Ecuador 
Must Not Become a Battlefield: A Call for Sovereignty, Prudence, and National Survival
by Germanico Vaca
Ecuador stands at a dangerous crossroads.
At a moment of global instability—marked by escalating great-power tensions, proxy conflicts, and geopolitical brinkmanship—every decision involving national territory, military cooperation, and foreign forces carries consequences that may far exceed their stated intentions.
For this reason, President Daniel Noboa’s decision to allow United States military forces access to the Manta military base under the justification of “temporary exercises” demands urgent national scrutiny.
This is not a question of ideology.
It is a question of sovereignty, security, and survival.
Why Manta Raises Serious Red Flags
The United States already maintains extensive military infrastructure in Colombia, including multiple operational bases with direct access to the Caribbean, the Amazon basin, and northern South America. From a purely military standpoint, there is no strategic necessity to use Ecuadorian territory for routine exercises.
That reality forces an unavoidable question:
If this is not about training, then what is it about?
Common sense, strategic logic, and historical precedent suggest that Manta’s location—on the Pacific coast, with rapid access to northern South America—would be uniquely valuable not for drills, but for active regional operations, particularly in the context of rising tensions with Venezuela.
Ecuador Must Not Be Drawn into a Regional War
Any military action against Venezuela would not be a bilateral issue between Washington and Caracas. Venezuela has formal and strategic ties with Russia, China, Iran, and other global actors. In the event of escalation, retaliation would not target the continental United States directly.
It would target the weakest and closest platforms.
That means:
-
Forward operating bases
-
Regional logistics hubs
-
Host nations perceived as collaborators
If Ecuador allows its territory to be used—explicitly or implicitly—as a launch platform for hostile actions against another South American nation, Ecuador becomes a legitimate military target under international conflict logic.
Missiles would not fall on Washington.
They would fall on Manta, Ecuadorian military bases, and Ecuadorian cities.
This is not alarmism.
This is how proxy conflicts work.
The Democratic Mandate Has Already Spoken
The Ecuadorian people have already addressed this question.
In the recent popular consultation, Ecuadorians voted NO to allowing foreign military bases on national soil. That vote was not ambiguous. It was not conditional. It was a clear expression of popular will rooted in historical memory and national dignity.
To bypass that mandate—by rebranding a base as “temporary use” or “exercises”—would not only violate the spirit of the referendum, but also erode democratic legitimacy at a time when trust in institutions is already fragile.
Historical Context Matters
Latin America does not approach foreign military presence with naïveté. Our region has paid dearly for past “agreements” imposed under pressure.
Ecuador itself knows this history.
-
The Protocol of Rio de Janeiro (1942) resulted in the loss of vast Ecuadorian territory under the guise of international guarantees.
-
Shortly afterward, oil concessions along disputed borders were granted to foreign corporations tied to guarantor nations.
-
Similar patterns occurred across the region, including in Venezuela, where resource exploitation was structured through coercive agreements favoring foreign interests.
To ignore this history is not realism—it is negligence.
Economic Sovereignty Is Also Under Threat
The recent international ruling restricting Ecuador’s ability to extract oil in regions with isolated tribes—while foreign companies continue exploiting resources near and across borders using advanced technologies—raises profound questions of fairness, consistency, and national interest.
Environmental protection and indigenous rights are essential.
But selective enforcement that weakens Ecuador while enabling external extraction is not justice—it is asymmetry.
The Ecuadorian state has both the right and the obligation to:
-
Appeal rulings that harm its economic survival
-
Demand factual rigor and territorial clarity
-
Defend its ability to fund education, health care, and security
A nation stripped of its resources is a nation stripped of its future.
Neutrality Is Strength, Not Weakness
Ecuador does not need enemies.
Ecuador does not need to choose sides in global power struggles.
Ecuador’s strength lies in neutrality, diplomacy, and sovereignty.
Allowing foreign military forces to use Ecuadorian territory in ways that risk regional conflict violates all three.
President Noboa has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to:
-
Publicly reaffirm that Ecuadorian territory will not be used for offensive operations against any nation
-
Respect the outcome of the popular consultation
-
Reassert Ecuador’s constitutional prohibition against foreign military bases
-
Appeal international rulings that undermine Ecuador’s economic rights
-
Protect Ecuador from becoming collateral damage in a war that is not ours
Conclusion: This Is a Line That Must Not Be Crossed
Ecuador is a peaceful nation.
But peace requires foresight.
History shows that small nations suffer most when they allow themselves to become platforms for great-power conflicts. Once missiles fly, apologies come too late.
This is not anti-American.
This is not pro-any foreign power.
This is pro-Ecuador.
Ecuador must not become a battlefield.
Ecuador must not become a target.
Ecuador must not surrender its sovereignty under vague promises and dangerous assumptions.
The cost would be paid not by politicians—but by the Ecuadorian people.
