Damascus, Aug 16 (SANA) Colombia’s new government has drawn widespread condemnation after declaring what it described as “Israeli sovereignty” over the occupied Syrian Golan, in a move that contradicts international law and the UN stance that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory.
The announcement came just three days after right-wing President Abelardo de la Espriella took office on August 7. Colombia’s Foreign Ministry announced the new stance on August 10, marking a sharp break with the foreign policy of former President Gustavo Petro, who on Saturday reaffirmed that the Golan is Syrian territory and that Israel has no sovereignty over it.
Petro said in a post on X that Colombians, like most of the international community, do not regard the Golan as Israeli territory, but as part of Syria. He also accused Israel of using its technology to influence Colombia’s elections and said he believed the new president had not won a majority of Colombian votes.
Petro also apologized to Arab and Muslim countries, stressing Colombians’ respect for them.
The Colombian declaration does not alter the legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, but it signals a major shift in Bogotá’s foreign policy. Until the end of 2025, Colombia had voted at the United Nations in favor of resolutions affirming that the Golan is Syrian territory. On March 31, 2026, it also voted in favor of a UN Human Rights Council resolution referring to the area as the “occupied Syrian Golan.”
A foreign-policy realignment
The timing of the announcement points to a broader realignment of Colombia’s foreign policy away from the approach adopted by the previous government.
In its statement, Colombia’s Foreign Ministry acknowledged that the decision on the Golan was made “in implementation of a commitment agreed with Israel two days earlier.”
During his election campaign, de la Espriella pledged to restore ties with Israel and promote them to a higher level of coordination and partnership. This was reflected in contacts ahead of his inauguration, including a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on the eve of his taking office.
In July 2026, Colombia’s new Foreign Minister Omar Bola met Saar in Washington, where the two sides agreed to restore diplomatic relations, exchange ambassadors and lift visa requirements.
Colombia’s sharp turn to the right
The contrast between Petro’s policies and those of de la Espriella highlights a sharp rightward shift in Colombia’s foreign policy.
Petro’s government severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2024 and supported South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in December 2023 over alleged genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. It also continued voting through late 2025 in favor of UN resolutions concerning the occupied Syrian Golan and maintained Colombia’s longstanding support for Syria’s sovereignty over its territory.
De la Espriella’s government has moved in the opposite direction, announcing the restoration of diplomatic relations with Israel and its intention to withdraw from the international case against it, before declaring what it called “Israeli sovereignty” over the occupied Syrian Golan.
Political assessments have linked the shift to the rise of the far right in Colombia, along with new international and regional alliances and a broader repositioning of Bogotá. The shift comes alongside $1 billion in security assistance that the United States has announced for de la Espriella’s government.
A previous report by investigative research organization Latin America Reports also pointed to growing networks linking Colombia’s far right with international movements. It noted de la Espriella’s participation in the Madrid Forum in January 2026 and meetings with leaders of far-right European parties.
Defying international law
Colombia’s stance on what it called “Israeli sovereignty” over the occupied Syrian Golan directly conflicts with the international legal framework governing the territory, particularly UN Security Council resolutions.
Syria told the United Nations that the Colombian decision “has no legal effect and does not alter the legal status of the Golan as occupied Syrian territory.” It cited Security Council Resolution 497 of 1981, which declared Israel’s imposition of its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Golan “null and void and without international legal effect,” as well as Resolution 2799 of 2025, which reaffirmed respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Arab and international rejection
The Colombian announcement has prompted a wave of Arab and international condemnation, with Arab and Islamic states and organizations rejecting the move, followed by the European Union and the United Nations, which stressed that the decision was “invalid and has no legal effect.”
The reactions underscore Colombia’s growing isolation over the issue as the international community maintains its consensus against recognizing any change to the legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan.
A political decision with no legal effect
Turkish political analyst Oktay Yilmaz told SANA that the timing of the decision is directly linked to de la Espriella’s rise to power and reflects the new right-wing government’s early push to strengthen ties with Israel, amid existing links between Israel and sectors of Colombia’s right wing.
Yilmaz said the shift was part of an attempt to reposition Colombia in a way that serves its relations with Israel, but argued that the decision on the Golan would have no meaningful political or legal impact given Colombia’s limited international influence.
Domestic criticism
Criticism of the decision has also emerged inside Colombia, with political, academic and public figures accusing the government of violating international law and moving away from pressing national priorities.
The criticism came as Colombia was dealing with the aftermath of an earthquake that struck the country on Monday and killed more than 111 people. Critics argued that the government should have been focused on rescue operations, emergency response and assistance to those affected.
Colombian academic and international relations specialist Arlene B. Tickner was among the prominent critics. She said the decision contradicts international law and Security Council resolutions and warned that Colombia could face a heavy cost as a result of the radical shift in its foreign policy.
Former senator Claudia López Hernández also criticized the decision, saying the government should instead have been focused on the victims and response efforts following the earthquake.
Potential diplomatic fallout
Political assessments suggest the decision could have negative repercussions for Colombia’s foreign relations, particularly its ties with economically influential Arab states and Latin American countries that uphold the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force as a cornerstone of their foreign policies.
The move could also put Colombia at odds with the longstanding international consensus on the legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan and weaken its standing within international organizations.
K.A/ MZN
