Defining Narco-Terrorism

‘Narco-terrorism’ like the phrase ‘War on Drugs’ is a phrase that, despite being coined several decades ago, has only gained widespread usage in the past few years. Appearing with greater frequency in the media, the term is often used in response to the more grisly acts of violence committed by members of the various cartels smuggling their illicit product through Mexico and Central America. And yet ‘narco-terrorism’ – much like the usage of one of its root words ‘terrorism’ is often used as a pejorative slur, with the legal and political definitions of the phrase unclear.

The term was first coined by President Belaunde Terry of Peru in 1983 to describe a violent collusion of cocaine traffickers and the Maoist group Shining Path to commit joint attacks destabilising his government forces. Loosely, it can be considered to mean an act or threat of violence by groups involved in the production, transport or sale of illegal drugs, with the aim of destabilising the governmental ability to suppress these activities. The phrase has been taken up ever more regularly by politicians, political commentators and others, often used as a reaction to much of the activity of armed sub-state groups in Central and South American conflicts.

The most well known ‘narco-terrorist’ was Pablo Escobar, a Colombian who possibly ranks as one of the most successful and infamous drug-lords of all time. His method for dealing with any relevant law enforcement agencies who came his way was ‘plata o plomo’ – literally translated as ‘silver or lead’, the choice between bribe and assassination. Using violent intimidation to secure his drug routes, Escobar built up a fortune of almost $3 billion during his ‘reign’ in the 1980’s.

Since then the label has been used more frequently. The most infamous attack of recent times was the Monterrey Casino Attack of 2011, where an attack by the Los Zetas Cartel claimed 52 lives. Lower scale crimes – single murders and mutilations, destruction of building and bombings – also occur much more regularly than popularly perceived.

This all seems to lead to a fairly clear cut definition. However, like the parent term terrorism, it is unclear what the valid application of the term could actually be. In fact, failing to understand narcoterrorism in many ways comes from a failure to understand ‘terrorism’ as a concept.

The War in Afghanistan is a useful example. The section of the war fought in Helmand and Kandahar has been named by some as to be just as much a drug war as that which blights the Americas. However, the drug runners – i.e. the Taliban – are first and foremost political.

Narco-terrorism can develop either out of ‘narco’ or out of ‘terrorism’ – i.e. where drug lords become politically active or political actors begin to fund their way through the control of drugs. Whether this is a question of scale is unclear. The Mexican Drug War, in its current format, only really began when the turf wars between the cartels became too violent and widespread to ignore. Lisewise, as the Taliban scaled down their operations (from a national government to a largely Pashtun insurgency) the production and sale of opium became a much more key part of their funding and activities.

Terrorism, as always, is a tactical force magnifier, a strategy of the weak used to terrify and threaten. As such it is apolitical, and can be used to fund an Islamic insurgency or a hugely profitable drugs route in equal measure. Both groups are narco-terrorists, and yet both are much more than that. It seems perhaps that there is an invisible ‘line’ of sorts where criminal violence becomes political violence. Where this line is and when the term is applied is unclear but, much like the term ‘War on Drugs’, its usage is bound to be subjective and fluid, used rhetorically and analytically as and when the wider socio-political context dictates.