Self-Defence and Profiteering: Are there Terrorists in Mexico's War on Drugs?

What do we really mean when we use the word ‘terrorism’? The term is inherently both political and emotive, and the debate over what constitutes terrorism continues to rage. Many argue that an objective definition of terrorism cannot be reached, because the matter is subjective – as the cliché goes, “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” – while others insist that we can draw a distinct line between terrorists, guerrilla fighters, and criminals.

In Mexico, there are two types of non-state groups engaged in illegal violence. Those that are generally thought of as less than sympathetic – the drug cartels – and those who have been celebrated as heroes – autodefensas, the civilian groups which armed themselves to defend against drug cartel violence and extortion. Do either of these groups fit the terrorism label? And if so, does that help us to understand the conflict?

Drug Violence in Mexico

Since Mexico’s War on Drugs was declared in 2006, there have been an estimated 109,000 deaths and 30,000 disappearances due to drug-related violence. In 2016, the drug war in Mexico was named the second deadliest conflict of the year after the Syrian civil war, with 23,000 casualties. For many, the term ‘organised crime’ fails to capture the brutality and number of these deaths, and the terror felt by communities. In the media and by academics, the violence conducted by drug cartels has variously been called civil war, criminal insurgency, and terrorism.

In 2011, a third group entered the conflict between the state and drug cartels in a number of Mexican states: autodefensas, or self-defence militias. Autodefensas are organised groups of armed civilians who have used violence to fight back against drug cartels, as it has become apparent that the Mexican state is incapable of protecting the people. In the state of Michoacán in 2011, armed autodefensas began to push the Knights Templar cartel out of their towns, and by 2013 were acting as citizen police, arresting and punishing suspected cartel members. In the lauded documentary Cartel Land, the autodefensas are portrayed as vigilantes, defending villages from the very real threat of cartel violence. They, too, have been accused of terrorism, and others have considered whether their actions should be considered political violence.

Defining Terrorism        

While no conclusive definition of terrorism exists, there are a number of common elements that can be found in the range of definitions which scholars and political institutions use.

In one study, 109 different definitions of terrorism were found by surveying academics specialising in the subject. However, the most common recurring elements were the threat or use of violence, a political or ideological motivation, and an aim to create fear. Goodin argues that what separates terrorists from regular criminals is the “strategic use of terror” to advance political goals, while Ganor argues that what separates terrorists from guerrilla fighters is the target of violence – terrorists target civilians, while guerrilla groups fight against the state. Applying these elements of terrorism, we can consider whether Mexican cartels and autodefensas are terrorist groups.

Narco-Terrorism in Michoacán?

Various scholars argue that Mexican drug cartels are apolitical and free from ideology, and therefore don’t fit the common definitions of terrorism. Their motivations are economic, and the violence they commit is undertaken with aims to enlarge market share, increase profit, and control markets and trade routes. These groups don't want to engage in politics - they want to be left alone to conduct their business.

The illegal drug trade contributes an estimated 10% of Mexico's GDP

Under this definition, political motivations are thought of as a desire to change the policies or behaviour of the national government - and drug cartels in Mexico (unlike in Colombia) are not thought to meet this mark. However, this is not the only way in which behaviour can be political. In Michoacán, the drug cartels La Familia, later replaced by the Knights Templar, were considered the main force of authority and control in the region. The population was controlled through the threat and use of violence, and through extortion; La Familia had influence over or extorted more than 180,000 businesses throughout the state in 2009, and taxed families according to the size of their property and wealth of their assets. If we take the control of territory and assertion of authority to be political in nature, and consider how the fear of death is strategically used to achieve economic aims, then there is an argument that at least some Mexican cartels could be considered narco-terrorist groups.

Can Self-Defence be Terrorism?

Autodefensas emerged within this context of cartel violence and extortion, with the aim of combating organised crime and empowering civilians to protect themselves. Within the state of Michoacán alone, there were at least 8,258 murders between 2006 and 2015, most of which went unresolved. Self-defence is widely considered the most just reason for going to war, and in situations of personal attack is a powerful legal defence for using even lethal violence. The motives of autodefensas are easily sympathised with.

Dr Mireles Valverde, leader of the Michoacan autodefensas

However, these groups are often heavily armed, with weapons including machine guns and grenades, and bullet proof trucks - they are better equipped for battle than Mexico's Federal Police. There is evidence that some of their victims are innocent civilians, including members of opposing autodefensas, rather than cartel members. They have fought not only drug cartels, but government officials and the state military: they have arrested, beaten and kidnapped police officers, firebombed a city hall, and shot up a major's office. Their violence is widely thought to not only be a reaction against cartel violence, but against the incompetence and corruption of the Mexican government and defence forces. It may be the case that the motivations of autodefensas are more clearly political than those of Mexican cartels. 

If we think of it, both Mexican drug cartels and autodefensas use violence and the threat of violence to achieve specific aims; both have behaved in ways that are clearly political; and it appears that both have harmed civilians. 

Autodefensa members in Michoacan

Depending on how terrorism is interpreted, both groups – aggressor and defender – may fit the bill of being terrorist organisations. This should make us question both the moralistic use of the term terrorism, and its usefulness for analysing conflict. Ultimately, the question is this: does the label of ‘terrorism’ actually illuminate the violence and political complexity of Mexico’s War on Drugs, or is the only thing illuminated the difficulties inherent in the terrorism label? 

Wyoming Paul