Confusion in the Peruvian government due to ambiguous stance on the crisis in Venezuela.

The recent statements by the Peruvian government regarding the situation in Venezuela have sparked a wave of criticism and confusion, revealing contradictions in the country's foreign policy. President Dina Boluarte, after a period of silence, has attempted to soften the controversy that arose following remarks made by the new chancellor, Elmer Schialer. However, her most recent intervention has made it clear that, despite claims of continuity in foreign policy, there is a notable shift in the recognition of Venezuelan authorities. Boluarte emphasized that she will not support an "electoral fraud" and reaffirmed the need for Venezuelan authorities to present the records certifying Nicolás Maduro's victory. Despite her firmness in addressing the issue, she avoided referring to Edmundo González Urrutia as the elected president, preferring to call him "the opposition candidate." This ambiguity has been seen as a nod towards a more cautious and less committed stance regarding the Venezuelan opposition. In his initial statements, the new chancellor established that "the problems of Venezuela must be resolved by Venezuelans," avoiding terms like "fraud" to describe the results of the July 28 elections. This sharply contrasted with the position of his predecessor, Javier González-Olaechea, who had recognized González Urrutia as the legitimate elected president of Venezuela, highlighting a dissonance in the government's approach. In questioning the lack of clear recognition of the opposition leader, Prime Minister Gustavo Adrianzén added to the general confusion. During an interview, Adrianzén refrained from labeling the election results as fraud and limited himself to requesting the presentation of the records, reaffirming that Peru's stance had not changed. However, his comments are perceived as a direct contradiction to the government's previous position. This lack of clarity has led members of Congress to demand explanations from the Foreign Relations Commission. Congressmen Alejandro Cavero and Alejandro Muñante have criticized the president and her cabinet for what they consider a timid response to what is perceived as a dictatorship in Venezuela. Cavero highlighted Boluarte's moral responsibility to recognize González as the elected president, suggesting that her inaction is a reprehensible act, especially given the context in which many supported her legitimacy as president in Peru. The dilemma intensifies when considering that, during González-Olaechea's term, the Peruvian government had issued statements openly condemning electoral fraud in Venezuela. However, the new approach seems to blur those lines, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty both in internal politics and in international relations. Schialer, defending his statements, insisted that his position was misinterpreted and that there had not been a shift in foreign policy. Nevertheless, the lack of a clear statement regarding the recognition of the elected authorities in Venezuela has left the door open to speculation and criticism. The situation becomes even more complicated considering that the international community is closely watching the movements of the Peruvian government. At a time when the Venezuelan crisis remains a hot topic, the lack of a clear stance could jeopardize Peru's image as a committed actor for democracy in the region. Pressure on the government to clarify its position is imminent, and Schialer's summons to Congress could be crucial for reestablishing a coherent stance. Meanwhile, the absence of a strong and unified response to the Venezuelan crisis continues to generate concern and frustration across various sectors of Peruvian society. Ultimately, the dilemma presented by the Venezuelan situation not only reflects a challenge in foreign policy but also highlights the internal tensions within the Peruvian government. With each contradictory statement, it becomes evident that a country's foreign policy cannot be treated with timidity, especially in an international context where democracy and human rights are constantly at stake.