I used last week's World Politics Review column to call for a regional response to Ecuador's security crisis. ICG asks about the impact of a war on crime. InSight Crime provides a map of the criminal landscape.
Across many of the things I've read, there is a common theme that a mano dura approach is bound to fail. I think I agree, though I've been reassessing it a bit in recent weeks. Among the questions I have:
- What are the other options? I'm all in favor of an approach that goes after root causes and an approach that demands rethinking the "drug war" logic. However, neither of those two options deals with the violent gangs in the short term. Ecuador needs to deal with its security situation today as it is. It can't say, "well if we had decriminalized cocaine a decade ago, this wouldn't have happened." or "if we invest in education, this will look better in ten years." This isn't to suggest we shouldn't do those things, but it doesn't answer how Ecuador should secure itself this month. If there is a list of options, what are they?
- Is a mano dura approach doomed to fail? The literature suggests lots and lots of failures across time. But does that guarantee it will fail? El Salvador is sort of a piece of evidence to the contrary, but analysts also know the Bukele's backroom deals with gangs are also playing an important role in creating an image of mano dura success that isn't completely real.
- Should Noboa consider a backroom deal? It's ugly, but that is something that is working in El Salvador.