��������

Colombian President Gustavo Petro arrived in Riyadh on Tuesday to take part in the annual Future Investment Initiative conference, starting a tour of the region. Colombia has recently sought to expand its presence in the region, establishing an embassy in the Saudi capital earlier this year and taking a more active role in shaping the international discussions on regional issues. In particular, it has reassessed its position from a steadfast supporter of Israel to an evenhanded approach to the conflict.

Petro caught the attention of many at the UN last month by strongly advocating for ending the Gaza conflict, and for the universal recognition of Palestine as a state and a full UN member. He also called on the UN to “liberate” Palestine, by force if necessary, which led to the US announcement that it revoked his visa, although Petro did not need a visa to come to the US.

In July, Bogota hosted a 30-nation conference that denounced Israel’s war against Gaza and called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Colombia, together with South Africa and other countries established the Hague Group, which seeks to gather support for the enforcement of UN resolutions on the conflict. Petro said at the time: “We can either stand firm in defense of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.”

Earlier this month, Colombia expelled Israel’s delegation to the country and severed trade ties after two Colombian citizens traveling on the Gaza flotilla were detained by Israel.

Colombia’s policy reversals may be seen in Washington as a challenge to its own policies, which have opposed international action against Israel at the UN and before international courts. Notwithstanding US objections, Petro’s call on the UN to send an army to Palestine is consistent with the spirit of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which has in the past authorized military action, such as in Kuwait, Libya, the Balkans, and elsewhere.

Recent actions and statements by the Trump administration on Latin America have rekindled Latin Americans’ fears of the implications of the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked in the past to justify US interventions.

The Monroe Doctrine, as articulated by President James Monroe in 1823 and by his Secretary of State John Adams, was initially meant to oppose European colonialism in the western hemisphere. It holds that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the US. At the time, Spanish colonies in the Americas had become largely independent, but the US feared that European powers may try to control or influence the direction of these now sovereign states.

Latin American revolutionaries, including Simon Bolivar, Francisco de Paula Santander in Colombia, and Bernardino Rivadavia in Argentina, largely welcomed the declaration, but it was disregarded and derided by European colonial powers because the US lacked the means to enforce it at the time. However, by the end of the century it had acquired enough power to do that.

Later, Latin Americans grew suspicious, because the US invoked the doctrine, starting in the McKinley’s presidency, to justify aggressive actions of its own. Other presidents also took similar invasive actions that were considered inconsistent with international law. American historian Jay Sexton likened US tactics to those previously employed by European colonial imperial powers, while fellow historian William Appleman Williams described the doctrine as “imperial anti-colonialism,” and Noam Chomsky said that in practice it became a declaration of hegemony and unilateral intervention.

There were attempts to moderate the impact of the doctrine on US-Latin American relations. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 sought to reinterpret it with emphasis on partnership and multilateralism, as embodied in the Washington-based Organization of American States. In 2013, the Obama administration declared that “era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.”

But criticisms of the doctrine have persisted until today, especially after it was invoked recently by the Trump administration in its strong-arm dealings with Latin America.

Experts trace the current standoff between Colombia and the US to an incident in January, when Bogota refused to allow US military aircraft carrying deported Colombian nationals to land in Colombia. In response, the US imposed emergency 25 percent tariffs, to be doubled to 50 percent if Colombia did not reverse its decision within a week, plus travel bans and visa revocations for Colombian government officials. Colombia retaliated in kind to the tariffs. That dispute was later sorted out amicably.

In July 2025, following allegations of US support for an alleged coup, the two countries recalled their ambassadors, but a week later both diplomats returned. Then came the UN dispute.

Earlier this month, Colombia said that a boat recently attacked by the US was “Colombian with Colombian citizens” on board. The US has disputed that, saying that it only targeted drug traffickers. Trump later escalated the conflict by calling Petro an “illegal drug leader,” and announced that he would cut funding and impose tariffs on Colombia again. Colombia recalled its ambassador in Washington.

Later in the month, the US announced sanctions against Petro and Interior Minister Armando Benedetti, citing their alleged involvement in illicit drug trafficking activities. These measures marked a significant deterioration in bilateral relations, with the Colombian government condemning the decision as politically motivated and labeling it “an act of aggression.”

Petro’s call on the UN to send an army to Palestine is consistent with the spirit of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg

Although these individual acts may have played a role in the current dispute between the two countries, there is a more serious underlying issue. The Monroe Doctrine was designed 200 years ago to deny Europe’s colonial powers a foothold in Latin America. Invoking it now is likely an attempt to counter China’s growing presence in the western hemisphere. In 2024, China-Latin America trade reached a record of $519 billion.

Similarly, China’s investment in Latin America is also growing. Over the past two decades, China’s state-owned banks have lent more to Latin America than the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank combined. Investment is shifting from large infrastructure projects to focused investments in sectors such as critical minerals, electric vehicles, renewable energy, lithium projects in Argentina and Chile, and EV manufacturing in Mexico and Brazil.

The US looks at China as a challenge everywhere in the world, but sees China’s growing ties to Latin America as a political as well as economic threat. The Colombia dispute is just one manifestation of that anxiety.

Washington has the means to settle its dispute with Colombia amicably instead of trade war, sanctions, and military action. It could resort to negotiations or the good offices of the Organization of American States, where both countries are members.

• Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC assistant secretary-general for political affairs and negotiation. The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the GCC. X: @abuhamad1