Colombia, Ecuador Tariffs Turn Border Ports Into the Real Battlefield

A 30 percent security tariff has jolted trade, electricity, and trust at the border between Colombia and Ecuador. At Rumichaca, a quiet crossing hints at what is at stake: joint port control, shifting cocaine routes, and presidents turning security into economic punishment for everyone.

At Rumichaca, Silence Feels Like Policy

At the Rumichaca International Bridge, the main artery between Ecuador and Colombia, local media described an unusual, almost disquieting silence. It is the quiet that makes you notice what is usually swallowed by motion. The space where engines idle. The pause where paperwork changes hands. The little rituals of a border that lives typically by routine.

One sensory detail stands out in that description, because it is so basic: stillness. And with it, an everyday observation that is almost unavoidable once you name Rumichaca an artery. Arteries are not supposed to feel quiet.

The trouble is that this silence is not just a mood. It is the sound of a diplomatic rupture hardening into something more practical and more punishing: a trade and energy war between neighbors whose shared geography keeps dragging them back into the same argument, even when the presidents change, and the slogans shift.

This time, the spark was economic, and it arrived with the bluntness of a percentage. Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa announced that beginning February 1, a 30 percent tariff would apply to imports from Colombia, framed as a “security tariff” and justified as a response to what he called a lack of reciprocity and firm action in the fight against drug trafficking along the border. The way he put it, the evidence points to a regional narcotrafficking machine operating from neighboring territories.

Colombia answered quickly. Bogotá announced a matching 30 percent levy on Ecuadorian goods and suspended electricity sales to its southern neighbor. In the same week, Ecuador also raised the transportation fee for Colombian crude moving through the Sote pipeline system, from $3 to $30, presented as a form of reciprocity for the suspension of energy sales.

Tariffs. Kilowatts. Pipeline fees. These are not abstract weapons, even when leaders describe them in the clean language of policy. They touch ordinary life fast—a price change. A shipment waits. A grid becomes more fragile.

And then, inevitably, the dispute returns to the place where both governments insist the real fight should be: the border, the ports, the routes.

Ports, Routes, and the Wager of Control

President Gustavo Petro, speaking on Saturday, said he was willing to meet with Noboa to discuss a joint struggle against narcotrafficking, and he tried to narrow the argument to a specific agenda item. When Ecuador wants, he wrote, they can meet, but the first point he wants examined is the development of a shared policy for controlling maritime ports. He framed it as a basic boundary of sovereignty and decency: the naval ports of Ecuador and Colombia are not for exporting cocaine, and not for smuggling fentanyl inputs.

What this does is shift the conversation away from the insult embedded in a tariff, and toward the machinery that makes the drug economy work. Ports are logistics. Ports are paperwork. Ports are containers and inspection protocols, and the quiet vulnerabilities that criminal groups study more patiently than any politician ever will.

Petro also argued that cocaine routes have been displaced. In his account, routes that once used Colombian Pacific ports have shifted toward Ecuador. That shift carries a dangerous counterpart: the entry and transport northward of contraband he described as more dangerous than cocaine, tied to inputs for fentanyl. He called for strict control over those inputs entering through Pacific ports.

He insisted he has not eased pressure in the anti-narcotics fight, and he pointed to coordinated seizures with Ecuador as evidence. According to Colombian government data, joint cocaine seizures with Ecuador rose from 86,786 kilos in 2023 to 132,354 in 2024, and then to 195,862 in 2025. He also recalled attending the inauguration of a new intelligence coordination center in Manaus, and said Ecuador accepted a policy of greater anti-mafia action there. The meeting he referenced took place on September 9 in the Brazilian city, in connection with the opening of the Amazon International Police Cooperation Center.

Numbers like these are meant to settle the argument. They rarely do.

Because on Ecuador’s side, Noboa is making a different wager. He is wagering that public anger over violence demands visible action, and that, in this moment, visible action means pressure on Colombia. In an interview published in the newspaper Metro, he said the safeguards imposed on Colombia are not an attack on a brother country. He said abandonment of the border allowed narcotrafficking to expand, and that the measure aligns with national security policy to strengthen the frontier. The citizenship demands action, he said, and the government is acting.

He also made the dispute personal in a way familiar in this region, where the line between security policy and political theater can blur quickly. Noboa said that for Ecuador, the fight has been relentless, and he pointed to arrests of people he identified as alias Pipo, Fénix, and Viche, saying they are behind bars, all with Colombian identity and links in that country. He said Adolfo Macías Villamar, known as alias Fito, now extradited to the United States, used to move in and out of the neighboring country from where he controlled criminal networks operating in Ecuador. He closed with a defiant line: they sought to replicate a business that already worked there, but with Ecuador, they were mistaken.

It is hard to miss what both leaders are doing. Both are trying to locate the problem on the other side of the border. Both insist the narcotrafficking machine is regional, but each is emphasizing the neighbor’s weakness. In Latin America, that is a familiar political reflex. When the state cannot fully control violence, it often reaches for a story of external origin.

Meanwhile, both countries share a 586-kilometer land border where drug traffickers operate, alongside guerrilla groups, and both have Pacific ports that mafias use to send drugs toward the United States and Europe. The structure of the problem is bigger than either president. But presidents still set the tone, and the tone right now is punitive.

A Familiar Crisis With Flipped Politics

To understand why this escalated so quickly, you have to notice the echo. The notes point back to March 1, 2008, when Colombia’s military, under President Álvaro Uribe, bombed a FARC camp inside Ecuadorian territory and killed senior commander Raúl Reyes. Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa severed ties, denouncing a violation of sovereignty.

Eighteen years later, the ideological poles have flipped. Back then, Colombia was governed by the right and Ecuador by the left. Today, Colombia has its first leftist president in Petro, and the conservative Noboa leads Ecuador. Yet the structural drivers described in the notes remain stubbornly consistent: a border defined by cocaine, a relationship vulnerable to personal political calculations, and a region squeezed by the United States’ geopolitical ambitions.

The notes place the U.S. shadow in plain view. In 2008, Uribe’s confidence was reinforced by Washington’s support through Plan Colombia, and the U.S. backed Bogotá against Quito’s sovereignty complaints. Today, the notes describe a “Trump Doctrine” that pressures Petro while backing Ecuador, and they portray Washington as generally close with Noboa and cold toward Petro. The U.S., in that telling, becomes a wild card, and the border becomes leverage.

There is also the economic imbalance that makes tariff warfare uneven. The notes argue that the trade relationship matters more to Ecuador’s economy than to Colombia’s, and they underscore Ecuador’s dollarization as a vulnerability because devaluation is not an option for absorbing shocks. They also point to another asymmetry: Ecuador’s dependence on Colombia’s electricity exports during droughts, which can account for up to 10% of its power during dry-season months between September and March.

So the weapons here are not symbolic. They are daily.

The wager here is that pressure will produce cooperation. That a tariff will force seriousness. That an electricity cutoff will discipline. But the more plausible effect is the one the notes warn about: both economies take hits, ordinary people absorb them, and the criminal groups at the center of the conflict benefit from any breakdown in coordination.

At Rumichaca, silence is a clue. It suggests the argument has already moved beyond speeches. It has entered the border’s muscle memory.

And that is the line that stays with you, because it sounds less like strategy than like experience: in a fight about narcotrafficking, the first casualty is often ordinary commerce.

There is talk now of meetings. Petro floated a bilateral agenda. A meeting between the foreign ministers, Rosa Villavicencio for Colombia and Gabriela Sommerfeld for Ecuador, was mentioned as a possibility for next week, aimed at finding ways out of the tariff war. In the meantime, each side insists it is acting responsibly, that it is not attacking, but simply defending.

That repetition, too, is part of the region’s political language. Not an attack, says one side. Not a retreat, says the other. Not for cocaine, not for contraband, says Petro, turning ports into moral terrain.

But the bridge does not speak in speeches. It says in movement, or its absence.

Also Read: Latin American Democracy Faces a Hard Turn Toward Uniformed Solutions