A chilling prospect for Mexico: potential unilateral US drone strikes on cartels within its borders. Recent reports suggest active US consideration of this drastic measure to dismantle groups causing Mexico’s high homicide rate (24.9 per 100,000 in 2023). While aiming to curb US fentanyl flow linked to these cartels, it profoundly impacts Mexican sovereignty and sparks controversy.
Arguments cite fentanyl. However, international law and Mexico’s constitution uphold non-intervention. Unilateral action sets a dangerous precedent, risking Mexico’s order.
Mexican public opinion is complex; security cooperation is favored, but unilateral strikes likely violate sovereignty. Deep historical sensitivities risk resentment.
Economically, impact is uncertain. Cartel disruption might aid businesses, but strikes could destabilize regions and US-Mexico trade (16% of US total).
Core question: do unilateral benefits outweigh sovereignty infringement and long-term negative impacts? Given US origin of ~70% of Mexican crime firearms, collaboration on weapon flows and addressing crime roots in both nations offers a less sovereignty-infringing, sustainable path. Swift solutions shouldn’t eclipse sovereignty and cooperation.