TCOs and the Emerging North-Central American Transnational Community (Week 8 Post-class blog)

Private violence is an equalizer for all states. All states suffer from it and their public authority is challenged and defined by it, as is the case in Colombia and Mexico which struggle against powerful transnational criminal organizations (TCOs). The powerful presence of TCOs attest to the permeability of our international system and also to the permeability of public authority. At the turn of the 21^st century the US engaged in a controversial campaign called the war on drugs. Increasing violence in the US and health implications from drug trafficking prompted the US to extend its own public authority beyond its borders to disrupt the drug trade at its source. The US has sought to extend its public authority in this new transnational community (TC). This community was inadvertently created by the TCOs themselves as neighboring nations struggle to counter their authority and regardless of physical and ideological differences, now find themselves in a common identity group.

I would argue that public authority in a transnational community is defined by the ideology it espouses. TCs have varying levels of binding forces. That is to say, their level of ontological and normative consensus may vary depending on the actors involved. The North and Central American counter drug TC is an example of a weakly bound group. The US has so far dominated the ontological and normative field primarily by way of their outmatched resources. In 2016, $405 million were allocated by congress for security initiatives, a 150% from the previous year. This increase signals the US’s continued commitment to maintaining their ideological prerogatives in Central America, specifically regarding security upgrades. In so doing, they are asserting control of the public authority for the community in which these nations find themselves.

Tangible resources, however, are only one part of a motivating factors for the creation of ontological and normative values. Increasing scrutiny is being applied to US’s norms and attitudes in Central American security initiatives. Human rights groups and activists are pointing to US initiatives as a propellant of TCO activities and a larger cause of violence in these weakened states. Many are now questioning if the authority that the US has asserted is counterintuitive and retroactive to the ill-defined goals of the TC at large.  

The US has long held the idea that the drugs should be stopped at their source or in transit in order to effectively weaken TCOs. This very mindset is being challenged as opponents claim that the US is merely attempting to bottle violence in origin states. Additional criticism arises as illiberal and despotic regimes utilize US security aid to militarize police who oppress minority groups and keep millions impoverished. This in turn leads to conducive conditions for TCOs to recruit and operate. A cycle of is created which weakens Central American states and empowers TCOs who’s products increase in value with every seizure.

So the question arises, is the US authority in this arena justified? Certainly its resources provide it with the might to encourage outcomes, but are these outcomes beneficial to the TC to which they ascribe or merely to their own self gain?