Colombia is experiencing unprecedented tension in its relations with the United States because its government has decided, for the first time in decades, to upset its long-standing ally. Prioritizing sovereignty and international law comes at a price, and today that price is manifested in threats, pressure, and a political conflict that transcends the immediate circumstances.
Gustavo Petro's political thought has "red lines." One of these lines is sovereignty. For him, threats, tutelage, and foreign interference are unacceptable.
He was once a nationalist fighter, and today he has not betrayed the principles he championed. Therefore, his rejection of the American aggression against Venezuela was to be expected, and similarly, his stance against President Donald Trump's threats that Colombia would be the next country attacked was also to be anticipated. He stood firm against the diplomatic pressure, the political narratives, and the restrictive conditions imposed by the United States
cal-align: inherit;">
One of the serious problems is that those traditional political parties, now in the opposition, have formed a lobby in the United States seeking to portray Petro as a drug kingpin who must be punished by Washington.
Colombia shares a 2,200-kilometer border with Venezuela, is the gateway to South America, and is the fifth most biodiverse country in the world. Not to be overlooked, it has been considered for decades to be the “Israel of Latin America” due to the significant influence of the Israeli government in the country.
The United States has had a long-standing presence here; for many, we were a "banana republic." Trade with American companies is essential, and our armed forces have trained in their schools. The "American Dream" lives on here.
This institutional, economic, and military relationship remained constant and unbroken throughout previous administrations. In fact, Colombian foreign policy followed Washington's dictates until Gustavo Petro's election victory in 2022.
"Obstacle" of the law
Since 2022, Gustavo Petro has insisted on two key elements of foreign policy, among other things: respect for international law and multilateralism.
advertisement
But the problem is that this approach "betrays" the long-standing relationship between Colombia and the United States. At the UN General Assembly in 2022, Petro proposed holding international conferences to resolve the conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine through dialogue, but the international community did not heed him.
In several public statements, this new Colombian government has rejected unilateral sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, in many cases such as the Israeli attack on Iran, Qatar, the genocide in Palestine, and the sanctions imposed on Venezuela and Cuba.
The Petro government has drawn a red line: the implementation of human rights as a non-selective foreign policy. This has led it to adopt positions that do not please everyone; while it condemns Maduro's illegal arrest, it also questions the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government.
That vision of multilateralism based on principles has even led him to criticize the BRICS group, because most of these countries rely on extractive activities in their economies, which contribute to the climate crisis.
Petro's compass points southward, toward reducing dependency, national sovereignty, self-determination, and cooperation among developing nations. It is a risky but courageous political proposal, in which "the people" are considered the political actor, more so than the state itself.
Another war, and we pay the price.
بعد الحرب الباردة (التي لم تمت تماما)، ظهرت "حربان" حاولت الولايات المتحدة من خلالهما معالجة افتقارها لعدو خارجي: الحرب على المخدرات، والحرب على الإرهاب. لقد فشلت الأولى لكونها قمعية ومدمرة اجتماعيا (وكذلك كان مصير الثانية).
إن النموذج الأميركي لا ينظر إلى الأسباب، بل إلى العواقب. وهذا التجنب لأسباب الإرهاب يلاحظ كذلك في التعامل مع أسباب المخدرات وديناميكياتها؛ حيث ينقل ترامب النقاش من كونه قضية صحة عامة وتنمية إلى نقاش شرطي وعسكري.
وتعد إحدى الميزات الكبرى لغوستافو بيترو هي قدرته على إثبات أنه واجه، على مدار عقود، تجارة المخدرات واثنين من أكبر حلفائها في كولومبيا: القوات شبه العسكرية، والقادة السياسيين في الأحزاب التقليدية الكولومبية المتحالفة معها.
تكمن إحدى المشكلات الخطيرة في أن تلك الأحزاب السياسية التقليدية، التي تقف اليوم في صفوف المعارضة، قد شكلت "لوبي" في الولايات المتحدة تسعى من خلاله لتصوير بيترو كزعيم لتجارة المخدرات يجب على واشنطن "عقابه."
لكن هذه الإستراتيجية التي انتهجها اليمين المعارض قد باءت بالفشل؛ إذ فضل ترامب الاستماع إلى الأرقام والبيانات التي قدمها بيترو خلال مكالمة هاتفية: ضبط أكثر من 2800 طن من المخدرات، واعتقال وتسليم أكثر من 500 من كبار زعماء العصابات. إنه حصادٌ استثنائي.
في تلك المكالمة، حافظ بيترو على خطاب رجل يساري ومدافع عن السيادة، وفي الوقت ذاته، أقر بأن التعاون في مكافحة المخدرات بين البلدين لا يزال مستمرا رغم التوترات السياسية.
لذلك، كان من المفاجئ أن تختار الولايات المتحدة "إلغاء اعتماد" كولومبيا عند تقييم دورها في مكافحة المخدرات؛ فقد أوفت كولومبيا بالتزاماتها، إذ استمر تدمير المختبرات البدائية وعمليات الضبط بشكل دائم. وهذا يعني أن الجدل القائم ليس جدلا حول الأرقام والبيانات، بل هو محض افتراءات ضد بيترو.
إعلان
لا تزال قيادة مكافحة التمرد في كولومبيا بيد وزارة الدفاع، التي تحافظ على علاقات ممتازة مع الولايات المتحدة ومصداقية عالية فيها. وهذا يجعل الأمر أكثر تعقيدا في حالة الرئيس بيترو، الذي طرح مبادرة "السلام الشامل"، وهي إستراتيجية تهدف للتفاوض مع جميع الأطراف المسلحة.
في ظل هذه الأجواء، وقع الهجوم على فنزويلا والتهديدات ضد كولومبيا. وقد أكد ترامب في مكالمته مع بيترو أن تلك المخاوف لم تكن مجرد أوهام، بل كانت تستند إلى أساس واقعي.
إنه الاقتصاد، brother!
لا تزال الولايات المتحدة الشريك الاقتصادي الرئيس لكولومبيا؛ فثقافة المجتمع الكولومبي تتوجه نحو ميامي وواشنطن، رغم وجود تقدم ملحوظ في رفض سياسات ترامب. لهذا السبب، فإن أي تصعيد في التوترات بين البلدين سيكون له أثر اقتصادي ملموس.
ويتمثل جزء من النقاش حول الاقتصاد العالمي الذي يصر عليه بيترو، في انتقاد النموذج القديم القائم على اعتبار الجنوب مورِدا للمواد الخام، بينما يمثل الشمال المشتري هذه الموارد بأسعار منخفضة، وفي الوقت ذاته، المنتج للسلع باهظة الثمن.
وفقا لهذه النظرة، تنظر الولايات المتحدة إلى فنزويلا بوصفها بحيرة من النفط، كما كانت تنظر إلى العراق في عام 2003. ولكي تهاجمها، فهي بحاجة إلى منصة للعمليات، كما كانت باكستان بالنسبة للهجوم على أفغانستان في عام 2001.
Petro's proposal is different; Colombia has benefited from Venezuelan support in the peace process with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Furthermore, the Venezuelan opposition itself approached Petro to have Colombia act as a mediator between the United States and Venezuela, a role Petro emphasized during his conversation with Trump.
Petro said that "the peace of Colombia is the peace of Venezuela" and vice versa; the situation in Venezuela has a direct impact on Colombian security, immigration, and the economy.
How does the world see them?
Petro has established himself as a global authority on the Palestinian cause, an activist against the climate crisis, and a defender of international law. For this reason, he has openly condemned Israel, provoking outrage from Zionists worldwide, including Colombian Zionists. Today, Colombia stands as a dissenting voice in the Western Hemisphere.
The narratives that attempted to portray Petro as a drug trafficker or an ally of Colombian armed groups failed. On the contrary, Trump's attacks led to a surge of support from the center and even the right wing for the presidency, rather than for Petro himself. This brought us to the January 7th march, and, an hour earlier, to the phone call between Trump and Petro.
In the preceding days, there had been an escalation of tensions on social media between the two presidents. President Petro had already prepared his speech when a delegation from the US government arrived at the palace to make the call. The call lasted approximately an hour and was cordial.
The direct channel, now more clearly established through formal diplomatic channels, allows for an effective exchange of information. Until now, the Trump administration had been feeding off what the Colombian opposition was saying; Trump deserves to know the truth.
From there, we went out into the field. The president remarked that now, after that call, he had to reconsider the content of his speech. We knew of the United States' intention to attack Colombia in the following days.
The United States will need to avoid opening a new front at a time when tensions are rising in Taiwan and the Middle East. Furthermore, Venezuela's immediate future is uncertain; no pro-US rallies have taken place there.
The invitation to visit Washington does not signal an end to tensions; rather, it almost confirms their existence. In an era where wars are waged in the name of peace, and sanctions are disguised under the guise of morality, Colombia faces a difficult crossroads: either it becomes a platform for others' conflicts again, or it insists—even at a price—that sovereignty and international law are not mere slogans, but rather borders. And borders, for great powers, always remain points of contention.