The London School of Economics and Political Science the Mexican Drug “War” an Examination Into the Nature of Narcotics

The London School of Economics and Political Science The Mexican Drug “War” An examination into the nature of narcotics- linked violence in Mexico, 2006-2012 Jacob Christopher Parakilas A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, June 2013. 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 83,569 words. Jacob Christopher Parakilas Statement of use of third party for editorial help I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Elizabeth George. 2 Abstract This thesis examines incidences of violence in Mexico related to the trade in illegal narcotics from the election of President Felipe Calderón in late 2006 to the election of his successor, Enrique Peña Nieto, in mid-2012. The thesis, which is arranged methodologically as a single case study, begins with an examination of the state of literature on violence, crime and warfare. The theoretical basis is specified by subsequent inquiry into the role of illegal narcotics as a driver of violence, and together, these theoretical chapters form the basis of the hypothesis, that under certain circumstances, the drugs trade can create a market of violence, in which non-political actors are incentivised by their constraints to engage in acts of violence not normally associated with criminals. The next three chapters comprise an empirical examination of the hypothesis – the first on historical inflection points in Mexican history and the US/Mexican relationship along with the geographic and historical challenges, as illustrated by the border region around Ciudad Juarez and the violence in Guatemala, the second on the divergent structures and strategies of selected Mexican drug trafficking organisations as a window into the nature of the overall conflict, and the third on the effects of Mexican and American governmental strategies to control the violence. The thesis concludes that while drug violence in Mexico does have the overall shape of a market of violence, developments toward the end of the period studied give some hope that the constraints will change and markedly reduce the incentive for violence. Policy ramifications and the overall future of drug violence given the uncertain future of prohibition are considered in the conclusion as well. 3 Acknowledgments Writing a doctoral thesis is a lonely and difficult task. In my experience, the difference between the process being survivable and not is the strength of the bonds the writer forges in the course of the years during which he or she is engaged on the task. Before starting on my doctorate, I was told (or perhaps warned) that the relationship between graduate student and supervisor was the most significant professional relationship in academia. This is undoubtedly true, and I was extraordinarily lucky to find in Christopher Coker an exceptionally talented and capable supervisor, whose friendship and guidance were instrumental in helping me find me feet in the world of academic research and guiding me through its intricacies and low points. My parents, James Parakilas and Mary Hunter, and my grandmother, Shelagh Hunter, academics all, helped me understand the difficulties in producing such a piece of work and offered invaluable support throughout the entire process. My brother, Sandy Parakilas, is not an academic, but our conversations and travels together during the course of my time at LSE were immeasurably helpful in keeping the entire process in perspective. Numerous other people provided important advice, revision and help throughout the process. Nick Srnicek, Oscar Palma and Caroline Varin read early drafts of my chapters and helped shape the subsequent direction and thrust of the work, and it is much the better for their aid. Professor Coker's other PhD students – especially Jon Rahbek- Clemmenson and Curtis Ohlers – also engaged with me during the later stages of the work and provided invaluable commentary, suggestions and critical questions. I would also be remiss to not specifically thank Young-Bong Cho and Rajeev Sibal, with whom I shared a basement office directly across from a construction site for three and a half years, and whose company during long weeks of otherwise uninterrupted research and writing sessions made the entire process vastly more pleasant. I interviewed and informally spoke with several dozen experts in a variety of fields related to security, defence and U.S.-Mexican relations, who are too numerous to list here. Nevertheless their shared willingness to chat with a neophyte in the field and gently correct his misunderstandings about a contentious, ongoing conflict were all greatly and thoroughly appreciated. Finally, I was told by a knowledgable party shortly before coming to LSE that I should expect to meet my future wife while there – a prediction which I took with a grain of salt. I have never been so glad to be wrong about anything in my entire life. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS: CHAPTER ONE: Introduction and Literature Review...................................... 7 Introduction Case Selection and Hypothesis Literature Review Thesis Outline Concluding Notes CHAPTER TWO: On Violence, Crime and War............................................... 29 Introduction Violence Crime War Conclusion CHAPTER THREE: The Characteristics of the War on Drugs and the Market of Narcotic Violence......................................................62 Introduction The history of narcotics and the international order The modern history of the War on Drugs Drugs in the context of warfare The Market of Narcotic Violence Conclusion CHAPTER FOUR: History and Geography: Specific Constraints of the Mexican Drug Conflict......................................................95 Introduction External constraints: Three illustrative periods in Mexican/American history Internal constraints: The contemporary history of Mexican drug violence The border nexus of crime and commerce: Ciudad Juarez and El Paso The significance of geography and history: The case of Guatemala Conclusion CHAPTER FIVE: Examining Mexican Drug Trafficking Organisations........130 Introduction The Corporatist Model: The Sinaloa Federation The Anarchic Franchise: Los Zetas The Insurgents: La Familia Michoacána Strategic Geography Assessment Conclusion 5 CHAPTER SIX: Mexican and American Counter-Narcotics Policy............... 167 Introduction Mexican Government Counter-Narcotics Policy Mexican government hard and soft power Mexican government strategy and its effects American Government Counter-Narcotics Policy America's War on Drugs as a Foreign Policy and the Mérida Initiative Guns, drugs and immigrants: Domestic determinants of American policy in Mexico American direct involvement in Mexico “Intermestic” Policy? CHAPTER SEVEN: Analysis and Conclusions...............................................206 Introduction: The Mexican Drug Conflict in Perspective Implications for the Mexican government Implications for the American government The Question of Regularisation Overall conclusion: Mexico and the Future of Drug Violence 6 Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review 7 I. Introduction Illegal drugs, crime and violence are linked at a basic level in popular consciousness and policy discourse. The very term “drug trafficker” connotes a dangerously illicit type of lifestyle, defined in equal measure by brutality and glamour. While the reality is usually much more mundane, there is a real and lasting correlation between drug trafficking and violence. The production of drugs fuels insurgencies from the Andes to Central Asia; drug trafficking disrupts peace-building and society building from Central America to West Africa; and drug violence plagues inner cities from North America to East Asia. In the broadest sense, this thesis represents an attempt to elucidate the relationship between organised violence and the trade in illegal narcotics. But while the broad linkages between violence and the drugs trade have been widely remarked upon, there remains significant definitional confusion about specific instances in which large outbreaks of violence have been tied to narcotics trafficking. Much of the blame for this confusion lies on Richard Nixon's widely known shorthand for government counter-narcotics efforts: the “War on Drugs.” The rhetorical simplicity of this phrase and its appeal to common cause and shared sacrifice in the face of an implacable enemy served a distinct political purpose in 1971, but in the intervening decades, the same rhetoric has been used to explain and justify a vast range of military, paramilitary and law- enforcement activities worldwide. As discussed, drug violence tends to cluster around the three stages of the “life-cycle” of narcotics: production, transit and distribution. By its nature – specifically, that the production of most of

Load more