Political crisis in Venezuela: international division and lack of unified response.

The political situation in Venezuela continues to be a point of controversy in the international arena, especially following the recent elections that saw Nicolás Maduro reaffirm his position as president. However, a significant number of countries have chosen not to recognize this victory, further fueling the debate over the legitimacy of the regime in Caracas. So far, 12 nations have labeled Maduro's reelection as fraudulent, while another 36 have called for the publication of documented evidence of the electoral scrutiny. Among the nations that have openly expressed their opposition to Maduro's reelection is Peru, which has been one of the first to break diplomatic ties with Venezuela. The Peruvian government, following the expulsion of Venezuelan officials, has emphasized the importance of electoral transparency in a context where the results are questioned by a large part of the population and the Venezuelan opposition. The Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), led by María Corina Machado, claims that the official results from the National Electoral Council (CNE) do not reflect reality, suggesting that their candidate, Edmundo González, would have obtained 67% of the votes compared to the 44.2% reported by the CNE. Meanwhile, the Organization of American States (OAS) has shown a lack of unanimity in demanding transparency in the Venezuelan elections. Despite several countries, including the United States, Colombia, and Brazil, expressing their concerns, the OAS has failed to adopt a firm stance demanding the publication of all electoral records, reflecting the organization's weakness in the face of the Venezuelan crisis. Many analysts see this as a failure, emphasizing that the OAS could have played a more active role in defending democracy. Peruvian internationalist Farid Kahhat has expressed his disappointment with the OAS's lack of action, pointing out that while a more forceful stance is desirable, the limitations of the organization render any pronouncement ineffective. Individual sanctions from countries like the United States have been severe, but they have not succeeded in changing the behavior of Maduro's regime, raising serious doubts about the effectiveness of international pressure measures. Mexican internationalist Diana Luna has also addressed the issue, indicating that Latin America does not present a cohesive block in its response to the Venezuelan dictatorship. The stance of each country appears to largely depend on its diplomatic relations with Maduro's regime, leading to a lack of a unified voice in defense of electoral democracy. Peru's recent decision has been highlighted as a brave act in a context where other countries have opted for more lukewarm positions. The Lima Group, formed to condemn the autocracy in Venezuela, has seen its influence wane in recent years. Although it was created in response to the inability to achieve a majority in the OAS, the group has lost strength following changes in the administrations of key countries like Brazil and Mexico. This has led to fragmentation in the regional response to the Venezuelan crisis, leaving many in the international community concerned about the lack of concrete alternatives to confront Maduro's dictatorship. The current situation in Venezuela is marked by a climate of repression and discontent, where mobilizations against the regime have been met with a heavy-handed response. Human rights organizations have documented deaths and illegal detentions, which have triggered international condemnation. However, the reality is that sanctions and external pressures have had a limited impact on a regime that clings to power. Kahhat and Luna agree that it is essential to find ways for countries to coordinate in order to present a strong stance on the Venezuelan crisis. However, this is complicated by the diversity of interests and relationships that each nation maintains with the regime, resulting in paralysis in the regional response. The lack of a unified block to decisively address the problem could perpetuate the current situation. Moreover, nations that support Maduro, such as Russia and China, have their own interests at stake. These powers have shown unwavering support for the Venezuelan regime, largely as part of a broader strategy to counteract U.S. influence in the region. This raises the question of how democratic countries can respond effectively to a regime that relies on allies with dubious democratic credentials. In conclusion, the Venezuelan crisis is not just an internal issue but also has significant international ramifications. The lack of a clear consensus among nations on how to address the situation highlights the complexity of the matter and the urgent need for a coordinated and effective response. As political uncertainty continues in Venezuela, the debate over the legitimacy of Maduro's government and the international response will remain a hot topic on the global agenda.