One thing Trump tried to do after getting inaugurated was considering Mexican cartels terrorist organizations, and for that he was attacked by Sheinbaum for violating Mexico’s sovereignty. But, at least as far as I’ve read on the topic (whcih is not a lot to be fair), nobody actually explains why that’s the case. I mean at a glance you’d think the Mexican government would benefit from such an action, or at least I did. It’s pretty obvious to me I’m missing a piece of the puzzle, so does anyone here have it?

Edit: Thanks for the answers. Now it makes sense.

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Terrorist / Terrorism seems to be a magic word in US law and policy.

    If a country has organized crime in their country it’s no big deal. If there are close ties between the rulers and the criminals, that’s unfortunate.

    But, if the criminals are now labelled as terrorists, then you get to go on the state sponsors of terrorism list, which comes with all kinds of sanctions and restrictions.

    If you look at so-called “terrorist” organizations, there’s almost always elements of “terrorist” activities, but also evidence of other random criminal activities, and often legitimate political activities too. Take Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA. Some of their funding came from fuel and drug smuggling. So, where you draw the line between a “terrorist” group and a criminal group is pretty arbitrary. I think most people would say that the Mexican cartels are primarily criminals though. While they do kill people in ways that are intended to send a message, the message is generally “don’t mess with our profits” rather than some political ideal.

    Every country has some corruption, definitely including the US. So, what happens if a Mexican politician was accepting bribes from Narcos and passing legislation favourable to them? When does that become the state sponsoring terrorism?

    Putting the “terrorist” label on Mexican cartels seems like a prelude to doing things that violate Mexico’s sovereignty. If the cartels are merely violent criminal organizations, it’s a problem for Mexico’s government. If they’re “terrorists” then the US can lob missiles into Mexico, because it has a long-standing policy of violating the sovereignty of countries that “harbor” (i.e. contain) terrorists.

    • Ofiuco@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 minutes ago

      Mexican here, I just want to add something:

      I think most people would say that the Mexican cartels are primarily criminals though. While they do kill people in ways that are intended to send a message, the message is generally “don’t mess with our profits” rather than some political ideal.

      This is rather naive, as they aren’t just killing for profit or to protect their turf (the government usually goes with that narrative to not get involved, “just say the person had something illegal going and forget about it”), they actually control complete towns and obviously have people as slaves, they kill governors/politicians who might win elections or movements that go against their group and help gerrymandering during elections, among many other things.
      They have a huge stake in politics to prevent things from getting better (specially during the past and current administration).

      So… I’d say that from the moment they started to force the goverment at different levels, we could label them as terrorists.
      In another time I might have hope of something finally being done after labeling them as such, but with president musk and the first lady trump… I can only expect the worse outcome.

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 minutes ago

      If there are close ties between the rulers and the criminals, that’s unfortunate admirable. FIFY

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      . So, what happens if a Mexican politician was accepting bribes from Narcos and passing legislation favourable to them? When does that become the state sponsoring terrorism?

      US has a shaddy history, and near past. Nicaragua contras (freedom fighters???) funded through Columbia/Panama cocaine. Venezuela last election meddling funding Narco gangs to burn things, and previous election, declaring legitimate president to be the main drug lord of the country.