Federico Reyes Heroles
English philosophers popularized the expression. Perhaps it was a reaction to the brilliant but very complex philosophical current known as the Frankfurt School, which did not deny the “cross of its parish”: Hegel in all. Nobody wins when analysis falls into the trap of the motley and the obscure. It is better to try again with a naive theory, a deliberately ingenuous approach.
Where does the problem lie? In the United States, yes, but also in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain. If there were no inelastic demand – economists would say inflexible – production would not be so attractive. Cocaine is another area that involves another dozen or so countries, including Mexico. Or perhaps it starts at the other end of the world: China for fentanyl; Peru, Colombia, or Bolivia for cocaine. They make a lot of money there because they are confident that, on the other side of the world, there are millions anxiously waiting for the substance. Do the Chinese authorities report progress in the fight against the production of precursors? That is a naive question. Then comes the commercial chain, an infinite number of businesses. It involves planes, submarines, shipping companies, and port authorities. Everyone gets a slice of the pie. Mexico is the world leader in the large-scale production of synthetic drugs, followed by Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Syria. The authorities in Mexico deny production but at the same time boast about the destruction of laboratories. They also deny consumption, but official publicity from the health sector and others saturate the media with propaganda against fentanyl. So there is a problem, and a very serious one. Aztec zombies are already roaming the streets of Mexico City.
The horror is unfolding: the dead are the product of the confrontation between the cartels. It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million human beings, including children and women, have been killed over 12 years (2007 to 2019). Since 2017, the figure has been around 40,000 a year. The Washington Post reports around 350,000 since 2007, plus 72,000 missing. Information on drug trafficking and parallel violence is approximate, as it is an illicit activity. The frequent disappearance of people and the discovery of clandestine graves are obligatory references. The territorial presence of the traffickers already crosses the country: from Baja California to Yucatán.
These cartels are splendidly armed, and, as President Sheinbaum rightly pointed out, 74% of the weapons come from the US. In other words, arms factories and the arms trade are another big business that our neighbors deny. Nor do they want to recognize that the most significant commercial profit is made in their territory, as with the cocaine distributed on Park Avenue, as with the fentanyl in almost the entire nation. Traffickers everywhere. What are the authorities doing over there? Do they not know about the distributors, or, returning to D. Gambeta’s original thesis, are the agreements between the authorities and traffickers there evident, not selling in front of schools, churches, and other monitored places? But the rest… free. Fentanyl is attributed to 96% of drug deaths in the US. The figure could reach 100,000 deaths per year from consumption.
Naive question: where is the beginning of the chain, and where is the end? Naive theory: what if we all put aside diplomatic hypocrisy and Mexico—a country of victims, not just traffickers—convenes an international meeting on this pandemic? Some initial agreements could be reached. The priorities are clear: tens of thousands of deaths a year, here, in the United States, and elsewhere. Declaring the cartels a threat to US national security makes sense to ordinary people there: the problem arises in Mexico. But what about our dead, broken families, the destruction of the state, all for unstoppable consumption? The vast profits are on display for the world to see.
A naive question: do we have the moral authority to call for action? Without a professional judiciary and with the grotesque defense of the “narcomorenistas” (those in the regime who support the drug cartels), the answer is No.
Militant Rocha!
Further Reading: