Did the truce cause gangs to become involved in the drug trade or was it the failed peace?

According to Insight Crime, the Salvadoran police are concerned that gangs "are "mutating" and becoming more deeply involved in drug trafficking, a development that adds to fears the gangs have used the truce between them to increase their strength and reach." First, I wonder about causality. Did the truce cause El Salvador's gangs to become (more) involved in the drug trade or would the gangs have gotten involved in the drug trade even without a truce? Would the gangs have gotten involved in the drug trade had there been more progress in transforming the truce into a real peace? In effect, did the truce cause gangs to become more involved or did the failure to move beyond a truce cause them to turn to drug trafficking?

Second, if the truce collapses, whose fault is it? It was going to be a tall challenge to transform a truce among 60,000 gang members and their 400,000 dependents into a viable peace. That's a lot of people in a country of six million governed by a weak government that was seeking to overcome high levels of poverty, slow growth, corruption and many other challenges. It might have collapsed under the best of circumstances.

However, it appears pretty clear that the Funes administration, the political parties, private sector, civil society and the international community did not commit the resources necessary into transforming the truce into a peace. It's not that they didn't try anything; it's just that their efforts were less than what was needed.

Third, of those gang members who have moved into drug trafficking or who have continued to kill, how many of them were part of the truce all along? Are these individuals who were involved in designing the truce or are they subordinates who are just not good at listening?

Finally, if some gang members have moved into drug trafficking and the truce does collapse, will the government be able to prevent some of the 60,000 from returning to gang life (if any left it in the first place) and to prevent a resurgence of the violence that existed prior to March 2012? In effect, what is plan B?

Salvadoran Ambassador to the United States Ruben Zamora has an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor defending the Salvadoran government's position on the gang truce which I can't quite say that I buy just yet.

But we maintain that the government of El Salvador did not negotiate the truce; rather it was done by civil society groups. And our administration did not compromise law enforcement and criminal prosecution.

Attorney General Luis Martinez is investigating various public security officials in El Salvador, including David Munguia Payes, for turning a blind eye to gang operations, for pressuring others to do the same, and for political espionage. Ambassador Zamora's op-ed was clearly a response to these developments. However, he was also calling on the US government to take a lead in tackling gang violence in the 21st century.

We are simply looking for more effective and innovative tools to combat violent crime that take into account the social roots of the phenomenon. From our perspective, the prevention of violence through alleviating socioeconomic factors among our youth and the discussion of solutions within the community should be the main topic of discussion on how to improve citizen security in the Americas.

Based on our experience, we believe that the Western hemisphere needs – and deserves – an open discussion on alternative approaches to combating gangs and promoting national and regional security. In that sense, the US could become a leading force in bringing new ideas and encouraging the debate on alternative approaches. This means building a new hemispheric agenda that prioritizes the common socioeconomic challenges in the Americas.

El Salvador’s – and Central America’s – relations with the US cannot overlook the root causes, such as youth marginalization, that facilitate crime on both sides of the border. This might require a breakaway from outdated ideas that limit security initiatives to police operations, intelligence gathering, and military capabilities. But to improve the lives of millions of youth in the Americas and combat international gang activity, it is a risk worth taking.

What this means exactly, I don't know. Maybe the Ambassador can elaborate?