Chiapas before 1994: Land of the Rich

Prior to January 1^st, 1994, state and federal governments viewed Chiapas only as a source of petroleum, as the northern zone, together with Tabasco, forms part of the 7,000 square kilometers of the Mesozoic Area that produces petroleum “where Chiapas alone in 1997 contributed 20,247,500 barrels of crude oil, representing 9.3% of the region and 2% of national production, as well as 247,800,000 cubic feet of natural gas”  [1] .

In terms of electric energy, Chiapas is a major producer, where “in 1969 begins the construction of hydroelectric catchments, beginning with Malpaso, then Angostura, Chicoasén, and Peñitas, all located on the Grijalva river.  These produce 52% of all national hydroelectric energy with 3,928.37 megawatts per hour, just after Veracruz, which produces 4,069.05 megawatts per hour”  [2] .

Chiapas was also a major force in agriculture, producing 1,755,868 tons of corn annual in 1997, occupying third place on a national level.  Chiapas was fourth place on a national level for coffee, producing 254,599 tons annually, and third place in mango production with 208,000 tons per year.  It also occupied third place for cocoa production with 13,488 tons produced annually.  The state was also rich in natural resources, with wood, forests, and natural beauty, for its fertile land and diverse climates.

But the indigenous people who lived there existed only as folkloric exhibitions for international tourists; the Guatemalan refugees (always taking care that the Guatemalan guerrillas not contaminate the indigenous Chiapans); for the concern of the peasant movement that gained consciousness and recovered land from large farms and ranches; for the passage of the Central American migrants headed towards the United States in search of food.  Chiapas existed for the preoccupation for the existence of a Catholic diocese committed to the theology of the “Preferential Option for the Poor” and allowed the most poor and excluded people a group that gained consciousness and struggled for the construction of their own destiny (for this, on July 22^nd, 1989, the priest Marcelo Rotsaert, of Soyatitán, was expelled and in September of 1991 Father Joel Padrón, of Simojov, was imprisoned).

This was the Chiapas that existed, land of the rich, in which state and national governments only worried about “national security,” exploiting natural resources and lands in the hands of ranchers, so that groups of local power wouldn’t affect their interests, because the PRI wouldn’t lose power, to take the photos and pretend to govern, while the local press was silent and controlled; the few members of the press critical of the system were silenced, repressed, or co-opted.

Meanwhile on the other side, they hid in part the repressive state forces, the “white guard,” hired gunmen and ranchers, who provoked massive massacres of peasants and indigenous people like those in Golonchán (Sitalá in May of 1980); Venustiano Carranza in 1979, 1984, 1986, etc. in Simojovel, Huituipán, El Bosque Bochil, Cintalapa, Comitán, Las Margaritas, La Independencia, Frontera Comalapa, etc.; for the entire decade of the 1980’s and part of the 1990’s there were horrible murders.  Another factor was the Guatemalan army (the kaibiles, elite killers trained with help of the CIA during the civil war), which entered into national territory in 1980 to the refugee camp “El Chupadero” in the municipality of Ocosingo, Chiapas, shelling and shooting its inhabitants, without the Mexican government uttering a word of protest to its Guatemalan neighbor.

Until 1994, there were 13,000 deaths by illnesses that could have been cured per year  [3]  because the government did not attend to the needs of the poorest of the poor.  In those days, Chiapas was first place in illiteracy, in houses made of earth, without electric energy, without potable water, and overall, without hopes that the government would take the people into account in its plans and projects, or that it would hear them, despite the number of marches, meetings, platforms, hikes to Mexico City, of the highway blocks, taking of official government offices.  In those times, the people called the central plaza of Tuxtla Gutierrez the name “La Borracha” (“The Drunk”), because it was constantly being taken over by peasants who knocked on the doors of the state palace, but no one would hear them.  When the government would talk it was only to threaten, taunt, buy and corrupt the indigenous and peasant leaders, not to seek solutions to their demands.

In Chiapas there were all the necessary conditions to grow an armed movement.  If anyone is responsible for it, it is all the governors working under the cacique system that never truly governed, simply exercised their power at will and robbed state resources.

The first incident actually occurred on May 23^rd and 24^th, 1993, when the Mexican army discovered an EZLN training camp, provoking a confrontation in the mountain range of Corralchén in Ocosingo.  The official report from the confrontation states that there were two fallen from the army and one from the EZLN; there were also eight indigenous members of the Rural Association for Collective Interest and two Guatemalan merchants detained and imprisoned in Cerro Hueco in Tuxtla Gutierrez.  But as the Mexican government would sign the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in November 1993, the Carlos Salinas administration ordered military retirement from the jungle and hid the incident from national and international press so that the news wouldn’t damage the signing.

Chiapas from 1994: The EZLN and Civil Society

Now we arrive at the dawn of January 1^st, 1994, where two important events occurred.  The first was the myth that Mexico would join the “First World” with NAFTA, agreed to in November 1993 by Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The second event was not a myth but a reality – the public appearance of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), which simultaneously took seven county seats (Ocosingo, Las Margaritas, Altamirano, San Cristobal de las Casas, Chanal, Oxchuc and Huixtan), declaring war on the Mexican army, calling for the resignation of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and exhorting the Mexican people to fight for ten basic commands: health, education, work, land, housing, food, independence, democracy, liberty, justice and peace.

There were only twelve days of combat between the EZLN and the Mexican army, due to the fact that Mexican civil society intervened and pressured the Mexican government to stop massacring the indigenous people who had taken up arms and asked the EZLN for a ceasefire.  From that January 12^th to today, the EZLN has made the establishment of dialogue a priority, both with the federal government (the Cathedral, San Miguel, San Andres, and Federal Congress dialogues) and dialogue with international and national civil society.  There have been many initiatives for the latter, such as the first Aguascalientes, the National Democratic Convention (August 6^th to 9^th, 1994), the National and International Consultation for Peace (1995) on Rights and Indigenous Culture, the First Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism (1996), the march of 1,111 Zapatistas to Mexico City, attending the formation of the Zapatista National Liberation Front (1997), the tour of 5,000 Zapatistas and the march of the EZLN command to diverse states and to Mexico City to speak in federal Congress, known as the March of the Color of the Earth (2001), etc.  Finally, the EZLN has had many initiatives to build bridges of dialogue with diverse sectors of the country; even though the Fox government refuses to acknowledge it, the EZLN is clearly legitimate in the eyes of national and international civil society.  As the Minister of the Interior, Santiago Creel, recently said in Cintalapa, “the problem of Chiapas has ceased to be a headache for the federal government.”  To the contrary, the federal and state governments have not found a way to convince the EZLN to sit down to dialogue without the government meeting its set conditions.  But while this is happening, Zapatism rides all over the world, as a source of inspiration for the struggle, of reference and of hope.  With this, I have the following questions: Why has Zapatism had a national and international impact?  What is the support that Zapatism has given to the national and international struggle?  What has been the result of all the dialogue with national and international civil society?

From my point of view, there are various influencing factors.  The answer to the first question has various elements:

a) In 1994, there was desperation of the international left, due to the failure of the socialist system as an alternative to use as a new model, and with that came the loss of hope and the lack of political direction; with that died part of the utopia.  Added to that was the signing of the Peace Accords between armed organizations and governments (Guatemala, El Salvador, Columbia, Nicaragua, Ireland), the reunification of the East and West Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc.

With all of this, the great leaders and figures of the left had fallen, which left a void until the figure of Subcomandante Marcos came to fill it in 1994.

b) The second element in the international context is the crisis of the left, both in its top-down manner of creating policies and its eroding political discourse.  Moreover, there was a generational conflict between the traditional left and the rise of new actors and a generation of youth with more strength, energy and new forms of participation and demanding spaces for political decisions.

c) The development of technologies such as the internet, fax, and all telecommunications in general, which were used by the EZLN and the 800 journalists who arrived in Chiapas from all over the world, who would write the news and reports that would be broadcast all over the world in little time.

d) The imposition of the neoliberal economic model, favoring huge transnational corporations that are monopolizing natural resources and the concentration of world financial capital in few hands; to the detriment of the majority of the world population that is plunged every day into greater poverty, marginalization, the exclusion from all basic services necessary for human life.

e) The imposition of the neoliberal economic model, which has been increasingly imposed by armed forces, as at least 50 countries are currently at war, which generate constant violations of human rights.

f) Another influencing element is the predominantly indigenous character of the EZLN, which calls attention and the question it constantly brings to mind is “And where did they come from?”  As if before indigenous peoples were not existing, living, working, and struggling.  As I said before, they did not exist for those who did not want to see them, nor include them in their plans.

In the Mexican context, there were also various factors that intervened and aided the Zapatistas in their armed struggle.

a) First, in tying the hands of President Salinas to keep him from exterminating the indigenous peoples of the EZLN, as civil society recognized the just cause of their uprising (although it questioned their decision to take up arms).

b) The opportunity to repudiate with force and energy the president of México, as a product of electoral mega-fraud in 1988, where the candidate of the National Democratic Front, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano, was robbed of rightful victory.  At this moment, Mexican civil society understood that the elections served only to legitimize a political class in power and, since then, there have been high abstention rates (in the last federal elections, there was a national abstention rate of 60%).

c) In 1988, there was a great electoral participation, but there was also the deception of the Mexican people, who would ask Cárdenas Solórzano to head up a civil rebellion so that his victory be officially recognized.  There were even expressions of violence in the taking of the municipal palaces of Michoacan and Guerrero.  Cárdenas, instead of listening to the population and calling for a great National Dialogue to listen to what the people wanted, to be able to head up a social struggle in all the country, committed his gravest error in negotiating with Salinas to avoid the public’s wishes.  Since then, Cárdenas Solórzano is only a moral authority within the PRD to reconcile postures and interests; this was the beginning of his political decay and since then he has always participated as a presidential candidate without winning, or believing that he would win.  (He has been a presidential candidate three times, but never succeeded in becoming president.  It is possible that he will run again in 2006.)

d) The imposition of the neoliberal model, which with the imposition of NAFTA created a free trade zone in the Chiapas Coast, the imposition of the changes to Article 27 of the Constitution, the dismantling of the independent unions, the privatization of education, health, greater impoverishment of the population, the increase of the repression in diverse parts of the country against diverse sectors.

e) The constant search for a new form of struggle and organization that favors the poorest and the excluded, which does not necessarily have to be outside of participation in political parties.

f) The recuperation of historical memory of the lack of justice and punishment of those responsible for murdering railroad workers and teachers in the 1950’s, the massacre of university students in 1968 and 1971 in México City; the military extermination of the guerrillas with just demands such as those of Lucio Cabañas, Genaro Vázquez, Communist League of September 23rd, the Armed Revolutionary Movement (MAR), and The Lacandones, among others.

g)  At that time, it seemed that the hopes of building a better world had run out.  The State seemed strong with all the economic, political, and military power, as well as all major means of communication under its control.

Looking at the national context in this way, the rise of the EZLN as an armed force arrived to break open the doors that the federal government had closed for dialogue and negotiation to diverse sectors of workers and peasants.  The EZLN became what they themselves would call ¨The Bridge to Hope,¨ where all sectors come to dialogue with the government and attain what they have been denied for so long.

On the other hand, the EZLN has not only been this bridge, but has also contributed to Chiapas, to the country, and to the world, a series of elements sufficient to create a new way of politics, new values and the refreshment of a new political discourse for the international and national left.  With it comes the globalization of hope, and the redimensioning of international solidarity.  Because of this, there are distinct concepts that are necessary to understand the contribution of Zapatism to the national and international struggle; I consider it important to define and develop some of these:

Justice: not to punish, but to give to each what he deserves and that each person deserves what the mirror shows: himself.  He who gave death, misery, exploitation, and arrogance, deserves pain and suffering on his road.  He who gave work, life, fought for his brother, has as recognition a light that will always illuminate his face, his chest, and his walk.

Liberty: not that each does as he pleases, but the power to choose whatever road you like to find the mirror, to walk the true path… but that you should walk whichever road does not make you lose the mirror; that does not bring you to betray yourself and yours, or others.

Democracy: is when thoughts can arrive at a good agreement.  Not that everyone thinks alike, but to incorporate all thoughts (or the majority of them), without eliminating the minority entirely.  That the word that commands obeys the word of the majority, that the bastón de mando (literally, “commanding stick,” given to rotating community leaders who carry it only when they are acting as the community authority, usually in resolving conflicts) has collective will, not just that of one.  That the space reflects all, travelers and the path, and is a motive for thought directed inward and for thought directed beyond this world. (La historia de las palabras. El Viejo Antonio). [4]

Solidarity: The importance of solidarity with the EZLN is not that they bring groups and national and international delegations to the communities, but rather what they carry, whether it is to buy handicrafts, a pound of coffee, etc., to the backpack full of hope to be able to struggle in their own community or country, and seek to change the world.

Sometimes this solidarity with the EZLN is given through brotherhoods of organizations, labor unions, provinces, municipalities or cities of different countries with those of the Zapatista Autonomous Rebel Municipalities, which are expressed in aid to economic projects, but also the political legitimacy that the EZLN is acquiring in diverse parts of the world.

Power: Taking power does not consist in sitting in a presidential seat or directing the State.  The true power is that of communities to coordinate, to organize themselves, and to exercise that power from social bases.  He who has the power “rules obediently” with the communities, across diverse sectors of people who want him and those who do not.

New Way of Making Policy: Zapatism has contributed the recuperation of a new way of making policies, which is to always question oneself.  The traditional way communities make decisions is in assemblies where all can participate.  That is to say, the new way of making policy is to constantly consult the social bases.  This is the exact opposite of vertical top-down decision-making, where the illuminati say what must be done and the majority obeys.  Now decision-making is horizontal, taking into account all people and hearing all voices.

[1] Agenda Estadística del Estado de Chiapas 2000. Secretaría de Hacienda del Estado. Talleres Gráficos del Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas. Diciembre de 2000. Pág. 513.

[2] Ibidem Pág. 109

[3] Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos. Los Dos Vientos: Una Tormenta y una Profecía”. 1994.

[4] Servicio Internacional para la Paz: Boletín Vol. 8. No3. Dic. de 2003.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168