Can the war on drugs be won?

Photo: Jesús Villaseca Pérez

by Fernando Elizondo-Garcia

Since late 2006, the Mexican government has been waging an intense war against Mexican drug cartels. This came as a result of a major policy shift from a former “toleration” of the drug cartels to declaring a war against and combating them actively since President Felipe Calderón was sworn in. From that day on, the Mexican federal government has been spending a lot of resources in waging that fight. The military has been deployed to the streets, security budgets have been increased, both at the federal and local levels, and initiatives are underway to strengthen and professionalize police forces.

After five years of war, many positive results have been accomplished. Several leaders of the most important drug cartels in the country have either been detained or neutralized during military operations. Detentions have also included other members of the cartels and even public officers that have been found to be working for or supporting the drug trafficking organizations. Thousands of tons of drugs have been confiscated and laboratories and drug crops destroyed.

Unfortunately, not all results have been positive. At this point, the death toll in Mexico is higher than combat-related deaths in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Data released in January of 2011 by the Mexican government revealed that from December 2006 to December 2010, 34,612 people have been killed, including members of the drug cartels, members of the military and other enforcement bodies, as well as civilians that were casualties of the war. 2011 has seen a steep increase in violence and conflict related deaths with numbers probably as high as 50,000 to this day.

In addition to the death toll, the war-like situation that the country is currently experiencing has caused many other unfortunate effects. People are being deprived of property or put out of business by the drug cartels. Many families have relocated into different areas of the country or have left the country all together. Tourism has been severely affected after the increasing international media coverage. And, in general, people live in a constant state of fear. Forced to change their daily habits, many people are even afraid to be on the streets for fear of being caught in the crossfire.

Analysts and intellectuals have called the whole operation a failure. A common opinion in the country is that we were better off when the government tolerated the criminal activity. Other believe that the cartels need to be fought but that the military strategy has failed and thus a new approach is needed. Either way one thing is certain: after five years of war, we are far from reaching and end to the conflict.

But who is to blame for the deaths and devastation that the war on drugs has caused? Is it entirely a national security issue or is there responsibility to be found beyond our borders?

I believe that an assessment and modification of the international regime to combat drug trafficking is necessary. Mexico is not the only country that is suffering or has suffered from the destabilizing effects of drug trafficking. Countries like Colombia and Afghanistan have also witnessed what an ineffective strategy against drug cartels can cause.

We must reevaluate the way we understand and frame the issue of drug trafficking and organized crime and hence develop international norms and institutions that can adequately tackle the problem.

For example, the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic details the obligations of States as well as establishes strategies and actions that should be implemented to combat drug trafficking. It also delves into international cooperation and assistance mechanisms to enhance domestic policies.

This last issue of cooperation and assistance is, perhaps, the most important and the most underplayed at the same time. The Convention discusses a lot the technical and legal assistance with regards to intelligence to find and prosecute those involved in drug trafficking. Yet, it neglects a very fundamental aspect: what good is it for a country to have intelligence if it will not have the capacity to act on it? Norms that provide for international capacity building are largely underdeveloped in the current framework.

The present understanding of drug trafficking does acknowledge the global aspect of the problem. Yet, it does not appropriately address an important difference that exists between different groups of countries: consumer and producer/transit countries. There are inherent distinctions between those countries where the drug is produced, those who move it and those who consume it. Generally, the distinction between consumer and producing/transit countries is associated with the developed-developing dichotomy.

The climate change regime is one that plays greatly on a similar dichotomy through the common but differentiated responsibilities principle. At this point, I need to clarify that I do not advocate for an exact replication of said principle in the context of drug trafficking. The common but differentiated responsibilities principle has been, to this day, one of the most widely criticized aspects of the global fight against climate change. It is, perhaps, what has even contributed the most to the current stall in talks for future agreements. By letting certain countries off the hook for lack of resources, the principle effectively created categories of countries in a fight that must be a global one.

It is for these reasons that I do not propose a transplant of said regime into the drug context. I do, however, recognize that a distinction is necessary. The normative framework against drug trafficking must establish a minimum core of obligations for every country, such as it already does. Countries like Mexico and Colombia, who are big producing and transit countries, should not be spared of obligations for their condition of developing countries. They still need to be legally bound.

By acknowledging the necessity for additional obligations of consumer countries to assist transit/producing countries, the factual difference between those two groups of countries can be effectively recognized and addressed. The economic analogy of supply and demand has been widely used in the drug traffic context. The terrible destabilizing effects of drug trade that are felt in production/transportation countries would, very likely, not exist if the demand in consuming countries did not exist. This is why it becomes very important to impose obligations on the consuming countries to cooperate, beyond mere technical assistance with the production/transit countries. It is necessary to establish a broad and effective normative framework for capacity building that plays on this distinction between countries.

Mexico cannot do this alone. Any efforts that fail to recognize the international nature of the problem will continue to be ineffective. The United States needs to assume the responsibility of being the world’s biggest drug market and the main country of export for the cartels and play a more important role in the fight against drug cartels. Just as in many other issues, the fate of both countries is effectively linked. If the US does not get its act together and stop the traffic of weapons to Mexico or continues to legalize the drug in its territory, Mexico will continue to fight a lost battle.

This is why it becomes so important to reevaluate the international approach to combat drug trafficking and effectively institute international obligations that can bind consumer countries to act in a certain way and get involved in every level with the war on drugs. We need to find a common approach and unite efforts in this battle. Drugs cannot be legal on one side of the border yet criminalized and actively fought with full military strength on the other. If we cannot find common ground, drug cartels will be the only winners in this war.