Are the Mexican drug cartels as powerful as people think?

Oswaldo Zavala is a Mexican academic and author whose 2022 book, provocatively titled Drug Cartels Don't Exist, argues for a bold reorientation of thinking about organized crime in his country. Zavala says the cartels are not as all-powerful as U.S. and Mexican authorities claim, and that they could not flourish without the support of corrupt state officials.

Following the arrest of two leaders of the Sinaloa drug trafficking organization last month, The Times' Kate Linthicum spoke with Zavala about the “kingpin strategy” aimed at drug cartel bosses and the way he believes authorities construct the image of an all-powerful “bogeyman” among the drug cartels to obscure the involvement of government officials in the drug trade.

Their conversation has been edited for clarity.

What did you think when you heard news that two high-ranking members of the Sinaloa cartel El Paso, is this true?

The first thing that came to my mind was, “Oh, here we go again.” It’s the narco narrative recycling itself again, only with a rearrangement of names.

What is the narco narrative?

It argues that drug organizations have become sophisticated, influential, and have endless resources, and are able to challenge not only authorities in countries like Colombia or Mexico, but also U.S. intelligence agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI.

It is a public justification of a militarised policy imposed by developing countries in Latin America that has led to bloodshed, particularly affecting the poorest, most disenfranchised and most vulnerable populations.

One of my first reactions to this whole episode is how deeply flawed and contradictory this drug war narrative is, and how it keeps changing. One day we hear that these dealers are criminal masterminds. And the next day they're bumbling little men desperate to make a deal to survive, even if it's in a US prison camp.

Your book is entitled “The cartels do not exist.” Do you really mean that?

What I'm primarily arguing with this title is that the concept of cartel itself is a fiction. That's not to say that traffickers or their organizations don't exist. What I'm challenging is the language we use to describe them. I believe that this is key to understanding the way consensus is built to legitimize the violent, militaristic policies advanced in societies like Mexico. It's a language that legitimizes state violence, abuse, crimes against humanity – all the kinds of horrors that a militarized country must endure.

The concept of cartel was promoted by the DEA in the late 1970s to show the US public that these organizations had grown in power and influence and posed a great threat to national security. The word itself was rarely used by the drug traffickers. In fact, the drug traffickers were the last to realize that they were part of this so-called cartel.

The logistics of their survival as an organization were largely coordinated by the federal police or the Mexican military. The traffickers themselves were largely subordinate to the Mexican state structures.

There was much jubilation in the United States following the arrest of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and Joaquín Guzmán López. President Biden praised the arrest as part of a larger effort to “save American lives”. Do you think the arrestS of these two men will increase the security of Americans?

There is evidence that the kingpin strategy – the idea of ​​arresting the leaders of organizations – not only has no impact on drug prices or drug inflows, but in many ways actually facilitates them, because it fragments global markets and allows drugs to flow from many different sources.

When Pablo Escobar was murdered in the 1990s, the price of cocaine actually dropped. This made cocaine cheaper and more readily available.

Of course I am glad that someone like Zambada is arrested and brought to justice. But that will by no means end the fentanyl trade, for example.

And what about those major shows of force by the cartels, like in 2019, when members of the Sinaloa cartel blocked streets and seized hostages in the city of Culiacán in an attempt to successfully pressure the Mexican army to release Ovidio Guzmán, another son of El Chapo?

It was, of course, a very frightening day. It was extraordinary and very disturbing to witness.

If I say that there are no drug cartels, it might seem like I am denying the relevance of this moment of criminality that we are currently experiencing in Mexico. And I certainly don't want to do that.

What worries me a lot is the way we interpret these acts of violence according to the official script. In this case, the official narrative immediately established itself: the traffickers are very powerful, they took over the city and forced the Mexican government to retreat. They won and maybe they even control the city.

I think that's very dangerous because there is not a shred of evidence that this is true. There is a military base in Culiacán and according to news reports, the number of soldiers and police officers was almost ten times higher than the number of traffickers.

What we saw was the narrative I described that the drug traffickers were in control. They were winning the war on drugs and the Mexican government was retreating. That is not the case at all. The Mexican government decided to leave and hand over Guzmán to save the lives of innocent civilians. I believe that was the right decision. That did not mean that the drug traffickers controlled the city or that they could in any way seriously challenge the Mexican government. That is just a ridiculous notion.

Early During his term in office, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared the drug war in Mexico over. He said his government would focus more on reducing the murder rate than on arresting cartel leaders. Did that happen?

I believe that the Mexican president has not kept his promise to end the war on drugs.

While it may be true that at the discursive level, the way the president and the Mexican government talk about drug trafficking has changed, the raids have never stopped. Soldiers are still being sent to arrest drug traffickers.

The military now has more influence on the civil administration than ever before. It controls Mexico City airport, customs checkpoints, and the northern and southern borders. It is omnipresent in Mexican politics. The process of militarization has not stopped; in fact, it has intensified.

We are the next three countries that are among the most militarized countries in the world and have the highest military budget in the world. Combined, we are better positioned than the next ten countries. And that is certainly driving the military presence and the level of military intervention in Mexico.

What do you expect from López Obrador's successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, who will be sworn in as president on October 1?

Sometimes I'm very hopeful, sometimes I'm pessimistic. It's very difficult to eliminate militarization – and the violence that comes with it. Sheinbaum faces a very difficult task. Our own military is very interested in maintaining its dominant position. I mean, why would they voluntarily give up the power they've gained?