The UK, Venezuela’s Gold, and Starmer’s Evasion

The United Kingdom has a great deal to lose from the return of democracy in Venezuela — far more than it is willing to admit publicly.

For years, the Nicolás Maduro regime provided Britain with a convenient alibi to retain Venezuela’s gold reserves deposited in London. By recognising opposition figures rather than the government in Caracas, successive UK governments justified keeping control of assets that legally belonged to the Venezuelan state. The political ambiguity surrounding Venezuela suited London perfectly.

That alibi is now gone.

With Maduro removed from power, Britain faces a straightforward legal and moral obligation: return Venezuela’s gold. Yet this is precisely where the problem lies for the Labour government. Returning the gold would amount to admitting that the previous justification for withholding it no longer applies. Keeping it, on the other hand, exposes Britain’s actions as politically motivated rather than principled.

This explains the unease and evasiveness displayed by Keir Starmer during his recent interview with the BBC. When questioned about Venezuela, Starmer was unable — or unwilling — to give a clear answer. His hesitation was not accidental. The gold issue sits squarely at the heart of the matter. This blog has commented on Starmer’s difficulty in speaking clearly to the BBC journalist about Venezuela’s crisis.

Since that interview, Starmer has made his position clearer through his actions rather than his words. He has firmly aligned Britain with the United States, carefully avoiding any criticism of Washington’s role in the Venezuelan crisis. This alignment is not an ideological coincidence; it is a political necessity. The UK’s continued control of Venezuelan gold depends on maintaining a shared Western narrative about legitimacy, stability, and recognition.

The decision, in reality, has already been taken.

Despite the end of Maduro’s rule, the Labour government has chosen to keep the gold. A return would raise uncomfortable questions:

• Why was the gold withheld for so long?
• On what legal basis can it still be retained?
• And who truly benefits from this continued “temporary” arrangement?

Starmer’s difficulty is therefore not diplomatic, but explanatory. Any honest answer would reveal that Britain’s position is driven less by democratic principles and more by strategic alignment with the United States. This is why he could not speak plainly to the BBC journalist — and why he now openly stands behind Washington.

Venezuela’s gold has become a test case not just for international law, but for the credibility of Britain’s foreign policy. For the moment, London has chosen silence, ambiguity, and alignment over transparency. Whether that position can be sustained remains to be seen.