Just days after taking office, Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella and his foreign minister announced two major diplomatic decisions: Colombia recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and became the second country in the world, after the United States, to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
The moves represent a dramatic break with former President Gustavo Petro’s foreign policy, which strengthened ties with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and adopted a sharply critical position toward Israel.
But Colombia is not simply breaking with Petro. A bigger question is emerging:
Is Colombia pursuing an independent foreign policy—or moving increasingly into the geopolitical orbit of President Donald Trump and his key allies?
Petro broke diplomatic relations with Israel in May 2024 and established a Colombian embassy in Ramallah. De la Espriella, by contrast, promised to restore Colombia’s historic alliance with Israel.
Now Bogotá has gone considerably further.
On August 10, the Colombian government announced its recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, arguing that the territory is strategically important to Israel’s defense and regional security.
Israel welcomed the decision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly thanked Colombia, while Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called the recognition “historic.”
The Golan Heights: A Major International Dispute
The Golan Heights is not an ordinary territorial dispute.
Israel captured the territory from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and extended Israeli law and administration there in 1981. The U.N. Security Council subsequently adopted Resolution 497, declaring Israel’s decision to impose its laws and administration on the territory legally invalid under international law.
For decades, that remained the dominant international position.
Then came Donald Trump.
In 2019, during his first presidency, Trump formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The United States stood virtually alone in doing so.
Now Colombia has joined Washington.
Supporters argue that Israel needs defensible borders and that the Golan provides a critical strategic position against threats from Syria and other regional actors.
Critics argue that Colombia is legitimizing a territorial change resulting from war that much of the international community continues to regard as an occupation.
Western Sahara: Another Major Shift
Colombia has also recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, abandoning its previous recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
The territory’s final status remains disputed. Morocco controls most of Western Sahara, while the Polisario Front claims independence.
The United Nations has classified Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory since 1963. In 1975, the International Court of Justice concluded that the evidence presented to it did not establish territorial sovereignty between Morocco and Western Sahara that would override the principle of self-determination.
Morocco, however, has gained increasing international support for its autonomy proposal.
Trump also recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in 2020.
A Stronger U.S.-Colombia Alliance Makes Strategic Sense
There is a strong case for Colombia strengthening its relationship with the United States.
Washington is Colombia’s most important partner in areas including security, counter-narcotics, intelligence, trade and military cooperation.
Israel also offers significant expertise in intelligence, defense technology, border security and counterterrorism—areas of obvious importance to a country confronting drug trafficking, armed groups and organized crime.
From a conservative perspective, deeper cooperation with both countries can be justified on clear national-security and economic grounds.
But there is an important distinction between being an ally and being a follower.
An ally can say “yes” to Washington when interests align—and “no” when they do not.
That is the question now facing Bogotá.
In two of the world’s most controversial territorial disputes, Colombia has adopted positions closely aligned with those previously championed by the Trump administration.
That raises for many a legitimate question:
How much of Colombia’s new foreign policy is being driven by Colombia’s own national interests—and how much by Washington’s geopolitical priorities?
Colombia and Israel
Supporters of De la Espriella argue that Petro went too far in confronting Israel and that Colombia sacrificed valuable strategic opportunities.
They point to Israel’s expertise in intelligence, security and defense as a potential benefit to Colombia.
That argument deserves serious consideration.
But critics warn that if foreign policy becomes a binary choice—with Israel and Washington or against them—Colombia risks abandoning an independent diplomacy in favor of bloc politics.
Colombia’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights has already drawn strong regional opposition. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar have condemned Bogotá’s decision.
The move could carry a diplomatic cost.
Colombia maintains important relationships with Arab countries and has traditionally sought to preserve flexibility in its foreign policy.
If Bogotá begins to be seen as one of Washington and Israel’s most reliable allies, it could lose some of its room for maneuver in the Middle East.
That matters for a country also seeking investment, trade and greater international influence.
Colombia First
Colombia’s closer relationship with Washington and Jerusalem does not necessarily mean Colombia is surrendering its sovereignty. Strong alliances can advance a country’s national interests.
But sovereignty also means having the freedom to disagree with your allies.
If Petro’s mistake was allowing ideology to dominate Colombian foreign policy, De la Espriella should avoid making the opposite mistake: allowing the priorities of Trump, Israel or Morocco to define Colombia’s foreign policy.
De la Espriella came to power promising “Colombia First.”
Now comes the real test: Will Colombia put its own national interests first—even when they differ from those of its closest allies?
