For a very long time now, drug trafficking has been associated with organized crime as well as insurgents. In other words, the implication of this fact is that drug-related illegalities have become major threats to nations in several theatres around the world. This concern voices the stance of Youngers and Rosin on drugs and the impacts borne by drug trafficking to several democracies in Latin America (Youngers & Rosin, 2005). In his book, Mexico’s Illicit Drug Networks and the State’s Reaction, Nathan Jones uncovers several facts about Mexican drug networks, and in the process, challenging how some of our thoughts on drug cartels. He provides a description of the Mexican drug networks, something he describes as large and violent (Jones, 2016). He also went ahead and described some of the activities these drug networks engaged in. He is reported saying that the Mexican drug networks participated in a series of dark activities ranging from narcotics trafficking, money laundering, kidnapping, extortion and even mass murders (Jones, 2016). His argument on the activities of drug networks are in agreement with the work of Decker and Chapman (2008).
In the first chapter of the book Mexico’s Illicit Drug Networks and the State’s Reaction, Jones offers insight into several facets of Mexico’s drug cartels. In so doing, he changes and even at times confirms his readers’ perceptions of illicit drug networks. First, he talks of the typology of illicit networks (Jones, 2016). He argued that three types of illicit networks exist: insurgent, trafficking-oriented and territorial networks (Jones, 2016). He however later indicates that the last two typologies are the most relevant to the Mexican situation. His definitions of trafficking oriented and territorial networks stirs up a lot of controversies. The learner is introduced to certain facts about drug trafficking networks that many would find hard to accept. That some drug trafficking networks even recruit the help of government officials. His definition of trafficking-oriented networks also includes the fact that these types of drug trafficking cartels do not easily resort into use of violence, many people would like to think otherwise. He also indicated that trafficking-oriented networks tend to work in harmony with other networks. He also described the territorial networks in such a way that most of his audience would find fit to be the perfect description of a drug trafficking network. His definition mentions violence, taxation and the need to preserve territories.
Additionally, Jones (2016) also talked about the impacts drug networks bear on the states they exist in. He talks about the risk factor, consequences, threats, and vulnerability. His definition of these terms is not typical of what may would expect. On the other hand, he also delineates these terms in such a way that the relationship between the terms is clearly manifested. For example, to define risks, he adopts the risk conceptions of the Department of Homeland Security and relates the terminology to threat. He affirms that the threat of a state action against drug and other networks in the main source of risk (Jones, 2016). Regarding consequences, he said that dodging the negative implications of adverse events is the primary motivation for minimizing risk (Jones, 2016). He also reinstated that threat is a component of risk while perceiving vulnerability as a likelihood to be affected by threats (Jones, 2016). These definitions might be too complex to understand but Jones offered illustrations that helped his readers understand these terms better.
Resilience of Mexican drug is another topic Jones majored on. He offered the description of resilience of these dark networks in a way that leaves little room for doubt in the minds of his readers. He said that resilience of drug networks entails their ability to stay operational in the midst of attacks and uncertainties (Jones, 2016). His definition of resilience is in agreement with what Decker and Chapman (2008) had to say about the same. According to the duo, resilience implies the capacity of drug networks to stay functional despite of the many challenges from within the organizations themselves, rival organizations and fight from the government. Jones (2016) went ahead to provide some of the reasons the Mexican drug networks are considered resilient. He sounded such factors as change in operational plans, ability to restructure, conflict resolution proficiencies, and effective application of force when required as some of the reasons Mexican drug networks are able to maintain their operational capacities.
Jones (2016) also discussed the mitigation measures the Mexican government adopted towards eradication of the AFO drug network. By doing so, Jones outlined some of the steps governments could take to effectively eradicate not only drug cartels, but also most types of dark networks. He highlighted such actions as involvement of the American government in the fight against eradication of AFO network during the 1980s (Jones, 2016). The United States were involved in offering training to Mexican police, provided the local police force with necessary equipment, and embedded law enforcement agents in Mexico (Jones, 2016). According to Jones, democratic transition also enabled Mexico eradicate one of the most powerful drug cartels in the country during the last years of the last century. One would wonder how that came to be. In his book, Jones mentioned the fact that democratic regimes are related with establishment of stable law enforcement institutions; thereby, clearing any questions one would have pertaining the role of democratization in the eradication of the AFO network. The fight against drug networks as never stopped. The state continues to respond to drug networks in a variety of ways. For example, President Felipe Calderón, during his reign, signed an agreement with President George Bush, allowing America to continue her support of the fight against Mexican drug cartels (Jones, 2016). This agreement would later be known as the Merida Initiative. The agreement was mainly about capacity building and training of the Mexican law enforcement agencies (Jones, 2016). Gootenberg (2008) also agreed to the fact that capacity building training could be pivotal to the eradication of dark networks in his book, Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global drug. The United States also continues to support the fight against drug networks in Mexico by regulating the number of guns that leave the nation for Mexico. During the reigns of Presidents Bush and Obama for example, the US government sent ATF agents to the US-Mexico border to control trafficking of guns into Mexico. The Mexican government has never given up in their fight towards eradication of drug cartels. Several police reforms, police vetting and even investigation of suspect police officers have all been embraced by the government as a response to illicit drug networks. Even though the results have not been promising, but the future seems bright.
Conclusion
The book Mexico’s Illicit Drug Networks and the State Response by Nathan Jones serves to reveal certain facts about Mexican drug networks. When some of these facts are familiar to most of us, it is also undeniable that certain details in his work are anonymous to most people. In his book, he elaborates on the aspects of typology and the effects the drug cartels bear to the Mexican government. The details on typology and consequences of drug networks are valid as they are in harmony with the works of other authors. In the dying pages of the book, Jones vastly talked about the response of the Mexican government to the drug networks. This way, he practically outlined a criteria that any other country that finds itself in the same situation can adopt. The government response helped eradicate drug networks like AFO, Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas, among may more others.