Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Mexican drug war

There was an interesting series on NPR about the war among drug gangs and government forces in Mexico. The most powerful cartel in the country is Sinaloa (named after their home state). Their boss "Chapo" Guzman is the most wanted drug trafficker in the world, with a $5M bounty on his head. Recently the Sinaloans have tried to bully their way into Juarez, since it is such a valuable smuggling conduit into the US. The smaller local Juarez cartel (La Linea) is fighting back of course, and the city has become the murder capitol of the world, with 6 killings per day. This prompted the US to contribute another $1.3B in anti-narco aid to Mexico, and President Calderon sent in 10,000 army troops to the city. Violence went down for a couple months, but then actually got worse than pre-army levels. Now the city looks like a Mad Max movie.

A possible explanation is that the army is taking a side. Whether due to political strategy or corruption, the Mexican military seems to be favoring the Sinaloa newcomers in Juarez. The majority of recent arrests have been La Linea members. Former police and army officers told NPR in secret that they are sure there is collaboration. Juarez cartel members recently assassinated 6 federal cops and left this tag on a nearby wall: This is what happens to officers "who ally with Chapo and all those mother- - - - - - - who support him. Signed — La Linea."

Of course this is nothing new, as law enforcement has made its services available to criminal organizations for centuries. For the right price, they stay out of their way and even make life difficult for rival gangs. But for the cops/federales to blantantly take a side is unusual. Aren't all drug pushers the enemy? US authorities shot a video of a Mexican army Humvee towing a stuck Sinaloan SUV (carrying a major pot shipment) out of the Rio Grande (unfortunately I can't find it on the web). Beats the heck out of AAA. The Mexican government dismissed the incident as Sinaloans masquerading as army, which is possible, but they could just be covering their asses.

On the other hand, the majority of overall recent anti-narco arrests has been against the Gulf-Zeta cartels in the east (FYI, the especially violent Zetas were founded by anti-drug commandos who defected for higher pay to become guns for hire, and eventually made their own drug business), who happen to be the next most powerful rivals to the Sinaloans in the west of the country. But is this bias actually a good thing? We know that drug demand in the US isn't going away any time soon, and probably never. We know that law enforcement can't really stop the production and trafficking of those drugs from Latin America northward. Most of the drug violence is due to rival gangs fighting over territory and power. If the Mexican government favors the strongest dog in the fight (and the Sinaloans happen to be relatively more professional, well liked by many Mexicans in Sinaloa, and less randomly brutal than their rivals), this may help the Sinaloans wipe out the other cartels and monopolize the Mexican drug trade. Then there would be no more drug war. The Sinaloans would then make some sort of truce with the Mexican government, and order would be restored. Sure there would still be some bloodshed, internal conflicts, and new gangs emerging that the Sinaloans would need to confront, but conditions would probably be better than what we have now.

Of course the US wouldn't like this because the same (or similar) amount of drugs, dirty money, and guns would still be crossing our mutual border, no matter how many gangs are out there. But for the Mexicans, they don't care as much. Their priorities are stopping the violence and restoring order in their country. And frankly, that's probably worth cutting a deal with the devil. The US wants the drug trade to stop in Mexico, which will never happen on our present course, and much of it is our fault. So if drugs are still moving, might as well stop the gang war and slaughter over it, so it makes sense to let the Sinaloans "win".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126890838&ps=rs

No comments: