By Ricardo Lezama 
There’s no doubt that Mexico’s fragmented rule of law has made a mockery of public institutions for decades due to local and state level cooperation with drug trafficking organizations. Nowhere is this ringing more true than in Culiacan, Sinaloa, where two factions of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel syndicates are battling out access and control of the city’s bustling political and business connections. The Mexican public is forced to watch what decades of growth and corruption has permitted.
In the poorly planned world of U.S. drug policy, a new beast rears its head: the Drug Cartel Terrorist Designation Act, which threatens to explode the already fragile landscape of U.S.-Mexico relations and worsen the lives of people who will have to deal with the bullets flying around them, all while missing its purported target – drug trafficking organizations and their consumers with an insatiable appetite for their products.
The bill was introduced again by an irrelevant Kansas Senator, Roger Marshall, whose experience in US-Mexico relations cannot be less relevant to the task at hand. Nevertheless, the bill seeks to slap the “terrorist” label on Mexican drug cartels. At issue, however, is that cartels aren’t pushing ideology; they’re pushing profit which makes them much easier to repel and manage if one makes use of the conventional tools already available to law enforcement.
El Cartel de Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation are not Al-Qaeda or ISIS with a taste for tequila; they’re ruthless businesses exploiting a growing market created by American demand and perpetuated by failed policies on both sides of the border. If they make one dollar, someone in the US makes two and this speaks volumes about the nature of their illicit business. The consequences would instead to make an enemy out of a patient friend in Mexico.
As usual, U.S. senators are set to be comfortably ensconced in their Washington offices, deciding to pour gasoline on the inferno that is Mexico’s cartel problem. Their solution? More guns, more violence, more “counter-terrorism” tactics. It’s as if they’ve watched too many action movies and decided that’s how real life works. Usually, informants are enough just as it was for the Five Families in New York City.
Poverty, corruption, weak institutions – these are the breeding grounds of cartel power. Yet, our esteemed lawmakers seem to think that yelling “terrorist” loud enough will magically solve these deep-seated issues. But, this is where demand on the American side has to be reduced!
The purchasing power of DTO’s in Mexico far usurps whatever institutional power poorly funded and organized local governments can wield at a regional level. In fact, the billions earned based on American impulsivity is having an impact on US law enforcement too. Since that’s the case, would Senator Marshall be open to waterboarding enterprising border patrol agents? If not, then why should we accept the same treatment for the Mexican smuggler who paid him? The whole scheme smells discriminatory. Again, there is no ‘killing’ or ‘bombing’ solution.
This will likely only make folks charge more for their participation in an artificially dangerous logistical chain that ends with a dope dealer selling to a willing consumer. Thus, the usage of a terrorism statute for what is fundamentally a public health issue first and a law enforcement issue second will only make spike profitability and bloodshed.
And let’s not forget the potential for blowback. Remember the “Gun Walker” fiasco caused by the ATF sending guns to the Zetas in the Operation: Fast & Furious? That little misadventure in U.S. law enforcement ended up arming the very cartels it aimed to fight. One can only imagine what chaos this new designation might unleash.
The bill’s architects, in their infinite myopia, have even decided to slam the door on potential refugees fleeing the violence they’re about to exacerbate. The bill has language stating that it may not be construed to expand eligibility for asylum. It’s a masterclass in creating a problem and then refusing to deal with its consequences.
At its core, this bill represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the drug trade’s nature. It’s not a war to be won with more firepower; it’s a public health crisis and a law enforcement challenge.
Perhaps, given the bill’s sponsors this is the intended effect. After all, for decades, Mexicans have been footing the bill via deaths as a result of illegal armed exports but retaining much of the US dollars south. It seems, then, that US senators want to provide a boost for their own constituents: arms manufacturers and the bloated military industrial complex.
The very definition of terrorism requires that senseless acts of violence be linked to some extremist ideological strand that makes for resulting bloodshed to be inexplicable on a moral level. The issues in Mexico are serious, but not the result of Bin Laden’s spiritual proteges. In fact, we would do well to remember who the US was relying on to monitor the border after 9-11. The US to do the right thing when it comes to measuring likely consequences to such a bogus piece of legislation.