The Spark: Coup Accusations Shake Diplomatic Ties
In June 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused U.S. officials, including Senator Marco Rubio, of plotting a “soft coup” against his government. The claim set off a diplomatic firestorm. The U.S. quickly denied any involvement, escalating tensions to the point where both countries recalled their ambassadors—a rare move between longstanding allies.
Though diplomats returned to their posts by early July, the damage lingered. What started as a heated exchange quickly grew into a broader legal and political crisis, threatening trade, international agreements, and human rights obligations.
Did Petro Breach Diplomatic Law?
At the core lies the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifically Article 41, which forbids public interference in another country’s internal affairs. Petro’s public accusation, made without presenting concrete evidence, raises questions about whether Colombia violated this treaty.
U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara, upon his return to Bogotá, voiced “persistent concerns” about Colombia’s conduct, signaling that Washington remains wary despite the diplomatic thaw.
To ease tensions, Petro sent a handwritten letter to then-President Donald Trump, clarifying that his statements were not meant to personally accuse anyone or challenge the U.S. role without proof. Colombia’s ambassador in Washington, Daniel García-Peña, echoed this, affirming no U.S. involvement in any coup attempt.
Deportation Flights and Human Rights Law
This diplomatic spat followed an earlier conflict involving deportation flights. Colombia refused landing rights to U.S. military planes transporting deported Colombians, citing the non-refoulement principle, which prohibits sending individuals to countries where they risk harm.
The U.S. responded with threats of visa restrictions and economic retaliation. Some experts argue these threats could violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which bans the use of force or coercion against another nation’s sovereignty.
Trade Tensions: Are U.S. Tariffs Legal?
The U.S. is now considering tariffs on Colombian exports like coal, coffee, and agriculture. But both countries are bound by the 2012 U.S.–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which bans arbitrary or politically motivated trade barriers.
If Colombia proves these tariffs are retaliatory, it could challenge them through investor-state arbitration or bring the case to the World Trade Organization under most-favored-nation rules. This legal battle could drag on for years, affecting bilateral trade and economic relations.
Guerrilla Violence and War Crime Allegations
Violence in Colombia adds another layer to the crisis. In Antioquia, a soldier died after a mule packed with explosives, allegedly by ELN guerrillas, detonated. This unusual tactic alarmed observers and may be classified as a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, especially if it targeted civilians or used indiscriminate violence.
The Human Cost: Displacement and Legal Accountability
The conflict over coca production has forced over 65,000 Colombians to flee their homes in 2025 alone—the worst displacement in over a decade. Under Colombia’s Victims and Land Restitution Law, the government must protect and compensate displaced people.
Human rights organizations say enforcement has been weak, potentially exposing Colombia to legal challenges at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This adds pressure on Petro’s administration to respond effectively or face international legal consequences.
What This Means Going Forward
The diplomatic row between Colombia and the U.S. is no longer just about political statements. It’s a complex web of treaty obligations, trade disputes, human rights concerns, and international law questions. Courts, trade bodies, and human rights institutions are now drawn into a crisis that could reshape relations between these two countries for years to come.
