Analysis of: Starmer backs Danish PM in saying Trump has no right to any claim over Greenland – UK politics live
The Guardian | January 5, 2026
The UK government's calculated silence on the US military seizure of Venezuelan President Maduro exposes the fundamental alignment between capitalist state interests across the Atlantic. Despite Keir Starmer's professed commitment to international law, his government has signaled it will abstain from any UN Security Council vote criticizing the US intervention, prioritizing the 'special relationship' over legal principles. This represents not a moral failure but a rational calculation by the British state: maintaining access to US intelligence, defense cooperation, and economic partnership outweighs any commitment to international norms that might constrain Western capital's access to Venezuelan oil resources. The article reveals a stark contradiction between Labour's domestic rhetoric about 'cost of living' concerns and its international posture enabling resource extraction through force. While Starmer planned a media campaign about energy bills, the actual material basis for cheap energy—control over global oil supplies—was being secured through extralegal means by Britain's closest ally. The government's refusal to condemn the intervention, even when pressed by its own backbenchers like Emily Thornberry, demonstrates how capitalist states subordinate legal formalism to material interests when the two conflict. Notably, the simultaneous threats against Greenland, Cuba, and Colombia reveal an emboldened US imperialism testing the boundaries of what its allies will accept. The UK's abstention strategy—neither endorsing nor opposing—represents the classic position of a junior imperial partner: maintaining plausible deniability while benefiting from the outcomes. The 'careful diplomatic conversations' cited by ministers are not constraints on US action but negotiations over how the spoils of renewed American intervention in Latin America might be shared.
Class Dynamics
Actors: British state apparatus (executive and diplomatic corps), US ruling class and state, Venezuelan working class and popular movements, Transnational capital with interests in Venezuelan oil, British Labour Party backbenchers representing liberal professional class, European states as collective imperial bloc
Beneficiaries: US and European energy corporations seeking Venezuelan oil access, Transnational capital requiring stable extraction regimes, US military-industrial complex, British defense and intelligence establishments maintaining US partnership
Harmed Parties: Venezuelan working class facing imposed regime change, Global South nations facing precedent of great power intervention, International legal framework as constraint on imperial action, British working class whose interests in 'cost of living' are subordinated to geopolitical maneuvering
The relationship exposed is one of hierarchical alliance: the UK accepts subordinate status to US hegemony in exchange for access to intelligence, defense coordination, and economic benefits. Starmer explicitly states the US relationship matters 'more than any other' and he won't 'weaken' it—revealing the structural dependency. Within the UK, the executive suppresses dissent from backbenchers like Thornberry by claiming government responsibility requires different standards than those applicable to parliamentarians.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Venezuelan oil reserves (largest proven reserves globally), UK energy costs and domestic political pressure, US-UK intelligence and defense industrial integration, Arctic resources underlying Greenland tensions, Post-Brexit UK economic vulnerability and US trade dependency
Venezuela's nationalized oil industry under Maduro represented an obstacle to Western capital's access to extraction profits. The intervention aims to install a regime amenable to privatization and foreign investment. Britain's abstention reflects its own capital's interest in this outcome—UK energy companies and financial institutions stand to benefit from 'opened' Venezuelan markets. The article's framing of Maduro as 'illegitimate' naturalizes the idea that leaders who restrict capital access lack political legitimacy.
Resources at Stake: Venezuelan petroleum reserves, Greenland's rare earth minerals and Arctic shipping routes, Cuban and Colombian markets and resources, UK access to US intelligence sharing (Five Eyes), UK defense procurement relationships
Historical Context
Precedents: 1983 US invasion of Grenada (referenced in article, criticized by Thatcher), 2003 Iraq invasion and UK's 'coalition of the willing' participation, Historical US interventions in Latin America (Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, Panama 1989), UK abstention patterns at UN Security Council on US actions, Monroe Doctrine and US hemispheric claims
This fits the long pattern of US interventions to secure capitalist-friendly regimes in Latin America, now with explicit resource extraction justifications. The UK's position mirrors its historical role as junior partner to US hegemony since 1945—supporting American actions while maintaining rhetorical distance. The article's mention of Trump's threats to Cuba and Colombia suggests a return to overt Monroe Doctrine enforcement, previously constrained by Cold War competition and post-Cold War multilateral norms.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is between the liberal democratic state's proclaimed commitment to international law and rule-based order versus its material dependence on imperial relationships that require suspending those principles when they conflict with capital accumulation and geopolitical advantage.
Secondary: Labour's domestic 'cost of living' rhetoric versus enabling the violent extraction policies that determine global energy prices, Claims of 'respecting international law' while refusing to apply it to allies, Thornberry's criticism revealing splits between Labour's liberal-professional base and its governing pragmatism, Denmark as NATO ally whose sovereignty claims UK verbally supports while enabling the US posture that threatens it
These contradictions will likely intensify as US interventionism expands. The UK government's abstention strategy is unstable—it satisfies neither those demanding legal principle nor those wanting full alignment with US power. If US actions escalate (Greenland, Cuba, Colombia), Britain faces choosing between its European relationships and its American dependency. The domestic political cost of appearing complicit in imperialism may eventually force more explicit positioning, though the structural incentives favor continued accommodation.
Global Interconnections
This episode connects to the broader restructuring of global hegemony as US power attempts to reassert control over its traditional spheres of influence through direct action rather than institutional mediation. The simultaneous threats to Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, and Colombia represent a coherent strategy of resource securitization in the face of declining US relative economic power and rising Chinese competition. Britain's positioning reveals the limits of 'Global Britain' rhetoric post-Brexit—rather than independent action, the UK has doubled down on its role as American auxiliary. The article also illuminates how international law functions ideologically: invoked against adversaries (Russia, China) but suspended for allies. Thornberry's warning that this 'emboldens' China and Russia is correct but misses that this has always been the function of 'rules-based order'—rules applied asymmetrically to maintain Western advantage. The current moment simply makes this more explicit, creating difficulties for states like Britain that rely on legal legitimation for their own imperial history.
Conclusion
The UK's Venezuela abstention reveals the enduring subordination of British state policy to transatlantic capital's interests, regardless of which party governs. For working-class observers, the lesson is that 'cost of living' cannot be addressed through domestic policy alone when global energy prices are determined by imperial interventions their government enables. The contradiction between Labour's reformist domestic promises and its complicity in international resource wars will likely sharpen, potentially creating openings for more radical critiques of the UK's international position. However, without organized working-class pressure connecting domestic economic concerns to anti-imperial politics, the structural incentives favor continued British accommodation to US hegemony.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 92%