Oswaldo Zavala is a Mexican academic and writer whose provocatively titled 2022 book “Drug Cartels Don’t Exist” argues for a bold reframing of how to think about organized crime in his country. Zavala says the cartels are not as all-powerful as U.S. and Mexican authorities insist, and that they could not thrive without the support of corrupt public officials.
Following the arrest last month of two leaders of the Sinaloa drug trafficking organization, The Times' Kate Linthicum spoke with Zavala about the “kingpin strategy” of targeting cartel bosses and the ways he says authorities have constructed the idea of all-powerful narco “bogeymen” to conceal the involvement of government officials in drug trafficking.
Their conversation has been edited for clarity.
What did you think when you heard the news that two high-level members of the Sinaloa cartel had been arrested outside… The Passage?
The first thing that came to my mind was: “Ah, here we go again.” It’s the narco-narrative recycling itself again, only with a shuffle of names.
What is narco-narrative?
He argues that drug organizations have become very sophisticated and very empowered and have infinite resources, and that they can challenge not only the authorities in countries like Colombia or Mexico, for example, but also U.S. intelligence institutions like the DEA and the FBI.
It is the public justification of a militarized policy that has been imposed in Latin America from the Global North and that has resulted in bloodshed that affects the most impoverished, marginalized and vulnerable sectors.
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 traffickers are criminal masterminds. And the next day, they are bumbling little men desperately seeking a deal to survive, even if it is in a U.S. detention center.
Your book It is titled “Cartels do not exist. Do you really mean that?
What I question with this title, first and foremost, is that the concept of cartel is itself a fiction. This does not mean that the traffickers or their organizations are not real. What I question is the language we use to describe them, which I believe is key to understanding the way in which consensus is built to legitimize the violent and militaristic policies that are promoted in societies like Mexico. It is a language that legitimizes state violence, abuse, crimes against humanity, all kinds of horrors that a militarized country has to endure.
The concept of cartel was promoted by the DEA in the late 1970s to show the American public that these organizations had evolved in power and reach and had become very dangerous to national security. The traffickers rarely used the word. In fact, they were the last to realize that they were part of this alleged cartel.
Most of the logistics of their survival as organizations were coordinated by the federal police or the Mexican army. The traffickers themselves were highly subordinated to Mexican state structures.
Following the arrests of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and Joaquín Guzmán López, there was much celebration in the United States. President Biden praised it as part of a broader effort to “save American lives.” Do you think the arrests Which of these two men will make Americans safer?
There is evidence to show that the kingpin strategy – this idea of arresting the heads of the organisations – not only does not affect drug prices or drug flows, but in many ways makes them easier, because it fragments global markets and allows drugs to flow from many different sources.
When Pablo Escobar was killed in the 1990s, the price of cocaine actually dropped, making it cheaper and more available.
Of course, I am glad that someone like Zambada is arrested and facing justice, but this will by no means end, for example, fentanyl trafficking.
What about these grand displays of cartel power, like in 2019, when members of the Sinaloa cartel blocked roads and took hostages in the city of Culiacán to successfully pressure the Mexican military to release Ovidio Guzmán, another son of El Chapo?
It was a very scary day, of course. It was something extraordinary and very disturbing to see.
When I say that drug cartels do not exist, it might seem like I am denying the relevance of this moment of criminality that we are experiencing in Mexico, and I do not want to do that in any way.
What worries me a lot is how we tend to interpret these moments of violence following the official script. In this case, what we had right away was the official narrative that was installed: the traffickers are very powerful, they took the city and forced the Mexican government to withdraw. They won and maybe even control the city.
To me that is very dangerous, because there is not a shred of evidence that this is true. There is a military base in Culiacan and, according to press reports, soldiers and police outnumbered traffickers by almost 10 to one.
What we saw is the narrative that I described, that the drug traffickers have the upper hand. They are winning the drug war and the Mexican government is in retreat. That is not at all what happened. The Mexican government decided to leave and hand over Guzman to save innocent civilian lives. I think that was the right decision. It doesn't mean that the drug traffickers control the city, or that they can somehow challenge the Mexican government. It's ridiculous to think that.
Early During his term in office, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared that the war on drugs in Mexico was over and that his government would focus more on reducing homicides than on capturing cartel leaders. Has that happened?
I think the Mexican president did not keep his promise to end the war on drugs.
It is true that there has been a change in the way the president and the Mexican government talk about drug trafficking, but the raids never stopped. They continue to send soldiers to arrest drug traffickers.
Today, the military occupies more aspects of civil governance than ever before. It controls Mexico City’s airport, customs entry points, and the northern and southern border. It has a ubiquitous presence in Mexican politics. The process of militarization has not stopped, but has grown.
We are next to the United States, which is one of the most militarized countries in the world, with the largest military spending budget on the planet, surpassing the next 10 countries combined. And that certainly increases 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 am very hopeful and sometimes I am pessimistic. Militarization — and the violence that comes with it — is very difficult to stop. Sheinbaum has 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 have achieved?
