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.
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.
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.
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.
