The following is what amounts to a twenty-seven page research paper discussing the current situation in Chiapas, Mexico. This is a fairly comprehensive history and current analysis of the Zapatista rebellion that five University of Tennessee students prepared during the Spring of 1997.
Ya Basta! (That's Enough!)
This desperate cry was accompanied by an uprising of indigenous people as they descended from the mountains of Chiapas, Mexico into the cities of the country. Armed with AK-47s, .22 caliber rifles, machetes, and wooden sticks, they declared war on Mexico's illegitimate government. This bold move
impressed millions of Mexicans, including the Indian communities all over the nation as
they captured and occupied four major towns and cities. One of these was San
Cristo’bal de las Casas, the historical administrative center of the region under Spanish
colonial rule. Even today this city is the major Mexican mestizo political, cultural, and
economic center of highland Chiapas. After twelve days of fighting, national and
international opinion caused the image conscious Mexican government to call a cease
fire. The eyes of the world focused on this confrontation while the oppressed and
exploited people struggled to hold onto even a subsistent living in the face of ever
increasing transnational corporate interests.
The Zapatista Insurgency Movement began in Chiapas, Mexico on January 1,
1994, the same day that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) went into
effect. The timing was not a coincidence; the insurgency movement was launched on
this day in order to make a political statement. Although this latest movement is over
three years old, it is the only the most recent in a long history of uprisings by a people
seeking basic human dignity and rights. The resolution of this current conflict is still
unresolved. The outcome of the conflict may well determine if this is the beginning of a
grassroots movement to check the growing power of global capitalism, or perhaps the
last hurrah before the majority of humanity is viewed by a powerful international elite as
nothing more than commodities whose lives mean little more than herds of cattle from
which their next meal will come. It is necessary to understand the struggle in Chiapas began not in 1994, but with the symbolic date of 1492, which formally signifies the beginning of the European
conquest and pillage of the Americas along with the rest of the world. The current
socio-economic relationship between the indigenous population of Mexico and the rest
of the world is part of a 500 year history of the development of the current global system.
The development of this global system has taken place in distinct stages in Chiapas. It
has played a role in the systematic division that occurred between what has become
known as the developed and dominating industrial North and underdeveloped
dependent South. This dialectic relationship of the development of the North and
underdevelopment of the South is best explained by examining the development of the
capitalist system as the most important explanatory device. Capitalism grew out of the
European system of feudalism. Here one of the most important components of
capitalism developed, this being the concept of private property.
THE SETTING-WHAT IS PROPERTY? begins "All forms of life are sustained by
the world, but the world is owned by only some of the people. Who or what institution
determines who owns the world, and why do they have the authority to define property
rights?". Within the article a fairly detailed account of William the Conqueror and the famous Doomsday book which describes the process of the privatization of property. This survey of England included information about the rights by which property was held by the holders. Two centuries later, the Magna Carta was signed not to insure the liberties of the common man but to guarantee
the rights of ownership by the land owners. A relative period of stability followed in which
exploitation occurred through tributary means in which most of the European population
was at least able to maintain a subsistence level through close association with the
means of production, even though they did not technically own it. The increase of technology improved agricultural methods which led to an increase of surpluses in Europe. This allowed a move towards urbanization and a division of labor. This division of labor is an important factor in the development of capitalism. It requires some matter of valuation for exchange of goods and services.
This move from production for use value to production for exchange value led to the
ability to accumulate capital in the form of surplus value created by wage laborers.
The term capitalism describes this system of profit-seeking and accumulation
which is maintained by continuous expansion and exploitation of markets.
Understanding this initial accumulation of capital, which took place in Europe, is a
primary consideration in the discussion of development and underdevelopment.
Mercantilism developed as the policy of the new nation-states built and consolidated
their political, economic, and military power. The superior military power of Europe was
the deciding factor in establishing what belonged to who in the new world order. It
resulted in a policy of direct pillage and plunder in the Americas.
The period from the late 1400s to the early 1600s was most devastating to the
Mayan civilization in Chiapas and surrounding areas. The nature of the creeping
imperialism spread massive waves of death and destruction among the indigenous
peoples of the Americas in the quest for gold and silver. Whole populations were
decimated within a few generations by small pox and other diseases. In Mexico, the
native population was 21 million in 1519, but had shrunk to 2.5 million by 1565, and to a
total just one million by 1607 (“Glory and Murder in the New World”, New Internationalist,
June 1989). After the theft of readily available wealth through direct conquest, a new
stage of exploitation known as colonialism began and the people had their means of
production re-oriented.
During the Colonial period, the Mayan people underwent the usual fate of a
colonized people. They were systematically impoverished while their resources and
productive capacity were redirected toward the enrichment of the conquistadors and
their descendants. Spanish colonization devastated most of the population and divided
up the most productive lands into encomiendos to be controlled by indirect rule of the
Spanish aristocracy. Similar to the displacement of the peasants in Europe during the
Enclosure Movement, the native Mayans were left with the least desirable and
productive lands. This resulted in the need to supplement the limited agricultural output
of their tiny parcels with wage labor on the giant encomiendos which were oriented
towards export crop production for Europe. These artificial boundaries still divide the
people of Latin America and the oligarchy established then still holds almost exclusive
economic and political control.
The economy was organized to siphon wealth away from the native people to
Spanish hands. This vast drainage of wealth was crucial for developing accumulation of
capital which funded the Industrial Revolution. The policy of Mercantilism developed atrade monopoly to minimize the prices of imports and maximize the prices of exports by
controlling imports and exports, levying tariffs on imports, subsidizing exports, and
controlling shipping extensively. The state thus took a large degree of responsibility in
controlling economic activity. This state of export oriented agriculture is still a primary
feature of the modern day state of Chiapas.
A new development in world order began with the Industrial Revolution. Though
this period did not have a dramatic effect on Chiapas at the time, this stage of
development is crucial for understanding the parallels of the currently developing
transglobal capitalism. During the mid 1800s, the rise of classical liberalism and the
Industrial Revolution combined to decrease the influence of state control of business
and industry while simultaneously supporting the concept of a free market. This
completed the move of production to exchange value from use value. This was known
as the great transformation.
Capitalism required the subordination of social considerations to conform to the
economic dictates of the private market system. Production and distribution were
consolidated and organized for the society through markets. This consolidation took
place primarily within the borders of the industrialized North when the United States of
America became a major force in world development. The political identity of each
nation was maintained to foster the development of capital within their respective
industrial centers. A degree of mercantile policy was used by the developing industrial
base to consolidate capital to protect interests within national borders.
The elite industrialist struggled with each other to use the military might of the
individual nations to consolidate world holdings. During this period, the capitalist class
not only exploited the people within the industrialized North, but of the flow of wealth
from the primarily agriculturally oriented South through direct and indirect. In doing so
they established means of maintaining economic control even when they seemed to
relinquish political control.
The people of underdeveloped countries have lost control of their productive
capacity and the means of production. The underdeveloped country was structured and
organized so that the output was not directed towards meeting needs of the indigenous
population but towards meeting the needs of industrial powers and local elites. This
results in a vicious cycle of underdevelopment involving a continuous drainage of
surplus from the underdeveloped regions to the developed regions and countries.
There are several mechanisms used to maintain the transfer of surplus from
undeveloped to developed countries. Among them, the forced labor in the form of
slavery, serfdom, debt servitude, taxes and legislation. An unequal rate of exchange is
maintained between the manufactured Northern goods and the unprocessed Southern
goods. There is also a technological dependence which is concentrated and controlled
in the North. The productive processes in the South are dependent on technology
whose value constantly increases while the value of what the South produces remains
the same or decreases. Due to the unequal rate of exchange and the need to finance
technology, a form of financial dependency has been created where the underdeveloped
countries are exploited by simply trying to maintain interest payments on the imbalance
in trade.
Industry in the Third World or South is controlled by a group of small local elites
and/or foreign corporations who super exploit local wage laborers. Local wage laborers
are paid far less in relative terms than their counterparts in a developed country. The
multinational and transnational corporations are located in the North so even when they
invest in the South, the profits are transferred to the North. The latest developments in
capitalism crossed all borders and created a group of ruling elite without allegiance to anindividual country. Instead, their loyalties lie within a need to maximize efficiency within
the production process and accumulate capital regardless of the human suffering it
causes. In this process, once people and societies lose control over their means of
production, they become dependent, and their countries enter a situation of dependency
on the rich and powerful industrial countries. Even after former colonies gain their
independence, their economic and social structure are still oriented towards meeting the
needs of the rich countries of the North. The rich countries of the North use military
intervention, control over wealth, international political and financial institutions (IMF) to
maintain their privileged positions. In Mexico, the development of colonial status established a foreign ruling elite which became the new local elite after independence. The elites of the Northern
countries enter into an alliance with the tiny minority of elites in the Southern countries to
the mutual benefit of an international elite. This elite exercises effective political power
over the global system which means that the vast majority in the South are the losers.
With this background in mind, one must question what forces have allowed the
indigenous Mayan population of Chiapas to maintain solidarity throughout five hundred
years of oppression. Native response to the imposition of Spanish colonial rule was
never passive and the Indians dealt with Spanish domination in creative ways. They held
on to elements of their prehispanic heritage and adapted Spanish institutions to meet
their own needs.
Historian Nancy Farriss has described Indian life under colonial rule as “the
collective enterprise of survival”. This phrase focuses on two important points. First, for those Indians who remained in the native towns, life remained oriented towards the community as a corporate entity. Most land was held in common by the community as a whole or by its constituent wards. Government officials and religious events were community agendas as well. The sense
of community, which had roots in preconquest times, gave the Indians a sense of
identity. Second, was the struggle to survive. A European world view and the Roman
Catholic religion made significant headway. By working together for their mutual support,
the survival of the community as a whole was successful. At the same time, however,
this strong community affiliation tended to prevent people from reaching across their
borders and form broader alliances to address common problems. This helped to ensure
the survival of the Spanish rule. It also facilitated the colonial program of indirect rule. It
was easier for the Spanish authorities to allow the native communities to govern their
own local affairs than it was to introduce entirely new sociopolitical organizations at all
levels of native society. For Indians to identify with their local communities rather than
unite along class or ethnic lines reinforced the Spanish strategy of “divide and conquer”.
Without this compromise there might have been no colony.
The long history of rebellions and the continued repression and appropriation of
the basic ability to survive have been so decimated that the indigenous population has
said, “Ya Basta!” One of the earliest uprisings was the stoning to death of an abusive
Spanish mayor by angry Zapatoecs in 1660 in the town of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca. The
rebels burned municipal buildings and captured Spanish weapons. With an Indian
government installed in Tehuantepec, the uprising spread to other towns with the
Indians in the rebellion numbering up to 10,000 in over twenty towns. In a letter to the
Viceroy, the leaders of the rebellion explained that they remained loyal to the King of
Spain but were unwilling to submit to harsh treatment, excessive tribute, and the
demands of repartimeiento. The rebellion ended within a year and the revolt was
violently suppressed. The leaders were condemned to death, their bodies quartered and
displayed in prominent places within the communities. The superior military power of the
Spaniards reasserted control and the indigenous population were once again submitted
to a life of subservience remembering their heritage and dreaming of obtaining
autonomy.
Once again the exploitation became particularly egregious in the Tzeltal area. As
a result, in 1712, the Indians of Cancuc rebelled against the colonial overlords, declared
the death of the Spanish God and King, and tried to set up their own religious kingdom
on earth. Again, the Spanish retaliated with brutal force and the indigenous people
submitted once again to a life of subservience. One hundred and fifty years later, the Mayans of Chiapas rebelled against exploiting overlords, this time against the Creole rulers of the Mexican republic. Although the uprising was short lived, the rebels did manage to lay siege to the regional capital of San Cristo’bal in 1869, and strike fear into the hearts of the ruling class. This was
precedent for the Chiapas rebellion and the takeover of San Cristo’bal in 1994. These
modern rebels, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (ELZN) were inspired by the
example of their rebellious ancestors.
The Zapatista uprising claims its legitimacy from the constitution
established in 1917, at the conclusion of the Mexican revolution which began in 1910.
Specifically, article Article 39 which says:
National Sovereignty essentially and originally resides in the people. All
political power emanates from the people and its purpose is to help the
people. The people have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter or
modify their form of government.
The Zapatista’s also take their name from the spiritual leader of the 1910
revolution, Emiliano Zapata. He was an instrumental force in the establishment of the
1917 Constitution. During the Mexican Revolution and the aftermath from 1911 to 1917,
Zapata was a land reformer, a guerrilla fighter, and a champion of the poor. The
resulting constitution was the most radical socialist reform of its time. The progressive
nature called for a massive redistribution of land and the reclaiming of Mexican
resources for the benefit of the people of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution of 1910
developed into the first major effort in Latin America to uproot the system of great
estates and peonage. The Revolution’s goal was to curb foreign control over natural
resources and to raise the living standard of the masses. The Constitution of 1917
spelled out the social content of the revolution. Although peace returned in 1920, reform
proceeded slowly and by 1928, many of the revolutionary leaders grew wealthy and
corrupt from dealing with foreign interests and abandoned their reformist ideas.
The development of discontent that led to the Revolution of 1910 was fostered in
great part in 1863 when President Benito Juarez issued the “Law of Vacant Lands” in
order to promote agriculture. This law stated that public lands would be ceded to
whoever would locate, survey, and exploit them, paying a fixed price for them. It was
during the age of Porifirio Diaz, 1867-1911, that the background conditions and the
stage for the Revolution of 1910 fully developed. During the reign of Diaz, Mexico was
known as “the mother of foreigners” instead of the mother of the natives. The programs
which Diaz enacted were to benefit himself and a select few favorites. Those who really
profited were the foreign investors. Under Diaz, the “Law of Vacant Lands” helped
foreigners to displace natives.
Natives who had lived on ancestral land since before the time of Columbus were
forced to give up their land due to the fact that they did not have title to that land. The
natives were forced to leave the land and when they refused they were killed, jailed, or
hunted down. Many of these lands went to prospectors who would exploit the land and
the labor of the natives while paying them a pitiful subsistent wage. The natives were
forced onto property which had little cultivable land. They were unable to maintain
subsistence and were forced essentially to work for the land lords on the great estates
as wage labors to make ends meet. Of more than two billion pesos spent by the Diaz
regime, none was spent fertilizing or irrigating the land on which the Indians lived. None
of the money was spent on education which might help the Indians improve their lot by
giving them knowledge, with which they could help themselves.
There was, on paper at least, great economic prosperity during this time due to
the exploitation of the natural resources, but again this only benefited the elite and the
foreign investors. Many of the natural resources which were exploited were of the
depletable type. Minerals for instance, were exploited on a greater scale than ever. Of
the 120 million pesos in exported minerals, the vast majority went to foreign stock
holders. Only the meager wage which the workers were paid stayed in Mexico. Despite
the money made from the minerals, very little industrial construction took place; only
thirteen factories in eighteen years. On the other hand, tobacco and liquor grew by leaps
and bounds, with a one thousand percent increase in tobacco factories, and in 1909, 43
million liters of rum were produced.
Francisco Madero, in his call for the revolution of San Luis Potosi, had
emphasized political objectives, only touching lightly on land reform. However, in the
southern state of Morelos, where the Indians had long waged a losing struggle against
the encroaching haciendas, the revolution began under the slogan: “Tierra y Libertad”,
land and liberty. When Zapata became convinced that Madero did not intend to carry out
his promise to restore land to the villages, he revolted and issued his own program” “The
Plan of Ayala”, which he continued to battle until the great guerrilla fighter was slain by
betrayal in 1919. Zapata’s tenacious struggle and the popularity of his ideas among the
landless peasantry contributed to the adoption of a bold program of land reform in the
Constitution of 1917.
Part of the “Plan of Ayala” is as follows:
Lands, woods, and waters usurped by the haciendas,
Cientificos, and Caciques through tyranny and venal justice
henceforth belong to the towns or villages who have
corresponding titles to these properties, of which they were
despoiled by the bad faith of our oppressors. They shall
retain possession of the said properties at all costs, arms in
hand. The usurpers who think they have a right to the said
lands may state their claims to the revolutionary tribunal. The
great estates shall be expropriated, with indemnification to
the owners of one third of such monopolies, in order that
towns and citizens of Mexico may obtain ejidos, colonies,
town sites, and arable lands. The properties of the haciendas
which directly or indirectly oppose the present plan shall be
seized by the nation, and two thirds of their values shall be
used for war indemnities and pensions for the widows and
orphans of the soldiers who may perish in the struggle for
this plan.
The need to defeat the movements led by Zapata and Pancho Villa to secure the
loyalty of Mexico’s workers compelled the conservative Venustiano Carranza to promise
land and labor reforms as spelled out in the Constitution of 1917. By the late 1920s,
however, the ruling “revolutionary family” led by Plutaro Calles had made a mockery of
the promises. After the Great Depression, Larazo Cardenas tried to follow some of the
land reforms which had been betrayed by collectivizing the oil production of the country.
In terms of land reform he did very little. Ninety percent of the mining still remained in
foreign hands. Cardenas did distribute land to the peasants but the tracts were very poor
with little arable land. Many of the plots were too small to make the peasants
economically independent and the aid in the form of seeds, credit, and technical
assistance were inadequate. After Cardenas left office, the government tended to favor
the large private farms over the ejidos, or communally owned landholdings.
In place of the old great estates is the rise of the Latifundio. This is a capitalist
enterprise devoted to the production of agricultural products for sale in large markets
with the aim being profitable. Land holdings became more concentrated during the
1940s, 50s, and 60s. The Latifundista did not own the land, but rented it from
communally owned ejido land, so obviously the Lantifundista were not going to spend
money to improve it. Therefore, the government spent the money to irrigate the land,
which was provided free to the Latfundistas. This helped to increase their production of
the land without having to spend money to get results.
Another boon they received was the fixing of agricultural products by the
government so that they were guaranteed a certain return on their investment; the
rented land was not cared for. The lands were cultivated without thought of the
repercussions which the exploitation may have. The people who rented the land did not
invest into the land, and the Indians that the land was rented from got their land
destroyed by the Latifundios who didn’t care about the land. The Latifundios cared only
about how much money they could make from its exploitation. These conditions
remained fairly stable until the 1970s, continuing the centuries old exploitation of the
indigenous population.
The highland Indian communities around San Cristo’bal de las Casas had for
centuries provided the principal labor force behind the extraction of resources
throughout Chiapas. These highland Indians believe in a type of religion that
incorporated both Christian and Mayan beliefs. These Indians grew corn which they
considered sacred because it was the most important staple for their sustenance on
“milpas”, or plots of land. By 1970, many highland Indians either annually migrated or
had relocated to other parts of Chiapas. The Grijalva River Basin, provided the Indians
with fertile lands which they could rent to grow corn to make up for the meager crop
production in the not so fertile highland region. By coercion and debt servitude, the
Indians were forced to harvest coffee in the Sierran areas and to work on large and
wealthy plantations near the Pacific Ocean that produced cotton, sugar cane, bananas,
and other lucrative export crops. The indigenous people of Chiapas were allowed only
the most undesirable lands of the highland region. To keep the Indians and peasants in
line, powerful intermediaries known as caciques began to appear. The caciques
consisted mainly of mestizos and ladinos, and were closely affiliated with the ruling PRI
party. Many caciques were appointed municipal presidents by the governor of Chiapas.
The caciques would gain control of key properties and assets and use them to gain even
more power. In mafia-like fashion, the caciques would manipulate local institutions such
as credit, commerce, and transportation by demanding monetary compensation in return
for so-called “protection”. The main function of the caciques was to insure that the Indian
labor force was ample enough to maintain Mexico’s agricultural economy. The reduction
of the rain forests by the rapidly growing cattle industry constituted a significant loss in
the means of production by 1970. Also, by 1970, the more fertile lands in the state of
Chiapas were in control of wealthy farm and plantation owners.
During the 1970s, an economic boom occurred in Chiapas, fostered by the state
controlled PEMEX petroleum industry. This was in response to the growing need for oil
to fuel world wide industrial growth. The vast reserves of oil in the Chiapas highlands
were becoming increasingly important to northern capitalist as a method of reducing the
stranglehold placed on energy requirements by the formation of OPEC in the Middle
East. Oil was just one of the exports stepped up to supply a rapidly growing world
economy. This increased level of exploitation was overseen by the newly elected Luis
Echeverria who took office as President of Mexico in 1970. Echeverria was a member of
the powerful and dominant PRI political party.
The 1970s marked the beginning of the Echeverria administration and increased
the level of exploitation of the indigenous people in Chiapas. Proof of this is the fact that
cattle increased from 2 million to 3.8 million during the 1970s. (Burbach; Rosset, 2). The
increase in cattle production was probably the most devastating event in the 1970s to
the Indians. The increased cattle production led to even more destruction of the rain
forests, displacement of traditional crops, and the taking over of ejido lands by large
cattle producers. By 1983, thirty percent of Chiapan lands were controlled by
Latifundistas and more than 100,000 peasants were left landless. Export crops such as
cotton, sugar cane, bananas, and tobacco also grew at feverish rates. The explosion of
petroleum production and the construction of hydroelectric dams were also detrimental
to the Indian and peasant populations of Chiapas. Other than the white collar personnel
that PEMEX brought in to run things, the workforce consisted mainly of peasants from
Chiapas. The petroleum industry destroyed a vast amount of agricultural lands. This
combined with inflation, made it very difficult for the peasant population to provide their
own subsistence because instead of raising their own crops, the peasants were forced
to attempt to buy their staples. As a result of inflation, these staples were priced above
what the vast majority of the peasants could afford. These conditions led to
unprecedented increases in alcoholism, violence, crime and prostitution. The
culmination of these events led to social upheaval throughout Chiapas. In an attempt to
maintain the status-quo, ranchers, caciques and the state government resorted to
violence against the Indians and peasants.
President Luis Echeverria made an attempt to modernize the economic
exploitation process by instituting a neo-corporatist regime upon the state of Chiapas.
Echeverria set up government run organizations to buy commodities directly from the
small scale producers in an attempt to bypass the caciques who were viewed as a
hindrance in the government’s plan to suck the resources out of Chiapas. Echeverria
also stepped up social spending in Chiapas in an attempt to make the people dependent
upon the government and the PRI instead of local figures of power. Echeverria also
made it possible for Archbishop Samuel Ruiz to sponsor an Indian congress in San
Cristo’bal de las Casas that brought together over 1,000 communities representing more
than 400,000 people.
Three things came out of the congress: 1. Ruiz insisted on total autonomy for the
congress. 2. Denounced the living conditions of the people of Chiapas in a series of
resolutions. 3. Created the first independent statewide network of communities since the
conquests. Ruiz also went from community to community the discussing the nature of
oppression and spreading a sense of empowerment and liberation. Despite Echeverria’s
efforts to calm the discontent among the Indians, political activity increased dramatically
in the 1970s. Leftist student activist began organizing peasants and groups with
connections to the Mexican Communist Party established the Independent Central of
Agricultural Workers and Peasants (CIOAC).
The 1980s were marked by numerous revolts and conflicts that arose over
land disputes. Many protesters were killed by Mexican troops, large landowners, and by
hired gunmen of the ranchers called, guardias blancas. The situation became so volatile
that President Miguel de la Madrid arranged an emergency visit to Chiapas to access
the situation. President Madrid then appointed General Absalon Castellanos Dominguez
as Governor of the state of Chiapas. After placing Chiapas in a police state, Castellanos
Dominguez instituted a land reform program that dedicated large blocks of land to ejidos
and Indian communities. By 1988, when Castellanos Dominguez vacated his office,
more land had been distributed in Chiapas than in the thirty previous years. Despite the
land reforms the conflict failed to subside. This was because the lands were given
primarily to groups who had a strong allegiance to the PRI such as the Confederation of
Campesinos (CNC). Of the 493 land grants made by Castellanos Dominguez, only 27
went to communities or ejidos with ties to opposition groups. Like many of his
predecessors, Castellanos Dominguez helped to insure the existence and viability of
the ranchers and large land owners by issuing special decrees protecting them from
future land redistribution. By 1988, seventy percent of the cattle ranches were exempt
from future land reform.
Due to outside pressures exerted by the IMF, the Mexican government was
forced to devalue the peso when the petroleum prices fell dramatically. The government
went on to severely restrict subsidies issued for agriculture from 1982-1987. The impact
of this was felt especially hard in Chiapas where the production of staple crops such as
corn and beans fell 20 percent and 18 percent respectively. (Burbach; Rosset, 5). In an
attempt to gain higher value foreign currency, export crops saw significant increases.
Soybean and sorghum saw increases well over 100 percent, while peanuts and tobacco
were up in excess of 200 percent. Cacao and sugar production more than doubled,
while beef production went up an incredible 400 percent. (Burbach; Rosset, 5). The near
worthless peso made it even more difficult for the Indian and peasant populations to buy
enough staples such as beans and corn for sustenance.
President Salinas de Gortari who took office as President of Mexico in 1988,
and his neo-liberal approach to the modernization process did nothing but increase class
stratification between groups in Chiapas. The implementation of his policies led to record
levels of impoverishment and rebellion within Chiapas. Salinas terminated all of the
things set into place by previous PRI leaders that attempted to curtail discontent in
Chiapas. Salinas abolished the state run agency set up by Echeverria that purchased
coffee from small producers. This led to the collapse of small scale coffee production
between 1989 and 1993. Although corn was still receiving subsidies, they were receiving
them at an gradual declining rate because the Mexican government was preparing for
the implementation of NAFTA which would allow the importation of cheap corn from the
United States.
In 1992, the Salinas government reduced the ejido and communal land holdings
in Chiapas. These lands were now available to be bought and sold, and the Indians
were allowed to secure no more land. Patrocinio Gonzalez Garrido took office as the
Governor of Chiapas at the same time Salinas did. As was the case with governors
before him, Garrido looked out for the interests of the large land owners foremost. The
only difference between Garrido and his predecessors is that he was more prone to use
violence as a way of dealing with protest. In early 1989, just after Garrido took office,
two major campesino leaders were assassinated. In 1990, a protest of small scale sugar
production was fired upon as were protesters in the Chiapan capital of Tuxtla.
Throughout Garrido’s term, many Indian land settlements were uprooted leaving
countless Indians displaced.
The conflict in Chiapas was thrust into the national spotlight when some 400
Indians from the rain forests area of Palenque took their protest to Mexico City. They
were attempting to draw public attention to the arrest, beating, and torturing of members
of the Committee for the Defense of Indian Liberty, who were protesting wide scale local
corruption, lack of democracy in municipal government, and the government’s failure to
carry out promised public works. The Palenquen Indian protests seemed to generate a
national feeling of sympathy towards the plight of indigenous people in Chiapas. The
only response Salinas or Garrido gave was the ordered arrests of the Palenquen
protesters. The repression continued and the National Independent Campesino Alliance
Emiliano Zapata (ANCIEZ) went underground not to be heard from again until January
1, 1994.
The time bomb that exploded in Chiapas was the result of the governments
neo-liberal economic program, which included cutbacks for the small farmers and the
free trade policy with the United States. The reduction of aid given to the small farmers
and the competition of the cheap corn imported from the United States. The EZLN sees
NAFTA as the death sentence for Mexico’s Indian peoples. The struggle in Chiapas
continues; the latest in a long line of resistance against the control of native resources
by outside interests of Northern capital and the local ruling elite. The world continues to
watch the situation with great interest. It is a struggle, not for control of a country or
people, but rather a stand for the basic human rights and dignity of each individual. The
question remains whether this rebellion will result in the transformation of society from
the bottom up or a continuing repression and exploitation by the global elite.
The Zapatista Struggle: 1994-present
On the morning of January 1, 1994 an accumulation of an indigenous people descended from the mountains of Chiapas Mexico into the cities of the country. Under the First Declaration of the Lacandona Jungle, Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos along with Indians carrying AK-47's, .22 caliber rifles, and wooden sticks, declared war on Mexico's illegitimate government, and proclaimed ¡Ya Basta! (that's enough!). After twelve days of bombardment, with casualties possibly in the thousands, national and international opinion forced the image conscious Mexican government and ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to call a cease fire on January 12, 1994, to negotiate with the Zapatista rebels, which had gathered as members of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation(EZLN).
The cease-fire was honored by the EZLN and on January 18, Manuel Camacho Solis, former mayor of Mexico City, was recognized by the EZLN as the official government representative for negotiations. With this, peace talks begin on February 21 and continue until March 2. Twenty-four tentative agreements were reached based on the government’s responses to thirty-four demands of the EZLN. The results of these talks were submitted to long consultations among all the Zapatista communities and civilian bases of support.
On June 12, in the Second Declaration of the Lacandona Jungle, the Zapatistas announced the overwhelming rejection of the agreement by their communities, and called for a National Democratic Convention (CND) whose unrestricted session would be held in rebel territory in a convention center that they would construct. The results of the consultations were made public with 97.88% of the people rejecting the government’s proposal. However, only 3.26% expressed a desire to return to hostilities so the decision was made to continue abiding by the cease-fire.
With the CND, the Zapatistas were attempting to construct what the government was refusing to discuss or negotiate: a fundamental reform to the Mexican state that would ensure democracy, justice, and a peace with dignity and social justice. The failure to address those issues had been the reason for the rejection of the accord by the Zapatista base. The government had offered them more schools, hospitals, and money, insisting that Chiapas was a problem local in time and in place, not a profound national problem. The Chiapan Indians looked to history and to their dead to argue that was not the case.
The August 5-9 CND, which was held in Chiapas with over 6,000 people in attendance, was a euphoric meeting. People left feeling that their wills would transform the stubborn political bulldozer. But outside Chiapas little happened. The PRI won and despite many election irregularities, international opinion was satisfied. Much of Mexico's movement for social change behaved as it was in a hangover. Soon, in Chiapas, the non-Zapatistas became more rebellious and on October 11, the EZLN breaks off all talks with the federal government, citing continued repression, and built up military force around the EZLN territory. For the EZLN, the worst thing that could happen was that nothing would happen. They had long warned that the PRI was placing its bets on the fact that people would grow tired, bored, and forget about the Zapatistas and why they had risen up in arms. After the August elections, the governments strategy seemed to be paying off everywhere except in Chiapas. It only seemed a matter of time.
The Zapatistas had also often warned that they would view the forced inauguration of Robledo Rincon as a breaking of the cease fire agreement. On December 19, the Zapatistas announced a nonviolent military offensive and had broken through government lines without firing a single shot and took over towns in 38 municipalities became rebel territory all over the state of Chiapas. Within days the peso fell. Mexico economic system was in turmoil as the country seemed to be at the fringe of another war. Not a shot was fired between the two armies, although the abductions, human rights violations, and torture by landlord's paramilitary forces continued, as it always has in Chiapas. The government and the EZLN were once again forced to the bargaining table by public opinion and the Zapatistas presented their Third Declaration of the Lacandona Jungle. There they restated what they were fighting for and called for a National Liberation Movement composed of all groups struggling for democracy in Mexico.
Then on February 9th, in the midst of negotiating with the EZLN, President Zedillo came on television and announced that it had uncovered arms caches belonging to the EZLN. He said that they had identified Subcomandante Marcos as Rafael Sebastian Vicente Guillen and that arrest warrants had been issued for the Zapatista leadership. The Federal army was ordered to advance into Zapatista territory to carry out these arrests. It was a move that caught the whole country by surprise. Marcos and the Zapatista leadership in Guadalupe Tepeyac, managed to leave ten minutes before the arrival of army tanks. The entire town, like many others, fled with the Zapatistas into the mountains. Food, seeds, water, animals, tools were destroyed as the government deemed it politically easier and safer to starve and infect the population. What killing did take place were usually carried out by paramilitary groups tied to the landed elite instead of directly to the government. Upon basically recognizing the failure of the military operation, on March 17, the Mexican Congress approves the Law for Dialogue, Reconciliation and a Just Peace in Chiapas.
For a third time, the civilian mobilizations, along with an elusive enemy and a crumbling economy, force the PRI back to the negotiating table with the Zapatistas. And for an incredible third time the Zapatistas used the opportunity to continue their dialogue via their national and international suffrage, the Consulta Nacional e Internacional. And on August 27, in a country where the ruling PRI's own balloting on its economic plan only managed to achieve a voter participation of 600,000 voters in the spring of 1995, the Zapatistas referendum drew 1,100,000 voters nationally and 80,000 voters internationally on questions relating to what the Zapatistas were struggling for and how they should be struggling. 97.5% of national voters agreed with the principal demands of the EZLN and 92.7% agreed that all the democratic forces should unite in a broad front in order to fight for those demands. 52.6% suggested that the EZLN should convert itself into a new and independent political force.
The unexpected success of the referendum led to a very productive negotiating session in September 1995. Six major themes were proposed and laid out: Indigenous Rights and Culture; Democracy and Justice; Welfare and Development; Reconciliation in Chiapas; Rights of Women in Chiapas; and the Cessation of Hostilities. During December 1995, the EZLN prepares for the New Year’s celebration of the Second Anniversary of the Zapatista uprising. This was taken as a serious threat by the Mexican government whose intelligence organization had not noticed that for the last two months the Zapatista insurgents had been constructing a convention centers including stages, stands, living quarters, and latrines, right under their noses in the villages of La Realidad, Oventik,
La Garrucha, and Morelia. Tanks were immediately sent in and a tense confrontation began when the Oventik's people blocked the road to prevent the tanks from passing and began verbally insulting the soldiers. A last minute accord which prevented the reinitiating of hostilities was reached between the EZLN and the government, thanks to the help of bishop Samuel Ruiz's National Commision of Intermidation (CONAI) and a small group of legislatures from a group called the Commission for Concorida and Peace (COCOPA).
During the first hours of 1996, in all four communities, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation read their Fourth Declaration of the Lacandona Jungle, where they announced the formation of the Zapatista Front of National Liberation (FZLN):
A civil and nonviolent organization, independent and democratic, Mexican and national...A political force which does not struggle to take political power but for a democracy where those who govern, govern by obeying...Our word, our song and our cry, is so that the dead will no longer die. So that they may live we struggle, so that they live we sing. The EZLN would keep its arms, but the major part of its effort would be channeled into organizing with other groups in the FZLN.
On March 4, 1997, the Commission on Concordance and Pacification (Cocopa) issued its public declaration on the situation regarding the crisis of the San Andres Accords, which has intensified since the Mexican government implicitly refused to support the constitutional reform proposal drafted by the Cocopa to implement the agreements signed between the EZLN and the federal government in February 1996 on Indigenous Rights and Culture. The Cocopa's proposal was accepted by the EZLN on November 7, 1996; the government rejected it, however (after having initially signaled its acceptance), and in late December sent a counter-proposal to the Cocopa and the EZLN, which seemed to be an attempt to ignore the San Andres Accords completely and essentially restart
the negotiations from scratch. The EZLN flatly rejected the government's counterproposal, as was expected, and declared on January 11, that they would not make any further decisions until knowing the public position of the Cocopa regarding the government's refusal to accept the San Andres Accords, and the crisis which has since resulted. Now the Cocopa has responded, but their public position, made on March 4th, seems to only make matters worse, as it appears to many observers as a surrender to the government. The Cocopa has so far responded only briefly to the criticisms of the EZLN, saying it has not given up its attempts to arrive at a peace, with justice and dignity, in Chiapas and that it will continue to seek a meeting with the EZLN as soon as possible.
Other organizations have also responded to the recent statements of the Cocopa and the EZLN. The Secretary General of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Jesus Ortega, stated on February 14th that the Cocopa should retract its decision to withdraw its constitutional reform proposal from consideration in the Congress, since its approval by the legislature is the only possible solution to the current crisis. The Mexican Academy of Human Rights (AMDH), meanwhile, backed up the statements of Subcomandante Marcos, affirming that after more than a thousand hours of dialogue between the government, the Cocopa, and the EZLN, that the government has boycotted any serious attempt for reaching a just peace in Chiapas which would be favorable to the indigenous
peoples of Mexico.
On December 19th, 1996, the legislators of the Cocopa gave a document to the EZLN which contained the response of the Federal Executive to the constitutional reform initiative on indigenous matters, presented by the Cocopa to the two sides based on the San Andrés Accords. The Cocopa asked the EZLN to maintain confidentiality regarding the contents of the document while consulting with advisors and specialists, and a tripartite meeting between the EZLN, Cocopa, and Conai was set up so that both the Cocopa and the EZLN could make known their appraisal of the Federal Executive's document.
Having passed the agreed-upon period of confidentiality, the EZLN makes public the counter-proposal sent by Mr. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León, called Proposal of the Government for Constitutional Reforms Regarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, at the same time, makes known its evaluation of this document.
First. Mr. Zedillo's document represents a resounding ‘no’ to the proposal made by the Cocopa, it ignores the San Andrés accords signed by its delegation in February of 1996, it attempts to renegotiate from scratch all of the first round on "Indigenous Rights and Culture", and it ratifies the lack of seriousness and the irresponsibility of the federal government in the search for a peaceful solution to the just demands of the EZLN.
Second. The peace dialogue and process of negotiations only make sense if the accords that are reached are then fulfilled. Mr. Zedillo refuses to fulfill that which has been signed by his representatives in San Andrés. This is unacceptable; today it is a disregard of the acquired commitments regarding indigenous rights, tomorrow it will be the non-completion of the ever-more-distant peace agreements. This situation reveals that there is no real will for dialogue and peace on the part of the federal government, and shows that they are trying to administer the conflict in
a bellicose fashion rather than give it a definitive solution by peaceful means. Today, the will for war of Mr. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León remains clear.
Third. The words of Mr. Zedillo, expressed in Guatemala on the occasion of the signing of peace between the URNG and the government, are a sign that his foreign discourse contradicts his national actions. There is no real will in power in Mexico for valuing the arms of politics instead of the arms of confrontation, dialogue instead of intolerance, and accords above exclusion". (Ernesto Zedillo. Guatemala, December 29th, 1996.)
Fourth. Since its birth, the EZLN acquired a commitment with the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The indigenous blood spilled in the combats of 1994, the death suffered in these three years of armed resistance, and the pain of thousands of besieged and persecuted families in the mountains of the Mexican southeast, make sense and are based in reason, because they happened so as to fulfill the desire for everything for everyone, nothing for us. Today, we reiterate the fundamental importance the EZLN places on indigenous rights and culture, and on a national law which recognizes them.
Fifth. The government document titled "Proposal of the Government for Constitutional Reforms Regarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" is a vile and shameless mockery of the struggle of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, of the will for dialogue of the EZLN, of the efforts of the Cocopa to strengthen the path of negotiation, and of the hopes of national and international civil society to find a firm and rapid path to peace with justice and dignity for the original inhabitants of the Mexican lands.
Sixth. The counterproposal of the federal government puts the entire peace process in Mexico at risk, it fundamentally questions the possibility of a peaceful and rapid solution to the conflict, and it once again spreads the shadows of war over the indigenous peoples of Mexico.
Seventh. For all the above, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, a primarily indigenous rebelorganization risen up in arms for democracy, liberty, and justice for the Mexican people, declares:
That it completely rejects the government's proposal of constitutional reforms, for signifying a
nonfulfillment of the San Andrés Accords; for being a mockery of the national and international
demand for a just and dignified peace; and for not satisfying the indigenous demands for a new
relationship with the Mexican nation. That the EZLN reiterates that it accepts the document elaborated by the organism of the federal Legislative Power, the Cocopa, as the legal initiative which fulfills the San Andrés Accords signed by the EZLN and the federal government in February of 1996. That it hopes that the Commission of Harmony and Pacification honors its decision (made public during the first days of December, 1996) to defend and carry forward its own proposal, without accepting modifications from either of the parts, and demanding that the Federal Executive fulfill its word pledged in the accords of San Andrés. We expect a dignified and valiant attitude from the legislators of the Cocopa faced with this mockery by the Executive Power. The independence and autonomy of the Legislative Power and of the political parties are once again at stake. That the EZLN will not make any other decision until knowing the public response of the Cocopa. That we call upon national and international civil society to mobilize itself in order to demand that the government honor its word and stop playing with war against the people of Mexico.
Democracy!
Liberty!
Justice!
From the mountains of the Mexican southeast.
Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee-General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Mexico, January of 1997.
.........
The grade on this paper was 97 out of a possible 100 points.
to email me! (I check email daily)
Click here to go to the 
homepage!
page!
