Venezuela's Maduro captured by Americans, as they seize control of the country: Trump's Gunboat Diplomacy for the 21st Century

 In a dramatic turn of events, a period of heightened tensions between President Donald Trump's United States and President Nicolas Maduro's Venezuela has culminated in not only military strikes by the United States against Venezuela, but the capture of President Nicolas Maduro by American forces and his relocation to the United States. Whilst Venezuela is without a leader, President Trump has stated that the United States will temporarily run the country until alternative leadership is established. 

The move is yet another unexpected gamble by President Trump and, for me, solidifies comparisons between his approach to leadership and his view of his country, and world affairs generally, and those of the 19th century British prime minister, Lord Palmerston. During the Victorian era, Palmerston was known for his "gunboat diplomacy" whereby, when a country was felt to be acting against Britain's interests, he would be willing to take aggressive, military steps against them- including literally sending gunboats to attack them. A famous case was the Don Pacifico affair whereby Don Pacifico, a British citizen, was wronged whilst living in Greece, and it was felt by Palmerston that Greek authorities had acted inadequately to support him, and so he ordered British gunboats to Greece to blockade a Greek harbour in retaliation. Also, an expression famously used by Palmerston (and could be considered a summary of Trump's stance on foreign policy too) was that "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow".

The actions of the United States in Venezuela, though very fresh, have the potential to have significant consequences. Mostly obvious is the impact on Venezuela. Maduro was a controversial leader, considered dictatorial, and having fraudulently held on to power. Meanwhile, so controversial has Maduro's period in power been, that particularly large numbers of Venezuelans have fled the country during this period. There is word of celebrations held in parts of Venezuela, marking Maduro's removal. It is also understood that Maduro's Venezuela played a significant role in drug crime affecting the United States. Having said that, the United States' actions will be widely considered disproportionate, and an overwhelming challenge to international law and norms. Returning to Venezuela, there will also inevitably be questions over the country's leadership. How long can the United States really effectively manage Venezuela? And who could and should take over, and be considered sufficiently legitimate to be accepted?

There are also broader potential consequences, questioning the efficacy of international law and order. Perhaps this will be seen as the end (or the beginning of the end) of the New World Order established at the end of the Cold War, an order seemingly confirmed soon after the end of the Cold War by the coming together of countries across the world, with the support of the United Nations, to force Saddam Hussein's Iraq to withdraw from neighbouring Kuwait during the Gulf War. Although this was widely considered successful, international cooperation during the subsequent Yugoslavian wars was generally considered much less successful; and, at the beginning of the 21st century, the United States was widely criticised for its invasion (with few allies, and lacking United Nations support) of Iraq. The weaknesses of international institutions in the face of military might motivated by national interests was then seemingly gradually exploited by Russia as well under Vladimir Putin, as it first annexed Crimea then, more recently, other parts of Ukraine. The United States' actions in Venezuela seem in keeping with this trend of militarily powerful countries asserting what they claim to be national interests, even if going against international laws and norms. This may well confirm a trend that has developed this century: international institutions, and various countries, may criticise aggression and take certain actions, but their impact will ultimately be limited, and considered by leaders of those challenging those international laws and norms as a lesser evil. It may be the case that, from now on, countries will be more inclined to act aggressively in what they consider to be their national interests, with little regard for international laws and norms. The only effective inhibitor of such acts may then be the involvement (or threat of involvement) of an overwhelming military power like the United States (or maybe China). We will see whether this happens, and whether it will make the world a better or worse place- it will make it more unpredictable at least.

From Britain's perspective, a thought that springs to mind is that, if international laws and norms are being disregarded, it may become more acceptable for the UK to take the steps it wants to to stifle illegal migration: the infamous "small boats" transporting thousands of migrants across the English Channel, that have been the thorn in the side of British governments over recent years. Concerns over international law have stifled numerous attempts by British governments to practically stop illegal migration to the UK; if there is less concern for international laws and norms, British governments may have more freedom to take what are felt to be the most effective measures for the national interest. We could anticipate that Trump's United States would be a powerful and sympathetic spectator to such actions, while other European countries, with similar issues with illegal migration and the legal limits to steps that can be taken to prevent it, could also be expected to be sympathetic.

Royal Round-up: 2025

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.  

King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland removes the titles of his eldest brother, demoting him from a prince to just Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, in response to ongoing scandalous revelations about Andrew's connections with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In response to statements by the American president, Donald Trump, in respect of stated intentions of a US purchase of the Danish territory of Greenland, King Frederik X of Denmark gives speeches promoting the unity between Denmark and its territories, and oversees revisions to the royal coat of arms in order to bolster the symbols of the Danish territories, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

The claimant to the Albanian throne,  recognised by monarchists as King Leka II of the Albanians, gets engaged to Blerta Celibashi in a private ceremony.

As announced in 2024, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg abdicates his throne, making way for his son and heir to become Grand Duke Guillaume V of Luxembourg.

The claimant to the Italian throne, recognised by monarchists as King Emanuele Filiberto I of Italy, announces that he has been separated from his wife, Clotilde Courau, since 2021.

King Felipe VI of Spain awards the first noble titles of his reign, including recognising the former tennis player Rafael Nadal as the first Marquess of Llevant de Mallorca.

It seems to be one, big problem...

Both on this blog and the national UK news alike, immigration has been raised as one of the main national issues. And, combined with the national finances (and the consequences of problems with the national finances, being higher taxes, spending cuts, and the threat posed by the growing cost of national debt), they probably cover at least some of the main concerns of all British people right now.

Recently, I have come to the conclusion (whether rightly or not) that the two issues of precarious national finances and excessive immigration are linked by one, big problem: misuse of the welfare state. The concept behind the British welfare state, and the good it has achieved over the decades, are something I take pride in. However, whilst it has long been known (and is a problem with most systems created to provide support, I'm sure) that there are those who exploit the welfare state when they don't really need its help, the amount of people relying on the welfare state has grown significantly in the twenty-first century, and particularly since Covid. But the impression given of the increase seems excessive- and, surely, there can't be so many people incapable of working who are claiming that that's the case. Nevertheless, despite politicians repeatedly talking of clamping down on misuse of the system, welfare costs remain vast, and seemingly ever-growing numbers of people use it to sustain their way of life- both rightly and wrongly. People relying on the welfare state to live have two significant consequences on the UK, which link to those two major national issues originally mentioned. People relying on the welfare state cost a lot of money (the last I saw: the biggest single expense the UK government has), which then has to be funded through a combination of high taxes, spending cuts in other areas, and/or increased government borrowing, which means debt repayments in turn require even more tax increases/spending cuts. Then there is a double hit, because people are not only receiving money to fund their lifestyle, but they are then not contributing money to the state to cover their costs. 

This loss of income from potential workers relying on the welfare state is recouped not only from other workers already in the country, but also taxes from new immigrant workers- who the government and businesses alike have come to rely on to fill the vacancies left in the job market by the growing number of people receiving an income from the welfare state instead of a job. 

The impression you get is that, rather than focusing on really getting to the bottom of the ballooning welfare state and people dependent on it; politicians, civil servants, and doctors instead find it easier to allow this to continue uninterrupted, given the effort of investigating all cases, and the threat of legal action when people contest that they are deserving of welfare support for health reasons (rightly or wrongly). So, over recent decades, we have seen governments of all political parties just sustain this system through growing taxes, cutting spending, and/or borrowing more money, to the detriment of the country. Then, with the gaps in the workforce, instead of focusing on cultivating the British workforce to fill gaps in the labour market, it is cheaper and easier for governments and businesses to import those with the required skills from abroad. As a result, twenty-first century Britain has consistently seen net migration in the hundreds of thousands of people, despite repeated promises by governments to bring these numbers down. And the impact of this has been seen widely across the country, in terms of strain on the national infrastructure (not least housing supplies that can't keep up with the demand, most sharply felt in the southeast of England) and the integrity of communities. It is widely felt that this was a leading factor in the decision of the vote in favour of Brexit almost a decade ago.

So, rather than take the difficult steps to review the welfare state and clamp down on those not entitled to use it, governments instead seem to continue to rely on the short-term fixes to the issues an overwhelming welfare state creates: harmful, short term economic management, and large scale immigration. Until a government decides to seriously address this issue, I fear that dubious national finances and heated debates on immigration will continue to be overwhelming characteristics of modern Britain.

Widespread Ignorance (it's not just them- but us as well!)

 It's maybe a trend seen across the developed world now, but I can see it in Britain at least. Society seems very divided and, while there have always been political/tribal differences, these divisions appear to be more deeply entrenched now thanks to the modern media. For Brits (or others around the world, if they can also relate) may assume this is a criticism directed at the opposite view to themselves- but there is a good chance that I direct this at you IN ADDITION TO not INSEAD of them. 

As I said, while there have always been political differences, people had in the past at least been unified by accessing news from a very limited number of sources, be it newspapers, television, or news websites. This limited number, and the stated aim of the BBC to be a neutral news source, meant more commonality of sources of news, meaning that, whilst people would still have differences of opinion, those opinions would be based upon mostly consistent facts. Over recent years though, there has become a plethora of news sources, with the likes of YouTube, Twitter, and podcasts becoming a lot more popular in addition to (and maybe instead of) the original sources. And these new sources unquestionably have benefits: they can allow you to focus on more niche news stories that interest and concern you. However, they have drawbacks that concern me: when absorbing news from these alternative sources, they have a tendency to be under far less regulation and scrutiny for accuracy, and they can also cherry-pick facts and focus on subjective opinions instead of more objective facts. 

As a consequence of the above, I feel that, instead of a majority of people taking their news from the same or similar sources, and basing their opinions on largely the same facts; an increasing number are instead focusing on niche sources that have a specific outlook and clear bias, and seem set to reinforce existing opinions, rather than paying much (if any) attention to alternative viewpoints. Seeing different stories and a range of opinions can feed our own, and inform them, rather than encourage us to become increasingly more narrow minded. For example: the British politicians, Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Many readers may think one of these figures is always right and the other always wrong (or almost always) and take the view that, whoever supports the other politician is ignorant. People who sympathise with Corbyn may write-off Farage supporters as racists, while Farage supporters may mock Corbyn backers as not being in touch with the real world. 

It is perfectly fine and natural for there to be differences of opinion but, in a democracy, we should respect all opinions (including those we don't share) and, whilst we may disagree to varying strengths, we should at least try to see where those of other opinions are coming from, rather than just writing them off as ignorant in some way. And it seems healthier to me to, instead of having a black and white view, where something is either purely right or wrong, or good or bad, actually looking for merits in both sides- even if you do clearly have leanings one way or the other. After all, compromise is a major part of democracy: it is unlikely that a politician or political party exactly reflects your views, so you have to compromise and support who you agree with most. To conclude: think of where you get your news from, how much you are receiving objective facts from it (rather than being fed specific, biased opinions), and if you are genuinely exposed to a range of points of view, so that you really are well-informed in your opinions.

Royal Round-up: 2024

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.  

King Charles III of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is diagnosed with cancer, a diagnosis which, unusually for a British royal, he is quick to share with the public. His duties and engagements will be scaled back as a consequence while he receives treatment.

At the age of 87, King Harald V of Norway becomes the oldest reigning monarch in over 1000 years of Norwegian royal history.

The abdication of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark leads to the accession of her son and heir, the new King Frederik X of Denmark.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Pavlos II of Greece, successfully has the Greek citizenship of himself and his family reinstated, having been stripped of this in 1994.

The claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Leka II of the Albanians, divorces from Elia Zaharia.

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg delegates some of his powers to his son and heir, Prince Guillaume, who consequently becomes Regent of Luxembourg. Grand Duke Henri later also announces his intention to abdicate in 2025.

The death of the claimant, recognised by monarchists as King Victor Emmanuel IV of Italy, leads to his claim being inherited by his son, recognised by monarchists as King Emanuele Filiberto I of Italy.

Soon after arriving in Valencia to visit those affected by floods, King Felipe VI of Spain and other visiting senior figures are harangued by members of the public and have mud thrown at them, as a sign of anger with their country’s response to the floods.

Royal Round-up: 2023

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark triggers widespread surprise as she announces in her New Year’s message her intention to abdicate in January 2024. She says that this is in response to her declining health and mobility, making way for her son and heir, Crown Prince Frederick, to succeed her and become King of Denmark.

Celebrations are held to mark the Golden Jubilee of King Carl XVI of Sweden.

The former King Constantine II of Greece, the last monarch of his country, dies aged 82. His claim to the former Greek throne is inherited by his son who, among monarchists, would be recognised as King Paul II of Greece.

Following the death of his father and inheritance of the position of head of Greece’s royal family, Crown Prince Pavlos, recognised among monarchists as King Paul II of Greece, relocates to Greece with his family.

Prince Emmanuel of Italy, heir to the claimant to the Italian throne, announces his intention to abdicate his position in the Italian line of succession in favour of his eldest child, Princess Victoria.

Blair in Bloom: Seeds Sown in Tony Blair's Premiership Now Come to Fruition

 A generation is widely considered to be 25 years, meaning that a generation has now passed since Tony Blair became Britain's Prime Minister in 1997. I feel, that for better and worse, Blair's premiership has significantly shaped the Britain we live in today.

To try to start on a positive note, I feel that the "Levelling Up" still technically championed by the current Conservative government, but more closely associated with Boris Johnson, can be largely traced from the Blair era. A need for "Levelling Up" at all seemed to be a negative consequence of the Margaret Thatcher era. Whilst the changes made by her government made the economy more efficient and successful, it was a job that was seemingly half done: whilst the successful areas of the economy (and parts of the country they were based in) were able to thrive; insufficient steps were taken to compensate for the winding down of unsuccessful aspects of the economy (and, as a result, the parts of the country they were based in). This created a clear "have" and "have not" division across the UK, something which the Blair government seemed set to overcome, looking to reduce that gap. Then, starting with David Cameron's government's discussion of a "Northern Powerhouse" to encourage growth in the north of the country, Boris Johnson would then encourage this development on a broader scale as "Levelling Up", which Johnson's successors have said they want to continue to support.

And now for the more controversial legacies of the Blair era. In terms of British foreign policy, and military involvement in particular, they have marked a significant reaction against the approach taken by Tony Blair's government ever since. Blair advocated an active foreign policy, encouraging a moralistic stance of encouraging the good and opposing the bad, with the latter handled by a relatively great willingness to use Britain's armed forces. This was most obviously, and controversially, demonstrated with the deployment of armed forces to Afghanistan and Iraq. The great length of this involvement, the regular loss of life, and questionable final success, have appeared to restrain Blair's successors from taking a similar approach when other opportunities have since arisen. During the "Arab Spring", whilst David Cameron favoured involvement in Libya's Civil War, he was keen to emphasise there would not be British soldiers actively fighting there (or "boots on the ground", as it's often described), then parliament (in an apparent reflection of public opinion) opposed Cameron's later proposal for greater involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Meanwhile, though there have been significant displays of military support from British governments for Ukraine with the ongoing Russian invasion, there has been no talk of any significant "boots on the ground" being deployed from Britain.

Devolution is another major legacy of Tony Blair's, having introduced a devolved parliament and assembly to Scotland and Wales respectively. This was apparently intended to calm nationalism in these Home Nations of the UK. However, nationalism gathered much greater momentum after devolution- and arguably due to devolution. While both the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly started out as bodies dominated by Labour politicians (still the case in the Welsh assembly), this shifted in Scotland as the Scottish National Party (SNP) took over, and calls for an independence referendum grew impossible to ignore. Even after the referendum on independence, the issue still seemed to dominate Scottish politics for the decade since, with the SNP remaining the most popular and powerful party in Scotland since, with calls for a further independence referendum continuing to be made. Meanwhile, it is said that separatism in Wales has also been relatively high since the Welsh assembly was created, and English nationalism also emerged as a distinct movement, notably revolving around calls for an English parliament. This was to address the anomaly of Scottish/Welsh/ Northern Irish MPs still being able to vote on English issues, while the reverse was no longer the case for English MPs, due to the devolved institutions of the other Home Nations. Having said this, David Cameron appeared to address this with the "English votes for English laws" principle, so that Scottish/Welsh/ Northern Irish MPs could no longer vote on English only matters.

Tying back with the topic mentioned earlier of Blair's original "Levelling Up" to reduce the gaps in wealth in the UK; a large amount of the funding for this great investment came from significant borrowing. The issue of government borrowing forming a large part of the government's spending, and the interest on this borrowing becoming one of the largest expenses of UK governments, formed a central issue in the 2010 election that brought David Cameron's Conservatives into government. Although Cameron's government was associated with significant cuts to spending to address this, and Theresa May after him seemingly looking to carefully manage government finances; Boris Johnson appeared to return to the bigger spending the British had got used to under the Labour government, most clearly during the pandemic, with the government's generous offers of support (but causing debt to hugely amass once again). Since then, Britain's leaders have struggled with how to reduce the national debt without upsetting the public too much. With cuts already previously carried out under Cameron, the short-lived government of Liz Truss believed short-term borrowing could be used to spur an economy that could ultimately fund itself; however, it seems that there was insufficient confidence in this approach, leading to Rishi Sunak's subsequent government using higher taxes to cover government spending. However, with both tax demands and national debt being quite exceptionally high, one wonders how long this approach can continue. It seems governments will have to either ween the British public off the large and expensive state they have grown used to- or find alternative ways of funding it.

Immigration is also a major legacy of the Blair government. It was during that time that net migration of hundreds of thousands of people to the UK per year became the norm instead of tens of thousands. Also, as members of the European Union (EU) at the time, while other members tended to be more cautious and restricted arrivals from the new EU member states in 2004 (all largely poorer than existing members), Blair's Britain did no such thing, seeing exceptionally large numbers of arrivals to the UK. It was at this time that immigration evolved from a fringe concern to a mainstream issue, as illustrated by the rise of the UK Independence Party (primarily concerned with immigration and leaving the EU) from obscurity to one of the UK's leading parties (most popular in the European Parliament, and coming second in many results for parliamentary seats in 2015, suggesting that popularity would have continued to grow had a referendum on EU membership not been held). Therefore, with the actions of Blair's government overseeing the drastic escalation of immigration, it could be said that Blair was the father of Brexit.

To conclude, there is one specific aspect of current British politics which combines two of Blair's legacies. Throughout the Brexit process, Norther Ireland has been a focus. This is because of its unique position of being politically united with the UK, yet geographically united with the EU via its border with the Republic of Ireland. Management of this position owes much to the Good Friday Agreement, overseen by Blair's government, which  was widely deemed a success in significantly reducing tensions and violence among Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland has had to adjust its relationships with the EU, Republic of Ireland as a result of Brexit. In the years ahead, we will see how the various debates of modern Britain, for which the seeds were sown in the Blair era, continue to evolve.