Historic but not enough? Colombia’s Gustavo Petro defends cocaine seizures

Pushing back on WashingtonPetro, however, has highlighted his interdiction efforts as a means of refuting Trump's claims that he has allowed cocaine to flow unchecked.The subject reportedly came up during a call between the two heads of state in January. Petro suggested that Trump had been unfamiliar with the amounts of cocaine Colombia has seized.“The United States doesn’t know anything about that,” he told CBS News after the call.At other times, Petro has leaned on his interdiction record to push back on Trump’s hardline anti-narcotics policy.In September, Trump and his allies announced a campaign to bomb boats suspected of carrying drugs, arguing the strategy was more efficient than interdiction."Interdiction doesn’t work,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said. “What will stop them is when you blow them up, when you get rid of them.”Since then, the US military has bombed 47 boats, killing at least 163 people. Petro has condemned the strikes as “murders”, arguing they violate due process and international law.He has also held up his own interdiction strategy as a more effective model.When Colombia and the US led a joint maritime operation in February that resulted in nearly 10 tonnes of cocaine seized, Petro touted the outcome as proof that anti-narcotics efforts need not be lethal.“The Colombian Navy seized the submarine without killing anyone,” Petro said during a cabinet meeting.Still, experts have pointed out that Petro has bent to US demands in other areas.While Petro had pledged not to target coca farmers, he announced in December that security forces would deploy drones to spray crops with glyphosate, an herbicide.That plan — to forcibly eradicate coca crops by air — faced strong local opposition due to concerns over the herbicide’s health and environmental impacts.Rueda said the move, which has yet to be implemented, signalled that Petro, like many presidents before him, had yielded to US pressure.“The US government always wins,” said Rueda. “It always has more power over us, and we end up having to give in — and so does Petro.”Whether Petro’s decision holds weight with his electoral base is less certain. While protests initially erupted in coca-growing regions, they subsided after meetings with his administration.Rueda suspects officials reassured protesters they wouldn’t carry out the fumigations, which could have cost Petro in the upcoming elections.“Petro’s decision highlights his inconsistencies when it comes to the policy he put forward," Rueda said. "But in the end, the fumigations never happened, so the political impact likely wasn’t as significant as it could have been."