Mexico is not in a civil war

Is Mexico in a civil war or is this a terribly extended “settling of accounts” between cartels? This is a question that a reader posted after my entry, “Alarms are ringing along the Texas border,” last Thursday.

There is not an easy answer to his question.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  “War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities… War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war).”

The definition adds that certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations might also be considered “political communities” if they are associations of people with a political purpose and many of them aspire to statehood in certain lands.

In the American Civil War, for example, 11 Southern states declared their secession from the U.S. and fought against the Union. In the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist forces fought against the Republican government to establish a right-wing dictatorship.  More recently, in Guatemala, a group of revolutionaries fought for more than 30 years against right-wing military regimes. 

In these three well-known cases, the political reasons that ignited the confrontation were clear. And in all of them, the entities involved had a clear political intent or agenda, an idea of the kind of nation they want to be. They were fighting for ideals.

Scholars have established criteria to define civil war. Among these criteria is the number of dead people, which can be from 100 to 1,000 per year.  They also remark the fact that one of the sides must have some kind of popular recognition as a belligerent group, and in some cases they must have the political control of certain areas.

Going back to the original question, we could say that besides the number of dead people and the fact that the drug traffickers have a de facto control of certain areas, none of the other criteria –a political project and the popular recognition– have been met in the case of what is going on in Mexico.  So, I do not think that we can say that there is a civil war in Mexico.

However, in the end, this is a rhetorical question.  There is in fact a war between the government and the drug cartels, which have left more than 17,042 people dead between 2003 and 2009. It is a war that is displacing people from their cities and towns and it is affecting every one--children, women and the elderly.

It is also a war between cartels to control the market.

I’m not a scholar nor an expert.  Most likely, political scientists would have a better response to the reader’s question.   Again, I wouldn’t say that Mexico is in a civil war, but that doesn’t mean that the conflict can’t escalate and become something larger.

What would I call it? It’s simply a  bloody battle, a terrible and unfortunate war that I’m sure the majority of Mexicans deplore.

Comments

[Observador]

I'm certain that applying proper names to the current situation in Mexico is of a distant secondary degree of importance. "Nombres y adjetivos salen sobrando".
What is to be contemplated is recognizing, as a concerned citizen, that there is grave civil turmoil, values decadence and very real social "desmadre".
Never before, not even during the difficult times of an independence movement or a revolution cause has the country been involved in a conflict as serious as this period. At least, back in those historical instances, there was a clearly defined battle between good versus bad, us against them, the oppresed battling the unjust. There was indeed a "causa" to fight for.
Now the corrosion brought by corruption and the profit motive generated by "el negocio" creates a type of treason to "la patria" that many wrongfully protect by only caring for their own selfish interests and very few, if any, are willing to honestly defend " a sangre y espada".
Typical terms, common attitudes and uncaring phrases like "valemadrismo", "me vale una chin....", "el que no tranza, no avanza", "jodete tu antes que yo", "asi somos y que?" have caused an "hartazgo" that, in all sincerity, has no happy ending, but only results in an unnatural complacency that leaves a nation that had vast potential in many aspects on a path of progressive mediocrity and headed towards serious failure.
What is to be celebrated during the anniversaries of 2010? Progress?, advancement? improvement? EVOLUTION?
Sure, there are MANY MORE good people than bad in Mexico...but they are NOT the correct decision-makers, the fair policy enforcers, the protective rulers and worse yet, the rightful weapon bearers.

[Robert Burke]

"There is in fact a war between the government and the drug cartels"
Is that truly a "fact"? I'm not being facetious. You seem to be very knowledgeable, and I most certainly am not. Do you think the ruling government is separate from the cartels?

[Micky]

Only a legitimate country can have a civil war. If Mexico was a legitimate country the Mexicans would fight for their country. Mexico is nothing more than an arena.

[Jennifer]

Let's focus on making Mexico a place where young people have education, fair opportunity, justice and a future, rather than resort to either working for the cartels or becoming a criminal alien in the USA.

How come no one wants to talk about just rounding up and killing all the rich families that keep Mexico poor, ignorant and corrupt?

[Ana Sofia Santos]

You can look at the web site: www.sapokiosk.com to read all the newspaper from Mexico and other countries.