The president of the International Crisis Group, Comfort Ero, has dedicated her life to studying major international conflicts to understand how interfering actors and their dynamics work. From the war in Sudan, to the destabilization of the Middle East to the situation in Ukraine, Ero has analyzed how foreign policy and mediation work to hopefully achieve resolution of tensions between countries. On a tour to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the organization she chairs, the London School of Economics doctor visits Mexico amid growing tensions between the United States and Latin America over extrajudicial attacks on alleged drug traffickers in the Pacific and Caribbean. Meanwhile, Claudia Sheinbaum’s government rejects rumors asking for authorization from Washington to send troops to combat drug trafficking, one of the main threats launched by Trump. “The solution cannot be to allow excessive use of force from the outside again, because this has repercussions, as we have already seen in Sinaloa, with the fragmentation of criminal forces and the increase in violence,” he warned after attending a mothers’ search party in Ajusco, which was also attended by women from Sinaloa. From a hotel in Polanco, Mexico City, Ero explains in an interview how to deal with Trump’s second term.
Ask. The agenda of the United States and its interest in influencing Latin America is increasingly aggressive and direct, and the justification for this strategy is the fight against drug trafficking. What is Trump really looking for in the region?
Answer. It is clear to me that Latin America is an internal political issue for Trump. And I say this for three reasons. One of these is immigration, which was already present in his speech when he won: build the wall, stop illegal immigration, deport people. Secondly, there is drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl. And third, something that may not be so obvious, is the desire to reorient the political system or style of government in several Latin American countries. That is, tilt them further to the right, towards a particular kind of right like MAGA (Make America Great Again) and strengthen ties with right-wing governments. For example, with Milei in Argentina, Bukele in El Salvador, Noboa in Ecuador and the contrast found with going head-to-head with someone like Petro in Colombia. For me these are the three common threads. At least the first two talk about what he promised in the election, the third has more to do with Trump’s friends abroad. I definitely see Mexico and Latin America in general as very tied to the domestic politics of the United States, and not necessarily from a foreign affairs perspective.
Q. Their drug war offensive has escalated to the point of carrying out extrajudicial attacks on shipping in the Caribbean and Pacific. The latest, just yesterday evening, brought the total death toll to 69. If these operations continue to increase, what are the risks that the countries involved will face?
R. This is a dangerous drift towards what I think is considered by most to be a radical change. We know Trump doesn’t like Maduro. For him it is something personal. Is this offensive to drugs or does it have to do with removing Maduro from power? The question many of us ask when considering the excessive deployment of US forces in the Caribbean, and the fact that a significant percentage of US resources are transferred to the region, is this: what is the political strategy here? What is the end goal and what are you looking for in return? There is internal politics, and also the idea of linking Maduro to narco-terrorism. I think most people who look closely at what’s going on say, “Trump’s problem with fentanyl is not in Venezuela.” So what is the real agenda he is hiding? Are they trying to pressure Maduro into making concessions? Are they trying to pressure Venezuelan security forces to become independent from Maduro? And what does this mean for the opposition? Because this does not imply a political transformation. This does not imply the collapse of the regime. We have the lessons learned from Iraq, for example, which taught us to be careful what you wish for when forcing the collapse of a regime.
Q. These maritime attacks are playing with the limits of an international conflict, what would happen if land incursions also began, as has been suggested for both Venezuela and Mexico?
R. I don’t think he wants to see American troops on the ground. I don’t even think he wants to see American casualties. The question is: what does a political victory mean to him? This is the president who said he didn’t want the United States to get caught up in unnecessary foreign interventionism or endless wars. So, for me, the key is his understanding of what he is doing in Venezuela. It will be difficult for Mexico not to get nervous and not worry about what this means for its country, because fentanyl is not a Venezuelan problem, but rather a Mexican reality.
Q. The Mexican government has consistently rejected Trump’s offer to send troops into the country to fight the cartels. However, high-profile assassinations in recent days confirm that violence continues to increase and the Mexican opposition has opened the debate on whether to authorize US military intervention. Is it time to evaluate this alternative?
R. I would be very wary of anything resembling populism when it comes to security. The president has said she is not willing to sacrifice Mexico’s sovereignty and finds herself in a delicate situation, trying to manage different forces both within her own party and with a frustrated population who sees that as killings decline, disappearances increase. Furthermore, Mexicans observe how organized crime networks are gaining ground. But the solution cannot be to again allow excessive use of force from the outside, because this has repercussions, as we have already seen in Sinaloa. It generates fragmentation between different criminal forces and creates an increase in violence. There have been disappearances, like the ones I heard about this week during my visit. There is an increase in cartels, more drugs and more recruitment, especially of young people forcibly recruited by both sides. So even if the US tries to expel a certain figure from the region, the story does not end there. Let’s get back to the question: if you succeed, what will the next day be like? Has the groundwork been laid to ensure there is no retaliation?
Q. In the past, what well-defined and contained US military interventions have helped resolve conflicts of this magnitude?
R. That’s a great question. Two good examples would be Somalia and Libya, but I am always careful when extrapolating examples from different countries. There is a constant that should never be underestimated: the collapse of a society following an intervention that is not carefully planned, which generates ramifications and has consequences for society. Another concern is that this allows governments to treat as terrorists any opposition element or figure they find uncomfortable, thus closing political space. You have to be careful what you wish for when you assume that an external response will solve internal problems.
