“As opposition leader and the candidate who garnered over 12.7 million votes in the June 21 election (…), I will embark on a path of peaceful civil disobedience, which entails refusing to recognize the authority of someone who does not answer to the defense of national sovereignty.” These were the words spoken on June 30 by Iván Cepeda Castro, who lost the presidential election to the right-wing Abelardo de la Espriella.

The Left, defeated in Colombia’s elections, threatens to call for “peaceful” civil disobedience; yet the Colombian Left is not known for pacifism. Since the 1960s — backed by Castro’s Cuba — the South American nation has witnessed the rise of guerrilla movements and revolutionary factions linked to drug trafficking, which have since degenerated into criminal gangs.

Cepeda Castro, now the leader of the opposition to the newly installed Colombian government, calls for such civil disobedience unless the president-elect renounces his U.S. citizenship and abandons plans to extradite Gustavo Petro.

In reality, de la Espriella is under no constitutional obligation to comply with the Left’s first demand; nor should he refrain from the second, provided there is sufficient evidence to prosecute his predecessor at the Nariño Palace.

As I noted in a previous article, Petro believed that under a friendly, continuity-oriented administration — such as one led by Cepeda Castro — he could have evaded a potential arrest warrant from the United States. In other words, he felt that last month’s presidential election would determine not only his successor but also whether or not he would join his friend, the narco-socialist Nicolás Maduro, in a New York prison.

In October 2025, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Petro, his wife, his son, and a close associate.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated: “Since President Gustavo Petro took office, cocaine production in Colombia has skyrocketed to its highest level in decades, flooding the United States and poisoning Americans. Petro has allowed drug cartels to flourish and has refused to halt this activity. Today, President Trump is taking decisive action to protect our nation and make it clear that we will not tolerate drug trafficking into our country.”

With anti-imperialist rhetoric reminiscent of the 1960s and Castro-era pamphlets, Petro went so far a few months ago as to call upon U.S. armed forces — while in New York — to rebel against their commander-in-chief, Donald Trump. That stunt was short-lived; the administration revoked his visa, though he was later granted temporary entry in February for a White House meeting in an attempt to mend bilateral relations.

Now, just as Petro pathetically attempted to do in New York, Cepeda Castro is trying to do the same with his millions of voters. However, refusing to recognize the authority of the new government unless his ridiculous demands are met could undermine Colombian institutions — in a country where the State is under siege by organized crime and violent subversive groups like the National Liberation Army (ELN).

Cepeda Castro addressed his controversial statements a few hours later on the 30th. “As civil disobedience teaches us, when the law, institutions, or authority conflict with moral conscience, the citizen has not only the right but the duty to resist peacefully, refusing to collaborate with injustice, disgrace, and oppression,” he said.

But in what sense is it unjust, disgraceful, or oppressive for de la Espriella to hold dual citizenship? To date, the opposition has offered no clear explanation regarding this aspect. The following day, July 1st, Cepeda Castro made even more “creative” statements regarding the president-elect. “The elected candidate must clarify whether he is a collaborator or an agent of a U.S. security and intelligence agency,” he demanded.

But does the leftist leader really believe that someone becomes a spy for Washington simply by virtue of holding U.S. citizenship? As with the previous instance, these are empty words, lacking any basis or evidence.

Let’s pause for a moment. The whole affair in the immediate aftermath of the Colombian elections reeks of nothing but excuses — the tantrum of a child refusing to accept defeat. The problem is that, in Colombian history, the Left’s tantrums tend to be seasoned with fire and the blood of others.