Who called it? I called it - USA has "deal" with Sinaloa Cartel

[Cain]

I've been saying this for about the last two years.  Elements within the USA and in Mexico are backing the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico's "Drug War" against the other factions, cartels and gangs fighting for control of the border crossings and transit/distribution networks in Mexico.

Evidence comes in the form of a comment by a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa Cartel, whose story is corroborated by an email from a Stratfor source, leaked online several months ago as part of the "Global Intelligence Files".

MX1, a Mexican intelligence agent detailed with fighting the cartels on the US side of the border, was revealed by Stratfor emails to be Fernando de la Mora, operating under diplomatic cover in the Mexican consulate in Phoenix (he was previously in a similar role in El Paso, Texas). 

MX1 liased with American law enforcement and intelligence personnel on the drug issue, of course, and was present at a secret summit in Fort Bliss, Texas, to discuss how to improve communication between the US, Mexican intelligence assets and enforcement, the military etc.  In a particular email sent by MX1, he details how the Mexican government generally deals with the cartels:

The Mexican strategy is not to negotiate directly.

In any event, "negotiations" would take place as follows:

Assuming a non-disputed plaza [a major drug market, such as Ciudad Juarez]:

• [If] they [a big narco-trafficking group] bring [in] some drugs, transport some drugs, [and] they are discrete, they don't bother anyone, [then] no one gets hurt;

• [And the] government turns the other way.

• [If] they [the narco-traffickers] kill someone or do something violent, [then the] government responds by taking down [the] drug network or making arrests.

(Now, assuming a disputed plaza:)

• [A narco-trafficking] group comes [into a plaza], [then the] government waits to see how dominant cartel responds.

• If [the] dominant cartel fights them [the new narco-trafficking group], [then the] government takes them down.

• If [the] dominant cartel is allied [with the new group], no problem.

• If [a new] group comes in and start(s) committing violence, they get taken down: first by the government letting the dominant cartel do their thing, then [by] punishing both cartels.

But then he describes what he sees as a different strategy from the Americans:

... This is how "negotiations" take place with cartels, through signals. There are no meetings, etc. ...

So, the MX [Mexican] strategy is not to negotiate. However, I think the US [recently] sent a signal that could be construed as follows:

"To the VCF [the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes] and Sinaloa cartels: Thank you for providing our market with drugs over the years. We are now concerned about your perpetration of violence, and would like to see you stop that. In this regard, please know that Sinaloa is bigger and better than [the] VCF. Also note that CDJ [Juarez] is very important to us, as is the whole border. In this light, please talk amongst yourselves and lets all get back to business. Again, we recognize that Sinaloa is bigger and better, so either VCF gets in line or we will mess you up."

I don't know what the US strategy is, but I can tell you that if the message was understood by Sinaloa and VCF as I described above, the Mexican government would not be opposed at all.

In sum, I have a gut feeling that the US agencies tried to send a signal telling the cartels to negotiate themselves. They unilaterally declared a winner [the Sinaloa Cartel], and this is unprecedented, and deserves analysis. If there was no strategy behind this, and it was simply a leaked report, then I will be interested to see how it plays out in the coming months.

In another email, MX1 notes:

We believe that when the US made an announcement that was corroborated by several federal spokespersons simultaneously (that Sinaloa controlled CDJ [Juarez]), it was a message that the DEA wanted to send to Sinaloa. The message was that the US recognized Sinaloa's dominance in the area [Juarez], although it was not absolute. It was meant to be read by the cartels as a sort of ultimatum: negotiate and put your house in order once and for all.

One dissenting analyst thinks that the message is the opposite, telling Sinaloa to take what it had and to leave what remains of VCF. Regardless, the reports are saying that the US message to the cartels was to negotiate and stop the violence. It says that the US has never before pronounced that a cartel controls a particular plaza, so it is an unusual event.

Note, these are the assessments of a Mexican intelligence officer, the equivalent to MI6 or the CIA.  Furthermore, MX1 isn't just any Mexican spy, he was hand picked, to be the "tip of the spear" of the Mexican efforts against the cartels in the USA.  In other words he's a very serious and credible person.

So when Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, a senior trafficker for said Sinaloa Cartel, currently being held in Chicago awaiting trial, says there was a deal between the USA and the Sinaloa Cartel, and that deal reads suspiciously like the one outlined by a high ranking Mexican intelligence officer...well then, you have to start questioning just how much validity that proposition has.

And lest anyone has forgotten, some of the guns that "walked" during the "Fast and Furious" operation ended up in the homes of Sinaloa Cartel members.  How perfectly coincidental.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Strange to finally see it all in print. Great find, Cain.

[Junkenstein]

Good find, very interesting.

What are the chances this will end up making the situation much worse? By the announcement of one cartel to be the "Dominant" one, surely you increase the chances of violence in the short term when this is inevitably disputed?

What form are these "Signals" likely to take? I doubt that level of discourse occurs through semaphore.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Essentially, you are taking control of a situation by proxy. No one in their right mind is going to cross the big dog. By stating that you recognise the boss of a territory at the same time as saying you're not happy with how business is being run in said territory, you're implying that, if shit doesn't sort itself out, you'll be handing out a slapping. Again implicit is the fact that the slapping will be dropped on the boss. At this point it becomes in all the players best interests to keep their heads down.

I've seen this done on a much smaller scale and it's 110% effective, given that the one handing out the slappings is respected enough. If I was a columbian cartel and the US govt was threatening me with a slapping, I think I'd be inclined to fall in line.

[Cain]

Lets also keep in mind what the US stands to gain from managing rather than defeating the Cartels - nothing less than 1.5% of the global GDP, much of which goes into shoring up the increasingly shaky global financial system.  Banks profit tremendously off of the drug trade.  Wells Fargo comes to mind, as does HSBC. 

By getting the cartels to focus on trading, not fighting, the US causes greater capital flows into the global banking system.

This game is being played on so many levels it's hard to keep track.

[Cain]

Good find, very interesting.

What are the chances this will end up making the situation much worse? By the announcement of one cartel to be the "Dominant" one, surely you increase the chances of violence in the short term when this is inevitably disputed?

What form are these "Signals" likely to take? I doubt that level of discourse occurs through semaphore.

Well, as explained above, it is not really in the USA's financial interest to defeat the cartels, in the short term.  So long as the violence is kept at a manageable level, and the money keeps being laundered in US banks, then all is good.  When the violence gets out of control, it affects business, and that is when the US and Mexican governments intervene.

As for the signals, I can imagine a number of forms.  Press statements, leaked to journalists, about who controls what territory, who to deal with.  Covert channels of communication between corrupt officials and cartel leaders.  Perhaps even direct intelligence officer to cartel leader talks, though that strikes me as unlikely.  It's more implied and hinted at than outright stated.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Lets also keep in mind what the US stands to gain from managing rather than defeating the Cartels - nothing less than 1.5% of the global GDP, much of which goes into shoring up the increasingly shaky global financial system.  Banks profit tremendously off of the drug trade.  Wells Fargo comes to mind, as does HSBC. 

By getting the cartels to focus on trading, not fighting, the US causes greater capital flows into the global banking system.

This game is being played on so many levels it's hard to keep track.

This comes as no surprise at all.  Gives a whole new meaning to F&F.

[Junkenstein]

Appreciate the clarifications, it's strange to me.

The implicit acknowledgement of this as a financial exercise is odd. It seems like some curious cold war where both sides cause misery to innocents. Only one side seems be be making rather forceful threats. I imagine any unilateral action in mexico would be followed by a PR barrage to confuse the situation and portray everyone as informed.


Given that shit always gets worse, when can we expect to see US troops cross/close the border?

[Cain]

US Special Forces are already operating in Mexico.

As for closing the border....never.  The financial implications (not just drugs/banks, think illegal immigration, which is its own massive industry, from their employment to the privatized jails they are sent to) would devastate the US.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Appreciate the clarifications, it's strange to me.

The implicit acknowledgement of this as a financial exercise is odd. It seems like some curious cold war where both sides cause misery to innocents. Only one side seems be be making rather forceful threats. I imagine any unilateral action in mexico would be followed by a PR barrage to confuse the situation and portray everyone as informed.


Given that shit always gets worse, when can we expect to see US troops cross/close the border?

Never.  There's money to be made.

[Telarus]

Important shit, and well put together. Thanks Cain.

[Cain]

Bump:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1

An investigation by El Universal has found that between 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an agreement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organisation to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs in exchange for information on rival cartels.

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered the "world's most powerful drug trafficker," coordinates with American authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.

The written statements were made to the U.S. District Court in Chicago in relation to the arrest of Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of Sinaloa leader Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada and allegedly the Sinaloa cartel's "logistics coordinator."

[LMNO]

Thanks, Cain. I was able to read all that and not get confused, which is what normally happens when faced with multi-level conspiracies.

Doesn't MX1 now have a much shorter expected lifespan since his real name has been revealed?

[Cain]

As far as I know, he's pretty safe.  I mean, it's not like he's actively trying to hinder the Sinaloa....in fact, I strongly suspect the Mexican government have a similar deal.

[East Coast Hustle]

Essentially, you are taking control of a situation by proxy. No one in their right mind is going to cross the big dog. By stating that you recognise the boss of a territory at the same time as saying you're not happy with how business is being run in said territory, you're implying that, if shit doesn't sort itself out, you'll be handing out a slapping. Again implicit is the fact that the slapping will be dropped on the boss. At this point it becomes in all the players best interests to keep their heads down.

I've seen this done on a much smaller scale and it's 110% effective, given that the one handing out the slappings is respected enough. If I was a columbian cartel and the US govt was threatening me with a slapping, I think I'd be inclined to fall in line.

I was going to say, this is very similar to how I tend to run a kitchen.