To Recognize or Not to Recognize: The EU's Numerous Actors Regarding the Recognition of Venezuela's Presidency

by Alberto M. Burgos-Rivera (UIUC)

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 11-May 9, 2019.

Nicolás Maduro

Image Credit: Eneas de Troya, 

via Wikimedia Commons

Juan Guaidó
Image Credit: Gabriel Cruz,
via Wikimedia Commons

Although the current presidential crisis facing Venezuela began in early January 2019, its origins may be argued to have begun with Nicolás Maduro’s first presidential term. An heir to Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution, Maduro’s first presidential term was marred by increased authoritarianism, human rights violations, economic hyperinflation coupled by scarcity of basic goods. These factors have caused an increase in emigration from the oil-rich nation towards neighboring South American countries. While last year’s presidential elections showed overwhelming electoral support for Maduro, it has been claimed that these elections were marred by vote rigging. As a result, National Assembly President Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president shortly after the start of Maduro’s second presidential term. Despite worldwide condemnation of Maduro’s regime, there is a lack of consensus on how to handle Venezuela’s presidential crisis. 

Federica Mogherini. 

Image Credit: Executive Office of the 

President of the United States, 

via Wikimedia Commons

The current presidential crisis presents yet another instance in which the EU has been struggling to act with one coherent voice. At the EU level, the only institution to have openly recognized Guaidó as interim president has been the European Parliament. In reality, such recognition bears no political weight as recognition of Venezuela’s presidency is set to fall upon the jurisdiction of its member states as stated by High Representative Federica Mogherini. Of the 28 member states, however, around half recognize Guaidó as president while the rest support political dialogues between the regime and the opposition. Initiatives have been taken by the EU in attempts to establish consensus within opposing parties. One such initiative being the establishment of a 90-day summit between the EU and Latin American states in assessing the political situation and accompanying a transition.

Despite the EU’s lack of a single voice in Venezuela’s presidential crisis, there is one point all actors in the EU can agree upon: military intervention. Unlike the USA, as well as Guaidó himself, the EU has rejected any possibility of military intervention. The EU has instead opted for the use of political dialogue within opposing parties, as proposed with the Montevideo summit, as well as imposing sanctions. Although the EU has implemented sanctions before, given the increase in human rights violations, it has been proposed imposing further sanctions. These sanctions “targeted at persons that have a special responsibility, either in the obstruction of democratic processes or the use of violence against demonstrators.” On the other hand, the EU has also contributed up to 50 million euro to support Venezuela and its neighboring countries that host 3 million people. Although we are yet to determine the outcome to be determined in the Montevideo summit, the fact of the matter is that Maduro has severed diplomatic ties with both the EU and the US and has been resistant to any political dialogue with opposing parties. Despite the lack of a unified voice within the EU in how to handle the Venezuelan presidential crisis, that fact that no EU ambassador was present in Maduro’s presidential ceremony and the bloc’s disapproval of the regime’s human rights violation hint at the both the bloc and the member states’ shared values within the international stage.        

Going for Gold: Utilizing Rising Sports Markets to Fill the Gap in Transatlantic Relations

by Arthur Maximilian John and Kasey Golding (KU Leuven)

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 11-May 9, 2019.

Build-up to the 2010 NFL International Series Game at
Wembley Stadium between the Denver Broncos and the
San Francisco 49ers
Image Credit: Flickr user 'Thomas' via Wikimedia Commons

From debates over NATO and defense spending to major international agreements such as the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Agreement, it is no surprise that the high political discussions of the transatlantic relationship have been going through a rough patch.  Just a quick Google News search reveals the current struggles of one of the strongest geopolitical relationships of the last five decades.

Wherever we look we seem to find more and more reasons to believe that Europe and the US are heading down a dangerous path—one in which we might even see the two venture into the territory of staunch competitors, rather than loyal teammates.

However, this pessimistic view of high politics is drastically different when we shift to a topic that impacts the daily life of the average citizen on a much deeper basis—sports.  Whether it is American football, ‘soccer’, or ice hockey, one’s allegiance to their favorite team can shape large parts of a person’s individual identity.

Sports culture has the potential to unite communities across cultural and linguistic borders.  It bolsters transnational camaraderie and promotes a system of shared values, and the impact that sports culture and sports markets have on the societal component of transatlantic relations should not be underestimated.

For example, since 2007, the National Football League (NFL) has agreed to host a number of regular season American football games outside the United States.  Although its schedule currently highlights the city of London as its sole European destination, for American Football executives, London is not viewed as the NFL’s future—rather it is simply the testing ground for a wider European market.

While the organization has only committed to playing in London for the upcoming seasons, the League’s commissioner has talked about the possibility of expanding into places like Germany.  Ultimately, Europe presents a unique opportunity for the NFL, particularly with its untapped market and proven affinity towards sport, and recent efforts to expand the League’s overseas market have been largely well-received.

The presence of American football in Europe is not a new phenomenon—in fact, until recently Europe even had its very own NFL-sponsored league in NFL Europe—but the sudden market take-off has inspired the American industry to double-down on its long-term goals of solidifying its stance within the European market.

The initiative’s support is a refreshing reminder of the strength of cultural transatlantic relations in times of conflict and disintegration in the political arenas.  The NFL’s ambitions in Europe show that despite growing political tensions across the pond, culture—and in particular sports culture—is a strong factor in transatlantic relations.

This sentiment is echoed by the expansion of European football clubs into the US market.  With an ever-growing interest in ‘soccer’ since the FIFA World Cup was hosted by the US in 1994, more and more elite European football teams have tested the waters in what has the potential to become a massive market for talent and revenue.  With more than 50 percent of Americans havingat least a basic interest in football, there is good reason to be optimistic that teams from Europe’s top football leagues can be successful in an American market.

In fact, this branching out has already commenced as clubs such as Manchester United, Manchester City, Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, and Bayern Munich regularly compete insold-out international competitions such as the International Champions Cup.  This ability of European elite football to radiate across the Atlantic makes it clear that the American market not only has economic potential, but also that it is compatible with European culture.

Furthermore, the transatlantic market is not limited to the arena of American football or European football associations.  In the United States, the NFL and their outward reach has become an envy of the sports world.  The National Hockey League (NHL)—an established forum for US-Canada-Europe relations—is following the NFL’s lead and charging ahead to expand the game and develop new markets in Europe with the announcement of the 2019-20 Global Series.  While the league already sees approximately 25% of its top players comingfrom Russia and Europe, the NHL is hoping to further these ties by having teams from the US and Canada play local organizations in Switzerland, Germany, the Czech Republic and Sweden.

All in all, transatlantic relations at the political level may be at an all-time low, but the soft power and diplomatic potential of friendly competition and regional camaraderie is something that cannot be ignored.  Sports offer a language that transcends high-politics, and sports culture is an example of an arena that still has the potential to facilitate a stronger American-European relationship.

The cultural exports of both sides of the Atlantic are proving stronger than anyone initially thought.  League executives are searching for new ways to expand the impact of converging sports markets and promote continued interaction.  Through the pooling of talent, revenue, and cultural exchange, the transatlantic partners have an opportunity to strengthen and integrate their relationship on both an economic and societal level.

Even in a time of cooling political relations, the value of market potential and cultural ties cannot—and should not—be understated.  Sports might not be the key to solving the world’s most pressing issues, but they may be a step in the right direction towards thawing the tensions between the US and Europe.

Who knows, maybe one day we’ll even witness a transatlantic Super Bowl matchup in Europe.