be ensured. US oil companies, he said, would also fix Venezuela’s broken infrastructure and ‘start making money for the country’.
Trump’s actions – in breach of international law and disregard of the United Nations Charter – have brought expressions of concern across the world, and in many cases outright condemnation. Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico hit the nail on the head with his response: ‘US military action in Venezuela is further evidence of the breakdown of the world order created after World War II.’
Britain’s response
Prime Minister Keir Starmer emphasised the UK was not involved in the attack, but refused to be drawn on the legality of the military operation and kidnap. Seeking to hedge his bets he said: ‘I want to establish the facts first. I want to speak to President Trump.’
MPs, trade unionists, and other leading figures have expressed clear opposition to the attack, including CND and Stop the War. which are supporting Venezuela’s emergency online rally (details at the end of this post). You will find many of the expressions of oppositin to Trump’s attack and regime change on Labour CND’s X account. Labour Hub has also posted a round-up of comments.
Labour CND says:
contact your MP to speak out against Trump’s attack
join the emergency protests being organised against US action.
Latin American reactions
The blatant attack on Venezuelan sovereignty threatens to destabilise the region, and puts the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco under threat. This is a long-standing nuclear free zone agreement covering Latin America and the Caribbean, that was successfully promoted by Mexico in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile, have issued statements condemning the action, but others were cautious. An early statement from President Gustavo Petro of Colombia focused on the possible effect of military action against its neighbour, expressing ‘deep concern at reports of explosions and unusual air activity in recent hours in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as the resulting escalation of tension in the region’.
Columbia could face spillover in violence and possibly an influx of refugees. Following an emergency national security meeting, the Colombian government condemned ‘the attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America, and mobilised state forces to secure the border.
Kamla Persad-Bissessar Prime Minister of Trinidad &Tobago, was swift to point out her country’s non-involvement: ‘Trinidad and Tobago is not a participant in any of these ongoing military operations. Trinidad and Tobago continues to maintain peaceful relations with the people of Venezuela.’
Brazil – President Lula Da Silva said: ‘The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line. These acts represent a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community. Attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.’
Uruguay – the Foreign Ministry statement said: ‘Uruguay rejects, as it always has, military intervention by one country in the territory of another and reaffirms the importance of respecting international law and the UN Charter, in particular the basic principle that States must refrain from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’
Chile – President Gabriel Boric said: ‘As the Government of Chile, we express our concern and condemnation of the military actions of the United States in Venezuela and call for a peaceful solution to the serious crisis affecting the country.’
International responses
A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said: ‘These developments constitute a dangerous precedent. The Secretary-General continues to emphasize the importance of full respect – by all – of international law, including the UN Charter. He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.’
The world has divided on predictable lines over Trump’s attack on Venezuelan sovereignty, as the selection of responses below suggests. This further reinforces the view that the post-WWII settlement is rapidly disintegrating.
South Africa. The Department of International Relations said: ‘South Africa calls on the UN Security Council, the body mandated to maintain international peace and security, to urgently convene to address this situation.’
China – the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said: ‘China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president. Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it.Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.’
Russia – the Foreign Ministry issued a statement: ‘This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. This is deeply concerning and condemnable. The pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded. Ideological animosity has prevailed over business pragmatism and the willingness to build relationships based on trust and predictability. In the current situation, it is important, first and foremost, to prevent further escalation and to focus on finding a way out of the situation through dialogue.’
Israel – The Times of Israel reports ‘Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump and effusively praise him following the capture of Maduro. Netanyahu hailed Trump’s ‘bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice’. Netanyahu said: ‘I salute your decisive resolve and the brilliant action of your brave soldiers.’
Unsurprisingly, facing threats of another US military attacks, the Iran Foreign Ministry condemned the attack on Venezuela ‘as a blatant violation of its national sovereignty and territorial integrity’ and called on the UN Security Council to ‘act immediately to halt the unlawful aggression’ and hold those responsible accountable.
EU statements acquiesce in Trump’s action. Take that of European Council President Ursula Von Der Leyen: ‘Following very closely the situation in Venezuela. We stand by the people of Venezuela and support a peaceful and democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.’ The German Foreign Ministry statement is in similar vein:
‘We call on all involved parties to avoid an escalation of the situation and to seek ways for a political settlement… International law has to be respected… Venezuelans deserve a peaceful and democratic future.’
It is important to note though, that several European countries have condemned the attack on Venezuela:
France – Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said: ‘The military operation that led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro violates the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law. France reiterates that no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside and that only sovereign people themselves can decide their future.’
Austria – Vice Chancellor Andreas Babler said: ‘This attack constitutes a serious violation of the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in the UN Charter… We must uphold the international rule of law.’
Spain – the Spanish Foreign Ministry said: ‘Spain calls for de-escalation and moderation, and for action to always be taken in accordance with international law and the principles of the UN Charter.’
Slovakia – President Peter Pellegrini said ‘any attack on a sovereign state and its representative without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council constitutes a serious violation of international law regardless of the regime governing the targeted country. Such actions create a precedent that may destabilize other regions of the world as well.’
Serbia – President Aleksandar Vu?i? hoped attacks on Venezuela will cease and expressed interest in peace and diplomatic resolution amid international tensions. Escalation should be avoided and stability restored, he said.
Slovenia – Prime Minister Robert Golob said any military intervention not based on international law ‘is unacceptable and leads the world into a further spiral of war and violence,’
Belarus – A spokesperson for President Alexander Lukashenko said: ‘The President of Belarus categorically condemns the act of American aggression against Venezuela.’
Opposition within the US
Senator Bernie Sanders said: ‘Trump should address these major crises at home and end his illegal military adventurism abroad.’ His full statement is posted on X.
Newly-inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani described the attack as ‘an act of war and a violation of federal and international law. This blatant pursuit of regime change doesn’t just affect those abroad, it directly impacts New Yorkers, including tens of thousands of Venezuelans who call this city home.’
New York Democratic governor Kathy Hochul described the attack as ‘a flagrant abuse of power by acting without congressional approval’.
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: ‘It’s not about drugs. If it was, Trump wouldn’t have pardoned one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world last month. It’s about oil and regime change.’
Congressional Progressive Caucus chair, Greg Casar wrote: ‘Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal. Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop him.’
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Circulate the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign statement below, and visit VSC website for updates
Register to join the emergency online rally at 6pm on Sunday 4 January, organised by VSC, supported by CND and STW
If you can get to London, take part in the protest at Downing Street at 6pm on Monday 5 January, and check out protests in your locality
Lobby your MP to speak out against Trump’s attack on Venezuela.
For more about the background to this attack, see Labour CND’s podcast, Is Trump Preparing for War? with VSC Secretary Francisco Dominguez, also available on YouTube and Spotify.
A report from Labour National Executive Committee’s away day, 2 December 2025, by left CLP reps who stood for election as Centre Left Grassroots Alliance candidates on a party democracy platform committed to anti-austerity, peace, and nuclear disarmament.
Deputy Leader’s Report Everyone congratulated Lucy Powell on her successful election.
Lucy talked about rebuilding the voter coalition, including in the nations, and discussed the May elections and supporting Scotland and Wales. She was enthusiastic over the Budget, commenting that it was a very “Labour” budget. She noted that it can be difficult for a Party when in government because leaders are focused primarily on running the country but, because she’s not in Cabinet, she can focus on members and recruitment. Not being in Cabinet, however, means she has no team of staff around her supporting her.
Gemma Bolton welcomed the commitments made by Lucy during the Deputy Leadership campaign to working at the grassroots with the membership, noting falling membership and reduced numbers out on the doorstep. Gemma asked for Lucy’s view on how this could be turned around. Lucy spoke about her ‘Lucy Listens’ events and their success in engaging members, as well as a webinar happening that evening with 1,800 members signed up. She said she was happy to attend CLP meetings across the country.
While Lucy Powell was not the left candidate and we would have preferred Bell Ribeiro-Addy to have made the ballot, Lucy’s contributions did suggest she is attempting to engage with members seriously. Having a voice from outside the Cabinet is clearly beneficial for members, councillors and MPs who want to hold the party to account. It was also positive that she attended the whole meeting and engaged in the debate.
General Secretary’s Report The GS asked the Treasurer to give a report on the finances. Progress has been made since the start of the year to address the deficit but there is clearly some cause for concern, and it was noted that 2026 will be more challenging than 2025 as we will have a smaller income base and a wider set of elections to fight. The Treasurer commented that the party needs to be leaner and more disciplined, with vacancy controls and recruitment only when necessary. There will be no scope for optional events, projects or expanding teams.
It was raised that if we lose a lot of councillors then local parties will lose money, and that the NEC Development Fund has unspent funds that could be well spent by CLPs.
Committees We looked at committees for the year. Gemma Bolton was elected to the Audit and Risk Committee. Ellie Reeves will be an NEC officer as she is the National Policy Forum Chair.
Presentation on Innovation, Field Data and Tech Two staffers gave a presentation. They are going to be rolling out Labour One, which will replace the Labour Doorstep app. It will allow you to switch to phone calling if you don’t finish a round on the doorstep. As well as having lots of additional features, there will be changes in campaigning going forward as the nature of elections is more online. We will be better equipped for a different fight at the next general election, with online and community campaigns. We have to change how we respond on the doorstep, as we can’t simply be aware of where our vote is, and knocking people up on the day, but need to have conversations with the strapline Listen, Change, Win, that is, persuasive conversations. The Party compared themselves to Kamala Harris’s campaign and said it was better in digital terms.
NEC and Conference Timelines The NEC considered its own schedule and the Annual Conference and Internal Ballots Timetable for 2026, which were mostly agreed. However, the trade unions spoke against the deadline for contemporary motions which is due to be before the TUC Conference, preventing them from discussing contemporary motions there.
The Labour Students and Young Labour committee elections will be held in the spring so that they are in place in time for freshers’ fairs, etc. The NEC elections will take place, as usual, over the summer. National Policy Forum CLP rep elections will take place at Conference, following the rule change this year, making left delegations all the more important. The Conference will take place from Sunday 27th September until Wednesday 30th September 2026 in Liverpool. The deadline for nominations for all positions is 12 noon on Friday 26th June 2026.
Annual Women’s Conference This paper was perhaps the most important of the day, but puzzlingly, yet typically, it was last on the agenda, when everyone was tired and ready to go home. The paper set out the difficulties in ensuring we are compliant with the Labour rule book in having a Women’s Conference and also with the new Supreme Court judgement defining women by their sex at birth. The paper concluded by offering three options:
To hold a Women’s Conference the day before Annual Conference, which would only allow women delegates who fit within the Supreme Court ruling. However, the women’s fringe events would be open to all regardless of sex at birth. This option was recommended by the Party.
To have a Women’s Conference and fringe open only to women who fit the Supreme Court ruling definition.
To have no Women’s Conference at all.
All options are deeply unsatisfactory. Gemma noted that this was a really serious topic and while some of those in attendance might feel it was a small decision, it will have a major impact on certain groups and how they relate to our Party. She said she was passionate about Women’s Conference, having spent several years on the Women’s Conference Arrangements Committee and would not want to see it cancelled. However, the options needed significantly more thought and alternatives explored.
She said she had deep concerns over how the options 1 or 2 could be enforced as it could easily become an issue where people police appearance or even ask for birth certificates. Staff raised issues after last Women’s Conference about how they were spoken to as staff members and Gemma had deep concerns about safeguarding staff who are having to police the event.
All options presented also once again sideline the Women’s Conference as a fringe event to Annual Conference with insufficient time for democratic policymaking. As left CLP reps, we continue to call for a two-day Women’s Conference in Spring – the weak case made for an Annual Conference tag-on remains totally flawed.
After Gemma had spoken, trade unionists raised concerns regarding their inclusive women’s policies and felt that, if such a Conference were to go ahead, they would be unlikely to be able to send delegations. It is worth noting that there was no option to vote against. Option 1 therefore passed with 18 votes, with no votes for Options 2 or 3. Eleven members abstained in all (there being no option to vote against), including the trade union delegates and left CLP reps.
This NEC reports first appeared on Labour Hub. Rules for Labour Women’s Conference are available on the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy website, together with past NEC reports.
New York City Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani will take office on 1 January, after a win that only the bookies and his enthusiastic campaign coalition anticipated. He will be the youngest mayor of the NY City in more than 100 years, and the first Muslim and first South Asian mayor. His election campaign was energetic and vibrant, his promise ‘to build a new kind of politics’.
Mamdani describes himself as a democratic socialist. He is variously tagged as a progressive or a left-wing populist. On the eve of voting, President Donald Trump threatened to withdraw federal funding for New York City if Mamdani was elected.
Trump failed to influence the result Turn out was up by 16.5 points. Mamdani won with an overall majority of 50.39%, almost 10% ahead of his nearest rival.
Mamdani campaigned on a platform of social equity and environmental justice, including:
universal childcare
free bus travel
rent controls and the construction of social housing, and
a $30 minimum wage by 2030.
He also spoke out against Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and called for tax increases on corporations and dollar millionaires.
The UK Labour Party would benefit from a serious study of Zohran Mamdani’s victory which has been described as ‘one of the great political upsets in modern American history’.
This Democracy Now! video considers Mamdani in his own words and through the lens of the grassroots coalition that helped bring him to office. It begins in 2021 when he appeared on Democracy Now! for the first time in the autumn of 2021, taking part in a hunger strike to demand debt relief for New York taxi drivers.
This video, The Historic Rise of Zohran Mamdani: Democracy Now! Coverage from 2021 Hunger Strike to Election Night, first appeared on Democracy Now! Daily Show of 28 November 2025, and is licensed for use under a Creative Commons.
UN agencies report deteriorating conditions across North Darfur and neighbouring Kordofan, driven by the civil war between Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). This means restricted aid access and mass displacement of local populations; and now the UN is also warning of widespread trafficking, sexual violence and child soldier recruitment.
The RSF seized control of El Fasher, capital of Sudan’s North Darfur state, on 26 October. The city had been the government’s last major stronghold in the Darfur region. Fighting there followed an 18-month siege which saw residents access to food, medicine and other supplies cut off.
Below, CND member Jessica Freeman offers her own take on the horrors of Darfur.
JESSICA FREEMAN perspective on Sudan’s civil war
The dire situation in Darfur finally reached international headlines this past month after years of near silence. The conflict is intense, multilayered, and influenced by a web of international actors. Its impact extends far beyond Sudan’s borders, with displacement visible in Chad, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, each grappling with their own instability.
I recently completed six months with an NGO working in the region, focused primarily on conflict between herders and farmers. Yet it is impossible to operate in such a context without feeling the weight of the broader confrontation between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Even at the local level, these dynamics seep into daily work and community relationships.
RSF grievances toward other communities in Darfur are deeply intertwined with longstanding farmer–herder tensions. The RSF draws much of its support from the Rizeigat tribe in northern Darfur, a predominantly pastoralist community. As in many parts of the Sahel and Horn of Africa, competition over land, water, and grazing routes has fuelled friction for generations.
These grievances are not the sole cause of today’s violence, but they form an essential part of its roots. Similarly, ignoring SAF’s role is unhelpful. Until recently, many of their airstrikes targeted markets and civilian-populated areas.
The conflict in Sudan resembles so many others. There are no heroes, only bad actors and worse ones with the fate of ordinary Sudanese lying in the hands of those who show little regard for their well-being.
What struck me most during my time with the organisation was the resilience and courage of my colleagues on the ground in South Darfur. Working in a context where maintaining communication with armed groups responsible for horrific abuses is essential for even the most basic operations is unimaginably difficult, delicate, and potentially dangerous. Yet they do it, every single day for their communities.
The broader Horn of Africa region continues to be shaped by greed, self-interest, competing geopolitical agendas. Resource-rich land that invites exploitation. It is a region scarred by decades of conflict, often overlooked by the international community until the violence becomes impossible to ignore.
Too many African tragedies go unheard, and even fewer are truly understood.
Jessica Freeman is a London CND committee member and editor of PeaceLine newsletter. This report first appeared in in the November-December 2025 issue of London Region CND’s PeaceLine.
John McDonnell, Labour Shadow Chancellor 2015-20, argues this budget is the first concrete evidence the government has recognised its political and economic strategy is not working, and gives this administration six months to go further in demonstrating it is a Labour government. He:
welcomes scrapping the two child cap
sees freezing rail fares and reducing energy bills is a first step in recognising cost of living pressures, and
expresses concern that freezing tax thresholds wipes out many of the budget benefits
JOHN McDONNELL Just be Labour!
The wave of relief that swept over the Parliamentary Labour Party was palpable when they heard the Chancellor confirm that the two child cap was at last to be scrapped. This is a huge victory for all those Labour MPs and campaigning groups, who fought so hard to lift 500,000 children out of poverty. It was worth staying in the Labour Party to achieve.
Several of my Parliamentary colleagues stood firm and as a result lost the Labour whip simply for voting to get rid of this appalling policy. It was morally right then and, as the Chancellor explained in repeating their arguments today, it is morally right now that this poverty-inflicting policy had to go.
The Chancellor has also been forced to move onto the left’s agenda of controlling prices and taxing wealth. Freezing rail fares and reducing energy bills is a first step in recognising the cost of living pressures facing people. But stopping short and not introducing rent controls and confronting the price gauging by supermarkets on basic foodstuffs will leave families struggling to cope.
The increased taxes on capital gains, dividend income, corporation tax allowances and £3 million properties fall short of an effective overall wealth tax but at least lean into Keir Starmer’s commitment that the heaviest burden will fall on the broadest shoulders.
The problem is that freezing the tax thresholds overall wipes out many of the benefits of the budget. The Office of Budget Responsibility’s analysis forecasts the increase in disposable household income falls from 3% to one quarter %. This means that people’s living standards are at a virtual standstill and for many there will be an ongoing cost of living crisis.
Nevertheless, the budget is the first concrete evidence that the government has recognised its political and economic strategy is not working. The obvious question is why it has taken nearly 18 months for this administration to take the first small steps to acting like a Labour government.
The Chancellor and Keir Starmer have changed tack to secure their positions given the almost desperate dismay that has seized the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour’s supporters. It is likely that it will buy them time and hold off a threatened leadership challenge for the time being but that threat will come back with a vengeance if in May next year the local elections in England and the elections in Scotland and Wales are a disaster.
This gives this administration six months to go further in demonstrating it is a Labour government. The lesson is: listen to our supporters who have been proved so right on the two child limit, the Winter Fuel Allowance and the disability benefits and who have saved this government from itself.
It wouldn’t take much to raise people’s confidence in a Labour government.
Start by making a commitment now to tackling the grotesque levels of inequality and poverty in our society that no Labour government should tolerate by consulting immediately on the design of an effective wealth tax to be introduced in next year’s budget.This will put the money in people’s pockets that will not just raise living standards but will be the driver of growth in our economy.
The message is clear – just be Labour.
This article first appeared as Just be Labour, 26 November 2025, on Labour Hub Photos: House of Commons Flikr, John McDonnell website
Until recently, the war in Ukraine was set to enter its fourth year with no prospect of peace on the horizon and loss of life on both sides mounting. President Trump’s 28-point plan looks like an important step towards bringing the parties to the table. President Zelenzky has said he’s willing to work with the US on it; President Putin has said it is a basis for a final settlement. Already, separate back channel talks with Ukraine and Russia have resulted in a modified 19-point framework for negotiations.
European leaders are less happy with the framework. Their focus and that of the European media has emphasised the proposals mean Ukraine making territorial concessions, reducing the size of its military, and agreeing never to join NATO. The framework, however, also includes security guarantees for Ukraine, fast-track EU membership, and assistance with reconstruction, although the US will undoubtedly profit financially from the latter as it did in Iraq and elsewhere.
Peace negotiations are urgently needed. War weariness among the population of Ukraine is increasingly evident – as opinion polls, open criticism of the government, and the growing tide of conscription-age men leaving the country all attest. It is reasonable to assume that Putin will also be quietly satisfied to see the start of negotiations to end a war which is taking a heavy toll on Russian lives and the Russian economy.
The Ukraine war represents the most serious nuclear flashpoint in the world today. The original framework also includes points which should please all of us who want to see nuclear tensions dialled down. The 29 points include commitments that:
Nato will not expand further to Russia’s borders – something CND understands is a significant driver in Puttin’s invasion of Ukraine.
that Russia and the US will extend treaties on non-proliferation and nuclear arms control, including the START Treaty, which is due to expire in February 2026, and
that Ukraine will be a non-nuclear state ‘in line with’ the TPNW, Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The Russia-Ukraine war is feeding international tensions, which the negotiations will also help ease. The peace and anti-war movements will have to fight to make sure that all the implications of ending the Russia-Ukraine war are understood, as well as the interests of the US and Europe, which shape their approach to ending the war.
We reproduce below an introduction CND Vice President Kate Hudson gave at a CND conference a few days after Trump’s 28-point peace plan was made public. As she points out, if we don’t understand and fight on the politics, ‘things will keep on going wrong’ and the world could be on course for war in Europe and the possibility of a nuclear conflict.
KATE HUDSON Global impact of the war
There is not only a European element to the war in Ukraine, it also has a global impact. I want to touch on a few of those global elements including the economy and the climate crisis.
The war is pushing the cost of living up There is an enormous impact on the global economy. That’s what’s making our energy and food prices higher here in the UK. But of course, it’s making them higher and scarcer across the world as well, resulting in increased inflation, slower growth, disruption of supply chains, and economic uncertainty. Actually, these cone on top of the negative aspects of the COVID-19 economic experience which we saw resulted in the massive inflation at the time. The war, coming almost directly after, has doubled down on a lot of those economic problems.
The Ukraine war is making a big contribution to de-globalisation, which is something we’ve seen over the last few years, and a fragmentation of the global political economy. This kind of economic flux is affecting more than Europe; it’s having an effect worldwide. In some countries of course, which are very heavily reliant on imports, things like food and fuel are very much more expensive. In fact, we’ve seen a major increase in global food insecurity, with medium to long-term impacts on malnutrition and social unrest.
According to the UN World Food Programme figure, just in the war’s first year the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity in the 81 countries they monitor jumped by 17% – from 276 million to 323 million. That figure has increased by another 10% every year. So it’s an escalating problem, particularly for countries in the global south.
The war has generated more greenhouse gas emissionsthan several EU countries combined As well as the economic impact, there is a climate impact as well. I’m sure we’ve all got a general impression about that. There are massively increased greenhouse gas emissions, over 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the first three years of the conflict. That’s equivalent to the combined emissions of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
The source of those is the war itself, the military activity taking place. There is also the destruction of the infrastructure and subsequent need for reconstruction. In the reconstruction process, there will be carbon emissions too. There are terrible fires both from military action and damage to facilities like oil refineries. They are really pumping out carbon emissions too. There is also direct environmental damage like pollution, oil spills, threats to biodiversity and so on. Those have long-lasting effects on Russia and Ukraine, but their impact obviously spills out beyond.
The third impact I want to talk about is the very immediate risks that result from global polarisation. We see this all the time: the US and the Europe on the one side, the ‘liberal democracies’, posed against an increasing alliance between Russia and China. That is the kind of global polarization narrative we are seeing. The world is in a state of flux over this.
Trump’s 28-point peace plan includes asset stripping and war profiteering One of the things that really struck me about the new peace plan, is the possibility of improving US-Russian cooperation. It looks like Trump or his advisors are building in the kind of cooperation and reconstruction that is based on asset stripping and making profits from Ukraine! That is embedded within the 28 point plan. The narrative we have, which I think is correct, is that Trump wants Europe to deal with the problem of Russia, while he deals with the problem of China. That is an underlying dynamic within the peace plan.
At the same time, Trump seem to want to hedge his bets by doing deals and get better relations with Russia for himself and the US. Of course, that’s annoying Europe. It is not only a kind of flux in the global political economy, but in international relations. as well.
And finally, to touch on the wider global dynamic of the peace plan – as unfortunately, we tend always to focus on what’s happening in Europe and North America, a kind of western Eurocentric perspective. The attitudes from the global South are very interesting on this, I’m sure you’ve all have been aware of this. The approach of the global South has generally been one of active non-alignment or neutrality in the war. They have refused to sign up to the US condemn-and-attack approach to Russia or to participate in sanctions.
The global South is not buying into the US narrative I think it’s pretty obvious to this audience why: there is a big element of distrust of western motives, double standards, based on the experience of colonialism. The global South has a preference, as does CND, for a multipolar world, so they’re not buying into the US narrative. Many see BRICS as a route to a more just order.
For CND, the issue of how to move forward as a movement is a difficult question. As you probably know, CND has opposed NATO since 1960s when the great intellectual Stuart Hall moved a motion at CND conference. That’s been our position ever since, and it’s correct one for the reasons that we all know.
In my experience in CND, the Ukraine war has been the most difficult point for us. We are anti-war and pro-peace as is the peace movement and our allies across Europe. But the US and NATO does affects what you call the peace periphery and some of our allies too. There are two obvious examples. The Green Party, whom CND has always worked well with, have changed their position on NATO, I think largely in response to the government narrative.
The second is the TUC. Three years ago, we saw pro-military spending and strong support for Ukraine coming up. This has now been somewhat reversed at the recent TUC. As you probably know that there was a for the peace and anti-war movement with a motion against military spending. Nevertheless, that win was based on a welfare not warfare argument, not on the principled issue of NATO, and not about being against the Ukraine war continuing and getting a peace settlement.
CND has to get all the political implications across So in conclusion, although we’ve made some headway, and there is a growing desire for a settlement particularly among the people of Ukraine, we have to do a lot of work to do, to make sure the politics is understood.
So although we’ve made some headway and as people, as the speakers have said, the kind of strong desire, particularly in Ukraine for a settlement, we have to do a lot of work to fight to make sure the politics of it is understood. Because if we don’t understand and fight on the politics of it, then things will keep on going wrong.
In Labour CND’s latest podcast, Francisco Dominguez talks to Carol Turner about Trump’s military encirclement of Venezuela, and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Latin America-Caribbean nuclear free zone agreement of 1967 promoted by Mexico in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Our podcasts are available on Spotify, YouTube, and FB. Give us a listen, and if you like what you hear, give us a follow and please tell you friends. Back episodes include:
Andrew Murray on the TUC 2025 agenda
Sam Mason on the military bootprint astride the climate crisis
Alex Gordon on the defence jobs myth, and
Defence Economist Ron Smith on military spending and the Chancellor’s spring statement.
A report from Labour’s National Executive Committee, 16 September 2025, by left CLP reps Jess Barnard, Gemma Bolton and Yasmine Dar, who stood for election on a party democracy platform committed to anti-austerity, peace, and nuclear disarmament.
Labour’s National Executive Committee on 16September was opened by Ellie Reeves, as Chair who thanked NEC members for supporting her as Party Chair and Campaigns Coordinator. She was sorry that she was no longer Chair but will remain NEC Chair till the AGM at Conference. She paid tribute to Angela Rayner’s work as Deputy Leader, as did other NEC members.
Obituaries were noted with tributes paid to Cllr Neil Wilson, Nicky Gavron, Lord Tom Sawyer and Pat Ireland.
Under the General Secretary’s report, Hollie Ridley thanked everyone for their support and noted what a busy time it was for all the staff with Conference, the Deputy Leader election and the by-election in Caerphilly. She welcomed the appointment of Anna Turley as Party Chair and thanked Ellie for her contribution and for her new role as the National Policy Forum Chair, which will continue. Hollie also paid tribute to Angela Rayner, and welcomed the contribution of women in senior roles in government including Yvette Cooper, Shabana Mahmood and Rachel Reeves, noting that a women in leadership program has been launched for staff.
Questions were also asked about abuse that campaigners face when out campaigning and it was noted that there is guidance in regards to being safe on the doorstep.
The NEC received a report from the Treasurer, noting various challenges, including delays to the accounts, and a tough few months, which would be further discussed at the Away Day in November. Issues with lower income from reduced donations and lower membership were noted along with the need for tighter expenditure controls. There were discussions about the need for constituencies to become more self-sufficient, reducing reliance on the national Party and focusing on their own campaigns and training.
After lunch, the NEC discussed arrangements for Annual Conference. The Conference will start on Sunday at 11am and will conclude at 5pm Wednesday. The deadline for submitting emergency motions is 26th September. Conference arrangements will remain consistent with last year. The fringe programme has been finalised, and Conference services will be located at Monarch Quay near the Pullman Hotel. An accessible mini-guide has been distributed to attendees who identified disabilities. Pre-Conference materials will be sent out soon, and there will be BSL signers and a hearing loop available. There will be 32 accessibility stewards and a safeguarding unit, with details included in the conference materials. Crèche facilities have also been arranged, with spaces booked in advance. The conference will host 798 CLP delegates and 241 registered affiliates. Additionally, there will be 900 fringe events and 150 exhibition stands. Some events will be organised on the Saturday but there was no mention of the cancelled Women’s Conference, which seems to have been entirely swept under the carpet.
Nine names were put forward as Assistant Chairs for Conference, and a vote was held. Gemma noted that chairs should represent the diversity of the NEC, and it was also noted that despite several years more NEC experience than most reps, the Disabled Members’ Rep had never been appointed as Assistant Chair and was always told ‘next year’. Left candidates received around 10 votes compared to around 20 votes each for those elected.
A rule change that had been brought to the previous NEC meeting to reduce members’ rights by changing the election for CLP reps on the National Policy Forum from One Member One Vote to being elected at Conference was agreed for submission to Conference. If passed at Conference it would be a reversal of a gain for Party democracy over a decade ago, disenfranchising thousands of members and making the election deeply inequitable, given how inaccessible Conference is for most members – particularly those with caring responsibilities, disabled members and those in CLPs who can’t afford to fund delegates. We will be calling on delegates from CLPs, trade unions and socialist societies to reject this rule change at Conference. We were pleased, however, that the rule change to reduce trade union influence on the Conference Arrangements Committee was not brought back.
Leader’s Report Keir Starmer addressed the meeting, paying tribute to Angela Rayner’s work as Deputy Prime Minister and to Ellie Reeves, as the outgoing Party Chair. She will continue as the NPF chair and as part of the government as Solicitor General. Starmer said he was clear about being let down badly by Peter Mandelson and now wants to focus on what matters and unite.
Starmer discussed the far right demonstration organised by convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, and noted the need to challenge negativity, saying he was looking at a patriotic renewal. He noted the progress with the Hillsborough Law, with the Bill launched that day, and paid tribute to Margaret Aspinall and all the families whose loved ones had lost their lives. He also noted positive achievements with NHS appointments, the Employment Rights Bill and school meals.
On Gaza, Starmer said the situation was intolerable, with the killings of children and a human-made famine, noting the Doha attack will impact on a possible ceasefire. He continued to advocate a two-state solution, having spoken to counterparts in Canada, Australia and other places. However, when Yasmine Dar asked what further action the government were prepared to take to address Israel’s breaching of international law, the question was ignored.
Yasmine also asked why the Government allowed far-right, racist figures like Valentina Gomez and Morten Messerschmidt, leader of Denmark’s Danish People’s Party, entry into the UK, knowing the real risk they pose of inciting hatred, division, and violence. Starmer responded that he would look into the question about these individuals coming here and speaking and inciting hate.
Gemma Bolton asked about what was being done to address the appalling treatment of Diane Abbott and when the whip would be restored. The poor behaviour towards Diane was acknowledged but the issue of the whip was brushed aside.
Finally, Anna Turley addressed the meeting as the new Chair, and spoke about her career and experience to date.
Emergency NEC Meeting, 8 September, on Deputy Leadership Contest Left CLP reps also attended the emergency NEC meeting to agree the massively curtailed timetable for the Deputy Leadership election. We were against giving MPs, CLPs and affiliates such a short timescale to nominate but were given no real opportunity to speak out or vote against.
We supported the campaign of Bell Ribeiro-Addy as she called for real Government action to address the genocide in Gaza, put forward an anti-austerity economic policy, challenged racism and put forward an agenda to restore members’ democratic rights and support the role of trade unions in the Party. We were disappointed that there was such a short time to have such an important debate about the future direction of the Party and such a limited range of candidates, neither of whom are currently addressing the issues members care about. We will continue to support efforts to democratise the leadership elections and oppose rule changes that will minimise the role of members and trade unions still further.
Since the last NEC, we have also attended meetings of the Equalities Committee and the National Women’s Committee, neither of which had any serious discussion about how to restore democratic structures that can engage women members or promote the democratic involvement of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic or Disabled members.
* NEC reports from the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance team of CLP reps are published by Campaign for Labour Party Democracy
