It is very difficult to talk about views solely regarding Peruvian independence, since the entire Latin American continent was in a state of turmoil from Mexico to Chile, so for the international community the minutiae of each country was less relevant that the greater picture, which was geared towards a concern for the future of the colonies of the Spanish crown as a whole. Another problem with Perú in particular is that unlike other places like Venezuela, New Granada or Argentina they were not at the forefront of the independence movement, on the contrary they remained the staunchest bulwark of loyalist power in the continent, so while the former did seek out potential diplomatic, economic, political and military ties with powers like the US and the British, the former reaffirmed its status as a colony of Spain, and as such the struggle for independence was not brought from the inside but from the outside, first by the Argentinian expedition led by San Martín and later by Colombian forces under the command of Simón Bolívar; therefore whatever opinions the international community had it's hard to argue they were influenced by the Peruvian case in particular or in isolation of wider developments.

International opinion was in itself very complicated as well, as Europe was also engaged in its own terribly tumultuous and confusing conflict of the Napoleonic wars. In general there were many sympathizers in revolutionary France and elsewhere in enlightened circles with the plight for liberty in Spanish America, and the US was particularly flattered that the independence movements took great inspiration from their own struggle decades earlier and their republican system which was admired by many prominent revolutionary leaders, although much later they would be disillusioned that the southern nations had failed to establish working governments based on their model. But at the same time they had their own detractors, who upheld the legitimist principles of the ancien regime against the anarchy that was republicanism and had seen with great concern the bloody excesses of the reign of terror in France and the great slave revolt in Haiti. There was also some prejudice based on the perceived backwardness of the Spanish colonies, As John Adams once observed, the notion that free governments could take root among South Americans was as absurd as to try 'to establish democracies among the birds, beasts and fishes'.

State policy of international actors however followed its own logic depending on the ever changing diplomatic situation. The diplomatic repercussions of recognizing these revolts as legitimate were one of the main factors influencing foreign policy, as the British for instance were allied with the Spanish in the Peninsular war against France and as such could not come out in support of the colonies of their allies; the Americans as well had a complicated diplomatic relationship with Spain due to their interests in expanding their influence in the neighboring Spanish held territories, as they did for example with the purchase of Florida in 1819 after a lengthy period of negotiation, therefore they could not alienate Spanish colonial interests either, and were anyways distracted by other concerns like the war of 1812 against the British over neutral shipping rights among other things. The French initially had had aspirations of achieving the allegiance of the colonies after they overthrew the Catholic monarchy in 1808, but those hopes were quickly dashed away as the colonial authorities, much like the metropolitan Spanish, outright rejected the rule of the French which they perceived as illegitimate, either way the French couldn't do much since the British ruled the seas, so they switched to a policy of at least tacit encouragement of the Spanish American revolts. The end result was that South American was left mostly to its own devices as it was engulfed in conflict.

The British were however the ones that had the greater stakes in the developments of the colonies for they sought to increase their commercial influence over the incipient markets to procure greater trading privileges for their rapidly expanding textile industry. This was of course contrary to the structure of the Spanish colonial administration based on the monopoly of the Metropolis over the import and export of commodities with the colonies, so the British were treading a thin line between their commitment with their allies and the potential for expanding their trading activities with the new south American republics, which were grounded primarily on the interests of the wealthy Creole elites who were all for doing away with the heavy restrictions of the colonial establishment and embracing free trade. The colonies, recognizing the economic and military prowess of the British, were thus very much interested in gaining Great Britain over to their side. As such the British followed a policy of neutrality and tried to mediate between both parties to try to reach a consensus, but overall took as much advantage as it could to increase its commercial activities with the colonies, which had proven to be a vital market for British goods after the continental blockade enforced in Europe by Napoleon.

After absolutist order was restored in Europe in 1815 the climate changed, and Spain tried its best to secure help from European powers to maintain its crumbling empire. Although the European powers abhorred the republican movement that the revolutionaries espoused, they disavowed of the repressive measures of the Spanish and believed a conciliatory policy was the best course of action, not the least because the aspirations of the colonists favored European mercantile interests. Still they were mainly concerned with maintaining the balance of power, and respecting the legitimacy of the Spanish crown over its colonies was an important part of the equation, which is why France incurred the displeasure of both Britain and Spain when it came to light that she had been intriguing with the Buenos Aires patriots for the installation of a scion of the French royal house as monarch of Rio de la Plata. In the end Spain found no continental support for its hardline measures and thus prepared for a military expedition throughout 1819, which was never to see the light of day, for the soldiers revolted the next year and instead forced the king into accepting a constitutional monarchy under the 1812 constitution, thus smothering the last hopes of reconquering the lost colonies.

This was compounded by developments in Latin America, with the liberation of Venezuela in 1821 after the battle of Carabobo, the declaration of Independence in of Perú after Lima was liberated by San Martín's army, and a few months later that of México and Central America led by the ejército trigarante of Agustín Iturbide. The state of affairs was now one in which the independence of South America was a reality that the legitimist European states had to couple with. The North Americans, unburdened by such problems, did not have much qualms however in moving towards accepting the de facto independence of South America. France however further complicated the issue by invading Spain in 1823 in order to restore the absolutist monarchy, immediately raising the question as to whether they then pretended to organize an invasion against South America. In reality the French had no such designs, for reinstating the Spanish colonies in the name of absolutism would have been detrimental to their own mercantile interests in the region, but the fears of such a course of action greatly concerned the British, who swiftly forced the French to give up on any aspirations and moved towards recognition of the new states in order to secure their interests and gain favorable treaties, and influenced the Americans into the proclamation of the Monroe doctrine against European encroaching in the Americas. The stubbornness of king Ferdidnand VII would set back the recognition of the South American independence until his death in 1833, but with the recognition by part of the British other powers would follow suit in establishing semi formal relations despite their stated commitment to the legitimist cause of Spain. The French started establishing commercial agreements with the former colonies and would commit to recognition after the 1830 revolution, and the Prussians and minor German states, as well as the Dutch, would also start trading with the new nations. Other powers like Russia and Austria with little economic interests in the region could afford to codemn dealings with the illegitimate new states.

So in general terms the ideological considerations regarding democracy, independence and republicanism took a back seat to realpolitik concerns with regards to the independence of South America, namely upholding the balance of power in Europe as well as taking advantage of the breaking apart of the empire to further entrenched commercial interests, and if they were relevant then it was against these principles as much as it was in favor of them.