dispute

Feb. 26 (UPI) — Ecuador’s government said Thursday it will raise tariffs on imports from Colombia to 50% from 30%, effective Sunday, as tensions escalate over border security, trade and anti-narcotics cooperation between the neighboring Andean countries.

Ecuador’s Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investments and Fisheries said in a statement the tariff increase follows what it described as Colombia’s “lack of implementation of concrete and effective measures” to improve security along their shared border and combat drug trafficking.

“This decision responds to national security criteria, to strengthen shared responsibility in a task that must be joint: confronting the presence of drug trafficking at the border,” the ministry said, according to Ecuadorian outlet Primicias.

Authorities have focused on sensitive border crossings, such as Rumichaca, a major commercial transit point where officials cite heightened risks of smuggling and organized crime.

The announcement came one day after Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Gabriela Sommerfeld said the government “maintains dialogue” with Colombia through diplomatic channels, including embassies and direct contacts between officials.

Analysts cited by Ecuadorian newspaper La Prensa said the tariff hike may serve as diplomatic pressure to advance a bilateral security agreement aimed at addressing cross-border crime while stabilizing trade relations.

Trade tensions began early earlier this year when President Daniel Noboa’s administration imposed a 30% tariff on Colombian goods. Officials framed the move as necessary to protect Ecuador’s trade balance and economic security.

Colombia responded with reciprocal measures. Authorities in Bogotá this week began to apply a 30% tariff to 23 categories of Ecuadorian agricultural, food and industrial goods, according to Colombian newspaper El Colombiano.

The dispute has expanded beyond tariffs. Colombia has suspended electricity exports to Ecuador, while Quito has increased fees for transporting Colombian crude oil through its pipeline system — moves that signal broader strain in bilateral economic ties.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s government also filed complaints with the Andean Community, a regional trade bloc, arguing Ecuador’s tariffs violate existing free trade commitments.

Economic impacts already are emerging in sectors such as border commerce, energy and oil production in Colombia’s Putumayo region. Colombia’s National Association of Financial Institutions warned costs for both economies could become significant if the dispute persists.

According to Ecuador’s Federation of Exporters, about $273 million a year in exports could be at risk if Colombia maintains its reciprocal 30% tariff. The group said roughly 580 Ecuadorian companies export to Colombia.

For some firms, up to half of their revenue depends on that market, raising concerns about potential economic fallout if tensions continue.

Slovakia had issued a two-day ultimatum to Ukraine to reopen the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline so that it could receive Russian oil deliveries.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said his country will halt emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens a key pipeline transporting Russian oil to Slovakia, making good on an ultimatum he issued to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Fico’s announcement on Monday came two days after he warned Zelenskyy on social media that he would ask state-owned company SEPS to halt emergency supplies of electricity if flows of Russian crude oil via the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline crossing Ukraine did not resume.

“As of today, if the Ukrainian side turns to Slovakia with a request for assistance in stabilising the Ukrainian energy grid, such assistance will not be provided,” Fico said in a video on his Facebook page.

Ukrainian grid operator Ukrenergo said in a statement that it had not been officially informed yet, but that it would “not affect the situation in the unified power system of Ukraine”.

“The last time Ukraine requested emergency assistance from Slovakia was over a month ago and in a very limited volume,” it said.

Fico said the stoppage would be lifted “as soon as the transit of oil to Slovakia is restored”.

“Otherwise, we will take further reciprocal steps,” he said, adding his country would also reconsider “its previously constructive positions on Ukraine’s EU membership”.

He said the stalled oil supply was a “purely political decision aimed at blackmailing Slovakia over its international positions on the war in Ukraine”.

Slovakia and neighbouring Hungary, which have both remained dependent on Russian oil since the Kremlin launched its invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, have become increasingly vocal in demanding that Kyiv resume deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, which was shut down after what Ukraine said was a Russian drone strike hit infrastructure in late January.

Ukraine says it is fixing the damage on the pipeline, which still carries Russian oil over Ukrainian territory to Europe, as fast as it can.

Slovakia and Hungary say Ukraine is to blame for the prolonged outage and have declared emergencies over the cut in oil deliveries.

The EU imposed a ban on most oil imports from Russia in 2022, but the Druzhba pipeline was exempted to give landlocked Central European countries time to find alternative oil supplies.

Meanwhile, the European Union failed to agree on new sanctions on Russia for the fourth anniversary of Europe’s biggest war since World War II, after Hungary vetoed the move.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban – the friendliest EU leader to the Kremlin – is stalling the sanctions and a 90-billion-euro ($106bn) EU loan to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens the oil pipeline.

Fico also said he has refused to “involve the Slovak Republic” in the latest EU loan due to Zelenskyy’s “unacceptable behaviour”, alluding to Ukraine’s earlier halting of Russian gas supplies after a five-year-old transit agreement expired on January 1, 2025, which Fico claimed is costing Slovakia “damages of 500 million [euros; $590m] per year”.

Hungary and Slovakia have accounted for 68 percent of Ukraine’s imported power this month, according to Kyiv-based consultancy ExPro. It was not immediately clear if emergency electricity supplies were included in that figure.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — Nearly $273 million in annual Ecuadorian exports are at stake if a reciprocal 30% tariff announced by Ecuador and Colombia takes effect, according to the Ecuadorian Federation of Exporters, Fedexpor.

The trade group said 580 Ecuadorian companies export to Colombia and warned that for several of them, the impact of new tariffs could be devastating, as up to half of their revenue depends on that market.

Although the tariff has not been implemented, Fedexpor said uncertainty is already affecting business decisions. Colombian buyers are reluctant to close deals amid the possibility that the measure could made formal in the short term, local newspaper Primicias reported.

The government of President Daniel Noboa announced Jan. 21 that Ecuador would impose a 30% tariff, described as a “security fee,” on imports from Colombia. Quito said the move responds to what it considers a lack of commitment by the government of President Gustavo Petro to border security.

Colombia responded the following day by announcing a reciprocal 30% tariff on 20 products imported from Ecuador. It also decided to cut off electricity supplies to Ecuador.

The 30% tariffs were scheduled to take effect Feb. 1, but were not implemented.

Xavier Rosero, president of Fedexpor, said there remains a “window of time” for both governments to reach an agreement on security and trade matters.

Industrial products such as fats, vegetable oils, canned tuna, plastics and rubber face high uncertainty. Orders for these goods, which are key in bilateral trade, are currently on hold, Rosero told digital outlet El Oriente.

He added that Colombian buyers are already seeking alternative suppliers in China, Brazil and Mexico to replace Ecuadorian products, a shift that could result in market losses that are difficult to recover.

Ecuadorian palm oil is among the most affected products, valued at roughly $96 million annually.

The palm oil sector generates 110,000 jobs across 14 provinces, mainly in border areas. It exports between 6,000 and 8,000 metric tons per month to the Colombian market — volumes that could be redirected to other destinations, though that would not be easy, according to Ecuavisa.

Fedexpor estimates about 40,000 jobs are tied to Ecuadorian companies with significant sales to Colombia. Once the tariff is applied, it could affect more than 50 Ecuadorian products.

Rosero acknowledged as “legitimate” the Noboa government’s concern over security conditions along the shared border with Colombia, describing it as “a key space for trade, but also one that has been vulnerable to illicit activities.”

The dispute is now under review by the Andean Community’s courts after complaints filed by Colombia and counterclaims from Ecuador, in a process that could prolong commercial uncertainty.

Mérida, February 18, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government commemorated the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Agreement and urged Guyana to engage in “good faith negotiations” to settle the longstanding dispute over the Essequibo Strip.

In a statement published on Tuesday, Caracas celebrated six decades of the agreement and reiterated that the treaty is “the only valid legal instrument for reaching a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute” over the 160,000 square-kilometer territory.

The 1966 accord, signed by Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and British Guiana, a British colony at the time, saw the different parties pledge to find an agreeable solution to the border issue.

The Venezuelan government’s communique noted that the treaty was submitted to the United Nations, arguing that it overruled the controversial 1899 arbitration ruling which awarded the territory to the United Kingdom.

The text also reaffirmed Venezuela’s sovereignty claim over the resource-rich territory and referenced the popular mandate from the December 3, 2023, referendum that saw over 90 percent of respondents back the country’s rights over the Essequibo Strip.

“The only possible solution to the territorial controversy is to engage in good faith negotiations, to achieve a satisfactory arrangement for the two parties that signed the Geneva Agreement,” the declaration concluded.

The Guyanese government responded on Wednesday with its own statement, arguing that the Geneva Agreement did not annul the 1899 Arbitral Award but rather established a framework for resolving the dispute that arose when Venezuela questioned the border’s validity in 1962.

Georgetown likewise noted that, in January 2018, the Secretary-General of the United Nations determined that the “good offices” mechanism had been unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. 

“In accordance with Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, the Secretary-General decided to submit the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the final means of resolution. Both Guyana and Venezuela were bound by that decision.”

Hours later, the Venezuelan government issued a second statement accusing Guyana of attempting to distort the spirit of the Geneva Agreement and reiterating Caracas’ position rejecting the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the border controversy.

“Venezuela will not recognize any decision emanating from the International Court of Justice on the territorial dispute surrounding Guayana Esequiba,” the document read.

Despite rejecting the Hague-based court’s authority on the matter, the Venezuelan government participated in a documentation-gathering process before the ICJ during 2023 and 2024. Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, then vice president, led the country’s legal efforts.

In August 2025, Caracas submitted further evidence backing its Essequibo sovereignty claim and challenging Georgetown’s historical and legal arguments. The case will advance to the oral hearings phase in May 2026.

In January, the Guyanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Hugh Todd, claimed that the ICJ’s ruling would be binding for both nations and that the case was now in the hands of “the highest and most respected judicial authority in the world.”

The longstanding territorial controversy flared up in 2015 after ExxonMobil discovered and began exploiting massive offshore oil reserves. Venezuelan authorities have raised their sovereignty claims and criticized Guyanese counterparts for giving drilling permits to multinational corporations in undelimited waters.

Caracas has also criticized the US’ interference in the issue, with successive administrations offering their full backing to Georgetown. Venezuelan authorities have accused Washington of stoking regional tensions amid plans to establish military bases in Guyana.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert shot back at his network Tuesday over its handling of his interview with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.

Colbert told viewers Monday he was instructed by CBS “in no uncertain terms” that Talarico could not appear on his “Late Show” program because it would require offering equal time to the candidate’s opponents in the Democratic senate primary. The host also said he was told by CBS not to discuss the matter on the air, a demand he ignored.

CBS contradicted Colbert’s account in a Tuesday statement, saying “‘The Late Show’ was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” and that Colbert was only advised the program would have to make the time available to Talarico’s opponents.

In his Tuesday “Late Show” monologue, Colbert described the CBS denial as “crap.” He said the CBS legal department cleared his Monday comments and even advised him on his language on the matter.

“They know damn well that every word of my script last night was approved by CBS’ lawyers, who for the record approve every script that goes on the air whether it’s about equal time or this image of frogs having sex,” he said.

Colbert took a paper copy with the CBS statement, crumpled it, and put it in a plastic bag typically used to collect dog feces.

The showdown centers on the Federal Communications Commission’s equal-time rule — which applies only to broadcast TV and radio. The rarely enforced regulation requires broadcasters who interview qualified candidates for office to offer equal time to other contenders on the ballot. Exceptions are typically given to interviews on news programs and talk shows.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has called to end the exception for talk shows. Experts say such a change would be difficult to enforce and even chill free speech by limiting which guests programs can book.

Carr’s move is largely seen as an accommodation to President Trump, whose animus toward late-night programs that frequently lampoon him is well-known.

Colbert conducted the interview with Talarico and posted it on YouTube, which is not under the FCC’s jurisdiction, where it attracted several million views.

On Tuesday, Colbert claimed CBS management is kowtowing to Carr and showing a lack of corporate courage. He noted that the talk show exemption in the equal time rule is still in place

“I’m just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies,” he said.

A CBS representative did not respond to a request for comment.

Colbert has little to risk by publicly taking on CBS management as his program is ending in May. The company cited financial losses as the reason for the cancellation, but the timing of the decision in July came before CBS parent Paramount Global closed its merger deal with Skydance Media, which required regulatory approval from the Trump administration.

Trump celebrated the announcement that Colbert’s program is ending and has called for the firing of late-night hosts Jimmy Kimmel of ABC and Seth Meyers of NBC.

Colbert is under contract through May and has been kept on the air since the cancellation announcement last year. But if CBS execs lose their patience, it’s conceivable that the network can pull him off the air and use guest hosts until the end of the program’s run.

CBS has yet to decide on a replacement for “The Late Show,” which was launched in 1993 when David Letterman joined the network.