Sinaloa: Time to Make a Deal with the Narcos?
At this point, one must ask whether it’s time to seek a truce. Is this the moment for the government to sit down and negotiate?
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico.— On October 8, the new Mexican government administration unveiled its security strategy for the next six years: reducing poverty rates, narrowing the inequality gap, addressing root causes, and strengthening the National Guard. Essentially, it's a continuation of the same strategy followed by Claudia Sheinbaum’s predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
It’s clear, I believe, that the strategy hasn’t worked. Today, criminal organizations in Mexico have gained ground, pushing aside negotiations, recommendations, actions, and battles with the government. Today, the Mexican government is a non-factor.
Here are three examples: in the same week — today, Tuesday, as I write this — a newly elected mayor in the capital of the central Mexican state of Guerrero was murdered, beheaded, and his body — cut in two parts — was displayed in a pickup truck on a public avenue. Just a day later, two mayors from Sinaloa were ambushed on the main highway to the tourist port of Mazatlán in that state, by armed men who stole their official vehicles.
Moreover, a month after the kidnapping of Ismael ‘El Mayo’ Zambada in Sinaloa, the war between two factions that previously maintained a balance of power has resulted in nearly 200 homicides and a similar number of kidnappings. This doesn’t even account for the damage to Sinaloa’s economy, which now seems irreparable.
Given this outlook, it’s concerning that the security strategy announced by Mexico’s new head of security, Omar García Harfuch, offers nothing new. Despite the constantly changing conditions of social violence and organized crime dynamics, the strategy to combat them remains the same. It’s like fighting a Third World War with a First World War strategy. A predictable failure.
At this point, one must ask whether it’s time to seek a truce. Is this the moment for the government to sit down and negotiate?
In September 2010, while the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juárez — across from El Paso, Texas — was going through one of the country’s most devastating security crises, with over 13 murders per day, a local newspaper did what many in the city had been asking for: they called for a truce, a peace pact with the narcos.
The editorial asked the narcos — both warring organizations — what they wanted from the journalists so they would stop threatening them.
That article reverberated internationally: many criticized the newspaper for pleading with the narcos, while others saw it as a heroic measure to stop the violence, and some opined that desperate times call for desperate measures.
A few months before the elections where Rubén Rocha Moya would win as governor of Sinaloa, Mexican journalist Carlos Loret de Mola asked him in an interview if he would sit down to negotiate with the narcos. Rocha Moya simply said he wasn’t closed to that possibility.
Today, such a meeting might seem necessary in the interest of peace, to let the people of Sinaloa live in peace. But that ship has sailed: to sit down and negotiate with the narcos, first and foremost, one must have integrity, be cleaner than the walls of an operating room, and above all, not have taken money from one of the factions now at war. In other words, you can’t owe anyone anything.
In my personal opinion, a negotiation could bring the solution that Sinaloans are searching for today. But it shouldn't be a negotiation about handing the state over to one faction or benefiting one side over the other to dominate the territory and make money along the way.
It would be necessary to sit in the middle of both sides, seeking an understanding that the war benefits no one. Neutral ground must be found. The least important thing is the balance of power or who wins or loses. What matters is that the people of Sinaloa are left in peace. That they leave the streets of Culiacán.
It sounds crazy, but it’s possible.
Now the question is: Who will be brave enough?
I’m in the opposite lane of you in this matter. I think their new tactics demonstrate a more hands on approach by the government via the military in the lives of the citizens. The lives of the citizens living in those hotspots will be difficult as from what i heard the army will be deployed to keep the peace. A deal with these people is not possible. They got Too much money and too much power and they are ruthless. I like your optimism though.