Drug War Geopolitics Popular Representation Paper

Brown 1 Allison Brown Dr. Pearson INST 4445: Drug War Geopolitics March 14, 2021 Netflix’s hit Narcos’ Perspective on the Colombian Drug War Since airing in 2015, Netflix’s original series has gained popularity both in the United States and Latin America. The three seasons of the series examine Colombia during the 1980s, at the height of Pablo Escobar’s Medellín Cartel and the Cali Cartel through two distinct perspectives. The first being from the United States and police in Colombia, the story more specifically follows Agents Murphy and Peña in the Drug Enforcement Agency also follows the story of Pablo Escobar and those trafficking and producing illicit cocaine. By humanizing Pablo Escobar and examining the United States’ role in Colombian N aaffrc aiors, s flips the surface-level narrative of “good vs. bad” in the drug war to create a complex, multifaceted, story of class issues and foreign interference. The titles of “Don Pablo … un Robin Hood paisa … Comrade of the Slums” (Narcos: The Sword of Simon Bolivar 2015) throughout the series are used by reporters and members of the public when referring to Escobar. These names were derived from Escobar’s upbringing in the poorer districts of Medellín and later in the series from giving money to those in poverty. Neighborhoods like “Barrio Escobar” benefited from Escobar’s surplus of money, where he provided funds for medical clinics, built over four hundred houses, and created over thirty soccer fields (Pobutsky 201). 3 Drug traffickers and cartels providing social services to populations in poverty were not unprecedented N buatros c used Escobar’s perceived “charity” to reveal Brown 2 disparate class systems to contextualize the conditions charging drug production and trade. It’s important to note that the United States also played into this economic situation in Columbia. By refusing to distribute aid unless Columbia was abiding by their expectations and policies, they diverted funds from Columbian economic and social services Mejia/Restrepo ( 2014 ). A prominent theme in the earlier episodes of season one continues with these notions and focuses on Escobar’s working-class background. While Escobar campaigned for a position in the Chamber of Representatives of Colombia's Congress, he brought notice to his own personal work with average Colombians, he recognized a need to improve the lives of Columbians and acknowledged in a speech, “For decades, our country has been led by Lopez and other families that are wealthy who made their fortune off exploiting the poor. They don’t know the dreams of the common people but I do”The ( Sword of Simon BolivarS.1, E.2). InNarcos’ depiction of Escobar, he played off Colombia's political instability and the public’s recognition of Escobar as a “robin hood” that was there to speak for them and redistribute wealth among those in poverty. Escobar’s political career is short-lived when a mug-shot from years previous circulates, building to a moment in the series when Escobar is seated in Congress and the Minister of Justice tells Escobar, “You’re not welcome here” (Pablo the Politician 2015), this moment in the series speaks both to Escobar’s involvement with his cartel and cocaine trafficking, but also to his socio-economic status from his life in Medellín. For Escobar in the series, this moment becomes a defining factor of his relationship with the Columbian government and their United States’ assistance. The series is also told from the point of view of Agent Murphy from the United States. Murphy is deployed to Columbia to work at the US Embassy for the DEA. Murphy quickly enters the world of the DEA and drug trafficking and stands out with his broken Spanish and lack Brown 3 of knowledge about the society around him. He soon discovers that the situation on the ground is much more complex than he initially thought, “If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the narcoworld, it’s that life is more complicated than you think. Good and bad, they’re relative concepts” (Narcos: Descenso 2015). The series depicts Murphy's change in mindset and slide towards irrational decisions, like selling out a witness to the US Ambassador and repeatedly lying to his partner Peña. Narcos asks viewers to be critical of Murphy’s outlook and decisions as a representation of the actions of the United States in Columbia. An example of this comes early in the series when he accidentally rear-ends a cab driver and is yelled at, “You don’t even speak Spanish, get out of here … What the hell have you come here for?” (Narcos: La Catedral 2015), Murphy’s built-up frustration building since his arrival in Columbia leads him to pull his gun and threaten the driver before shooting at a wheel on the cab. At this moment, Murphy’s actions are meant to represent US imperialistic policy and a lack of all tolerance stemmed from frustration in the drug war. The series shows that although Escobar is the “bad” influence in Columbia, the “good” forces of the US are becoming increasingly violent and losing their tolerance. In this way, Narcos asks its audience to be critical of both Agent Murphy and the United States’ role in Columbia. At the time of the series, Washington D.C.’s agenda was to eradicate drugs at their source, a move from President Reagan that seemed to be the most economically efficient and effective option. In April of 1986, Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 221. This directive made the consumption and trafficking of illicit drugs a paramount matter for national security. It also authorized military involvement and became an excuse for the increasing militarization of drug eradication and supply-side eradication. This attempt to remove illicit substances at the source has been proven to “ … make new cycles of conflict and violence Brown 4 predictable” (Ledebur 2005). Involvement and pressure from the United States to fight the “Drug War” made Columbians frustrated by counter-productive and hypocritical policies that emphasized the eradication of illicit drugs in Columbia instead of addressing its own domestic demand that fueled the industry. By depicting two different viewpoints in the Columbian “Drug War” through Escobar and others in the Medellín Cartel with those of DEA and Agents Murphy and Peña, the question of who to sympathize with and believe develops. The crimes and violence carried out by Escobar both fictionally and factually are inexcusable, but aren’t the crimes and violence caused by the US declared “War on Drugs” also inexcusable? Narcos, In the constructs of “good” and “bad” are blurred and make the audience look past their own formed ideas of the US as the “heroes” and Escobar and the Medellín Cartel as the “villains”, showing that “... there is much more complex dynamic at work than a simple dichotomy between good and bad” (Dittmar 2016). These inverted and dynamic roles invoke a more nuanced take on the social and political dynamics surrounding the “War on Drugs” to capture the complexity of the US’s long-lasting policies for drug eradication and the cost Colombians and other Latin Americans endure for the perceived welfare of global health and security.