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.