Petro’s Remarks at the UNGA and What They Mean for Colombian Domestic Policy

Colombian President Petro speaks at his inauguration. Source: Prensa Latina 

On September 20, 2022, Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to explain policy goals surrounding climate change and the global war on drugs. Petro’s comments demonstrated a considerable shift in Colombian policy because they denounced long-standing foreign involvement in the nation’s past attempts to regulate the drug trade. However, his remarks did not indicate a complete departure from previous Colombian presidential policy since they also focused heavily on the need for solutions to climate change — a concern that was present in past administrations. 

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, entered Colombian politics as a member of M-19, a guerrilla group that was institutionalized as a political party in 1989. Though Petro was imprisoned in the 1980s for his role in M-19, the Colombian government’s peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016 brought an end to major guerrilla conflicts, though some dissidents still hold out. Consequently, “voters have become more willing to support leftist politicians” such as Petro. As Colombian historical memory has grown less hostile toward guerrilla figures, the population has become more accepting of left-wing politicians’ involvement in government. Other examples of such acceptance include the political career of ex-guerrilla politician Timochenko, who enjoyed marginally less success than Petro but ran a legitimate, recognized campaign nonetheless. This shift in popular opinion likely contributed to Petro’s electoral success and the public’s support for his leftist agenda, especially given the FARC’s poor 20 percent approval rating when it first transitioned into a political party.

True to his political platform, Petro’s speech at the USGA demonstrated a clear desire to disentangle the Colombian drug trade from foreign influence, especially that of the US. Petro claimed that “if we do not correct our course and [the war on drugs] goes on for another 40 years, the United States will see… another million Latin Americans [killed]… We will see the death of democracy.” Extensive American investment in combating the Colombian drug trade likely served to motivate such stark statements. The US has been extraditing Colombian drug traffickers since 1985 and invested $1.3 billion to Plan Colombia in 2000. Petro’s reference to Latin American deaths also alludes to findings by a recent truth commission that an estimated 450,000 people died during US intervention.  

In addition to extradition and financial investment, the US has a long history of promoting glyphosate fumigation, or the use of a harmful aerial pesticide to kill coca plants. Petro described glyphosate as a poison that was harming more than its intended targets. Indeed, many ongoing concerns about aerial fumigation revolve around its harmful impact on subsistence crops and glyphosate’s possible carcinogenic effects on rural communities targeted by aerial fumigation. In his address to the UNGA, Petro demonstrated a desire to break from previous anti-drug tactics because of their perceived harm to coca-growing communities and Latin Americans in general. 

President Petro’s staunch opposition to further US involvement in the war on drugs represents a significant departure from past executives’ policies. Petro’s predecessor, Iván Duque, considered Colombia to be the US’s “best ally in the war on drugs.” In contrast, Petro aims to disentangle Colombian policy from US influence—a significant shift away from the two countries’ historically close relationship. 

Additionally, Petro’s speech placed great emphasis on issues of climate change and fossil fuel consumption. These issues were discussed largely in conjunction with capitalism, and Petro stressed the need for governments to listen to climate scientists rather than pursue financial gain at the expense of the environment. Petro spoke of an “addiction” to money and carbon that would ultimately destroy the Amazon Rainforest, the “climatic pillar of the world.” He invoked images of great spans of forests reduced to ashes while wars were fought over oil. Petro’s speech clearly condemned reliance on fossil fuels and left no doubt regarding his commitment to combating climate change.

Despite the dramatic introduction of Petro’s left-wing agenda into a traditionally right-wing system, some aspects of Petro’s policy goals, especially regarding environmentalism, are not new ideas in Colombian politics. Given Colombia’s vulnerability to climate change, past executives have pursued numerous programs in attempts to reduce emissions. These policies include membership in various environmental treaty organizations and plans to reduce emissions by 20% by 2030. Petro’s staunch anti-fossil fuel rhetoric is perhaps an indicator that he will pursue more aggressive climate policy than past executives; however, this is not unexpected considering Colombia’s willingness to pursue environmental legislation in the past. 

Since Petro’s inauguration, there has been growing concern among policy experts over US-Colombia relations and how Petro’s policy goals may impact the countries’ extensive ties with one another. Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli of the Washington Office on Latin America, a non-governmental organization seeking to promote human rights and democracy in Latin America, says that Colombian economic policy may generate tension with the US as Petro attempts to move away from oil dependence. However, “Petro’s planned anti-narcotics policy is not very different from Biden’s recent holistic approach to drugs.” President Biden was also quick to congratulate Petro on his electoral victory, perhaps an indication that the US plans on maintaining friendly ties with the Andean state. While Petro’s leftist agenda is not fully aligned with US policy goals, there is little evidence that US-Colombia relations will completely deteriorate under his administration. 

Petro’s remarks at the UNGA signal the imminent arrival of new, left-wing legislation revolving around changes in drug policy and more aggressive climate legislation. These progressive goals are certainly distinct from those of previous presidents; economic plans to move away from oil exports are likely to cause controversy, while goals for emissions reduction are relatively in-line with the direction many major countries are headed.