By Rodrigo Uprimny, EL ESPECTADOR, September 21, 2025
(Translated by Eunice Gibson, CSN Volunteer Translator)
This week the Trump administration decertified the Petro administration, using the argument that the government of Colombia “failed demonstrably” on drug trafficking. The official communication maintained that “coca crops and cocaine production have reached historic records under Gustavo Petro’s Presidency, and its failed attempts to reach agreements with the narcoterrorists have only exacerbated the crisis.”
For its part, Colombia responded, initially in a diplomatic but firm manner, through the Embassy of the United States, stating that this action failed to recognize the efforts Colombia has made against the drug traffic: historic records of drug seizures, destruction of laboratories, and extraditions. It also pointed out that the war on drugs posits the co-responsibility of the United States, because it also involves reduction in demand for cocaine, as well as greater control of weapons trafficking. Later, with his characteristic lack of diplomacy, Petro tweeted that decertification was an interference in Colombia’s internal affairs by a United States that wants a “Puppet President”.
The United States is correct that the plantings of coca and the production of cocaine in Colombia have reached maximum levels. But the Petro administration is correct that in these years Colombia has achieved the most seizures of cocaine in history and has accomplished a great many extraditions. Colombia is also correct in that cocaine consumption in the United States has not diminished noticeably and that the U. S., with all its marketing of weapons is very weak in its control of weapons trafficking, a traffic that nurtures our violence. A tragic case: the 9mm Glock pistol used to assassinate Miguel Uribe was purchased legally in Arizona. Furthermore, the decertification is a colonial imposition: the United States unilaterally evaluates other countries, with the possibility of imposing sanctions, while it doesn’t allow itself to be evaluated by other nations.
In this polarized discussion, paradoxically, not only the Petro administration but also Trump are partly right. However, the greatest paradox is that they’re both mistaken: they’re both acting within the paradigm of prohibition when that is what ought to be evaluated and decertified because it has failed “demonstrably” (to use the gringo expression in these discussions) in achieving its objectives.
Prohibition is aimed at eliminating abuse of substances like cocaine, criminalizing its production, marketing, and sale, and restricting and eliminating the supply. But, has it achieved that aim? No. In spite of extremely drastic measures and the increase in seizures, the supply has basically increased at the same rate as the market.
I recapture and update the statistics from an article I published on this subject in Political Analysis: (“What to do about the drug traffic and illegal drugs in Colombia?”)
The worldwide reports from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that interceptions of cocaine went from 291 tons in 1990, to 712 in 2008, to 1,436 in 2019, which would appear to be a big success. However, in those same years, production of cocaine went from 771 tons in 1990, to 865 in 2008, and 1,784 in 2019. A total failure that was confirmed by this year’s report: in 2023, we had the most seizures in history (2,235 tons) while global production reached a new record: 3,708 tons.
Prohibition has not only failed “demonstrably” in its purpose of reducing or eliminating the supply of cocaine, it has had extremely serious collateral negative effects: the creation of the drug trafficking mafias with their violence and corruption, damage to the health of the consumers, and the deterioration of international relations, among many others. So shouldn’t we decertify it? Of course we should.