By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s executive order classifying Mexican drug cartels as potential foreign terrorist organizations will only significantly impact Mexico with close U.S.-Mexico cooperation. While Mexico affirms its sovereignty, President Sheinbaum stated a shared desire to combat cartels within respective territories. The order, part of a broader initiative to secure the southern border, raises concerns about potential impacts on migration and asylum seekers, though experts debate its practical effects on cartel operations. Some victims’ families hope the designation will increase pressure for justice and visibility regarding cartel violence.
Read the original article here
Mexico’s firm stance against the US’s push to label cartels as terrorist organizations underscores a complex and deeply rooted issue. The very suggestion of such a designation immediately sparks concerns about Mexican sovereignty and the potential for unwarranted intervention. The claim that this is simply about targeting criminal organizations ignores the potential consequences of escalating tensions between the two nations.
The argument for labeling the cartels as terrorist organizations centers on the brutality of their actions. The sheer scale of violence, including public executions, assassinations of political figures, and widespread intimidation tactics, paints a picture of organizations operating beyond the realm of typical criminal enterprises. These actions undeniably resemble the hallmarks of terrorist organizations, causing widespread fear and destabilizing entire communities. However, the question of whether these actions constitute terrorism under the letter of the law remains a complex one, leading to a significant disagreement on appropriate action.
The Mexican government, however, views this move with considerable suspicion. The fear isn’t solely about losing control over their internal affairs; it’s about the potential for the US to leverage this designation as a justification for military intervention. This fear is amplified by a long history of US intervention in Latin American affairs, which has often yielded negative consequences for the region. The prospect of direct military action is seen as a recipe for disaster, potentially creating even greater instability and further fueling the violence rather than alleviating it.
There’s also the acknowledgment that labeling the cartels as terrorist organizations doesn’t magically solve the problem. It may even exacerbate it. The cartels are deeply entrenched in Mexican society, wielding considerable influence and power. A military intervention might lead to a widespread backlash, potentially turning the entire nation into a battleground. It’s a high-stakes gamble with potentially catastrophic consequences for Mexico and the wider region, as the violence spills over the border.
The US’s own history with drug wars highlights the inherent complexity of this approach. Decades of the “War on Drugs” have demonstrably failed to significantly curb the flow of narcotics or weaken the cartels; instead they have often resulted in increased violence and further entrenchment of these criminal groups. The current push feels like a repeat of past failures, with the added risk of escalating a conflict that could easily spiral out of control. There’s a palpable fear that this is not about genuine concern for the safety and stability of Mexico, but rather a veiled attempt to exert greater control over the region under the guise of counter-terrorism efforts.
The existing legal framework and resources within the US already offer substantial tools to combat cartels, making the need for this specific designation questionable. The “terrorist” label might even backfire, potentially emboldening the cartels and prompting retaliatory measures aimed not just at Mexican authorities but also at the US. The cartels are currently motivated to avoid direct confrontation with the US, viewing the American market as an invaluable source of revenue. Changing that dynamic could trigger unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences.
This isn’t simply a disagreement over terminology. It’s a fundamental clash over national sovereignty and the potential for foreign intervention. While the brutality of the cartels is undeniable, the proposed solution risks creating more problems than it solves, potentially destabilizing the region and sparking a wider conflict with unforeseen and devastating repercussions. A more nuanced, collaborative approach that prioritizes addressing the root causes of the drug trade – which includes addressing demand in the US and fostering greater cooperation between the US and Mexican governments – offers a more promising path forward, even if slower and requiring a higher degree of trust and collaboration than a headline-grabbing label. The current approach risks making a bad situation immeasurably worse.