Colombia’s Petro presents his doomsday scenario at UN General Assembly

In his address at the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro directed much of his speech toward the ongoing conflict in Gaza, labeling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “war criminal.” This emphasis on international conflicts, coupled with indirect references to President Biden, Vladimir Putin, and Argentina’s Javier Milei, overshadowed his own country’s pressing issues, which were mentioned only in passing alongside references to Colombia’s butterflies and natural beauty.

Petro’s 18-minute speech, in which he proclaimed himself the “president of the heart of the world,” was delivered before a noticeably empty Assembly hall. “We either raise the flag of life, or our nations will be filled with cemeteries, as the COVID-19 pandemic has already shown us,” he declared. However, his fixation on the Gaza Strip leaves many questioning the relevance of his “End is near” discourse.

His rhetoric included sweeping accusations against the global elite, whom he blamed for “abandoning completely the ideals of liberty and democracy.” For Petro, a “global oligarchy is leading humanity to its extinction,” condemning those who profit from war while ignoring the suffering they cause. “The oligarchy of the world seeks to accumulate riches and power at the expense of our planet and future generations,” Petro added in a sharp critique. While his claims were striking, they lack nuance and fail to engage with the complexities of global governance.

Petro’s dramatic emphasis on Gaza drew immediate backlash, particularly when he referred to its children as “the chosen people of God.” Such revisionist remarks not only overshadow his intended message but also raise questions about his grasp of Colombia’s multifaceted and inclusive international relations.

The Assembly’s lukewarm response was palpable, evidenced by the sparse applause that followed his address. Observers also noted that Petro’s approach felt disconnected from the audience, who may have expected a discussion pertinent to broader global governance rather than a one-sided focus on a single region. “In this hall, the communication power of a president depends on the number of dollars in his budget and the number of warplanes he owns,” he remarked, implicitly targeting superpowers like the United States, Russia, and China. Yet, his hyperbole sidesteps his own responsibilities to address Colombia’s internal conflict.

Though Petro did touch on environmental issues, particularly the devastation of the Amazon rainforest, stating, “The Amazon rainforest is burning, and the bells are tolling across the planet,” this ugent message was often overshadowed by his preoccupation with foreign conflicts. He also warned, “The path that we are on will lead to global suicide, unless we, the people of the world, unite to change it.” His insistence that “the time is up” for inaction on climate issues received some applause, but many felt his words lacked the substantive action plan needed to confront the global agenda effectively.

Petro’s characterization of Venezuela as a “rebel country”, and his condemnation of the economic blockade against Cuba (and Venezuela) was superficial in content and superfluous in delivery. Colombians will argue – yet again – that what could have been a cohesive, Latin America-centric speech shelved the socio-economic realities confronting his government, including poverty and inequality.

As he concluded his address, Petro called for a radical transformation of global power structures. “It is no longer the time of governments, but the time of the people,” he declared, urging citizens to rise up against the forces threatening life on Earth. “Let us raise the greatest army of all time – not to kill, but to defend life,” he implored.

While Petro aimed to present himself as a global crusader for democratic self-determination, his narrow, verbose focus on the Middle East leaves Colombians skeptical about the effectiveness of his administration in consensus-building. Petro’s lofty ideals of a “global revolution” and a “warriors for life” movement feels increasingly detached from the scourge of violence that afflicts vulnerable communities across Colombia. It also remains uncertain whether Petro’ apocalyptic vision will resonate beyond the halls of power or if it will only serve to exacerbate the deep divisions within Colombia itself.