[News] EZLN Communique:A penguin in the Selva Lacandona, Pt 1, Jul 23

News@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-0001.html


More information about the News mailing list