Mexico's Drug War

"Pinal sheriff: Armed conflict with drug cartels coming soon."

Here is an excerpt from Ari Cohn Ahwatukee's article in the East Valley Tribune:

"Armed conflict in Arizona between sheriff's deputies and heavily equipped drug cartel squads is inevitable, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said Tuesday during a speech in Ahwatukee Foothills. 'We're expecting a conflict,' Babeu told the Ahwatukee Republican Women's organization... 'I absolutely believe you're going to see that happen in the next 30 to 60 days. It's not like I'm trying to start a war with the cartels. They're coming through like they own this place, and we're trying to stop them. I pray that every time, they surrender.' ... Babeu ripped into Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's contention that the border is as safe and secure as it has ever been... A significant percentage of illegal immigrants caught in Pinal County are from countries other than Mexico, he said, including "countries of interest" such as Yemen, Somalia and Syria... Drug seizures in Pinal County have more than doubled in the last two years, while the number of high-speed police pursuits rose from 142 in 2007 to 340 in 2010, he said." Link to Full Article

Analysis: No one can accuse Sheriff Babeu of being indirect. For those of you unfamiliar with some of the law enforcement personalities in Arizona, Sheriff Babeu and Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County are easily the most visible and most vocal. Arpaio is a highly controversial figure because he's staunchly against illegal immigration, and enforces immigration laws in his county with a vengeance. He also travels all over the country to give talks and make appearances, and his life has been threatened on more than one occasion because of his views. Babeu is like the second coming of Arpaio, whom he counts among his friends and allies, and is highly and publicly critical of the lack of US government response to what he perceives as a crisis situation in Arizona.

No matter how you feel about Babeu or his publicity tactics, I agree that Arizona is seeing an unprecedented influx of dangerous criminals and drug/human smuggling activity. This activity is starting to put the American public in danger in certain parts of the state, and several law enforcement agencies have acknowledged that their powerless to stop it due to lack of resources.

As for Babeu's "armed conflict" statement, it comes across as alarmist and showy, but that doesn't mean there's not an element of truth to it. Law enforcement officers in Texas and Arizona have gotten into shootouts and high-speed car chases with drug traffickers on quite a few occasions in the past, so Babeu's prediction doesn't come as a surprise. But his window of 30 to 60 days is meaningless because it's already happening closer to the border; I wouldn't be surprised if one of his deputies got into a shootout with traffickers next week.

While I'm not a fan of alarmist media reports or spinning up by public officials, I imagine this is his way of trying to get the federal government to wake up and take notice of the major problems affecting the southwest border states. It's hard to disagree with that.

"Slain U.S. missionary was fleeing cartel gunmen with husband."

Here is an excerpt from Jared Taylor's article in The Monitor:

"A police officer watched the blue Chevrolet pickup truck speed against traffic toward the checkpoint at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge shortly after noon Wednesday. Inside was Sam Davis and his wife, Nancy, who was still alive after suffering a gunshot to her head about 70 miles south of the Rio Grande, police said. Police and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers called an ambulance, which rushed the 59-year-old missionary to McAllen Medical Center. She died at 1:54 p.m. Wednesday. The rural Monte Alto couple worked as missionaries in Mexico for more than three decades... The couple was returning from a mission near San Fernando, about 70 miles south of Reynosa, police said.On the outskirts of the city of about 30,000 residents, the missionaries encountered a drug cartel checkpoint and refused to stop, authorities said. Several men in a black pickup truck tailed the couple past the impromptu checkpoint and opened fire. Sources said at least five gunshots struck the back of the missionaries’ pickup truck, leaving it 'riddled with bullets.' The missionaries may have been fortunate to escape the region and avoid kidnapping." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This is one of the more tragic stories I've heard related to Mexico in a while, and that's saying something, considering everything that's going on right now. These folks had been working in Mexico for 30 years, just to have this horrible nightmare happen to them. The incident highlights a few drug war issues.

First is the DTO "unofficial" checkpoint. I get a LOT of emails from people planning to travel to Mexico, and asking me if certain parts of the country are safe. I try to answer as best I can, but I'm not familiar with every town and every road and highway. Even if I were, the locations where DTOs set up these checkpoints change pretty often. I don't know how familiar the Davises were with the narco situation in Tamaulipas, but it was obviously a bad - and sadly, fatal - decision to blow through the checkpoint. This is why having situational awareness of your destination in Mexico isn't enough; you have to find out what's happening on the route you plan to use to get there. I can't stress enough that if you plan to travel to Mexico - particularly to a non-resort or rural area within 100 miles of a narco hot spot, you should contact the closest US Consulate in Mexico to ask them what the security situation is. I can try to help you and offer advice, but only to an extent.

Second, I'm more than a little concerned that the gunmen just started indiscriminately spraying the Davises' truck with bullets without knowing who was inside. But you know what? I have a feeling that even if they knew there were two American missionaries in their fifties sitting in that truck, they wouldn't have cared. Because they blew through the checkpoint, I'm sure the gunmen assumed it was members of a rival cartel or someone else who deserved to get shot for not stopping. Most Mexicans know better than to blow through a checkpoint, official or not, so the Davises' behavior likely came off as more than a little suspicious.

So what does this imply for Americans doing God's work - or any other work or pleasurable activity, for that matter - in Mexico? Well, don't automatically assume that you're out of harm's way because (a) you're American, and (b) you're doing something kind and charitable for the people of Mexico. DTOs don't give a rat's behind about who you are or what you're doing in their country. If you get in their way and don't follow their rules, you're a viable target, case closed. 

I tell anyone who plans to do any sort of driving in Mexico to ALWAYS stop at checkpoints, and always have some cash on hand to pay the inevitable bribe. Often, that's not enough. You have to read up (plenty of others' experiences on the 'net...do a Google search) on how to specifically offer the bribe to get going on your way and avoid getting arrested if it's a police checkpoint...and eventually having to pay a bigger bribe to avoid going to jail. DTOs will normally not mess with an American after collecting said bribe. I'm a big fan of the author's work (Hi Jared!), but I have to disagree with his statement that the Davises' were lucky to escape being kidnapped. Yes, we're seeing more Mexican politicians, businessmen, and migrants being kidnapped for ransom - especially by Los Zetas. However, we have yet to see any innocent Americans taken by the DTOs, probably because of the political/diplomatic firestorm that would ensue. Can you imagine the response if Los Zetas posted some sort of proof of life on YouTube for two American missionaries in their late fifties? But maybe I'm being naïve to assume our government would aggressively step in; they might take the same non-negotiation stance with organized crime that they do with terrorists.

Regardless, this is a tragic ending to a horrific story that all Americans with interests in Mexico would be wise to read about. I will remind readers again that there are still plenty of places in Mexico that are safe to visit for vacations and business trips. However, road trips in Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Chihuahua, Durango, Michoacán, and a few other places are ill-advised. Remember, the State Department is your friend when it comes to reading up before you go...use them.

*UPDATE* I just finished reading this report from CNN, and it looks like the Davises didn't blow a DTO checkpoint after all. It seems that while they were driving, narcos in three trucks tried to box them in so they could get the Davises to pull over and then steal their truck. One of the three trucks wasn't successful in getting in front of the Davises' truck, so someone driving parallel to them fired a couple of shots at them; one of which caught Nancy in the back of the head, and at least one more that lodged itself in the truck. 

When I read earlier reports of the truck being sprayed by dozens of bullets, it didn't make sense that narcos would shoot up a truck they wanted to steal. This account - straight from Nancy's husband, I believe - makes more sense and is infinitely more plausible. My analysis still stands; questionable checkpoints are still out there, and carjackings like this one are occurring with more frequency.

"Barriers aren't just for the border now."

Here is an excerpt for Brady McCombs' article in the Arizona Daily Star:

"The landscape of saguaros, mesquite trees and prickly pear cactus here has a new feature - steel railroad rails welded into crisscrosses and connected by flat rails. This rusting structure is a vehicle barrier designed to stop drug and people smugglers who barrel across the desert in trucks. The barriers are common at the international line - there are more than 139 miles of them along Arizona's stretch of U.S.-Mexico border. But this isn't the border. This 1.3-mile stretch of "Normandy-style" vehicle barriers was recently erected 70 miles north of the border on the Bureau of Land Management's Sonoran Desert Monument, just south of Interstate 8 and southwest of Casa Grande. It is likely the first time border barriers have been used this far north, and the latest example of how managing public lands along the U.S.-Mexico border is now as much about dealing with trash and trails left behind by illegal border crossers as it is about monitoring endangered animals or watering holes. BLM officials put up the barrier to redirect traffic around the federally protected Table Top Wilderness Area, where cars are prohibited... The barrier is on the southern boundary of Table Top, which borders the northern edge of the Tohono O'odham Nation. Smugglers have carved a grid of illegal roads through the wilderness area as they cross the O'odham land and cut through Table Top on their way toward Phoenix, inflicting serious damage to the habitat. The recently completed barrier has already diverted vehicle smuggling around the wilderness area, and BLM crews have begun restoring the lands damaged by the roads... There are already vehicle barriers or fences up along the international border in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and the Coronado National Forest... Federal law enforcement officers at the six border public lands visited by GAO officials this year said they spend 75 to 97 percent of their time responding to threats from illegal cross-border activity, the report found. At Organ Pipe, drug smugglers regularly use the visitor center parking lot as a staging area, says a Border Patrol threat assessment in the GAO report... The estimated 2,000 tons of trash left behind by smugglers and illegal immigrants has harmed the fragile Sonoran Desert, landing Buenos Aires, Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta on lists of most imperiled federal lands at different points this decade... Since last fall the GAO has been evaluating the relationship between federal land managers and federal law enforcement, issuing two reports in the past four months about an improving but flawed relationship. The first report concluded that federal rules governing public lands along the border cause some delays but do not prevent the Border Patrol from handling its assignment to secure the border." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are two different and major issues brought up in this article. The first is the "please go around" policy the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had little choice but to implement, and the second is the trashing of our southwest desert and national parks by drug and human smugglers. I'm not sure which disturbs me more, but let's take a look at each one.

We all know that drug and human smuggling activity doesn't automatically stop and disappear within a certain distance from the border. So it's not entirely surprising that these barriers are being erected 70 miles inland. However, it is remarkably disturbing to me that the approach being taken is one of deflection rather than interdiction. I know the BLM and other law enforcement agencies just don't have the people or resources to stop and arrest every drug and human smuggler that wants to barrel through these areas and trample the environment. That's a secondary concern to me; I can't stand that these smugglers have to be merely redirected and aren't being outright stopped. I wouldn't be surprised to see signs erected in the next year that say "Please excuse our mess."

The next issue, speaking of messes, is the outright trashing of these parks and forests by smugglers. I ticked off a few people a few days ago when I posted a comment on Twitter along the lines of, why do environmentalists get so mad about the damage caused by the border fence and stay relatively silent when it comes to the trash left behind by smugglers? I got a couple of decent responses. One was that the level of environmental damage caused by the fence is far greater than that caused by smugglers, so it was unfair for me to compare the two. Another was that environmentalists do care, but who would they protest or complain to? Narcos and coyotes in Mexico?

I think those are good arguments. However, I have my own response to both. First, I don't think there's a threshold for a level of environmental damage before people should start to get involved. There's a government website dedicated to informing the public about the tons of trash left by smugglers, as well as the efforts by agencies and volunteers alike to clean it up. Please check it out at http://www.azbordertrash.gov so you can find out more about how this is more than just a few shirts and empty water bottles strewn about. I'm not pointing this out because I'm a tree-hugger; far from it. I just don't believe that if you fight for a cause, you should get to pick and choose what to get upset about based on level of severity. I also get upset that environmentalists don't get upset about the damage caused by illegal marijuana grows run by Mexican DTOs in US national parks and forests, but that's another blog post.

The next point: Who would said environmentalists, or just concerned citizens, complain to? Our federal and state governments, of course. No, technically they're not the ones causing the damage, unlike the border fence that they pay for. However, our government is charged with protecting our territory from damaging incursions by drug and human smugglers, and it's only our governments that are capable of providing more resources to the agencies that can stop those smugglers. Trust me, the BLM and Border Patrol don't want to spend their time picking up trash! They want to catch bad guys. Badly. But since in many cases, they don't have enough trained people to stop these folks at the border, they're left with erecting vehicle barriers that just redirect smugglers further inland to continue their illegal activities.

So don't go across the border and complain to a smuggler...that's no bueno. But if you care about the environment along the southwest border and beyond, or if you're simply ticked off that we can't stop these criminals and have to force them to "please go around," you can be vocal about it, and you can complain. I've been calling for more resources to be sent to the right places in order to better address border security problems, and your elected officials are always a good place to start if you want to do the same and don't have the luxury of a public "pulpit" like a blog. It's our soil, folks; let's not give it away because we didn't try hard enough to keep it.

"Hidalgo SSP: Car bomb in Tula revenge attack by Los Zetas."

Here is a translated excerpt from this article in Milenio:

"The Public Security Secretary Hidalgo, Damián Canales Mena, confirmed the car bomb explosion which killed the commander of investigations assigned to Tula, Victor Peña, was a reaction of the criminal group known as "Los Zetas" in response to the deaths of two gunmen that took place weeks ago. Commander Victor Peña went to a spot on Interstate Tula-El Carmen to verify a citizen complaint about an abandoned car, minutes later exploded injuring three other officers... Similarly, the responsibility of the state Public Safety detective revealed that Peña had received death threats because of their investigations to disrupt criminal cells operating in the region of Tula." Link to Full Article

Analysis: This isn't the first instance we've seen in which DTOs have used car bombs to inflict damage against police. Two were set off in August last year in the Tamaulipas capital city of Ciudad Victoria. One was in front of a police station, and the other was in front of the Televisa new station. The first car bomb to be used since Calderón took office in 2006 exploded in Ciudad Juárez in July of last year. That one also caused little damage to anything other than the car itself.

Many people are concerned that these car bombs represent a scary escalation of drug war violence. I'll refer back to something Scott Stewart of Stratfor said in his analysis shortly after the Juárez explosion: "There's a difference between a car bomb and a bomb in a car." So far, the vehicles that have been used have contained relatively rudimentary explosive devices. They've also all been parked cars, and not even driven into a building or public area by remote control. It seems like a very elaborate way to target just one or a few people - namely police officers, government officials, or journalists - and not always very effective. 

So with my analysis, I'm going to go the route of saying I believe the use of exploding cars is just a new way DTOs are trying to intimidate government forces. While they're not using true car bombs in the same way groups like the FARC or al-Qa'ida would, they still have a psychological impact because the image of a car exploding brings terrorist attacks to mind. Tossing grenades on the doorstep of a police or TV station has a similar effect; it may take out one or two people, or just cause damage to the building. However, stuff blowing up tends to scare the pants off people, and that's the real intended effect, in my opinion.

No, I don't like the fact that DTOs are exploring the option of using exploding cars as a psychological or physical weapon. However, I believe they're still a ways off from crossing that ever-more-gray line of going from heinous criminal activity to true terrorism. We'd have to see a car bomb with serious explosive impact going off in a crowded area with no other target other than innocent bystanders before we can start going down that road.

"Obama Administration's New Proposed Gun Regulation for Border States Met With Bipartisan Dissent."

Here is an excerpt from Stephen Clark's article on FOX News.com:

"The Obama administration's plan to force new reporting requirements on thousands of gun dealers near the Mexico border is under fire from members of his own party. At least three Democrats in the Senate and several more in the House are voicing opposition to a proposed regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would require about 8,500 gun dealers in four states – California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas – to report gun sales of two or more high-powered rifles sold within five consecutive business days... The new regulation would cover semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, has asked the ATF to withdraw its request to the White House for emergency authority to enact the regulation. While I understand the importance of cracking down on violence and gun trafficking along the U.S.-Mexico border, this wide-reaching regulation would punish law-abiding American gun owners and impede their Second Amendment rights," Begich wrote in a letter last week to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson. "Instead, we must secure our border and target Mexican drug cartels, as well as participating offenders in the United States." The ATF has rejected the notion that its regulation will violate Second Amendment rights or impose burdensome paperwork on gun dealers... Scott Thomasson, the chief spokesman for ATF, told FoxNews.com that the agency is pushing for this new regulation now because since 2004, there's been a 100 percent increase by Mexican drug cartels using rifles, which are not covered by any reporting requirements." Link to Full Article

Analysis: My best friend always tells me I shouldn't write blog posts - or anything else for that matter - when I'm mad. I totally understand the reasoning; I'm an analyst after all, and work pretty hard to maintain a level head and examine all sides of an issue. But when I read articles like this, it's really hard for me to keep my blood from boiling, and I'll explain why.

My regular readers know I'm not anti-gun; quite the opposite. I was a military law enforcement agent for over eight years, and got pretty attached to both my Beretta 9mm, and later my SigSauer P228 after my agency switched over. I currently have a SigSauer P250 that converts from a 9mm to a .40-caliber, as well as a Mossberg 10-gauge shotgun with a breacher tip on the barrel that I'm completely in love with. When I bought these guns, I almost wished the salesman at the store had asked for more information from me. I know I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I know that I plan to use these firearms for home defense. But what about the guy next to me? Or the guy next to him? Is asking for a driver's license and a filled-out ATF form enough? This is my VERY pro-law enforcement side coming out.

Some people would say even that's too intrusive, and the ATF is imposing too many measures that "impede their Second Amendment rights." This is where we take a look at the new proposed regulation that requires the reporting of two or more rifles being sold to the same person within five days. This requirement is already in place for handguns, folks. And yes, I imagine that die-hard NRA members HATE this requirement, and I'm hearing the "It's a slippery slope to having the government come seize all our guns" argument in my head. So, knowing that Mexican DTOs love their high-powered rifles that they so easily buy in the US through straw purchases, why is there so much drama surrounding the extension of an existing requirement to cover rifles?

I know why there's so much drama, and I can't wait (I say this sarcastically) for the deluge of gun fanatics who will comment on this post, saying it's too much government, Obama wants to take our guns away, etc. etc. I'd like to posit this question, in response to Senator Begich's statement. How does this proposed requirement "punish" law-abiding citizens? And furthermore, how does it impede Second Amendment rights? If you want to buy ten rifles over the course of three days, guess what? You can still do it! You won't get fined, sent to jail, get spoken to harshly, or tarred and feathered - just some examples of what I consider punishment. And you still get to buy your guns, which - from what I recall, anyway - is right in line with the Second Amendment. Many people tend to forget that the role guns play in the lives of Americans have less to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with federal and state laws, as well as case law determined by hundreds of court decisions over the last 234 years. I challenge Senator Begich to show me, from a legal perspective, how the proposed regulation impedes upon anyone's right to ultimately purchase or own as many firearms as they want.

Here's my bottom line. We need to figure out SOMETHING to more effectively investigate criminals who are trafficking guns from the US into Mexico. I think the proposed ATF requirement is a step in the right direction. I also think the NRA doesn't give a rat's behind about southbound weapons trafficking. The group gives the impression that it doesn't care what goes on south of the border as long as all Americans can buy guns whenever and wherever they want. That may not be the case, but perception is reality, and I think it's totally irresponsible to think we can just wash our hands of any association whatsoever with US-origin guns being used in the drug war. I wonder what the NRA will say when one of those guns is used to kill an American law enforcement officer.

I'm just tired of lobby groups and other people throwing around our Second Amendment rights like it spells out exactly what were entitled to when it comes to gun ownership. I think it gives us more mellow gun owners a bad name; kind of like people who burn flags or make a painting of the Virgin Mary with dog crap smeared on it, then invoke the First Amendment. The courts have been debating this forever, so who is Senator Begich to make the determination that the proposed regulation punishes Americans and steps all over the Second Amendment? Our law enforcement agencies have a HUGE job to do, and I'm just sick of politics and petty arguments getting in the way of that.

So, as they say, bring on the pain...I know it's coming.

My interview with the AllTreatment blog...

Today, I got a very pleasant request for an interview from Cody Barrus, the managing editor at AllTreatment, a blog that serves as a directory for people with drug addiction issues who are looking for resources available to them. She wanted to provide visitors to the blog with a general idea of what was going on in Mexico, and I think it's a neat idea to do that. After all, the majority of drugs being illegally sold to many people who visit this site come from Mexican DTOs.

Anyway, I'd love for my readers to check out my interview on the blog - she asked some good questions - and provide the link as a resource to anyone you know who might benefit from such a directory. Just CLICK HERE to read the interview...

A quick overview of who's fighting whom, and where

I was recently reading a story in the L.A. Times by Daniel Hernandez about the 31 deaths and 15 decapitations in Acapulco in the last week, and how three different cartels were battling for control of the city. I honestly thought it was only two, so you can imagine my surprise when I saw some of the unfamiliar details Hernandez quoted from a story in Mexico's Proceso magazine. I quickly familiarized myself with what was going on (and I've since found clearer sources than the Proceso story), and thought I'd take the opportunity to provide my readers with a very brief overview of which cartels are fighting each other and where.

Let's start with the most complex situation (in my opinion) right now, and that's Acapulco. Over the last couple of years, the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO) under the local command of Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez Villareal had been fighting with La Familia Michoacana (LFM) for control of drug deliveries into and trafficking out of the resort city. That got completely messed up with La Barbie's arrest and the death of Arturo Beltrán Leyva. Hector Beltrán Leyva, who took over the BLO after Arturo's death, wanted to distance himself from La Barbie (who was breaking off anyway), so he renamed his faction of the old BLO to the Cartel Pacífico del Sur (CPS), or South Pacific Cartel - also known as "El H" or "La Empresa." In April of last year, graffiti started showing up all over the state of Guerrero with the initials "CPS," and La Barbie's breakaway faction was bearing the brunt of many CPS-initiated murders of hitmen in the area.

Now, the 15 headless corpses that were recently found in Acapulco reportedly had a note attached implying that the Sinaloa Federation's Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán Loera ordered the killings. So here's where it gets ugly. According to Stratfor's Scott Stewart, the CPS has aligned itself with Los Zetas (and old friend of the BLO) against the Federation and LFM. I always thought Acapulco was a BLO/LFM problem, and to an extent I was right; the old BLO is just under the new name of CPS, and La Barbie's faction seems to no longer be a player. But now it looks like El Chapo may be stoking the fire in Guerrero, and that doesn't bode well for residents or tourists in the city.

Moving to Tijuana, things are actually relatively quiet there - for now. Although the AFO emerged victorious after breakaway faction leader Teodoro "El Teo" Garcia Simental was arrested, AFO leader Fernando "El Ingeniero" Sanchez Arellano seems to have entered into an agreement of sorts with the Federation (El Teo's employer after he defected) to move drugs through Tijuana. This explains the relative calm in the city, but we'll see how long that lasts.

Of course, the hottest spot in Mexico has been Ciudad Juárez for a few years now, but the way cartel dynamics are changing there, it may not last the next couple of years. The Federation and the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Organization (VCFO) have been fighting for control of this most lucrative corridor, although the VCFO has been backed into a corner there recently, and most of the drugs being moved through Juárez belong to the Federation. Some of the local politicians say the majority of the violence stems from gangs fighting for control of the local drug trade, but I don't buy into that.

Moving east into Tamaulipas, the shrinking Gulf cartel (or CDG, for Cartel del Golfo) are fighting with their former enforcers, Los Zetas, for control of routes along the east Texas border and transshipment cities like Monterrey. The border cities of Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa and Matamoros have been hit particularly hard by fights between these two DTOs, and the wealthy enclave of Monterrey is still reeling from the bloody transformation of their city.

There are other hot spots scattered throughout Mexico where the DTOs are fighting each other, so the violence is not just limited to these areas. You'll hear bad news out of places like Michoacán, Morelia, San Luís Potosí, Durango, and others. This is just meant to give you a general idea of who is fighting where and over what.

"Message Attributes Mexican Politician’s Kidnapping to Zapatistas."

Here is an excerpt from Buggs' article on the Borderland Beat blog:

"A message signed by someone claiming to be a member of the Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN, says that group was responsible for the kidnapping of Mexican former presidential candidate Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, who spent nearly eight months in captivity last year... The signer claims to be a subordinate of “Subcomandante Marcos,” leader of the long-quiescent EZLN guerrilla group, and states that Fernandez de Cevallos, the presidential candidate of the now-governing National Action Party, or PAN, in 1994, was “one of the main enemies of our project” to secure autonomy for indigenous peoples... The message says the government’s strategy for dealing with its opponents has forced the EZLN, which has mainly devoted itself to social and community activism since a brief uprising in January 1994, “to have to resort to constructive violence” and “take appropriate action in secret.” It said the Zapatista movement, which has a leftist, Indian-rights agenda, has its sights set on the “total destruction of the current Mexican political system” and will use the ransom paid for Fernandez de Cevallos’ release to that end... In a public appearance after his release on Dec. 11 of last year, Fernandez de Cevallos provided few details about his captors nor the manner in which they freed him, although he said the government had a “pending” task of bringing them to justice... In his comments after he was set free, Fernandez de Cevallos said both political and financial factors were involved in his kidnapping." Link to Full Article

Analysis: There are so many things wrong and right about this story that I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of it. My first instinct when Cevallos was kidnapped was so assume that one of the DTOs snatched him, and his family would be lucky to see him alive again. Then the news started trickling out that his family was engaging in negotiations with the kidnappers, and those negotiations started to stretch out into months, rather than weeks. This case started to look like something out of Colombia, run by professional narcoterrorist kidnappers, rather than greedy and sloppy cartel members or low-level thugs out to make a buck.

I have a feeling a lot of people were thrown for a loop when this story about a purported EZLN message claiming responsibility came out. For those of you who aren't familiar with the EZLN - more commonly known as the "Zapatistas" - they're an indigenous rights group in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas with a fiery political agenda. They made the news in 1994 with an armed uprising under the leadership of the masked Subcomandante Marcos, but in less than a year they renounced any sort of violent intentions and decided to pursue their political goals peacefully.

Since the mid-1990s, the EZLN has been pretty quiet, and no one has paid them much mind since the drug war violence started in earnest in 2006. So there are two questions we have to ask. First, if the EZLN did actually kidnap Cevallos, why now, and why would they renounce their pledge of non-violence? Second, if the EZLN is being framed, who's doing the framing, and how do they stand to benefit from it?

Going with the first scenario, I'm trying to think why the EZLN would start to make a big stink at this particular moment. Perhaps they're looking for attention in the midst of a time when indigenous rights groups are being drowned out by the drug war. Maybe they felt that kidnapping a high-profile politician like Jefe Diego was the only way their voices would be heard above the fray. Certainly, the $30 million ransom paid for Cevallos' release will fund the EZLN's ambitions for quite some time. However, the EZLN had been respected as a legitimate organization by the Mexican government for several years. The governor of Chiapas is vehemently denying the EZLN had anything to do with his disappearance. Why would they do something like this to screw that up?

Let's go with the second scenario for a moment. Who would stand to benefit in Mexico right now by making the EZLN look bad? The DTOs aren't in any sort of direct competition with the EZLN. Maybe one of the smaller cartels thought it might draw attention and resources away from them and towards the EZLN in Chiapas. Maybe it's a personal/vengeance attack between someone in another group and the EZLN leadership. 

Either way, it's unusual for a claim of responsibility - or ransom negotiations, for that matter - to take so long when a DTO is involved. This is more reminiscent of something the FARC or ELN in Colombia would do, especially considering Cevallos seemed to be in decent physical shape when released, and the Colombian guerrilla/terrorist groups tend to value their hostages more than Mexican kidnappers do. My curiosity is further piqued by Cevallos' statement that his kidnapping was motivated by both political and financial reasons. DTOs don't have any direct political aspirations; they just want to manipulate and control the people in office through extortion and death threats. I don't know that holding Cevallos hostage for 11 months would accomplish a goal for one of the DTOs that something less labor- and time-intensive wouldn't have.

Unfortunately, the only person who can shed any light on this mystery is Cevallos, and he's not making any statements. I imagine this is likely one of the conditions of his release, lest he or one of his family members get kidnapped - or worse. Considering the chances of the Mexican authorities actually finding the people responsible are slim at best, we may never know who was at the bottom of this, or be able to truly assess what it means for the Mexican political and drug war landscape.