The presidential crisis in Venezuela is among the top topics occupying the world agenda. The crisis has reached its apex with the U.S. assigning Venezuelan National Assembly President Juan Guaidó as the acting president of the country on January 23, 2019; and tension still prevails in the country with no prospect of getting temperate.

In fact, the debates leading up to the crisis were ignited with the re-election of Nicolás Maduro as the President of Venezuela. Socialist President Maduro was elected for his second 6-year term in presidential office on the election held on May 20, 2018. Although his victory did not reverberate much in the international arena at first, a number of individuals and institutions voiced their objection to the situation. Aside from the Lima Group, which comprises the representatives of 17 Latin American countries who first met in 2017 to resolve the Venezuelan crisis ongoing since 2012, the U.S. and the EU also questioned the legitimacy of the elections and proclaimed that they will not recognize the election results. So, it can be said that the debates that grew and evolved into the current crisis were first ignited at that time.

Considering the course of events, the presidential elections in Venezuela, which is an internal affair of the country in its essence, became a major topic on the global agenda in a short period due to the involvement of global forces and turned into an instrument of power struggle. The debates questioned the legitimacy of the Venezuelan administration under Maduro’s rule and caused polarization regarding which state supports the ruling power and which state does not. Many different aspects of the issue have been approached in visual and printed media. What about Turkey? This piece will focus on Turkey’s approach to the crisis, the possibility of a military coup in Venezuela (probably backed by the U.S.) amid the rapidly changing turn of events, and the country’s future.

A post-modern coup method at work

As the presidency of Donald Trump began in the U.S. in 2017, the U.S. underwent substantial changes in terms of its methods and approaches. This situation has manifested itself in many points within the past two years. The U.S. administration is not very eager to perform its “responsibilities” in other lands stemming from being a global power. This situation can be seen in many instances, including the Paris Agreement on climate change, trade wars, and customs agreements such as NAFTA. Apparently, as much as the country still looks to make the most of the opportunities it enjoys for being the global hegemon, it also adopts a policy that is unwilling to shoulder responsibilities and burden related to the rest of the world.

Of course, this is not solely related to the president’s personal choices; and the clearest thing that can be said  is that the ways of doing things have changed around the world. Things do no longer work out with old, traditional procedures and practices. The countries comprehending this fact adopt new positions and policies that are in line with the new context, which lead to less ambiguity. In the case of the U.S., this new situation was reflected on the implementation of different policies while interfering with the internal affairs of other countries, as seen in the Venezuelan crisis.

The ways of doing things have changed around the world. Things do no longer work out with old, traditional procedures and practices.

Viewing the recent history of Latin America, it is seen that the U.S. played a direct or indirect role in most of the military coups staged in the region so far. Up until the early 2000s, U.S. interests in the continent coincided with military dictatorships in Latin America and therefore the former sustained close relations with junta regimes. So, the U.S. has confronted serious problems and accusations at both national and international levels. The developments in the recent period also hint that the Washington administration is likely to follow a different strategy in the new period. Instead of military sanctions and interventions, it now prefers to impose economic and political sanctions on other countries.

Military interventions have a heavy cost for the American economy. In fact, it does not seem coincidental that the Venezuelan crisis has been discussed in terms of its legitimacy ever since its beginning. This period indicates the legitimacy of all kinds of forces other than military force and hard power. The most common practice of Washington in this new political context is employing the tactic of imposing economic sanctions and interfering with the internal affairs of countries through these sanctions. Undoubtedly, this is not a new tactic as it was used in Africa before and is still being employed in countries like Iran, North Korea, and Russia. This also has a considerable effect on negotiations. In other words, the U.S. is able to strain countries that it targets without attempting large-scale military interventions unlike the past.

Rather than pursuing high-cost military interventions, the U.S. is now able to strain countries that it targets by imposing economic and political sanctions. 

Apparently, the issue of “being recognized as a president” that haunts elected leaders will be a more common phenomenon from now on. It would be useful to look at the Venezuelan crisis through this lens. Accordingly, while it is true that some issues have been experienced in democratic processes and some human rights violations have been observed in the country, although they do not reach a level to undermine the legitimacy of the administration, it is not an ethical policy to intervene in another country’s internal affairs – let it be the U.S. or another country. As much as the role of the ruling power in the persistence of the crisis, the opposition also has a role, since it always relies on foreign powers and therefore sets the ground for military intervention. Consequently, the latest U.S. intervention in Venezuela is overt support to a coup in a post-modern way.

The sole concern of the U.S. in this context is not Venezuela; the superpower rather seeks to send a message to the world. In my opinion, the process run against the Maduro administration is the product of an unsuccessful policy. Every step taken by the U.S. on the matter of Venezuela is actually sustaining the Maduro administration. Without the U.S. intervention, the Venezuelan administration would change with a radical move due to the low oil prices, hyperinflation and serious welfare loss. The Venezuelan people had already lost much of their strength to endure, so the Maduro administration would fall without any intervention.

The latest U.S. intervention in Venezuela is overt support for a coup in a post-modern way. 

Turkey’s stance and effect on the trajectory of the crisis  

Although relations between Turkey and Venezuela do not have a particularly long-standing history, the close relation and increased contact between the two countries leaders have improved economic and political ties in the recent period. Therefore, Turkey has clearly recognized Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela and supported him, which has been considered a proper action and a principled decision. This approach is also in line with international law.

Turkey’s approach to the Venezuelan crisis is not solely on the governmental level. The Turkish public have also shown close interest to the subject. The most important factor underlying this interest is the July 15 coup attempt and its aftermath in Turkey. Undoubtedly, the Turkish people have encountered difficult times during the past 3 years and this process has not completely ended yet. Although the level of this relation is in the right direction in terms of principles, it would be more appropriate for Turkey to behave more carefully in its support to Maduro. This is due to the fact that, while the chances are low, Turkey needs to consider a Venezuela without Maduro. It is inevitable for Turkish foreign policy makers to come up with alternative scenarios and draw a roadmap that pays attention to Turkey’s interests. Regardless of the premise of international law, the Trump administration has already started threatening countries and institutions that engage in trade activities with the Maduro administration. This is most likely to continue.

Turkey should act as a mediator

The relations established between Turkey and Venezuela in a short span of time should be predicated on equal terms that does not violate the sovereignty of any party. Consequently, Turkey has a serious potential of acting as a mediator in the solution of the issue, thus the country should take on a proactive role in consideration of the trust it enjoys and without needing to wait for the results of the developments. Turkey can contribute to the stability of Venezuela by abstaining from getting involved in the crisis and focusing on the solution.

Ankara can also advise the Maduro administration to act in a more moderate manner in the face of the incidents and foreign provocations, which will help the legitimate government act within the framework of international law.

Of course, these endeavors should not only be limited to the political sphere. As negotiations continue, the urgent needs of the Venezuelan people – such as food, healthcare, hygiene – should also be provided. As is known, the Maduro administration does not accept foreign aid coming from countries that stand against him, as these countries use aid for show casing. Thanks to the positive impression that Turkey has in Venezuela, it is able to deliver humanitarian aid through its various institutions such as the Turkish Red Crescent, Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD) and the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA) as well as a variety of Turkey-based non-governmental organizations. This may also positively affect the mediating talks and avert an illegitimate political or economic intervention on an international scale.

More, Ankara can also advise the Maduro administration to act in a more moderate manner in the face of the incidents and foreign provocations, which will help the legitimate government act within the framework of international law.

What next? Military intervention or civil war?

The first two questions that come to mind in the context of the Venezuelan crisis are whether a military intervention led by the U.S. is tabled, or whether the crisis will evolve into a civil war.

Although the Trump administration (especially Vice President Mike Pence and National Security Advisor John Bolton) insist that a military intervention is being tabled for Venezuela, this is a low possibility due the new global political strategy adopted by the U.S. On the other hand, it will be against the nature of politics to contend that a military intervention is definitely off the table. Supported by the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó, this discourse aims to intimidate the Maduro administration.

Aside from heavy costs and its contradiction with international law, the U.S. is avoiding military intervention for three other important reasons. First, is the problem of location. Although the U.S. can exercise military interventions in different corners of the world, it will not prefer to do so when its “backyard” is in question. The U.S. will not want to see the presence of an unstable region in its proximity and cannot afford a possible migration wave caused by it. So, unless the Maduro administration surrenders easily, the U.S. administration will be negatively affected.

Secondly, the U.S. has drawn the support of a substantial number of countries in the continent against the Maduro administration, although only on the political realm. However, as indicated by many analysts, a military intervention will not enjoy the same amount of support. Countries like Brazil and Argentina will probably give no support to such a move. Therefore, the U.S. will not attempt such an act without the approval of Latin American countries, but will increase economic and political oppression in the following period.

Last but not least, such an intervention is not favored by countries like Russia, China and Turkey. This is a significant aspect of the issue in terms of its conformity to international law, since Russia and China are members of the UN Security Council and stand against a possible intervention.

The second question is whether a civil war might break out in Venezuela. It must be noted that the possibility of a civil war is higher than that of a military intervention. If the process is not effectively managed and the external support to the opposition continue, which seems very likely, a civil war might break out. Also, if the options suggested by the U.S. fail, the country will not refrain from igniting a civil war since the situation has turned into a matter of prestige for the Trump administration. The statements issued by the U.S. authorities agree that there is no return. The Venezuelan opposition, which is completely dependent on foreign support, also seems determined in igniting a civil war.

Last week I tried to address the general perception of European states and in particular Germany’s stance with regards to the Venezuelan crisis. I concluded that it was an unfortunate step based on double standards by leading European countries to recognize the self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guaidó as the legitimate head of state. According to Germany and other European countries, Guaidó should allegedly lead the country until the next – this time, ‘democratic’ – presidential elections.

In a similar sense, the Bundestag’s, scientific service (Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages) recently published a 7 page-long report, which similarly stressed the problematic point of the German government’s “early” decision from a point of international law. The scientists of this specific institution do not represent positions of parliament or MPs, but generally support the MP’s works by providing explicit and factual information, which relate to current topics and issues of fundamental concern. By this, a recent report was published due to a recent request of a Left Party MP who opposed the federal government’s pro-Guaidó position.

The report stresses the fact that the German parliament’s decision to recognize Guaidó as the interim president could cause a situation that can be seen as an interference in Venezuela’s internal affairs. The report refers to international law and quotes that “real prerequisites” for an early recognition of a person such as Guaidó “could not be established with the available means.” Moreover, the report states that for the parliament’s decision to be in accordance with international law, the new president has to achieve entire power completely. However, regarding Guaidó, this has not been the case yet. The report ultimately concludes that just recognizing a person as the leader of a state does not provide legality.

A report published by Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages stresses the fact that the German parliament’s decision to recognize Guaidó as the interim president creates a situation in which Venezuela’s internal affairs are violated by Germany.

As one notices, the scientific report published by an institution affiliated to Germany’s main legislative body, the parliament, indirectly implies that the decision to recognize a self-proclaimed person as an interim president is based solely on “political reasons.” As a consequence, rational voices – in addition to left-wing circles that are ideologically positioned in favor of Maduro – recommend that Germany should act as a mediator instead of preferring sharp positions. Otherwise, the one-sided support and partisanship could end in intensifying an even problematic conflict.

As I addressed last week, Germany has aimed for a new orientation in is traditionally-followed foreign policy. By this of course, Germans do not dare to switch from one day to the other with a completely new perspective. However, with the election of Donald Trump as the U.S. President, German foreign policy has also began to challenge its traditional U.S.-leaning position, while elaborating a rather active orientation.

In this sense, the country’s current non-permanent membership in the UNSC for 2019-2020 might deliver a “chance” to show its “potential” in world politics. This is also one of the reasons why Germany is acting very actively, for instance, in the Venezuelan conflict. Germany disregards and miscalculates its actual position by comparing itself with other allied countries such as France, the U.K., or U.S., which still remain military giants in comparison to Germany.

Germany miscalculates its actual position by comparing herself with  France, the U.K., or U.S., which are still military giants in comparison to Germany.

By referring to its huge economic power, Germany does not rationally take into account that a government change in Venezuela – regardless of Germany’s and the EU decision’s legality or not – would be able by political means. The point that I want to stress here is that countries such as the U.S. even take, or might take, military intervention into account in order to overthrow an incumbent government. The German political tradition, on the other hand, though, does not have such an option – the political and societal costs of this rather unlikely ambition would be very high in the eyes of the German electorate.

Thus, the questions arises as to what Germany should and can do in such a situation. For this, one might, for instance, focus on Turkey’s diversified foreign policy ambitions and try to understand such a position. With this, the German government will be able to notice the following points: Turkey supports constitutional requirements in Venezuela while Germany and other Western countries are calling for a change in government, adopting obvious double standards and disregarding legal requirements – as the German parliament’s scientists have stressed. And due to Turkey’s correct position, it seems that even the opposition leader Guaidó, who is backed by nearly all leading Western countries, had to accept Turkey’s stance in prioritizing the will of all Venezuelan people.

The situation in Venezuela has become a global issue from its start. Germany, together with some other European states, had set Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro 8 days to call new elections or that the German government was ready to recognize the opposition’s leader, Juan Guaido, as the interim president. French President Macron, Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez, Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Block, and the UK’s Foreign Minister had made similar statements. Thus, on Thursday, the European Parliament recognized Venezuela’s self-declared interim president Juan Guaido as “the only legitimate interim president” until there were “new free, transparent, and credible presidential elections.”

Well, due to its non-binding character and non-effectiveness in international politics, it’s understandable that the European Parliament initially preferred such a decision, which is most likely based on so-called “moral” motives. This is also why most EU governments, or its foreign ministers, insist on a cautious language despite the decision made by the European Parliament as a collective body. In contrast to the U.S., which has quite other possibilities to military intervention in Venezuela, European states do not have any useful instruments in order to put “effective pressure” on the Maduro administration. Nevertheless, on Monday, subsequent to the end of the so-called 8-days ultimatum and as a reaction to Maduro’s rejection of renewing presidential elections, nearly all EU governments declared that Guaido is the legitimate interim president. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized the opposition leader too.

The federal government of Germany and German politicians previously addressed the Venezuelan crisis in Parliament while generally criticizing the Maduro administration. By this, the government openly backed the self-declared interim president Guaido. The social-democratic foreign minister of Germany positioned himself against President Maduro and took the exact same stance as the U.S. by demanding new presidential elections in Venezuela.

The European Parliament’s recognition of Juan Guaido as the interim president in Venezuela is neither binding nor effective in international politics. It’s understandable that such a decision was preferred on so-called “moral” motives. 

While keeping in mind that Germany has been the new non-permanent member of the UN Security Council since January, it is with no doubt an unfortunate period for the country to have to face such a crisis. This becomes obvious because the federal government behaves in a totally contrary way, disregarding its very much stressed Western values.

First, it’s not clear why a German government, and in particular its foreign minister, who is a member of a center-left/social-democratic party (SPD), robustly prefers and backs a very sharp position. The main and official arguments the German government provides are 1) “The presidential elections in May 2018 did not meet any democratic standards, they were neither free nor fair”; 2) “Juan Guaidó is the President of the National Assembly, the only democratically legitimate body that represents the Venezuelan people”; 3) “The police and militia are increasingly using repression and deadly force against civilians”; and 4) “More and more people are suffering from disease, malnutrition and poverty”.

The arguments surrounding the controversy of the recent presidential elections in Venezuela cannot be undermined. However, the problem here is the stance that Germany and other European countries have against other undemocratic regimes. It is no secret that Germany, and generally powerful European countries, have no problem with regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other similar autocracies. Yet they still demand new elections to take place in Venezuela just so their preferred candidate can get elected. Unfortunately, this is not a sincere position that neither theories of democracy nor any reasonable democrats would accept.

It’s no secret that Germany and other powerful European states have no problem with regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other similar autocracies. Yet they still demand new elections to take place in Venezuela just to see their preferred candidate get elected. 

Elaborating the crisis from a realpolitik perspective does perhaps fit the aggressive tradition of countries such as the U.S., France, or the U.K. However, it seems that Germany overrates its current position in the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the question Germany should focus on is a legal one. In this sense questions arise like, does democracy allow such an intervention in the form of demanding new presidential elections when the recent elections in Venezuela had just been held 6 months ago?

The second and related strangeness concerns the German government’s effort to put itself on the same level as the U.S. administration, which is actually being harshly criticized by the German public, due to Trump’s position on many issues. What changed in such little time for German foreign policy to transform itself into a strange and ambitious position, which favors hegemonic methods? What’s on stake and how do German democrats justify this policy? In the German parliament, only socialist Left Party members criticized Germany’s current stance in the Venezuelan case. By this, it is also not surprising that the left-biased “Green Party” also chose the U.S. side.

European countries need to ask themselves: Does democracy allow such an intervention in the form of demanding new presidential elections when the recent elections in Venezuela had just been held 6 months ago?

In the context of recent “ambitious” but rather aggressive foreign policy goals of in particular Germany, one might remember some similar biases in recent years, which ultimately resulted in failure. For instance, when Germany engaged itself in the Ukraine issue, neither had Germany any subsequent means to reinforce the country’s position, nor could it prevent the situation from getting worse. However, what happened when Russia militarily intervened in Ukraine and even annexed the Crimean Peninsula? Nothing. German policymakers were not able to do anything most likely due to the miscalculations of trusting the Obama administration and similar non-realistic options.

The crisis in Venezuela is not perceived as an issue that can be evaluated free from double standards. European countries, and in particular Germany, rightly criticize the Venezuelan socialist President. However, to announce him as illegitimate seems not to be based on a sincere stance. While Germany’s economy minister Altmaier visited Egypt this week and met with the putschist president Sisi without problematizing his illegitimate presidency, the German government insisted on new elections in Venezuela. Why don’t democrats doubt the sincerity of German foreign policy under these conditions? The same counts for other leading Western and European powers, which act contrary to “democratic values.” Nevertheless, at the end of the day, people will remember democratic stances and recently executed ambiguous efforts doomed to fail in the long-run.