After the refusal of the plenary session of Congress to allow President Pedro Castillo to travel to Colombia to attend the inauguration of Gustavo Petrovarious actors in national politics, including the Foreign Minister Cesar Landa, have spoken out against this parliamentary stance. For the head of the Foreign Relations portfolio, the attitude of the Legislature calls into question our international image, since it represents another snub against the president.
The decision to deny the permit came with the support of 67 parliamentarians from the opposition benches: Fuerza Popular, Acción Popular, Alianza para el Progreso, Avanza País, Popular Renewal and Somos Perú. Only 42 legislators were in favor and 5 abstained.
YOU CAN SEE: Congress denied permission to President Pedro Castillo to travel to Colombia
for the political scientist Arthur Maldonadoit would be an excess on the part of the members of Congress, since they considered that there are not enough elements to not allow Castillo Terrones to leave.
“I think it is excessive. The president looks bad and, above all, the Foreign Ministry, Foreign Relations, by not being able to send a president to the assumption of command of a neighboring country, of the region. In addition, the reasons for the refusal in many cases are guided by a presupposition that seems to me to be still empty. That idea that what President Castillo really wanted was to escape from the country. There are not many elements to be able to say that and make a decision and deny him leave the country based on that presumption. The congressmen have acted motivated by false news, by transcendence, by gossip and not by more objective elements that could have led to vote in favor of going and complying with a protocol act that makes the country look good compared to another in the region ” said in conversation with The Republic.
Along the same lines, the political scientist anthony medina indicated to The Republic that this is an ill-advised measure, since it is the president who directs the national foreign policy.
“It is definitely an excess, a totally unwise measure, because the President of the Republic is the head of state and constitutionally he is the one who directs Peruvian foreign policy.; that is to say, Congress is taking an attribution that puts our bilateral relations with a brother country at risk. I can’t imagine the president of Brazil or Colombia or any other country that due to internal politics is prevented from carrying out diplomatic tasks. It seems to me a highly ill-advised measure, ”he said.
Both specialists agreed that it is a confrontational attitude on the part of the Legislature, a situation that would increase the crisis between both powers of the State.
“Without a doubt it is a ´pechada´ on the part of the Congress. I think they’ve used this vote to gauge the strength of how many votes they have right now, if they wanted to advance a vacancy. They have obtained 67 votes. They are still far away. But the opposition has wanted to measure the thermometer a little. The majority of Popular Action, for example, voted against denying the permit and I think that is significant, because the opposition has advanced a few more steps in that direction. It has been a vacancy thermometer,” he asserted. Maldonado.
“Preventing a president from carrying out his diplomatic duties on behalf of the Peruvian State is very serious. The president is going on behalf of all Peruvians. I understand that there may be many points of discrepancy between the president and Congress, but there are national interests that encompass all Peruvians. I believe that the national interest is being neglected in the face of particularist criteria of certain groups in Congress,” he specified. medina.
YOU CAN SEE: Pedro Castillo: for the first time, Congress denies authorization to a president to leave the country
Popular Force vote is contradictory due to the escape of Alberto Fujimori in 2000
Arthur Maldonado argued that the majority vote of Fuerza Popular to deny President Castillo a trip to Colombia could be contradictory, due to the escape of former dictator Alberto Fujimori in 2000.
“In the case of Alberto Fujimori, there was more objective evidence that if the man left, he might not come back. In this case, Fuerza Popular, voting against and with less evidence, is left in a contradictory situation.. But that’s not exactly new on his part either. They have not yet settled with the father’s authoritarian past, at least the daughter, “he said.
For its part, anthony medina He emphasized that both cases are different, since the head of state is going to testify before the Prosecutor’s Office and there is no danger of escape.
“This is a different case from that of Fujimori because President Castillo has gone to testify at the Prosecutor’s Office and for the moment there is no danger or interest in him escaping.. In any case, he is going to a takeover of a president who is taking office and, naturally, he is not going to generate a diplomatic crisis for the new president trying to seek asylum in that country, ”he concluded.
Updated by Luis Pequeno
