Since his arrival in office Gustavo Petro has had a strange relationship with the United States, the relationship has remained ambiguous and somewhat contradictory, sometimes Petro tries to have a close relationship with the US and other times he takes an approach similar to that of socialist governments. Petro has said he wants less US involvement in Latin America and in Colombia, he wants to approach the drug and crime issue on his own. However, he also said that if he could vote in the 2020 election he would have voted for Joe Biden, a subtle nod towards his approval of the president Joe Biden. Petro was also a former socialist guerilla in Colombia when he was young. Joe Biden leans towards that economic ideology but does not fully participate in it which means they have differences in some policies, however, they still belong to the same party. Another similarity is Petro’s disapproval of the Trump Administration which Joe Biden ran against and won. Both Biden and Petro do not appreciate the Trump Administration’s politics and their conservatism. However, Trump did already damage Colombian relations when he was president with his disapproval of Latin American Migration. In Venezuela relations between Colombia and Venezuela have improved with the approval and help of the US. Colombia also has internationally recognized Western Sahara as an independent country and abstained from voting on the issue of Israel.
In my opinion the article was named incorrectly, although the relationship between the US and Colombia isn’t perfect or amazing in any way I wouldn’t say it’s toxic or even negative. Previous and future administrations in the US might cause issues or have issues with Colombia but currently I don’t see any major issues. I understand how the relationship has been strained before but I do not see it ever being completely toxic or bad. It’s possible the article’s title was slightly exaggerated with the prospect of getting more engagement from people scrolling through articles. Overall though I thought the Article was informative and well written.
In the article they mention that Colombia abstained from voting on the issue of Palestine and Israel and who controls the land. I believe the reason Colombia chose to abstain from voting on this but not abstaining from voting on recognizing Western Sahara, I believe the reason they did was for the sake of National Welfare and Security. Countries that control much of the world’s Oil production in the Middle East do not approve of Israel or it being recognized, by recognizing Israel they could be jeopardizing their security and their welfare by losing access to Oil and potential deals in the Middle East.