[News] EZLN Communique:A penguin in the Selva Lacandona, Pt 1, Jul 23
News at freedomarchives.org
News at freedomarchives.org
Mon Jul 25 11:47:02 EDT 2005
Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN
*************************************
Translated by irlandesa
A Penguin in the Selva Lacandona I/II
(The zapatista is just a little house, perhaps the smallest, on a street
called "Mexico," in a barrio called "Latin America," in a city called the
"World.")
You're not going to believe me, but there's a penguin in the Ezeta
Headquarters. You'll say "Hey, Sup, what's up? You already blew the fuses
with the Red
Alert," but it's true. In fact, while I'm writing this to you, he (the
penguin) is right here next to me, eating the same hard, stale bread (it has so
much mold that it's just one degree away from being penicillin), which, along
with coffee, were my rations for today. Yes, a penguin. But I'll tell you
more
about this later, because first we must talk a bit about the Sixth
Declaration.
We have carefully read some of your doubts, criticism, advice and debates
about what we posited in the Sixth. Not all of them, it's true, but you can
chalk that up, not to laziness, but to the rain and mud that's lengthening the
roads even more in the mountains of the Mexican Southeast. Although there are
many points, I'm only going to refer to some of them in this text.
Some of the primary points of criticism refer to the so-called new
intercontinental, to the national Mexican nature of the Sixth, and, along
with this, to
the proposal (it's still just that, a proposal) of joining the indigenous
struggle with that of other social sectors, notably with workers in the
countryside and the city. Others refer to the definition of the
anti-capitalist left
and to the Sixth's dealing with "old issues" or using "worn out" concepts. A
few others warn of dangers: the displacement of the indigenous issue by others
and, consequently, the Indian peoples being excluded as the subjects of
transformation. The vanguardism and centralism that could arise in the
politics of
alliances with organizations of the left. The replacement of social
leadership by political leadership. That the right would use zapatismo in
order to
strike a blow at Lo'pez Obrador, in other words, at the political center (I
know
that those observations speak of AMLO's being on the left, but he says he's in
the center, so here we're going to take what he says, not what they say about
him). The majority of these observations are well intended, and they seek to
help, rightly warning of obstacles in the path, or rightly providing opinions
as to how the movement which the Sixth is trying to arouse might grow.
Concerning cutting and pasting
I will leave aside those who are lamenting that the Red Alert didn't end with
the renewal of offensive combat by the EZLN. We are sorry that we didn't
fulfill your expectations of blood, death and destruction. No way, we're
sorry.
Perhaps another time...We will also leave aside the dishonest criticisms.
Like those who edit the text of the Sixth Declaration so that it says what they
want it to say. This is what Se~or Victor M. Toledo did in his article
"Overweening Zapatismo. Sustainability, indigenous resistances and
neoliberalism,"
published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada (July 18, 2005). I believe one
can debate the aims and methods posited by the Sixth Declaration without
needing to be dishonest. Because Se~or Toledo, utilizing the "cut and paste"
method, has edited the Sixth in order to note that it lacks...what he
cut. Toledo
said: "It is surprising that (the EZLN in the Sixth Declaration) decided to
join forces with campesinos, workers, laborers, students, women, young people,
homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, priests, nuns and social activists, and
that it does not make one single reference to the thousands of indigenous
communities devoted to the search for sustainability."
Well, the parts which Se~or Toledo edited out of the Sixth stated the
opposite. For example, in the part which recognizes the existence of
resistances and
alternatives to neoliberalism in Mexico, and in first place in the
enumeration of them, it notes: "And so we learned that there are
indigenous, whose
lands are far away from here in Chiapas, and they are building their
autonomy and
defending their culture and caring for the land, the forests, the water."
Perhaps Se~or Toledo was expecting a detailed account of those indigenous
struggles, but that is one thing, and it's another very different and
dishonest thing
to say that there was not one single reference. In the account made by Se~or
Toledo of the efforts of those with which the EZLN decided to join, he has
cut out the first social group to which the Sixth refers, which says, verbatim:
"And then, according to the agreement of the majority of those people to whom
we are going to listen, we will make a struggle with everyone, with
indigenous, workers, campesinos, etcetera." In addition, the first point
of the Sixth
precisely states: "1. We are going to continue to fight for the Indian
peoples of Mexico, but now no longer just for them nor just with them, but
for all
the exploited and dispossessed of Mexico, with all of them and throughout the
country." And, at the end of the Sixth, it says "We are inviting all
indigenous, workers, campesinos...etcetera." In sum, I imagined there
might be, among
those irritated by our criticisms of Lo'pez Obrador and the PRD, more serious,
and honest, arguments for the debate. Perhaps they might be presented some
day. We'll wait, that is our specialty.
Concerning we don't want you in this barrio
There are also those criticisms, although more hidden, that the Sixth
Declaration makes reference to some international issues and the manner in
which they
are addressed. And so some people criticize the fact that we refer to the
blockade which the US government maintains against the people of Cuba. "It's a
very old issue," they say. How old? As old as the blockade? Or as old as
the resistance of the Indian peoples of Mexico? What are the "modern" issues?
Who can honestly look at the world and pass over - "because it's an old issue"
- an attack against a people who are doing what all peoples should do, that
is, deciding their direction, path and destiny as a nation ("defending national
sovereignty" they say)? Who can ignore the decades of resistance of an
entire people against US arrogance? Who, knowing that they can do
something - even
if it's but little - to recognize that effort, would not do so? Who can
ignore that that people has to lift itself up each time after a natural
catastrophe, not only without the aid and loans enjoyed by other countries,
but also in
the midst of a brutal and inhumane siege? Who can ignore the US base of
Guanta'namo on Cuban territory, the laboratory of torture which it has been
turned
into, the wound it represents in the sovereignty of a Nation and say: "Go on,
that's an old issue."
In any event, does it not seem natural that, in a movement which is primarily
indigenous like the zapatista, sympathy and admiration would be evoked by
what the indigenous in Ecuador and Bolivia are doing? That they would feel
solidarity with those who have no land and are struggling in Brazil. That they
would identify with the "piqueteros" of Argentina, and they would salute the
Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. That they would perceive similarities in
experiences and organization with the Mapuche of Chile and with the
indigenous of
Colombia. That they would warn of the obvious in Venezuela, namely: that
the US
government is doing everything possible to violate the sovereignty of that
country. That they would enthusiastically applaud the great mobilizations in
Uruguay in opposition to the imposition of "macroeconomic stability."
The Sixth Declaration does not speak to the institutions of above, good or
bad. The Sixth is looking below. And it is seeing a reality that is
shared, at
least since the conquests made by Spain and Portugal of the lands which now
share the name of "Latin America." Perhaps this feeling of belonging to the
"patria grande" which is Latin America is "old," and it is "modern" to turn
one's gaze and aspirations to the "restless and brutal north." Perhaps, but if
anything is "old" in this corner of Mexico, of America and of the World, it is
the resistance of the Indian peoples.
Concerning we don't want you on this street
There are also (I shall note and summarize some of them) those criticisms for
trying to "nationalize and even internationalize" our discourse and our
struggle. The Sixth, they tell us, falls into that nonsense. Therefore
recommending that the EZLN remain in Chiapas, that it strengthen the Good
Government
Juntas and that it confine itself to the waterproof compartment that is their
lot. That once that project is consolidated, and once we have demonstrated
that
we can "put into practice an alternative modernity to that of neoliberalism in
their own lands," then we can set forth on the national, international and
intergalactic arenas. In the face of those arguments, we present our reality.
We are not trying to compete with anyone to see who is more anti-neoliberal or
who has made more advances in the resistance, but, with modesty, our level
and contributions are in the Good Government Juntas. You can come, speak with
the authorities or with the peoples, ignore the letters and communique's where
we have explained this process and investigate, first hand, what is happening
here, the problems which are confronted, how they are resolved. I do not know
before whom we have to demonstrate that all this is "putting into practice an
alternative modernity to that of neoliberalism in their own lands," and who is
going to characterize us con palomita o tache, and then, yes, allow us to
come out and attempt to join our struggle with other sectors.
Besides, we had the premonition that those criticisms would be praise...if
the Sixth had declared its unconditional support of the political center
represented by Lo'pez Obrador. And if we were to have said that "we are
going to come
out in order to join with those citizens' networks in support of AMLO," there
would be enthusiasm, "yes," "of course you have to leave, you don't have to
stay shut away, it's time for zapatismo to abandon its hideout and join its
experiences with the masses devoted to the one-in-waiting." Hmm...Lo'pez
Obrador.
He just presented his "Alternative National Project" to the citizens'
networks. We are suspicious, and we don't see anything more than plastic
cosmetics
(and which change according to the audience) and a list of forgettable
promises. Whatever, perhaps someone might tell AMLO that he can't promise "the
fulfillment of the San Andre's Accords," because that means, among other
things,
reforming the Constitution, and, if my memory serves, that is the work of the
Congress. In any event, the promise should be made by a political party,
noting
that its candidates will fulfill it if they are elected. The other way there
would have to be a proposal that the federal executive would govern above the
other branches or ignore them. Or a dictatorship. But it's not about that.
Or is it?
In the politics of above, the programs seek, during election periods, to add
as many people as they can. But by adding some, others are subtracted. Then
they decide to add the most and subtract the least. AMLO has created, as a
parallel structure to the PRD, the "citizens' networks," and his objective
is to
add those who aren't members of the PRD. AMLO has presented 6 persons for
those citizens' networks who are going to coordinate, at a national level, all
those non-PRD lopezobradoristas. Let's look at two of the "national
coordinators."
Socorro Di'az Palacios, Under Secretary of Civil Protection in the Carlos
Salinas de Gortari government. On January 3, 1994, while the federales were
perpetrating the Ocosingo market massacre, he stated (I'm citing the
Department of
Government Press Bulletin): "The violent groups which are acting in the state
of Chiapas display a mix of national as well as foreign interests and
persons. They demonstrate affinities with other violent factions which are
operating
in Central American countries. Some indigenous have been recruited,
pressured by the chiefs of these groups, and they are also undoubtedly being
manipulated as regards their historic claims which should continue being
dealt with."
And further on: " The Mexican Army, for its part, will continue acting with
great respect for the rights of individuals and of peoples while giving a clear
and decisive response to the demand for order and security...blah, blah,
blah." In the days that followed, the Air Force bombarded the indigenous
communities south of San Cristo'bal de Las Casas, and the federal army
detained,
tortured and assassinated 3 indigenous in the community of Morelia, at that
time in
the municipality of Altamirano, Chiapas, Mexico.
Ricardo Monreal A'vila - In January of 1998, just a few days after the Acteal
massacre, the then PRI deputy and member of the Permanent Commission of the
Congress of the Union "commented that the Zapatista Army of National Liberation
(EZLN) is a paramilitary group, the same as those who killed the 45 Tzotzil
indigenous on December 22, 1997 in Chenalho', Chiapas. 'Because everything
that
acts like an Army without being one and arms itself as civilians is
paramilitary. They all must disarm, because they have all contributed to this
unnecessary, unjust and stupid violence which has had all Mexicans in
mourning,' he
stated" ( "El Informador" of Guadalajara, Jalisco. 3/1/98). Days later, after
moving to the PRD because the PRI didn't give him the candidacy for governor
of Zacatecas, he was to state (I am citing the note by Ciro Pe'rez and Andrea
Becerril in La Jornada, 1/7/98) that the Chenalho' episode (referring to the
Acteal massacre) was indeed planned, "but not by the one stated by the white
leader of the dark-skinned indigenous," he opined that the EZLN's position
regarding the massacre had to do with "securing an preemptive justification
for Marcos
and for those interests he is protecting," and he finished by warning that
the EZ serves foreign interests which seek "to obtain control of the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec region, its resources and its strategic location, an objective
which is suitably served by Marcos and the armies which are fighting for the
indigenous flag." Hmm...it sounds like, like...yes, Point 28 of AMLO's program
which reads, verbatim: "We will link the Pacific with the Atlantic, in the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, through the construction of two commercial ports:
one in
Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, and the other in Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, as well as
container shipment railways and the widening of the existing highway."
Lo'pez Obrador has defined himself with those individuals. He has added some,
and, with them, he has subtracted, among others, the "neozapatistas."
But, on another hand, why is there nothing in that program about the
political prisoners and disappeared in the dirty war of the 70s and
80s? Nor about
the punishment of former officials who enriched themselves illicitly. Nor
about
serving justice in the cases of the massacres of Acteal, El Bosque, Aguas
Blancas, El Charco. I am afraid that, as to justice, Lo'pez Obrador is
offering
"wipe the slate clean and start anew," which, paradoxically, is not new.
Before returning to the criticisms of the statements the Sixth Declaration
of the
Selva Lacandona makes on Mexico, Latin America and the World, allow me to tell
you something:
That we are going to come out
We are going to come out. We are going to come out, and they had better get
used to the idea. We are going to come out, and I believe, there are only 4
ways of stopping us.
One is with a preventative attack, so fashionable in this neoliberal period.
The predictable steps are: accusation of ties with drug trafficking or with
organized crime in general; invocations of the rule of law and rubbish to
that effect; an intense media campaign; a double attack (against the
communities
and against the General Command); damage control (that is, distributing
money, concessions and privileges among the "spokespersons of public opinion");
the authorities call for calm; politicians state that the most important thing
is that the election takes place in peace and with social tranquility; after
a brief impasse, the candidates renew their campaigns.
Another is taking us prisoners the moment we come out, or during the course
of the "other campaign." The steps? Clandestine meetings among the leaders of
the PRI, PAN and PRD in order to make agreements (like in 2001, with the
indigenous counter-reform); the Cocopa states that dialogue has broken
off; the
Congress votes to overturn the Law for Dialogue; the PGR activates the arrest
warrants; an AFI commando unit, with help from the federal army, takes the
zapatista delegates prisoner; simultaneously the federal army takes the rebel
indigenous communities "in order to prevent disorder and maintain the peace
and national stability;" damage control, etcetera.
Another is to kill us. Stages: a hired assassin is contracted; a
provocation is mounted; the crime is committed; the authorities regret
the incident
and offer to investigate "to its fullest extent, regardless of outcome...."
Another alternative: "a regrettable accident caused the death of the zapatista
delegation which was on its way to blah, blah, blah." In both: damage
control, etcetera.
Another is to disappear us. I am referring to a forced disappearance, as was
applied to hundreds of political opponents in the PRI "stability" period. It
could be like this: the zapatista delegates don't appear; the last time
they were seen was blah, blah, blah; the authorities offer to
investigate; the
hypothesis is ventured of a problem of passion; the authorities state that
they are investigating all leads, and they are not discarding the possibility
that the zapatista delegation has taken advantage of their departure to flee,
with a quantity of bitter pozol, to a fiscal paradise; INTERPOL is
investigating in the Cayman Islands; damage control, etcetera.
These are the initial problems which the Sixth could run up against. We have
been preparing for many years to confront those possibilities. That is why
the Red Alert has not been lifted for the insurgent troops, just for the towns.
And that is why one of the communique's pointed out that the EZLN could lose,
through jail, death or forced disappearance, part or all of their publicly
known leadership and continue fighting.
(To be continued...)
>From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, July of 2005.
--part1_80.2c344956.30135208_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset"ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN
*************************************
Translated by irlandesa
A Penguin in the Selva Lacandona I/II
(The zapatista is just a little house, perhaps the smallest, on a street
called "Mexico," in a barrio called "Latin America," in a city called the
"World.")
You're not going to believe me, but there's a penguin in the Ezeta
Headquarters. You'll say "Hey, Sup, what's up? You already blew the fuses
with the Red Alert," but it's true. In fact, while I'm writing this to
you, he (the penguin) is right here next to me, eating the same hard, stale
bread (it has so much mold that it's just one degree away from being
penicillin), which, along with coffee, were my rations for today. Yes, a
penguin. But I'll tell you more about this later, because first we must
talk a bit about the Sixth Declaration.
We have carefully read some of your doubts, criticism, advice and debates
about what we posited in the Sixth. Not all of them, it's true, but you
can chalk that up, not to laziness, but to the rain and mud that's
lengthening the roads even more in the mountains of the Mexican
Southeast. Although there are many points, I'm only going to refer to some
of them in this text.
Some of the primary points of criticism refer to the so-called new
intercontinental, to the national Mexican nature of the Sixth, and, along
with this, to the proposal (it's still just that, a proposal) of joining
the indigenous struggle with that of other social sectors, notably with
workers in the countryside and the city. Others refer to the definition of
the anti-capitalist left and to the Sixth's dealing with "old issues" or
using "worn out" concepts. A few others warn of dangers: the displacement
of the indigenous issue by others and, consequently, the Indian peoples
being excluded as the subjects of transformation. The vanguardism and
centralism that could arise in the politics of alliances with organizations
of the left. The replacement of social leadership by political
leadership. That the right would use zapatismo in order to strike a blow
at Lo'pez Obrador, in other words, at the political center (I know that
those observations speak of AMLO's being on the !
left, but he says he's in the center, so here we're going to take what he
says, not what they say about him). The majority of these observations are
well intended, and they seek to help, rightly warning of obstacles in the
path, or rightly providing opinions as to how the movement which the Sixth
is trying to arouse might grow.
Concerning cutting and pasting
I will leave aside those who are lamenting that the Red Alert didn't end
with the renewal of offensive combat by the EZLN. We are sorry that we
didn't fulfill your expectations of blood, death and destruction. No way,
we're sorry. Perhaps another time...We will also leave aside the dishonest
criticisms. Like those who edit the text of the Sixth Declaration so that
it says what they want it to say. This is what Se~or Victor M. Toledo did
in his article "Overweening Zapatismo. Sustainability, indigenous
resistances and neoliberalism," published in the Mexican newspaper La
Jornada (July 18, 2005). I believe one can debate the aims and methods
posited by the Sixth Declaration without needing to be dishonest. Because
Se~or Toledo, utilizing the "cut and paste" method, has edited the Sixth in
order to note that it lacks...what he cut. Toledo said: "It is surprising
that (the EZLN in the Sixth Declaration) decided to join forces with
campesinos, workers, laborers, studen!
ts, women, young people, homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, priests,
nuns and social activists, and that it does not make one single reference
to the thousands of indigenous communities devoted to the search for
sustainability."
Well, the parts which Se~or Toledo edited out of the Sixth stated the
opposite. For example, in the part which recognizes the existence of
resistances and alternatives to neoliberalism in Mexico, and in first place
in the enumeration of them, it notes: "And so we learned that there are
indigenous, whose lands are far away from here in Chiapas, and they are
building their autonomy and defending their culture and caring for the
land, the forests, the water." Perhaps Se~or Toledo was expecting a
detailed account of those indigenous struggles, but that is one thing, and
it's another very different and dishonest thing to say that there was not
one single reference. In the account made by Se~or Toledo of the efforts
of those with which the EZLN decided to join, he has cut out the first
social group to which the Sixth refers, which says, verbatim: "And then,
according to the agreement of the majority of those people to whom we are
going to listen, we will make a struggle with!
everyone, with indigenous, workers, campesinos, etcetera." In addition,
the first point of the Sixth precisely states: "1. We are going to
continue to fight for the Indian peoples of Mexico, but now no longer just
for them nor just with them, but for all the exploited and dispossessed of
Mexico, with all of them and throughout the country." And, at the end of
the Sixth, it says "We are inviting all indigenous, workers,
campesinos...etcetera." In sum, I imagined there might be, among those
irritated by our criticisms of Lo'pez Obrador and the PRD, more serious,
and honest, arguments for the debate. Perhaps they might be presented some
day. We'll wait, that is our specialty.
Concerning we don't want you in this barrio
There are also those criticisms, although more hidden, that the Sixth
Declaration makes reference to some international issues and the manner in
which they are addressed. And so some people criticize the fact that we
refer to the blockade which the US government maintains against the people
of Cuba. "It's a very old issue," they say. How old? As old as the
blockade? Or as old as the resistance of the Indian peoples of
Mexico? What are the "modern" issues? Who can honestly look at the world
and pass over - "because it's an old issue" - an attack against a people
who are doing what all peoples should do, that is, deciding their
direction, path and destiny as a nation ("defending national sovereignty"
they say)? Who can ignore the decades of resistance of an entire people
against US arrogance? Who, knowing that they can do something - even if
it's but little - to recognize that effort, would not do so? Who can
ignore that that people has to lift itself up each time a!
fter a natural catastrophe, not only without the aid and loans enjoyed by
other countries, but also in the midst of a brutal and inhumane siege? Who
can ignore the US base of Guanta'namo on Cuban territory, the laboratory of
torture which it has been turned into, the wound it represents in the
sovereignty of a Nation and say: "Go on, that's an old issue."
In any event, does it not seem natural that, in a movement which is
primarily indigenous like the zapatista, sympathy and admiration would be
evoked by what the indigenous in Ecuador and Bolivia are doing? That they
would feel solidarity with those who have no land and are struggling in
Brazil. That they would identify with the "piqueteros" of Argentina, and
they would salute the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. That they would
perceive similarities in experiences and organization with the Mapuche of
Chile and with the indigenous of Colombia. That they would warn of the
obvious in Venezuela, namely: that the US government is doing everything
possible to violate the sovereignty of that country. That they would
enthusiastically applaud the great mobilizations in Uruguay in opposition
to the imposition of "macroeconomic stability."
The Sixth Declaration does not speak to the institutions of above, good
or bad. The Sixth is looking below. And it is seeing a reality that is
shared, at least since the conquests made by Spain and Portugal of the
lands which now share the name of "Latin America." Perhaps this feeling of
belonging to the "patria grande" which is Latin America is "old," and it is
"modern" to turn one's gaze and aspirations to the "restless and brutal
north." Perhaps, but if anything is "old" in this corner of Mexico, of
America and of the World, it is the resistance of the Indian peoples.
Concerning we don't want you on this street
There are also (I shall note and summarize some of them) those criticisms
for trying to "nationalize and even internationalize" our discourse and our
struggle. The Sixth, they tell us, falls into that nonsense. Therefore
recommending that the EZLN remain in Chiapas, that it strengthen the Good
Government Juntas and that it confine itself to the waterproof compartment
that is their lot. That once that project is consolidated, and once we
have demonstrated that we can "put into practice an alternative modernity
to that of neoliberalism in their own lands," then we can set forth on the
national, international and intergalactic arenas. In the face of those
arguments, we present our reality. We are not trying to compete with
anyone to see who is more anti-neoliberal or who has made more advances in
the resistance, but, with modesty, our level and contributions are in the
Good Government Juntas. You can come, speak with the authorities or with
the peoples, ignore the letter!
s and communique's where we have explained this process and investigate,
first hand, what is happening here, the problems which are confronted, how
they are resolved. I do not know before whom we have to demonstrate that
all this is "putting into practice an alternative modernity to that of
neoliberalism in their own lands," and who is going to characterize us con
palomita o tache, and then, yes, allow us to come out and attempt to join
our struggle with other sectors.
Besides, we had the premonition that those criticisms would be
praise...if the Sixth had declared its unconditional support of the
political center represented by Lo'pez Obrador. And if we were to have
said that "we are going to come out in order to join with those citizens'
networks in support of AMLO," there would be enthusiasm, "yes," "of course
you have to leave, you don't have to stay shut away, it's time for
zapatismo to abandon its hideout and join its experiences with the masses
devoted to the one-in-waiting." Hmm...Lo'pez Obrador. He just presented
his "Alternative National Project" to the citizens' networks. We are
suspicious, and we don't see anything more than plastic cosmetics (and
which change according to the audience) and a list of forgettable
promises. Whatever, perhaps someone might tell AMLO that he can't promise
"the fulfillment of the San Andre's Accords," because that means, among
other things, reforming the Constitution, and, if my memory serves,!
that is the work of the Congress. In any event, the promise should be
made by a political party, noting that its candidates will fulfill it if
they are elected. The other way there would have to be a proposal that the
federal executive would govern above the other branches or ignore them. Or
a dictatorship. But it's not about that. Or is it?
In the politics of above, the programs seek, during election periods, to
add as many people as they can. But by adding some, others are
subtracted. Then they decide to add the most and subtract the least. AMLO
has created, as a parallel structure to the PRD, the "citizens' networks,"
and his objective is to add those who aren't members of the PRD. AMLO has
presented 6 persons for those citizens' networks who are going to
coordinate, at a national level, all those non-PRD
lopezobradoristas. Let's look at two of the "national coordinators."
Socorro Di'az Palacios, Under Secretary of Civil Protection in the Carlos
Salinas de Gortari government. On January 3, 1994, while the federales
were perpetrating the Ocosingo market massacre, he stated (I'm citing the
Department of Government Press Bulletin): "The violent groups which are
acting in the state of Chiapas display a mix of national as well as foreign
interests and persons. They demonstrate affinities with other violent
factions which are operating in Central American countries. Some
indigenous have been recruited, pressured by the chiefs of these groups,
and they are also undoubtedly being manipulated as regards their historic
claims which should continue being dealt with." And further on: " The
Mexican Army, for its part, will continue acting with great respect for the
rights of individuals and of peoples while giving a clear and decisive
response to the demand for order and security...blah, blah, blah." In the
days that followed, the Air Force bombard!
ed the indigenous communities south of San Cristo'bal de Las Casas, and
the federal army detained, tortured and assassinated 3 indigenous in the
community of Morelia, at that time in the municipality of Altamirano,
Chiapas, Mexico.
Ricardo Monreal A'vila - In January of 1998, just a few days after the
Acteal massacre, the then PRI deputy and member of the Permanent Commission
of the Congress of the Union "commented that the Zapatista Army of National
Liberation (EZLN) is a paramilitary group, the same as those who killed the
45 Tzotzil indigenous on December 22, 1997 in Chenalho', Chiapas. 'Because
everything that acts like an Army without being one and arms itself as
civilians is paramilitary. They all must disarm, because they have all
contributed to this unnecessary, unjust and stupid violence which has had
all Mexicans in mourning,' he stated" ( "El Informador" of Guadalajara,
Jalisco. 3/1/98). Days later, after moving to the PRD because the PRI
didn't give him the candidacy for governor of Zacatecas, he was to state (I
am citing the note by Ciro Pe'rez and Andrea Becerril in La Jornada,
1/7/98) that the Chenalho' episode (referring to the Acteal massacre) was
indeed planned, "but not by the !
one stated by the white leader of the dark-skinned indigenous," he opined
that the EZLN's position regarding the massacre had to do with "securing an
preemptive justification for Marcos and for those interests he is
protecting," and he finished by warning that the EZ serves foreign
interests which seek "to obtain control of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
region, its resources and its strategic location, an objective which is
suitably served by Marcos and the armies which are fighting for the
indigenous flag." Hmm...it sounds like, like...yes, Point 28 of AMLO's
program which reads, verbatim: "We will link the Pacific with the
Atlantic, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, through the construction of two
commercial ports: one in Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, and the other in
Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, as well as container shipment railways and the
widening of the existing highway."
Lo'pez Obrador has defined himself with those individuals. He has added
some, and, with them, he has subtracted, among others, the "neozapatistas."
But, on another hand, why is there nothing in that program about the
political prisoners and disappeared in the dirty war of the 70s and
80s? Nor about the punishment of former officials who enriched themselves
illicitly. Nor about serving justice in the cases of the massacres of
Acteal, El Bosque, Aguas Blancas, El Charco. I am afraid that, as to
justice, Lo'pez Obrador is offering "wipe the slate clean and start anew,"
which, paradoxically, is not new. Before returning to the criticisms of
the statements the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona makes on
Mexico, Latin America and the World, allow me to tell you something:
That we are going to come out
We are going to come out. We are going to come out, and they had better
get used to the idea. We are going to come out, and I believe, there are
only 4 ways of stopping us.
One is with a preventative attack, so fashionable in this neoliberal
period. The predictable steps are: accusation of ties with drug
trafficking or with organized crime in general; invocations of the rule of
law and rubbish to that effect; an intense media campaign; a double attack
(against the communities and against the General Command); damage control
(that is, distributing money, concessions and privileges among the
"spokespersons of public opinion"); the authorities call for
calm; politicians state that the most important thing is that the election
takes place in peace and with social tranquility; after a brief impasse,
the candidates renew their campaigns.
Another is taking us prisoners the moment we come out, or during the
course of the "other campaign." The steps? Clandestine meetings among the
leaders of the PRI, PAN and PRD in order to make agreements (like in 2001,
with the indigenous counter-reform); the Cocopa states that dialogue has
broken off; the Congress votes to overturn the Law for Dialogue; the PGR
activates the arrest warrants; an AFI commando unit, with help from the
federal army, takes the zapatista delegates prisoner; simultaneously the
federal army takes the rebel indigenous communities "in order to prevent
disorder and maintain the peace and national stability;" damage control,
etcetera.
Another is to kill us. Stages: a hired assassin is contracted; a
provocation is mounted; the crime is committed; the authorities regret
the incident and offer to investigate "to its fullest extent, regardless
of outcome...." Another alternative: "a regrettable accident caused the
death of the zapatista delegation which was on its way to blah, blah,
blah." In both: damage control, etcetera.
Another is to disappear us. I am referring to a forced disappearance, as
was applied to hundreds of political opponents in the PRI "stability"
period. It could be like this: the zapatista delegates don't appear; the
last time they were seen was blah, blah, blah; the authorities offer to
investigate; the hypothesis is ventured of a problem of passion; the
authorities state that they are investigating all leads, and they are not
discarding the possibility that the zapatista delegation has taken
advantage of their departure to flee, with a quantity of bitter pozol, to a
fiscal paradise; INTERPOL is investigating in the Cayman Islands; damage
control, etcetera.
These are the initial problems which the Sixth could run up against. We
have been preparing for many years to confront those possibilities. That
is why the Red Alert has not been lifted for the insurgent troops, just for
the towns. And that is why one of the communique's pointed out that the
EZLN could lose, through jail, death or forced disappearance, part or all
of their publicly known leadership and continue fighting.
(To be continued...)
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, July of 2005.
The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20050725/72b34136/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list