Narco-terrorism as Securitisation of the Crime-Terror Nexus

The concept of danger has played a crucial role in establishing the nation-state and its sovereignty. In fact, the discourse of danger has become the cornerstone of political authority and order, to the extent that the discursive construction of the state stems from the discursive construction of danger. Although danger is not a fixed, objective condition, states often employ it extensively to reconfigure their identity. Narco-terrorism merges the concepts of organised crime and terrorism. Organised crime refers to the illicit transportation of prohibited goods across international borders by individuals, groups, or states for financial gain and/or political motives. In contrast, there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Initially, the term narco-terrorism referred to the influence of Latin American drug lords and criminal organisations on local governments, but it has quickly evolved into a global phenomenon.

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), narco-terrorism is a subset of terrorism in which terrorist groups or affiliated individuals are directly or indirectly involved in the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, or distribution of controlled substances, reaping the proceeds generated from these activities. Narco-terrorism may also involve groups or affiliated individuals providing security, taxation, or other assistance to drug traffickers in funding or advancing terrorist activities. On the other hand, the Department of Defense (DOD) views the same phenomenon as terrorism which serves the objectives of drug traffickers. This may include assassinations, bombings, hijackings, kidnappings, extortion targeting law enforcement agents, judges, and elected officials, or the general disruption of legitimate governments to divert attention from drug operations. The divergent definitions of narco-terrorism provided by the DEA and the DOD highlight two distinct interpretations of the same phenomenon, which lead to different approaches to combating the same threat, raising questions about the most effective countermeasures. The term narco-terrorism can be a problematic and broad concept that may hinder our comprehension of the actual collaborations between criminals and terrorists.

Based on the prevailing academic view, criminals and terrorists establish only temporary, pragmatic relationships that last as long as both groups derive benefit from them, or until one of the parties develops internal capabilities. These transitory connections arise from fundamentally different motives: terrorists typically have political or ideological objectives that challenge the status quo, while criminals seek financial gain and material benefits. Consequently, given these inherently divergent goals, no collaboration within the crime-terror nexus has the potential to evolve into a global conspiracy. Nevertheless, it has been observed that terrorists and criminal groups are becoming increasingly similar as they learn and adopt tactics from one another. This includes developing internal hierarchies, participating in activities such as kidnappings, killings, intimidation, and extortion, and using resources such as fake passports, weapons, and money laundering. On the other hand, some scholars suggest that there is a genuine convergence of intentions between certain groups, resulting in the formation of hybrid groups whose objectives cannot be solely classified as political or profit-driven. This convergence of motives can be problematic if a hybrid group successfully takes control of a state that lacks the necessary political infrastructure, ultimately transforming it into a black hole. However, there has yet to be research conducted on specific examples and circumstances of such a nexus. 

The concept of integrating policies is based on the idea that terrorists and criminals employ comparable strategies and therefore, what proves effective against one group should be effective against the other. However, many scholars have argued that despite their tactical similarities, crime and terrorism necessitate different counter strategies therefore merging policies targeting terrorists and criminals is counterproductive and ineffective and could lead to misguided policies. Following the 9/11 attacks, the traditional policy division between terrorism and organised crime became less apparent. The attacks ushered in a new era of warfare by globalising terrorism. The impact of 9/11 was so profound that it challenged America's core values, beliefs, and customary practices, disrupting not only its security but also its ontology, or sense of self. According to the Ontological Security Theory (OST), states seek both physical and ontological security. While realists contend that states prioritise survival, OST scholars argue that states are equally concerned with ensuring that their identity will endure in the international order. A lack of identity implies uncertainty and a lack of self-conception, and since identities represent interests, a state without an identity and interests forfeits its agency. To recover in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, the United States needed to reconstruct its identity through political domination. A critical analysis of the Plan Colombia and shortly thereafter the War on Terror reveal that these operations concealed U.S. hegemonic and expansionist objectives. Specifically, Afghanistan served as an operational base to counteract the rise of China and India, while Colombia was used to propagate a neoliberal capitalist ideology in Latin America and weaken the communist movement in Venezuela and Nicaragua. In addition, when examining the case studies, a prevailing element in both interventions is the heavily militarised approach, which presents the opportunity to make a profit. 46 of the top 100 defence contractors in 2022 are American companies. Defense Department contracts reached $147.9 billion immediately after 9/11, and spending continued to rise every year. The U.S. benefits from the fabrication of narco-terrorism since it has been constructed as a profitable business, allowing it to pursue its imperialistic agenda using discourses of danger and fear while also aligning with the post-Cold War globalised neoliberal international trend. 

Narco-terrorism as a security threat is a product of post-9/11 ontological insecurity, where newly globalised threats of terrorism and drug trafficking became intertwined with the U.S.'s quest to maintain its identity in the international order. This threat has historically justified militarised interventions that facilitated war profiteering and an imperialistic foreign agenda centred around the hegemonic spread of neoliberal capitalism. “Narco-terrorism” therefore is used by those states in power to securitise aspects of the crime-terror nexus and advance hegemonic interests.

Image courtesy of Timothy Metcalf via Wikimedia Commons, © 2007, some rights reserved.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.