This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

by Dr Rassem Bisharat

In one of the most daring and controversial political interventions to echo through the halls of the United Nations in decades, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, in his address to the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2025, called for the creation of an international army that transcends the traditional balance of power and whose first mission would be the liberation of Palestine from Israeli occupation and the cessation of the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

The speech drew widespread global attention, opening the door to a complex debate on the future of the international order, the limits of international law, and the possibility of a fundamental transformation toward a new architecture of international relations that moves beyond bipolarity and the centrality of U.S. power.

Petro: The end of words and the beginning of action

In his speech, President Gustavo Petro sharply criticised the current international order, asserting that a world dominated by a single power and complicit in genocide cannot credibly claim to defend democracy or human rights. He emphasised that statements and declarations are no longer sufficient amid the mass killings in Gaza, calling for the creation of an international armed force composed of states that reject genocide, tasked with protecting threatened populations and enforcing international justice. Petro declared: “We need a strong army of nations that do not accept genocide… We must gather weapons and armies. We must liberate Palestine.”

Invoking Simón Bolívar, he added: “We are tired of words… It is time for the sword of liberty or death.”

In later remarks posted on X (formerly Twitter), Petro announced plans to submit a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly to establish a “global army for justice,” with its first mission focused on liberating Palestine,” marking a dramatic call for action over [sic]

READ: Saudi Arabia warns global inaction on Gaza war threatens regional, world stability

A paradigm shift in international politics

Petro’s proposal marks a significant shift in international political discourse. Since the UN’s founding in 1945, international forces have primarily focused on post-conflict peacekeeping, operating under limited mandates and with Security Council approval. Petro, however, envisions a force designed not to maintain the status quo but to actively change it, intervening militarily to prevent genocide and end occupation. This transition from neutrality to action challenges core principles of international law, including state sovereignty and non-intervention, while contesting the Security Council’s monopoly, particularly its five permanent members, over the authorised use of force. Petro suggested that such a force could be established through the General Assembly, referencing the 1950 “Uniting for Peace” resolution, when the Assembly bypassed a deadlocked Security Council to authorize military intervention in Korea, setting a precedent for acting when conventional mechanisms fail.

Enormous political and legal obstacles

Despite Petro’s bold proposal, formidable obstacles make its near-term realization highly unlikely. The UN’s legal framework restricts the use of force to the Security Council, where the US holds veto power and would never allow the creation of a force that could act against Israel, its key Middle Eastern ally. Geopolitical realities also hinder the formation of a global coalition outside the Western security umbrella. Even countries critical of Israeli policies, including EU members and Global South states, may resist joining a force that risks direct confrontation with Israel or the U.S Additionally, there is a significant lack of collective political will: while smaller and medium-sized states often use strong rhetoric, turning such words into military action demands a consensus that is currently absent. Past struggles to reform the Security Council or establish war crimes tribunals underscore how difficult it is to translate ambitious ideas into action within today’s entrenched power structures.

The significance and timing of Petro’s speech

Despite significant practical obstacles, Petro’s speech carries profound symbolic and political weight in shaping global discourse on Palestine and the international order. He reframes the Palestinian issue from a mere “conflict” to an act of “genocide,” shifting the debate from political negotiation to one centered on liberation and international justice. His references to “Bolívar’s sword” and an “army of justice” seek to place Palestine at the core of a broader struggle against double standards and for global legitimacy.

Moreover, Petro’s call sparks renewed debate on reforming the United Nations. Beyond advocating for a force dedicated to Palestine, he highlights the failure of the current system to prevent genocides in Rwanda, Syria, Myanmar, and now Gaza. The proposed army thus symbolizes a deeper demand for rebuilding the international order on fairer, more pluralistic foundations.

Finally, the speech underscores a shift within the Global South. From Colombia to South Africa and Brazil, states on the geopolitical periphery are increasingly using the UN stage to challenge the Global North’s dominance and redefine concepts of legitimacy. Petro’s message aligns with this momentum, adding new strategic depth to the Palestinian cause within emerging international alliances.

READ: Malaysia urges sanctions on Israel at UN meeting

Justice in the age of genocide

President Petro’s speech comes at a critical moment, as Gaza endures one of the most brutal Israeli military campaigns since the Nakba. UN agencies and human rights organizations, including OCHA, Oxfam, and Human Rights Watch, report the killing of tens of thousands of civilians and the widespread destruction of vital infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and relief centers. The UN has also documented the deaths of hundreds of humanitarian workers, in what international organizations describe as the largest targeting of the humanitarian sector in modern conflict.

In this context, Petro’s speech becomes more than a theoretical proposal, it is a cry against a world that remains silent in the face of genocide. His call to form an “army of justice” is, at its core, an expression of the failure of the international system to fulfill its most fundamental duty: protecting civilians and enforcing international law.

And while the idea may be unattainable at present, it exposes the glaring gap between the UN’s rhetoric and its reality, opening the door to rethinking the mechanisms of collective international action.

Conclusion

President Petro’s project to form an international army to liberate Palestine may seem, in the realpolitik balance, a utopian dream difficult to achieve amid current power dynamics. Yet, in the realm of symbolic and strategic politics, it reflects a profound shift in how international justice, Palestine, and the global order itself are conceived.

The speech will not change the world tomorrow, but it could mark a turning point in a longer trajectory toward reshaping international institutions so that they are capable of confronting genocide and injustice. And just as Simón Bolívar’s words once ignited the liberation of entire continents, President Petro’s speech may, even if only in the long run, be the spark that drives the world to contemplate a global army for justice, one whose first mission would begin in Gaza, if Gaza, as we know it, still exists.

OPINION: Paraguay’s fluctuating positions on Palestine: Between interests and justice

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.