A call for unity rises as narco-terrorism deepens across Latin America.
Georgetown, August 2025.
The government of Guyana has issued a sharp warning about the surge of transnational organized crime, explicitly pointing to the Cartel de los Soles as a strategic danger to democracy, security, and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Officials stressed that criminal structures of this magnitude can overwhelm state institutions and corrode the rule of law, and therefore require coordinated responses at the national, regional, hemispheric, and international levels.
President Mohamed Irfaan Ali’s administration presented the statement as both a domestic security alert and a diplomatic call to arms. It urged democratic states to recognize that the Cartel de los Soles represents not just a trafficking organization but a narco-terrorist apparatus with potential to destabilize entire systems of governance. The message emphasized that preserving the concept of the Caribbean as a “Zone of Peace” will depend on confronting this challenge collectively.
The warning coincides with Paraguay’s decision to formally classify the Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist organization, a move signed by President Santiago Peña. This step aligns Paraguay with the United States and Ecuador, both of which had already adopted similar positions. The convergence signals that governments are beginning to transform rhetoric into legal instruments capable of coordinating judicial, financial, and security actions against criminal networks that cross borders.
Regional interpretation varies but shares a sense of urgency. In Latin America, analysts described Guyana’s move as unusual leadership from a smaller state willing to frame security threats in hemispheric terms. In North America, policy experts argued that the statement validates warnings issued years ago about criminal organizations capable of infiltrating state structures and projecting power internationally. In Europe, observers highlighted how democratic systems must adapt their justice mechanisms to deal with narcoterrorism disguised in political forms. Asian commentators compared the dynamics to challenges faced by states where factions of armed forces operate with impunity and blur the line between military power and organized crime.
The historical trajectory of the Cartel de los Soles gives weight to Guyana’s concern. Emerging from corruption inside Venezuela’s armed forces in the 1990s, the network expanded into cocaine trafficking, arms smuggling, and gold mining extortion. Reports from the United States and other international agencies describe the cartel as a hybrid structure where elements of a state apparatus provide cover and resources for organized crime. This fusion of military authority and criminal enterprise offers a clear example of how narcotics economies can hollow out institutions from within.
The consequences for governance in the wider region are serious. Criminal organizations with transnational infrastructure can distort elections, intimidate civic leadership, and capture local economies. Guyana’s statement insists that fragmented responses will be insufficient and that only a coalition approach has any chance of success. The emphasis on a hemispheric strategy reflects recognition that cartels use international logistics chains, shell companies, and financial networks that require coordinated pressure.
Looking ahead, three possible futures are evident. Continuity would see Latin American states align more closely, reinforcing intelligence sharing and legal coordination, thereby reducing the cartel’s capacity to move across jurisdictions. Disruption might arise if lack of political consensus or resource limitations delay collective action, giving criminal actors space to entrench themselves further. A bifurcation scenario could occur if some countries adopt strong measures while others provide safe havens, fragmenting regional integrity and undermining the effort.
The broader significance is that the warning goes beyond the Cartel de los Soles itself. It symbolizes a decisive moment for the region’s ability to respond to narco-terrorism as a systemic challenge. Civil society groups, long concerned about violence and corruption, will measure the seriousness of governments by whether they act together. If coordination advances, the episode may serve as precedent for a new model of security governance. If not, the era of criminalized power will continue deepening its grip.
Guyana’s call is clear. The threats are not distant, nor confined within one border. The survival of democratic governance in parts of Latin America may depend on whether governments act in unity or remain divided while criminal networks consolidate.
Facts that do not bend.
Facts that do not bend.