Ortega criticizes Petro and Lula at the ALBA summit for their role in the region.

At a recent virtual summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, launched a harsh critique of his Latin American colleagues, focusing on the figures of Gustavo Petro, president of Colombia, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, president of Brazil. Ortega expressed his opinion that Petro is competing for the representation of the United States in the region, unfavorably comparing him to Lula, whom he considers stronger in terms of political power and leadership. "Petro, what can I say about Petro? Poor Petro, poor Petro. I see Petro as competing with Lula to see who will be the leader to represent the Yankees in Latin America," Ortega asserted. This statement resonates in a context where relations between Latin America and the United States have been the subject of intense discussion, especially given the growing influence of leftist governments in the region. Ortega's criticism comes at a time when Lula and Petro have emphasized the importance of transparency in Venezuela's electoral process, following the recent reelection of Nicolás Maduro. During the summit, both leaders stressed the need for the National Electoral Council (CNE) of Venezuela to publish the results broken down by polling station, something they consider crucial for restoring the credibility of the electoral process and promoting political normalization in the country. Maduro's recent reelection has been controversial and questioned by many in the international community, generating a deep division in the region. While Ortega criticizes Petro and Lula, the latter have chosen a more conciliatory stance, seeking to establish a dialogue that could lead to democratic coexistence in Venezuela. Both leaders have agreed that the solution to the Venezuelan crisis will not be found through violence or repression, but rather through peaceful dialogue and recognition of political diversity. This perspective contrasts with that of other Latin American countries, which have expressed their disagreement with the legitimacy of Maduro's government following the elections in July. The Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice has upheld Maduro's victory, a fact that has raised concerns in the international community. Despite the controversy, Lula and Petro have decided not to openly criticize the court's ruling, opting to maintain open lines of communication to facilitate understanding between the conflicting parties. The joint statement by Lula and Petro is an attempt to position Brazil and Colombia as mediators in the Venezuelan situation, thereby seeking an active role in regional politics. This approach can be interpreted as an effort to counter the influence of the United States and reaffirm the sovereignty of Latin American countries in decision-making. However, the fact that Lula and Petro have not publicly questioned the court's ruling shows a calculated strategy, perhaps motivated by the need to maintain diplomatic and commercial relationships with Venezuela. This dynamic highlights the complexities of Latin American politics, where alliances and rivalries often intertwine in unexpected ways. Ortega's reaction to the situation reflects his own concerns about his position in the region and the influence of more prominent leaders. By labeling Petro as "poor," Ortega seems to indicate not only a lack of political power but also Petro's inability to consolidate effective leadership in a context that is often perceived as adverse to the interests of Latin America. Ultimately, the competition between Petro and Lula to be the leaders representing the United States in Latin America underscores the existing tension between the pursuit of an independent path for the region and the persistent influence of external powers. How these leaders address the situation in Venezuela and their ability to unify efforts towards a coherent regional policy will be crucial in determining the future of collaboration among Latin American countries.