When it was known that the Michoacán commissioner, Alfredo Castillo, held a meeting with self-defense groups in which El Abuelo (The Grandfather) – the alleged head of the Los Valencia cartel – was part of the attendants, a series of reactions, criticisms and opinions unfolded, ranging from moral and rational aspects. In some cases, there are voices that strongly condemn that a dialogue with an individual such as El Abuelo might be established, due to the latter’s imprisonment over minor crimes and allegations on organized crime that have never been fully verified. On the other hand, there are those who claim that, in such a unique case like Michoacán, this meeting could have legitimate objectives as well as being completely within the boundaries of law. This ambiguity and diversity in opinions can be traced in the issues that remain unsolved and with which it would be impossible objectively understand and assessed what is going on in Michoacán.
Firstly, the debate on what treatment should the members of self-defense groups receive is far from over. For some, they are just ordinary criminals that ought to be prosecuted and apprehended with the usual justice mechanisms without any kind of special regard. For others, a sort of amnesty can be tolerated if they are able to recognize the government authority as legitimate and abandon the protection activities that they used to do as way of self-defend. However, to establish an opinion, it is essential to know how many of these groups there are, as well as their origins, operations and long-term targets. As of now, a hegemonic vision of the self-defense groups in which they are seen as organizations emerged upon the need to protect from violence and extortion from criminal organizations that are linked with drug trafficking but have an unknown relationship with other crime groups and unidentified political motivations persists. Their political character and aspirations are not a minor issue. The fact that, as of now, no political origin has been identified within these groups does not mean that they will not try to influence through entering the local legislative structures or jeopardizing the development of future elections. This is not a simple semantic matter: the outcome relies on having Michoacán returning to more or less permanent state of peace or making this whole exercise a mere simulation.
Secondly, in addition with understanding the phenomenon it is necessary to know if there is a defined strategy to face it. The federal government seems to prioritize a flexible policy through the appointment of a commissioner and, perhaps due to security reasons or not exhibiting its limitations, has refused to present a perfectly defined strategy for the process of pacifying and the ulterior period. There are past of experiences of disarming, demobilizing and reinserting self-defense groups at the international stage from which the country could learn a lesson or two. What occurred in Colombia has proven that for a pacifying process to sustain itself through time it is essential to contribute by improving the physical and material security of affected populations; creating institutional conditions to deal with the conflicts in a pacific way; clearly define the stakeholders that are part of the conflict as well as the rules under they which will be subject to; establishing and clearly operating a disarm policy that will guarantee that the collected weaponry will not end up in the hands of other criminal organizations; investing resources in a coordinated manner with local authorities in order for the post-conflict reconstruction will effectively reinsert the population in legal and productive activities; and accompanying these process with the participation of international or national stakeholders that will act as observant entities.
Although the Colombian case is very different from the Mexican one, starting from the fact that a lot of these processes in Colombia started from a voluntary disarm declaration from the self-defense groups as a result of a previous agreement, the learned lessons should not be disregarded. Perhaps, one of the most important teachings might be to establish rules and communicate adequately, both to stakeholders as well as general society, all the actions that might be undertaken in the process. Information is essential in achieving a permanent, stable pacification, since the equilibrium under which the agreements are sustained is quite fragile when a group that has already taken the weapons feels betrayed by the other part and the outcomes of collaboration.
CIDAC
Comments