In a pointed statement on Friday, October 3, 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro called on the United States to refrain from meddling in Colombia’s internal affairs. This came in response to remarks by U.S. envoy Mike Waltz, who, during a United Nations Security Council meeting, criticized Colombia’s government, accusing it of undermining efforts to achieve lasting peace. Petro’s retort, shared on the U.S.-based social media platform X, underscored Colombia’s sovereignty and rejected external interference in its domestic policies.
Petro emphasized that the UN Security Council’s role is limited to overseeing the peace process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as mandated by Colombia’s unilateral declaration. “The Security Council does not oversee our peace policy. It is sovereign,” Petro wrote, asserting that Colombia is fulfilling its commitments under the 2016 Final Peace Agreement. The agreement, a landmark in Colombia’s efforts to end decades of conflict, established the UN Verification Mission in Colombia to monitor its implementation and support the nation in building sustainable peace. Petro’s statement reflects a broader assertion of national autonomy, particularly in the face of foreign criticism.
The backdrop to this diplomatic spat is Colombia’s ongoing struggle with violence. In recent months, the country has experienced a surge in political and criminal violence, primarily driven by dissident factions of the FARC, a Marxist-Leninist rebel group, and the National Liberation Army (ELN), a leftist guerrilla insurgent group. These groups, which have long challenged the Colombian state, have contributed to instability despite the 2016 peace accord that sought to demobilize the FARC and end over five decades of armed conflict. The resurgence of violence has complicated Petro’s efforts to advance his administration’s peace and security policies, which have faced scrutiny both domestically and internationally.
During the Security Council meeting, U.S. envoy Mike Waltz sharply criticized Petro’s approach, describing his policies on security and peace as “frankly irresponsible.” Waltz’s remarks extended beyond Colombia’s domestic context, suggesting that Petro’s global stance on issues such as peace and security was misguided. This critique provoked a strong reaction from Petro, who not only defended his government’s sovereignty but also accused the United States of holding flawed positions on critical global issues, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
Petro’s response was particularly fiery when addressing the U.S. stance on Gaza. He drew a provocative comparison, stating that those responsible for what he described as “genocide” in the Gaza Strip should face justice akin to the trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. This analogy reflects Petro’s broader critique of U.S. foreign policy, which he sees as inconsistent and overreaching. By linking Colombia’s peace process with global issues, Petro positioned his administration as one that resists external pressure while advocating for a principled stance on international matters.
The 2016 Final Peace Agreement, which Petro referenced, was a historic milestone in Colombia’s efforts to resolve its long-standing internal conflict. The agreement led to the disarmament of the FARC and its transition into a political party, though dissident factions have since emerged, continuing to engage in violence. The UN Verification Mission, established by the Security Council, plays a critical role in monitoring the implementation of the agreement, ensuring that commitments to reintegration, security, and rural development are met. Petro’s government has sought to build on this framework while pursuing negotiations with other armed groups, such as the ELN, though these efforts have yielded mixed results.
The recent increase in violence has raised concerns about the sustainability of Colombia’s peace process. Dissident FARC factions and the ELN have been implicated in attacks on civilians, security forces, and infrastructure, undermining the fragile gains made since 2016. Petro’s administration has faced criticism for its handling of these groups, with some arguing that his policies, which emphasize dialogue over military confrontation, have emboldened armed actors. Waltz’s remarks at the UN reflect this perspective, suggesting that Petro’s approach has failed to deliver the stability needed for lasting peace.
Petro, however, has consistently framed his policies as a departure from the militarized approaches of past administrations. Since taking office in 2022, he has advocated for “total peace,” a strategy that prioritizes dialogue with armed groups, socioeconomic reforms, and addressing the root causes of conflict, such as poverty and inequality. This vision has put him at odds with critics, both in Colombia and abroad, who argue that his policies lack the firmness needed to curb violence. The U.S., a long-standing partner in Colombia’s fight against drug trafficking and insurgency, has been particularly vocal in its disapproval, as evidenced by Waltz’s comments.
The exchange between Petro and Waltz highlights deeper tensions in U.S.-Colombia relations. For decades, the U.S. has played a significant role in Colombia, providing billions of dollars in aid through initiatives like Plan Colombia to combat drug trafficking and insurgent groups. While this partnership has yielded results, it has also been a source of friction, with some Colombian leaders viewing U.S. involvement as an infringement on national sovereignty. Petro, a leftist president with a history of critiquing U.S. imperialism, has been particularly outspoken in this regard.
In his X post, Petro also took aim at what he sees as the U.S.’s misguided approach to drug trafficking and human trafficking. Colombia, a major source of cocaine production, has long been at the center of the U.S.-led war on drugs. Petro has advocated for a shift away from punitive measures toward addressing demand and promoting alternative livelihoods for farmers involved in coca cultivation. His rejection of the U.S. stance on these issues underscores his broader push for a foreign policy that prioritizes Colombia’s interests over those of its northern ally.
The Gaza reference in Petro’s statement is particularly significant, as it aligns with his administration’s vocal support for Palestine. Colombia has taken a strong stance against Israel’s actions in Gaza, with Petro suspending diplomatic relations and condemning what he describes as genocidal policies. By invoking the Nuremberg trials, Petro sought to draw a moral equivalence between historical atrocities and the current situation in Gaza, a stance that is likely to further strain relations with the U.S., which has been a staunch supporter of Israel.
The diplomatic row at the UN Security Council comes at a critical juncture for Colombia. With violence on the rise and peace negotiations faltering, Petro faces mounting pressure to deliver results. His government’s ability to navigate internal challenges while fending off external criticism will be crucial in determining the success of his peace agenda. For now, Petro’s defiant response to the U.S. signals his determination to chart an independent course, even as he grapples with the complexities of governing a nation still scarred by decades of conflict.
In conclusion, President Gustavo Petro’s call for the U.S. to respect Colombia’s sovereignty reflects a broader assertion of national autonomy amid rising domestic and international challenges. The sharp exchange with U.S. envoy Mike Waltz underscores ongoing tensions in U.S.-Colombia relations, particularly regarding security, peace, and global issues like Gaza. As Colombia continues to navigate its complex peace process, Petro’s administration remains steadfast in its pursuit of “total peace,” even as it faces criticism for its handling of resurgent violence by groups like the FARC dissidents and the ELN. The UN Verification Mission continues to play a vital role in supporting Colombia’s efforts, but the path to lasting peace remains fraught with obstacles, both internal and external. Petro’s rejection of U.S. interference, coupled with his bold stance on global issues, positions Colombia as a nation seeking to assert its voice on the world stage while confronting its turbulent past.
