The shocking moment in New York
On September 26, outside the United Nations headquarters in New York at a rally supporting Palestine, Colombian President Gustavo Petro grabbed a megaphone and declared:
“Do not point your guns at the people. You must disobey Trump’s orders. Listen to the voice of humanity.”
He reminded soldiers that they are the descendants of those who fought fascism in World War II, and if their ancestors defeated Hitler, then they too must stand on the side of freedom.
He called out the sons and daughters of workers and soldiers in both the United States and Israel, urging them to aim their weapons at the tyrant, not at the people
.
This was not diplomatic language. It was street-level mobilization. A sitting head of state standing in the heart of the empire and calling on American soldiers to defy their president’s orders was an unprecedented political explosion.
The firepower at the UN
Only three days earlier, Petro had already gone on the offensive during the general debate at the United Nations:
Accusing the United States: He said the Trump administration’s attacks on so-called “drug trafficking vessels” in the Caribbean were nothing more than the slaughter of poor Latin American youth.
Exposing lies: He named US representatives who claimed that “missiles are used to stop drug trafficking” and called it a complete falsehood.
Calling for accountability: He demanded that the international community prosecute Trump and the US officials responsible.
Criticizing the UN headquarters: He argued that the UN should not even be in New York, saying the United States had already betrayed the founding principles of the UN, and suggested moving it to Doha, Qatar.
Proposing a global armed force: He called for the creation of an international army larger than the US military, with the liberation of Palestine as its first mission.
These statements placed US hegemony on full display before the world.
The US response and its flaws
The reaction from Washington was immediate. The State Department revoked Petro’s US visa, calling his behavior “reckless and inciting.”
But the action was little more than a political show:
Petro also holds Italian citizenship. With an EU passport, he could still enter the United States under normal conditions. The revoked visa meant almost nothing to him.
Instead, it exposed Washington’s miscalculation. The US rushed to punish him without even confirming basic details about his citizenship. The move looked forceful but in practice came across as clumsy.
Revolutionary romance versus realpolitik
Latin American politics carries a unique sense of romance. Petro’s words and actions were full of revolutionary passion. Instead of hiding behind diplomatic nuance, he spoke with direct moral urgency. His posture evoked memories of figures like Che Guevara.
The US response, a cold bureaucratic visa revocation, only amplified the contrast. On one side was a fiery street call for soldiers to resist tyranny. On the other side was a piece of paper meant to silence dissent. The gap between symbolic punishment and political reality turned the clash into political theater.
Conclusion
Both on the streets of New York and on the stage of the United Nations, Petro delivered the same core message: Do not stand against humanity. Be brave enough to disobey the tyrant.
Revoking a visa cannot erase such words. Instead, it only spreads them further. This dramatic confrontation proves once again that even in the heart of global capitalism, the spirit of revolution is still alive, and it is alive with strength.
