Colombia Reverses Stance on Occupied Syrian Golan
The administration of the newly inaugurated Colombian President, Abelardo de la Espriella, has sparked widespread condemnation following its abrupt reversal of the country’s long-standing position on the occupied Syrian Golan. In a significant departure from the diplomatic course charted by the previous government, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced on August 10th a new policy acknowledging what it termed ‘Israeli sovereignty’ over the territory.
This policy shift, which occurred just three days after the inauguration of the right-wing administration, marks a sharp departure from the approach taken by former President Gustavo Petro. Petro, who officially severed ties with Israel in 2024, has publicly criticized the move. In a statement posted to social media, he reaffirmed the position that the people of Colombia consider the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory, a view consistent with the stance of the international community and multiple United Nations resolutions. Petro further alleged that the current administration’s policy change was tied to external influence on Colombian electoral processes.
Damascus has formally rejected the announcement, asserting that the decision carries no legal weight and fails to alter the established status of the Golan as occupied Syrian land. The Syrian government cited the 1981 UN Security Council Resolution 497, which deemed the imposition of Israeli laws and administration over the territory to be null, void, and without international legal effect.
Analysts have framed this development as part of a broader, aggressive realignment of Colombian foreign policy under the new right-wing leadership. The Foreign Ministry in Bogota acknowledged that the decision was the result of a commitment made to Israeli officials shortly before the announcement. Diplomatic activity between the two nations has accelerated rapidly, including a meeting in Washington last July between the new Colombian Foreign Minister, Omar Bola, and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, where the two sides agreed to restore diplomatic relations and eliminate visa requirements.
This policy pivot has placed the new government in a position of diplomatic friction, drawing criticism from international observers and domestic sectors alike. Within Colombia, the decision has been met with backlash from political and academic figures who argue that the shift contradicts international law and comes at a time when the government should be prioritizing urgent national crises, including the aftermath of a devastating earthquake that recently claimed over 100 lives.
Diplomatic observers suggest that the move may risk isolating Colombia from regional partners in Latin America who adhere to the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force. By deviating from the international consensus, Bogota’s new foreign policy direction potentially jeopardizes its standing in international forums and its future relations with Arab nations that maintain a firm commitment to the sovereignty of Syrian territories. While the Colombian government seeks to solidify its new strategic partnership with Israel and the United States, the legal status of the Syrian Golan remains unchanged in the eyes of international law.
