Tensions in the Peruvian Cabinet over foreign policy towards Venezuela.

The recent reconfiguration of the Cabinet in Peru has revealed a series of tensions and questions regarding the country's foreign policy towards Venezuela, especially in the context of the electoral fraud perpetrated by Nicolás Maduro's regime. The surprising departure of Javier González-Olaechea from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who had become a staunch advocate for a clear stance against the Chavista dictatorship, has raised concerns about the future of Peruvian policy in this area. González-Olaechea had gained notoriety for his intervention at an extraordinary meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), where he emphasized the importance of regional countries not becoming complicit by abstaining from demanding transparency in the Venezuelan electoral process. His defense of the right to information and democracy contrasted with the timidity that has characterized some governments in the region, and his sudden exit has triggered alarms about a possible shift in the direction of Peruvian foreign policy. The new chancellor, Elmer Schialer, has begun his tenure with statements that suggest a troubling ambiguity. In his initial remarks, Schialer emphasized that the problems in Venezuela must be resolved by the Venezuelans themselves, a position that, while seemingly diplomatic, fundamentally appears to dilute the international responsibility to condemn a regime that has violated human rights and led its people into an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Even more concerning has been Schialer's evasion when responding to direct questions about the nature of Maduro's regime. By refusing to label Maduro as a dictator and to officially recognize Edmundo González Urrutia as the elected president, the chancellor not only shirks his responsibility but also opens the door to interpretations that could be seen as a weakening of Peru's stance before the international community. The possibility of Peru aligning itself with those governments that prefer to maintain a neutral stance towards Chavismo is alarming. Such positioning not only delegitimizes the struggle of Venezuelans to regain democracy but could also turn Peru into a "useful idiot" for Maduro's regime, as various critical voices in the country have expressed. Recent history shows us how a lack of clarity and firmness can be interpreted as a sign of weakness. It is important to remember that foreign policy is not just a set of statements. It is, above all, a reflection of the values and principles that a country chooses to defend on the international stage. The Peruvian community, which has closely followed the crisis in Venezuela, expects its government to maintain an ethical and supportive position towards those suffering under Chavismo's yoke. In this context, President Dina Boluarte has the responsibility to clarify the direction that her government's foreign policy will take. She cannot allow confusion and ambiguity to settle on such a crucial issue as the situation in Venezuela. A clear and firm stance in support of democracy and human rights must be the guiding principle of Peruvian foreign policy. The arrival of a new chancellor should be an opportunity to reaffirm those commitments. However, the initial signals are concerning, and it is vital that Boluarte and her team take the implications of their decisions seriously. The international community is watching closely and hopes that Peru does not sink into the timidity that has characterized other governments that have chosen to look the other way. The voice of the Venezuelan people, who cry out for freedom and justice, cannot be ignored. Peru has a duty to align itself with those who fight for their rights, not with those who oppress them. History will remember whether this government chooses to be part of the solution or, conversely, becomes complicit in tyranny.