Afrasianet - Rana Abi Jumaa - The symbolism of a country like Colombia is priceless: a country that participated in the Korean War alongside Washington, and traditionally voted with Israel, is now turning into a voice that strips away the mulberry leaf of double standards.
In the memory of the Blue Room of the United Nations, Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote down the phrase "the hour of life or death" mentioned in a speech that is akin to a call of necessity in this time: the liberation of Palestine as a moral standard for the world.
He explicitly called for the formation of an international army on a voluntary basis for the liberation of Palestine, thus breaking with the language of cold balances. From that moment on, Gustavo Petro was no longer just a leftist Colombian president; he became the title of a proposal that redefined the very meaning of peace.
The "intellectual fighter" who worked his way to become the first leftist president in Colombia's history, is not only moving on the fringes of the international chessboard, but is advancing to its position. From this position, he has worked to push for change, both in discourse and in practice, both internally and externally.
Domestic Priorities
At home, he has tried and is trying to turn the equation upside down, and Petro believes that the "war on drugs" is a failed bloodline. Therefore, the file has been moved from the military security approach to the public health and development approach by proposing economic alternatives for farmers and seeking negotiations to integrate the gangs within the vision of "comprehensive peace".
This approach did not satisfy the guardians of the old "right" approach, because it delegitimized the economy of violence. The government recorded record seizures of cocaine (601 tons of cocaine seized as of August) in parallel with social reforms that address cause rather than effect.
In the case of the fight against corruption, Colombian President Gustavo Petro is taking a direct and tough approach to the so-called Old Guard. The investigations and campaigns have included figures even close to his political circle, leading those affected by his policy to describe them as attempts at "soft political exclusion." As Petro put it, "No one is immune anymore." In doing so, he has put the battle in a broader context than just the circulation of names or websites, to be presented as a test of the ability of state institutions to break free from the influence of traditional networks.
Challenging U.S. Hegemony
Colombia has been for decades the closest ally of the United States. Petro has turned the picture and the equation upside down: He has publicly criticized the U.S. strategy in the fight against drugs, arguing that the problem is in the northern demand rather than the southern supply.
Washington responded by canceling the "certificate of cooperation", and responded by suspending the purchase of US weapons, stressing: "We will not blackmail". With the return of US President Donald Trump to the White House, the confrontation intensified more and more; just days ago, Petro participated in the protests in New York against the genocide in Gaza and called on American soldiers to obey their consciences and not stand in the face of humanity, so his visa was revoked.
He did not pay attention to this, because his allies who share his position are present, how could he not have reconnected what had been broken with Venezuela and pushed for an independent regional policy measured by the interests of the continent and not by the "Monroe Principle".
The position on Palestine
During Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, Petro deviated from the usual diplomatic language to the language of a non-negotiable position.
He called what is happening "genocide" without pun for the perpetrator and unequivocally described: expelling the Israeli ambassador, stopping military cooperation, raising Palestinian representation to the diplomatic mission, and supporting the judicial process to hold Israel accountable.
At the United Nations, he called for an international force to stop the carnage: diplomacy has failed and it is time for a responsible step. This is not a political move, but a translation of the idea that peace is not based on neutrality in the face of crime, but on its deterrence.
Colombia and the new pink tide
These steps have made Bogotá a surprising player in engineering a moral southern alliance: from boycotting Israeli weapons to mobilizing support for international accountability. With each step, Petro's credit rises among the oppressed in this world, as a president who transforms solidarity from a statement to a policy that not many dare to exercise so clearly.
The symbolism of a country like Colombia is priceless: a country that participated in the Korean War alongside Washington, and traditionally voted with Israel, is now turning into a voice that strips the mulberry leaf of double standards.
This transformation is not happening in a vacuum; it is part of a new pink tide as the left regains its splendor in the countries of the continent, but Petro goes further: he dares to overturn decades-old external "constants" and prove that Latin America is no one's backyard.
Petro Realism: Peace as a Criterion of Dignity
In Petro's dictionary, peace is a position of no truce, justice not compromise. Peace dares to name the killer, proposes tools to stop the killing, and replaces the "praise of realism" with a calculated moral act: legal accountability, economic pressure, political mobilization, and an international mobilization that transcends inherited alignments.
This is not a romance; it is a new reality in a changing world: if wars are born from the silence of the powerful, peace is born from the courage of the free.
Indicators say that this is not unlikely. The expansion of coordination circles within Latin America, the opening up to new frameworks such as the BRICS, and the launch of joint initiatives on climate justice issues and reform of the international economic system are all promising headlines. But the road is also bumpy: resistance to the major powers, divergent agendas of the countries of the South, and a potential cost to the economy of a country that needs investment and stability.
Most importantly, Gustavo Petro is not a sonic phenomenon like many presidents, but a strategy: to transform Colombia from a file in the hands of others to an actor that actually reweighs words, not transiently. At home, Petro is trying to undermine the economy of violence by changing its rules; on the outside, he is trying to disrupt the architecture of influence with a new definition of peace. He may pay a price, but he proves that a medium-power country can make a big impact when governed by moral clarity.
In this sense, peace is no longer a low-ceilinged settlement, but a measure of dignity measured by our ability to protect life when it is allowed. In short, Colombian President Gustavo Petro has drawn a road map in a clear Latin voice for a peace worthy of our peoples.