Furthermore, if the president's hypothesis was true, violence in Mexico would be concentrated in the principal markets for drugs which, by definition, are the great cities where there are the most consumers. That is where they would be fighting for the plazas. In Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and Puebla. But no. According to the stats from the government itself, the 10 most violent municipalities, where there have been the most murders linked to organized crime in this administration, are Juárez, Culiacán, Tijuana, Chihuahua, Acapulco, Gómez Palacio, Torreón, Mazatlán, Nogales and Durango. What do these cities have in common? They are fundamental for the production and distribution of drugs, for precursor inputs as well as the final product, that go from Mexico to the US.I do agree that the Mexican retail drug market is not the driving factor for violence in the country, but it seems to be a factor. And I also think that there is a lot of evidence that the narcos' business model has changed, hence the steep rise in kidnapping and extortion.
I agree with the president that the state doesn't generate the violence. But I don't agree with his narrative that the violence has increased because of a change in the narco business model. I still believe that the big business is --and will continue to be for many years-- exportation to the US. It doesn't make sense, in that sense, that so much violence is being generated by such a small market like Mexico's.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Leo Zuckermann doesn't like Calderón's linking the rise in violence to a growing retail drug market: