Colombia’s foreign ministry has accused Ecuador’s President Daniel Noboa of “deliberate interference” in Sunday’s presidential election, hours before polls open in a bitterly polarised contest. The diplomatic flare-up erupted after Noboa announced he would lift a 100% tariff on Colombian imports from 1 June, framing the decision as part of an “agreement” with right-wing candidate Abelardo de la Espriella to strengthen cooperation on trade, energy and security. In a sharply worded statement, Bogotá called the timing and presentation of the announcement “disrespectful” and an attempt to tilt the electoral race, noting that the tariff reversal was not a voluntary gesture by Quito but compliance with a binding ruling from the Andean Community (CAN).

Viewed from Quito, the move appeared to cement an ideological alignment with de la Espriella, a far-right populist who has vowed to crack down on drug trafficking. Noboa’s original imposition of the tariffs in February was justified as retaliation for Colombia’s alleged failure to combat organised crime on their porous border. However, regional trade diplomats in Lima note that the CAN secretariat had already deemed the levies illegal in March and ordered their removal, a point Colombia’s foreign ministry emphasised. The International Monetary Fund also warned Ecuador about the economic risks of prolonged trade restrictions, adding multilateral weight to the case for compliance. In Bogotá, President Gustavo Petro seized on the row to accuse ex-president Álvaro Uribe of having persuaded Noboa to introduce the “stupid” tariffs in the first place.

The electoral context amplifies the sense of external meddling. De la Espriella is battling for a runoff spot against leftist Iván Cepeda, Petro’s anointed successor, and the appearance of a foreign head of state openly dealing with him as an administration-in-waiting breaches diplomatic convention. Analysts in Bogotá observe that Noboa’s conversation, during which the two reportedly agreed to hand over Ecuadorian criminals sheltering in Colombia, was unprecedented in its overt politicisation of bilateral relations. In response, Bogotá announced it would revoke its own retaliatory tariffs, but the damage to trust was done. With another right-wing candidate, Paloma Valencia, also in contention, the incident risked consolidating the anti-establishment vote.

Whatever the electoral outcome, the dispute has exposed the fragility of institutional channels for trade disputes in the Andes. Looking ahead, diplomats in Brussels see the CAN’s role as under strain, while officials in Washington are likely to view the episode as another sign of how ideological affinities are redrawing alliances across Latin America, complicating joint efforts against narcoterrorism. The episode may harden Petro’s resolve to insulate Colombia from what he casts as a regional right-wing network, just as Ecuador’s Noboa faces his own political challenges at home. For now, both countries have pulled back from a full-blown trade war, but the incident has injected a volatile external variable into an already febrile electoral climate.