Galarreta urges the Andean Parliament to take a stance on the crisis in Venezuela.

The political situation in Venezuela continues to generate broad debate in the Andean region, and former congressman Luis Galarreta has taken the lead in demanding a clear statement from the Andean Parliament regarding Nicolás Maduro's government. In a striking statement, Galarreta emphasizes that the lack of a strong stance from this organization is concerning, especially in a context where 91% of Peruvians believe there was fraud in the Venezuelan elections. The former parliamentarian, who represents the Fuerza Popular party, has not held back his criticisms of Maduro's regime, referring to the evident violation of human rights and the systematic repression faced by the opposition in the neighboring country. His emphatic declaration resonates at a time when the international community is closely watching the political crisis that has plunged Venezuela into chaos for years. Galarreta highlights that the Venezuelan government's response to the opposition has been the radicalization of persecution, placing the population in a position of vulnerability. This poses a serious dilemma for the Andean community, which has been called to take a clear stance on how to address the situation in Venezuela, a country that shares significant historical and cultural ties with its neighbors. In his statement, Galarreta also criticizes the recent declaration issued by the Board of the Andean Parliament, noting that the document has not been widely disseminated and lacks a position that reflects the harsh reality faced by Venezuelan citizens. His call resonates not only on a political level but also in terms of moral responsibility towards the Venezuelan people suffering under an authoritarian regime. The former congressman questions the lack of clarity in the stance of the Andean Parliament members regarding support for Maduro's government, urging that it be clarified whether there is a majority that supports the regime or if, on the contrary, there are significant discrepancies among the representatives. In a moment when democracy and human rights are at stake, this lack of clarity could be interpreted as a failure of responsibility towards the citizens of the region. Galarreta's concern is exacerbated by the approaching plenary session scheduled for August 28, a date he considers too far away to address such a critical issue as the political situation in Venezuela. The urgency for a clear and decisive response could be crucial in setting a precedent for the defense of democratic rights in the Andean region. On the other hand, the president of the Board, Eduardo Salhuana, has recently stated that a statement has been signed requesting Maduro to publish the electoral minutes and for the verification of results by impartial international observers. However, this declaration has generated controversy and contradictions within the Parliament itself, calling into question the cohesion of the body and its capacity to address sensitive issues. The vice president of Congress, Waldemar Cerrón, has contradicted Salhuana by asserting that, according to some congressmen who were present at the elections, the voting process was conducted transparently. Such divergent statements within the Andean Parliament reflect the polarization that exists not only in Venezuelan politics but also in how the region perceives the situation. The formation of the Andean Parliament, which includes Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru, was created with the intention of promoting integration and economic and social cooperation among its members. However, this political crisis in Venezuela highlights the difficulty of reaching consensus amid such disparate positions. The lack of a unified stance could weaken the effectiveness of the body in defending the democratic values it is theoretically meant to promote. At a time when human rights and democracy face global challenges, the Andean Parliament's attitude towards Maduro's regime will be observed closely. Galarreta has initiated a necessary debate on the responsibility of regional organizations in defending citizens' rights. The lingering question is whether the Parliament will be able to overcome internal differences and adopt a clear stance that reflects the will of its peoples.