The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was many things: a catalyst for regional cooperation, a boom for the avocado industry, and a clear win for the illicit drug trade. The post-NAFTA proliferation of drug cartels in Mexico was due to a confluence of factors. However, trade liberalization enabled easier access to the US market. Amongst the many commercial trucks that could now cross the border, with limited inspections, traffickers concealed their illegal cargo. Moreover, drug cartels were able to capitalize on NAFTA-related market shifts by exploiting vulnerable persons and the licit export-oriented infrastructure.
For example, NAFTA decimated the corn industry in Mexico. US producers flooded the market with subsidized corn leaving many agricultural workers in Mexico unemployed. This economic vulnerability was a likely consequence from the agreement, but the loss was not offset. Unemployed workers had few options – many migrated north to the US, others worked in the drug trade, including switching to profitable crops, like opium. Drug cartels provided an opportunity to those left behind by free trade.
The cartels even had a deleterious impact on one of the great successes of NAFTA – the avocado industry in Mexico. From the unapologetically hipster avocado toast to run of the mill guacamole, the green fruit is now ubiquitous in the US thanks to free trade. The profitability of the avocado industry attracted the attention of drug cartels leading to incidences of the extortion of farmers and violence, as well as the moniker “blood avocado.” So, even those doing well in the new economy were not spared from exposure to drug cartels.
The maquiladoras – foreign-run factories assembling products for export, though not a creation of NAFTA, grew significantly following the agreement. Taking the northern border city, Juárez as an example, following NAFTA, many young women migrated there to work in the factories. At times, cartel violence, femicide, and general criminality created a rather hellish landscape. Drug cartels were one of several contributing factors to the deaths or disappearances of hundreds of women in Juárez since the early 1990s. Moreover, drug operations could easily use maquiladoras as fronts. Therefore, the same border cities and infrastructure that were attractive to foreign investors and became a pull factor for those seeking employment also attracted illicit activities and the social ills that accompany them.
During the NAFTA negotiations, issues surrounding the drug trade were considered too taboo to discuss. Reflecting back, one must question whether that was the correct call. The drug cartels were able to capitalize on both the winners and losers of NAFTA in Mexico. If states and the international community are serious about combatting transnational organized crime, they should ensure that the effects of policy changes do not provide a window of opportunity for criminal entities to gain the upper hand.
Currently, President Trump is inexplicably making the passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA), an agreement that he negotiated, less likely. In a threat that would challenge the passing of USMCA in Congress, US-Mexico bilateral relations, and a basic understanding of supply and demand, Trump recently said that “[i]f the drugs don’t stop -- Mexico can stop them if they want to -- we are going to tariff the cars. The cars are very big, and if that doesn’t work we are going to close the border.” This simple strategy does not capture the responsibility that the US may have on the demand-side of drugs, no less US policies that contributed to its flourishing. Moreover, much like the proposed wall and the post-NAFTA militarization of the US border, closing the border would be another win for drug cartels – benefitting their human smuggling, among other illicit operations. The Trump Administration would be well-advised to take a holistic and historical look at the implications that any proposed policy changes would have on drug cartels.
