Decision-maker Gustavo Petro has moved to suspend the ceasefire with the Gulf Clan, a decision that raises questions about the feasibility of the administration’s broad, ambitious peace agenda. The Ombudsman notes that the Gulf Clan emerged when multiple factions joined forces, creating a powerful, criminal network. The group has not only trafficked drugs but has also entered illegal mining and other violent activities, often clashing with civilians and state authorities.
“Public power must act immediately against the structures of the mafia organization,” the president stated during a national address. A government communiqué added, “Gold belongs to communities and the state, not to those who launder money and fund drug trafficking.” The Gulf Clan, through its attorney Ricardo Giraldo, said it respects the ceasefire and does not accept responsibility for the violent protests attributed to it, asserting that it is prepared to engage with relevant authorities.
In this context, the administration signaled a commitment to a peaceful reform program connected to Petro’s broader policy. Critics, including a former president, have warned that the policy might face a crisis of legitimacy if the government cannot sustain a credible peace with all parties. Some magazines have questioned whether the total peace policy has real staying power, suggesting optimism remains but that the state could struggle to maintain leverage as non-state actors reposition themselves on the ground.
“From illicit gold exploitation, this criminal network launders assets and dollars tied to drug trafficking, destroying a region in a way that is almost indescribable,” stated a public figure on social media, highlighting concerns about the economic and social costs of organized crime (attribution provided).
Risks
The center of gravity for Petro’s plans is the capital city and its surrounding dynamics. The path toward reform is fraught with detours and uncertainties. The Gulf Clan’s strengthening and the way former FARC members perceive their leverage in negotiations with the State complicate the picture, especially in light of recent negotiations in other regional contexts. Analysts warn that street-level realities could undermine reform if peace talks collapse or stall.
Observers note that ELN and other groups have shown their capacity to shape political outcomes. A leading peace commissioner previously described how the ELN has sought to secure key concessions, sometimes presenting itself as a relevant actor capable of influencing government decisions.
Recently, the government introduced a congressional measure seeking to bring drug traffickers and criminal gangs to justice, encourage guilty pleas, and offer conditional alternatives for those who cooperate with authorities. The proposal includes penalties that can reach up to eight years of imprisonment, while insisting that there is no room for dialogue or negotiation with drug trafficking interests. Officials stressed that this law is not a concession to crime but a tool to strengthen accountability and deter illicit activity.
Opposition and Debate
There is growing disagreement about whether negotiating with active armed groups should take precedence over ensuring compliance with the peace framework that preceded these efforts. Critics argue that the Havana peace accords, which earned Nobel recognition, form the backbone of any lasting settlement. Some opponents claim that without implementing those agreements, any attempts to reach new deals with other groups may be unsustainable, risking the collapse of the entire peace process.
The government faces calls to listen to key voices from the peace treaty signatories and to acknowledge the seriousness of the current situation. As commented by prominent figures, the peace agreement can be the cornerstone of a comprehensive peace if faithfully implemented, and insecurities about its future cast a shadow over ongoing diplomacy.
Public figures and former leaders have weighed in on social platforms, underscoring the tension between the need to honor existing accords and the urgency of addressing new challenges. The debate centers on whether a broader, more inclusive approach can still be achieved while protecting victims and upholding the rule of law.
Since late 2016, hundreds of former combatants have faced grave violence after demobilization, and the landscape for civil society has become increasingly perilous. The latest data show that dozens of community leaders, activists, and union members have suffered serious harm or loss. These figures fuel the concern that the peace project remains fragile and partially dependent on the security environment and political will to enforce the agreement.