Follow us on social

Why today's gang violence in Ecuador shouldn't shock you

Why today's gang violence in Ecuador shouldn't shock you

But the response could make it even worse

Latin America

The world was shocked in the last few weeks as drug gangs turned Ecuador from being a relatively stable, increasingly democratic Andean republic, into an apparent narco-state.

Ecuadorians are, for the first time, seeing their country fall under the control of criminal gangs, a fate previously only reserved to some of its other Latin American neighbors.

The recent surge seemingly started on August 9 last year, when Fernando Villavicencio, a presidential candidate outspoken about gang violence and corruption, was murdered by cartel hitmen in Quito, the national capital.

By that time, Ecuador was experiencing a surge in gang activity and violent crime, seeing its homicide rate go from 5.84 per 100,000 in 2017 (on the lower-end in the region) to 25.9 per 100,000, according to last year’s data, with that number likely to increase in 2024, according to Ecuadorian police that project a 66 percent hike in homicides this year. Ecuador is on the verge of surpassing all other South American nations’ homicide rates — with Colombia now set for second place — all in record time.

On October 15, Daniel Noboa, a former banana tycoon now president of the country, was elected on a platform centered around “fixing” gang violence in Ecuador. With 87 percent of Ecuadorians perceiving a rise in gang violence, and most cities now facing daily gang conflicts, a solution couldn’t come any quicker. However, soon after taking office, Noboa quickly declared a “state of exception,” suspending civil liberties and due process in favor of bolder police and military action.

In the last week, two major gang leaders have escaped from prison, Alfoso Macias of the Los Choneros gang, and Fabricio Colon Pico of the Los Lobos group, both major gangs within Ecuador. This week, criminals armed with grenades and firearms took a TV crew hostage in their studio, at the same time that prison guards and police officers were also taken as hostages by a drug gang in another part of the country.

In response, Noboa declared the situation an “internal armed conflict” and deployed the Ecuadorian military in the streets and expanded the security state’s powers to “fight” gangs.

So, why is gang violence surging, and why doesn’t a war against the cartels work?

The ongoing criminal crisis in Ecuador is, first and foremost, a direct result of the always-rising demand for drugs in (mostly) rich countries. As long as there is demand for drugs, and those drugs remain illegal, there will be gangs willing to provide them. Consumption of illicit narcotics has been increasing since the start of the war on drugs more than 50 years ago, and, with demand comes supply. In Mexico and Bolivia, for instance, the growing U.S. demand for heroin and cocaine led to the quick rise in poppy cultivation and heroin and cocaine production. If that demand is not addressed, it will keep rising, and drug cartels will keep producing.

Second, there is an observable balloon effect. As gangs from Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, and other neighboring countries were pushed out by dwindling local drug markets, competing gangs, and government actions, a significant portion has ended up in Ecuador, which was, until somewhat recently, very much untouched by major drug cartels. For example, the notoriously violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, began popping up in Ecuador in the last year. The same has happened with Mexican and Colombian gangs now in Quito and Guayaquíl.

Another impact factor is the militarized approach to the “war on drugs” itself. Violence begets violence, and, unfortunately, Noboa's state of exception may just make things worse. Noboa’s predecessor, Guillermo Lasso, pushed for police and military intervention against drug gangs, leading to more gang breakups and further violence. Embracing a violent approach will only create more narco gangs, as they encourage drug gangs to split up and engage in direct confrontations with the state and other gangs.

By doing so, Noboa embraced demonstrably failed policies of some of his predecessors and contemporaries. These include Felipe Calderón in Mexico, Álvaro Uribe in Colombia, and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. All of them expanded police and military powers against drug gangs while facing a surge in violence, only to see that violence and insecurity increase as a result of their policies.

These policies have left millions dead and displaced in the last five decades, while the region continues to be taken hostage by drug gangs, as quality of life and civil liberties dwindle.

If governments are unable to address the root cause of gang formation, namely socio-economic conditions and the demand for illegal drugs in wealthier countries, drug gangs will continue to develop. As more gangs develop, the government will respond with more violence and the suspension of liberties, leading to more deaths and repression. The root causes won't be addressed, and the cycle will repeat itself.

Sadly, with no sign of Noboa or any major politician in Ecuador being willing or able to change their approach, the cycle of violence will likely continue, if not escalate.


CNN/Screengrab

Latin America
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.