Mexico's ambassabor to the US realizes what they are, knows that they are violent and criminal, these drug cartels of his country, but it seems he cannot grasp it in rational terms. He starts by disagreeing with the term "terrorists". What's wrong with his response is where he goes from there.
Choose labels carefully
Re: "Let's call México's Cartels what they are: terrorists," Friday Editorials.
The editorial should be better headed "Let's Call Mexico's cartels what they are: very violent, well-financed transnational criminal organizations."
These transnational criminal organizations, which operate in both our countries, are not terrorist organizations. They are very violent criminal groups that are well-structured and well-financed. They pursue a single goal. They want to maximize their profits and do what most business do: hostile takeovers and pursue mergers and acquisitions. They use violence to protect their business from other competitors as well as from our two governments' efforts to roll them back. There is no political motivation or agenda whatsoever beyond their attempt to defend their illegal business.
Misunderstanding the challenge we face leads to wrong policies and bad policy making. If you label these organizations as terrorist, you will have to start calling drug consumers in the U.S. "financiers of terrorist organizations" and gun dealers "providers of material support to terrorists." Otherwise, you really sound as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. That's why I would underscore that the editorial page should be careful what it advocates for.
Arturo Sarukhan, Ambassador of Mexico to the U.S., Washington, D.C.
And a response at the same paper's site: