Trump wants a war with the cartels — and just might get one

This raises fundamental questions. “If they’re going to designate traffickers as narco-terrorists, are they going to include Americans who are part of these networks? Because we’re not just talking about the famous drug cartels, we’re also talking about trafficking networks, money laundering, arms smuggling and more. Where does a cartel begin? There is a huge complexity in determining what happens and where it ends because of the dispersion of actors, organizations and relationships on both sides of the border involved in drug trafficking. Rather, its use is specifically political,” argues Zavala.

According to Zavala, the narrative allows individuals like President Trump to use the concept of narcoterrorism as a tool of intimidation, threats, and extortion against the Mexican government. “Instead of describing reality, narco-terrorism is based on a spectrum of ideas, a political fantasy that is used to force Mexico to align with Washington’s interests,” he says.

An executive order to intervene militarily in Mexico

Intervening militarily in Mexican territory with the aim of harming the cartels is something that has been on the US radar screen for some time. But analysts argue that this would shoot the Trump administration in the foot.

“Using the concept of narco-terrorism, the U.S. government gives itself the power to intervene militarily in Mexico. It’s something very complicated, because intervening in this way would seriously damage bilateral relations, which are very fragile. It’s almost unimaginable (the idea of) military aggression,” Zavala explained. . “I believe that bravery aside, the Mexican government is generally united because ultimately our security policy has always been subordinated and violated; even subalternized by the United States.”

This Wednesday, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Foreign Secretary Juan Ramon de la Fuente had a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He did not provide details of the conversation, but said it was a “very cordial conversation” and that they discussed “immigration and security issues.” Rubio said he would prefer that any action, any decision taken from Washington, would have the consent, cooperation, of the Mexican government.

“Cartels don’t exist”

Osvaldo Zavala (Ciudad Juárez, 1975) specializes in Mexican narratives and has an alternative view of the narco phenomenon in Mexico. He believes that the cartel’s image of power is exaggerated and sponsored by the state. its author The Imaginary US-Mexico Drug Wars: State Power, Organized Crime and the Political History of Narconarratives (1975-2012)explains to WIRED that the war on drug trafficking is usually built on fanciful, contradictory, and often illogical concepts, which gradually form a fiction that portrays drug trafficking as alarming.

“The U.S. government has very skillfully created a long list of ideas, monsters, and criminal actors that dominate public debate not only in the United States, but also in Mexico. Thus, Americans become one entity or another when they want it. In the 1980s, it There was the Guadalajara Cartel, with figures like Rafael Caro Quintero and Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo in the 1990s In the decade, the central figure was El Chapo Guzman, and later, Amado Carrillo. Today, the conversation revolves around fentanyl and above all the Sinaloa cartel,” Zavala explains.

Zavala argues that the narratives used by the US government are a way of simplifying a complex issue, giving a common sense to a debate that would otherwise be more complex. “If we consider that a large part of drug use takes place in the United States, which has organizations that are involved in trafficking, money laundering and in many cases more dangerous than Mexicans for the Mexican panorama, then, simplifying the situation, Mexico is the security of the United States. The government can intervene in Mexico not only mediatingly, but also politically, diplomatically and even militarily by presenting it as the main enemy,” he said.

“As citizens we must be very careful with the narratives generated from Washington,” he warned. “It is essential to analyze them critically and learn to distance ourselves from what we are being told. This process is not easy or quick, because unfortunately, not only the Mexican government repeats these narratives, but the media also replicates them. Sometimes institutions and other actors push them. And to complicate things further, a popular culture is created that feeds off these ideas: today already is running About fentanyl, about ‘chapitos’ and about the cartels’ alleged criminal empires. It’s very difficult to escape from all this.”

A war that cost more than 100,000 lives

More than 100,000 people have disappeared in Mexico since counting began in 1964. The National Registry of Disappeared and Accounted for Persons has exceeded this number for months now, a testament to the dire situation in the country. Most of them have been registered as missing since 2006, when Felipe Calderon’s administration brought the army into the streets to combat organized crime violence.

“Many of the most serious effects of the anti-drug policy we have suffered in Mexico for decades. Since the start of militarization with President Calderon, more than half a million murders, more than 100,000 enforced disappearances. We know that all the violence has been unloaded. , above all, the poor, the racists. , against young brown people, who live in some of the most disadvantaged areas of the country,” Zavala said, as people wondered what Trump was saying. “As if we’re not already living, for years now, a really serious wave of violence in the country.”

According to the researcher, military violence is often expressed as a form of social control, as the management of violence. “You’re not going to see militarization in areas like Condesa or Roma, but in the fringes of Mexico City, the poorest areas. The violence is happening on the borders, in the poorest neighborhoods, where there’s not enough. Monitoring by the media or human rights organizations,” Zavala said.

What should surprise us, Zavala said, is that we’re experiencing very high rates of violence, as a backdrop to what’s already happening, not something that’s yet to come. “I think we still don’t fully understand that there is a clear class dimension to this violence. It is not generalized violence, but systematic and directed against the most vulnerable sectors of society,” he said.

Solution: Disarm the country

Calderon’s decision 16 years ago to hand over public security to the military in various parts of the country has shown us its dire consequences. Both Enrique Peña Nieto and Andrés Manuel López Obrador promised to return us peace, security and civilization during their respective election campaigns. However, once in power, both proposed consolidating the militarized public security model through legislative and even constitutional reforms. The situation doesn’t seem likely to change with Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration.

Thus, Mexico’s recent presidents have maintained a “peace and security” policy based on a military strategy, justifying it on the supposed operational inability of the police corporation to combat organized crime.

“I agree with the view that drugs need to be decriminalized, addiction needs to be treated, all of that. But in my opinion, most of the violence in Mexico is not related to drug trafficking, but to the experience of militarization. And I think there is hard empirical data to support this idea. We know that there is a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ militarization in Mexico,” Zavala explains. “Prior to the deployment of troops, our homicide rate across the country was declining and there is a direct correlation between military occupation, the presence of armed forces and an increase in homicides and enforced disappearances.”