<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN<br>
*************************************<br>
Translated by irlandesa<br><br>
<br>
A Penguin in the Selva Lacandona I/II<br><br>
(The zapatista is just a little house, perhaps the smallest, on a
street<br>
called "Mexico," in a barrio called "Latin America,"
in a city called the<br>
"World.")<br><br>
You're not going to believe me, but there's a penguin in the Ezeta<br>
Headquarters. You'll say "Hey, Sup, what's up? You
already blew the fuses with the Red<br>
Alert," but it's true. In fact, while I'm writing this to you,
he (the<br>
penguin) is right here next to me, eating the same hard, stale bread (it
has so<br>
much mold that it's just one degree away from being penicillin), which,
along<br>
with coffee, were my rations for today. Yes, a penguin. But
I'll tell you more<br>
about this later, because first we must talk a bit about the Sixth<br>
Declaration.<br><br>
We have carefully read some of your doubts, criticism, advice and
debates<br>
about what we posited in the Sixth. Not all of them, it's true, but
you can<br>
chalk that up, not to laziness, but to the rain and mud that's
lengthening the<br>
roads even more in the mountains of the Mexican Southeast. Although
there are<br>
many points, I'm only going to refer to some of them in this
text.<br><br>
Some of the primary points of criticism refer to the so-called new<br>
intercontinental, to the national Mexican nature of the Sixth, and, along
with this, to<br>
the proposal (it's still just that, a proposal) of joining the
indigenous<br>
struggle with that of other social sectors, notably with workers in
the<br>
countryside and the city. Others refer to the definition of the
anti-capitalist left<br>
and to the Sixth's dealing with "old issues" or using
"worn out" concepts. A<br>
few others warn of dangers: the displacement of the indigenous
issue by others<br>
and, consequently, the Indian peoples being excluded as the subjects
of<br>
transformation. The vanguardism and centralism that could arise in
the politics of<br>
alliances with organizations of the left. The replacement of
social<br>
leadership by political leadership. That the right would use
zapatismo in order to<br>
strike a blow at Lo'pez Obrador, in other words, at the political center
(I know<br>
that those observations speak of AMLO's being on the left, but he says
he's in<br>
the center, so here we're going to take what he says, not what they say
about<br>
him). The majority of these observations are well intended, and
they seek to<br>
help, rightly warning of obstacles in the path, or rightly providing
opinions<br>
as to how the movement which the Sixth is trying to arouse might
grow.<br><br>
Concerning cutting and pasting<br><br>
I will leave aside those who are lamenting that the Red Alert didn't end
with<br>
the renewal of offensive combat by the EZLN. We are sorry that we
didn't<br>
fulfill your expectations of blood, death and destruction. No way,
we're sorry.<br>
Perhaps another time...We will also leave aside the dishonest
criticisms.<br>
Like those who edit the text of the Sixth Declaration so that it says
what they<br>
want it to say. This is what Se~or Victor M. Toledo did in his
article<br>
"Overweening Zapatismo. Sustainability, indigenous resistances
and neoliberalism,"<br>
published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada (July 18, 2005). I
believe one<br>
can debate the aims and methods posited by the Sixth Declaration
without<br>
needing to be dishonest. Because Se~or Toledo, utilizing the
"cut and paste"<br>
method, has edited the Sixth in order to note that it lacks...what he
cut. Toledo<br>
said: "It is surprising that (the EZLN in the Sixth
Declaration) decided to<br>
join forces with campesinos, workers, laborers, students, women, young
people,<br>
homosexuals, lesbians, transsexuals, priests, nuns and social activists,
and<br>
that it does not make one single reference to the thousands of
indigenous<br>
communities devoted to the search for sustainability."<br><br>
Well, the parts which Se~or Toledo edited out of the Sixth stated
the<br>
opposite. For example, in the part which recognizes the existence
of resistances and<br>
alternatives to neoliberalism in Mexico, and in first place in the<br>
enumeration of them, it notes: "And so we learned that there
are indigenous, whose<br>
lands are far away from here in Chiapas, and they are building their
autonomy and<br>
defending their culture and caring for the land, the forests, the
water."<br>
Perhaps Se~or Toledo was expecting a detailed account of those
indigenous<br>
struggles, but that is one thing, and it's another very different and
dishonest thing<br>
to say that there was not one single reference. In the account made
by Se~or<br>
Toledo of the efforts of those with which the EZLN decided to join, he
has<br>
cut out the first social group to which the Sixth refers, which says,
verbatim:<br>
"And then, according to the agreement of the majority of those
people to whom<br>
we are going to listen, we will make a struggle with everyone, with<br>
indigenous, workers, campesinos, etcetera." In addition, the
first point of the Sixth<br>
precisely states: "1. We are going to continue to fight
for the Indian<br>
peoples of Mexico, but now no longer just for them nor just with them,
but for all<br>
the exploited and dispossessed of Mexico, with all of them and throughout
the<br>
country." And, at the end of the Sixth, it says "We are
inviting all<br>
indigenous, workers, campesinos...etcetera." In sum, I
imagined there might be, among<br>
those irritated by our criticisms of Lo'pez Obrador and the PRD, more
serious,<br>
and honest, arguments for the debate. Perhaps they might be
presented some<br>
day. We'll wait, that is our specialty.<br><br>
Concerning we don't want you in this barrio<br><br>
There are also those criticisms, although more hidden, that the
Sixth<br>
Declaration makes reference to some international issues and the manner
in which they<br>
are addressed. And so some people criticize the fact that we refer
to the<br>
blockade which the US government maintains against the people of
Cuba. "It's a<br>
very old issue," they say. How old? As old as the
blockade? Or as old as<br>
the resistance of the Indian peoples of Mexico? What are the
"modern" issues?<br>
Who can honestly look at the world and pass over - "because it's an
old issue"<br>
- an attack against a people who are doing what all peoples should do,
that<br>
is, deciding their direction, path and destiny as a nation
("defending national<br>
sovereignty" they say)? Who can ignore the decades of
resistance of an<br>
entire people against US arrogance? Who, knowing that they can do
something - even<br>
if it's but little - to recognize that effort, would not do so? Who
can<br>
ignore that that people has to lift itself up each time after a
natural<br>
catastrophe, not only without the aid and loans enjoyed by other
countries, but also in<br>
the midst of a brutal and inhumane siege? Who can ignore the US
base of<br>
Guanta'namo on Cuban territory, the laboratory of torture which it has
been turned<br>
into, the wound it represents in the sovereignty of a Nation and
say: "Go on,<br>
that's an old issue."<br><br>
In any event, does it not seem natural that, in a movement which is
primarily<br>
indigenous like the zapatista, sympathy and admiration would be evoked
by<br>
what the indigenous in Ecuador and Bolivia are doing? That they
would feel<br>
solidarity with those who have no land and are struggling in
Brazil. That they<br>
would identify with the "piqueteros" of Argentina, and they
would salute the<br>
Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. That they would perceive similarities
in<br>
experiences and organization with the Mapuche of Chile and with the
indigenous of<br>
Colombia. That they would warn of the obvious in Venezuela,
namely: that the US<br>
government is doing everything possible to violate the sovereignty of
that<br>
country. That they would enthusiastically applaud the great
mobilizations in<br>
Uruguay in opposition to the imposition of "macroeconomic
stability."<br><br>
The Sixth Declaration does not speak to the institutions of above, good
or<br>
bad. The Sixth is looking below. And it is seeing a reality
that is shared, at<br>
least since the conquests made by Spain and Portugal of the lands which
now<br>
share the name of "Latin America." Perhaps this feeling
of belonging to the<br>
"patria grande" which is Latin America is "old," and
it is "modern" to turn<br>
one's gaze and aspirations to the "restless and brutal
north." Perhaps, but if<br>
anything is "old" in this corner of Mexico, of America and of
the World, it is<br>
the resistance of the Indian peoples.<br><br>
Concerning we don't want you on this street<br><br>
There are also (I shall note and summarize some of them) those criticisms
for<br>
trying to "nationalize and even internationalize" our discourse
and our<br>
struggle. The Sixth, they tell us, falls into that nonsense.
Therefore<br>
recommending that the EZLN remain in Chiapas, that it strengthen the Good
Government<br>
Juntas and that it confine itself to the waterproof compartment that is
their<br>
lot. That once that project is consolidated, and once we have
demonstrated that<br>
we can "put into practice an alternative modernity to that of
neoliberalism in<br>
their own lands," then we can set forth on the national,
international and<br>
intergalactic arenas. In the face of those arguments, we present
our reality.<br>
We are not trying to compete with anyone to see who is more
anti-neoliberal or<br>
who has made more advances in the resistance, but, with modesty, our
level<br>
and contributions are in the Good Government Juntas. You can come,
speak with<br>
the authorities or with the peoples, ignore the letters and communique's
where<br>
we have explained this process and investigate, first hand, what is
happening<br>
here, the problems which are confronted, how they are resolved. I
do not know<br>
before whom we have to demonstrate that all this is "putting into
practice an<br>
alternative modernity to that of neoliberalism in their own lands,"
and who is<br>
going to characterize us con palomita o tache, and then, yes, allow us
to<br>
come out and attempt to join our struggle with other sectors.<br><br>
Besides, we had the premonition that those criticisms would be
praise...if<br>
the Sixth had declared its unconditional support of the political
center<br>
represented by Lo'pez Obrador. And if we were to have said that
"we are going to come<br>
out in order to join with those citizens' networks in support of
AMLO," there<br>
would be enthusiasm, "yes," "of course you have to leave,
you don't have to<br>
stay shut away, it's time for zapatismo to abandon its hideout and join
its<br>
experiences with the masses devoted to the one-in-waiting."
Hmm...Lo'pez Obrador.<br>
He just presented his "Alternative National Project" to
the citizens'<br>
networks. We are suspicious, and we don't see anything more than
plastic cosmetics<br>
(and which change according to the audience) and a list of
forgettable<br>
promises. Whatever, perhaps someone might tell AMLO that he can't
promise "the<br>
fulfillment of the San Andre's Accords," because that means, among
other things,<br>
reforming the Constitution, and, if my memory serves, that is the work of
the<br>
Congress. In any event, the promise should be made by a political
party, noting<br>
that its candidates will fulfill it if they are elected. The other
way there<br>
would have to be a proposal that the federal executive would govern above
the<br>
other branches or ignore them. Or a dictatorship. But it's
not about that.<br>
Or is it?<br><br>
In the politics of above, the programs seek, during election periods, to
add<br>
as many people as they can. But by adding some, others are
subtracted. Then<br>
they decide to add the most and subtract the least. AMLO has
created, as a<br>
parallel structure to the PRD, the "citizens' networks," and
his objective is to<br>
add those who aren't members of the PRD. AMLO has presented 6
persons for<br>
those citizens' networks who are going to coordinate, at a national
level, all<br>
those non-PRD lopezobradoristas. Let's look at two of the
"national<br>
coordinators."<br><br>
Socorro Di'az Palacios, Under Secretary of Civil Protection in the
Carlos<br>
Salinas de Gortari government. On January 3, 1994, while the
federales were<br>
perpetrating the Ocosingo market massacre, he stated (I'm citing the
Department of<br>
Government Press Bulletin): "The violent groups which are
acting in the state<br>
of Chiapas display a mix of national as well as foreign interests
and<br>
persons. They demonstrate affinities with other violent factions
which are operating<br>
in Central American countries. Some indigenous have been
recruited,<br>
pressured by the chiefs of these groups, and they are also
undoubtedly being<br>
manipulated as regards their historic claims which should continue being
dealt with."<br>
And further on: " The Mexican Army, for its part, will continue
acting with<br>
great respect for the rights of individuals and of peoples while giving a
clear<br>
and decisive response to the demand for order and security...blah,
blah,<br>
blah." In the days that followed, the Air Force bombarded the
indigenous<br>
communities south of San Cristo'bal de Las Casas, and the federal army
detained,<br>
tortured and assassinated 3 indigenous in the community of Morelia, at
that time in<br>
the municipality of Altamirano, Chiapas, Mexico.<br><br>
Ricardo Monreal A'vila - In January of 1998, just a few days after
the Acteal<br>
massacre, the then PRI deputy and member of the Permanent Commission of
the<br>
Congress of the Union "commented that the Zapatista Army of National
Liberation<br>
(EZLN) is a paramilitary group, the same as those who killed the 45
Tzotzil<br>
indigenous on December 22, 1997 in Chenalho', Chiapas. 'Because
everything that<br>
acts like an Army without being one and arms itself as civilians is<br>
paramilitary. They all must disarm, because they have all
contributed to this<br>
unnecessary, unjust and stupid violence which has had all Mexicans in
mourning,' he<br>
stated" ( "El Informador" of Guadalajara, Jalisco.
3/1/98). Days later, after<br>
moving to the PRD because the PRI didn't give him the candidacy for
governor<br>
of Zacatecas, he was to state (I am citing the note by Ciro Pe'rez and
Andrea<br>
Becerril in La Jornada, 1/7/98) that the Chenalho' episode (referring to
the<br>
Acteal massacre) was indeed planned, "but not by the one stated by
the white<br>
leader of the dark-skinned indigenous," he opined that the EZLN's
position<br>
regarding the massacre had to do with "securing an preemptive
justification for Marcos<br>
and for those interests he is protecting," and he finished by
warning that<br>
the EZ serves foreign interests which seek "to obtain control of the
Isthmus of<br>
Tehuantepec region, its resources and its strategic location, an
objective<br>
which is suitably served by Marcos and the armies which are fighting for
the<br>
indigenous flag." Hmm...it sounds like, like...yes, Point 28
of AMLO's program<br>
which reads, verbatim: "We will link the Pacific with the
Atlantic, in the<br>
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, through the construction of two commercial ports:
one in<br>
Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, and the other in Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, as well
as<br>
container shipment railways and the widening of the existing
highway."<br><br>
Lo'pez Obrador has defined himself with those individuals. He has
added some,<br>
and, with them, he has subtracted, among others, the
"neozapatistas."<br><br>
But, on another hand, why is there nothing in that program about the<br>
political prisoners and disappeared in the dirty war of the 70s and
80s? Nor about<br>
the punishment of former officials who enriched themselves
illicitly. Nor about<br>
serving justice in the cases of the massacres of Acteal, El Bosque,
Aguas<br>
Blancas, El Charco. I am afraid that, as to justice, Lo'pez Obrador
is offering<br>
"wipe the slate clean and start anew," which, paradoxically, is
not new.<br>
Before returning to the criticisms of the statements the Sixth
Declaration of the<br>
Selva Lacandona makes on Mexico, Latin America and the World, allow me to
tell<br>
you something:<br><br>
That we are going to come out<br><br>
We are going to come out. We are going to come out, and they had
better get<br>
used to the idea. We are going to come out, and I believe, there
are only 4<br>
ways of stopping us.<br><br>
One is with a preventative attack, so fashionable in this neoliberal
period.<br>
The predictable steps are: accusation of ties with drug trafficking
or with<br>
organized crime in general; invocations of the rule of law and
rubbish to<br>
that effect; an intense media campaign; a double attack (against
the communities<br>
and against the General Command); damage control (that is,
distributing<br>
money, concessions and privileges among the "spokespersons of public
opinion");<br>
the authorities call for calm; politicians state that the most
important thing<br>
is that the election takes place in peace and with social tranquility;
after<br>
a brief impasse, the candidates renew their campaigns.<br><br>
Another is taking us prisoners the moment we come out, or during the
course<br>
of the "other campaign." The steps? Clandestine
meetings among the leaders of<br>
the PRI, PAN and PRD in order to make agreements (like in 2001, with
the<br>
indigenous counter-reform); the Cocopa states that dialogue has
broken off; the<br>
Congress votes to overturn the Law for Dialogue; the PGR activates
the arrest<br>
warrants; an AFI commando unit, with help from the federal army,
takes the<br>
zapatista delegates prisoner; simultaneously the federal army takes
the rebel<br>
indigenous communities "in order to prevent disorder and maintain
the peace<br>
and national stability;" damage control, etcetera.<br><br>
Another is to kill us. Stages: a hired assassin is
contracted; a<br>
provocation is mounted; the crime is committed; the
authorities regret the incident<br>
and offer to investigate "to its fullest extent, regardless of
outcome...."<br>
Another alternative: "a regrettable accident caused the death
of the zapatista<br>
delegation which was on its way to blah, blah, blah." In both:
damage<br>
control, etcetera.<br><br>
Another is to disappear us. I am referring to a forced
disappearance, as was<br>
applied to hundreds of political opponents in the PRI
"stability" period. It<br>
could be like this: the zapatista delegates don't appear; the
last time<br>
they were seen was blah, blah, blah; the authorities offer to
investigate; the<br>
hypothesis is ventured of a problem of passion; the authorities
state that<br>
they are investigating all leads, and they are not discarding the
possibility<br>
that the zapatista delegation has taken advantage of their departure to
flee,<br>
with a quantity of bitter pozol, to a fiscal paradise; INTERPOL
is<br>
investigating in the Cayman Islands; damage control,
etcetera.<br><br>
These are the initial problems which the Sixth could run up
against. We have<br>
been preparing for many years to confront those possibilities. That
is why<br>
the Red Alert has not been lifted for the insurgent troops, just for the
towns.<br>
And that is why one of the communique's pointed out that the EZLN
could lose,<br>
through jail, death or forced disappearance, part or all of their
publicly<br>
known leadership and continue fighting.<br><br>
(To be continued...)<br><br>
>From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast<br><br>
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos<br><br>
Mexico, July of 2005.<br><br>
--part1_80.2c344956.30135208_boundary<br>
Content-Type: text/html; charset"ISO-8859-1"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable<br><br>
Originally published in Spanish by the EZLN<br>
*************************************<br>
Translated by irlandesa<br><br>
<br>
A Penguin in the Selva Lacandona I/II<br><br>
(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.")<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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 !<br>
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.<br><br>
Concerning cutting and pasting<br><br>
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!<br>
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."<br><br>
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!<br>
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.<br><br>
Concerning we don't want you in this barrio<br><br>
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!<br>
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."<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Concerning we don't want you on this street<br><br>
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!<br>
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.<br><br>
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,!<br>
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?<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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!<br>
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.<br><br>
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 !<br>
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."<br><br>
Lo'pez Obrador has defined himself with those individuals. He
has added some, and, with them, he has subtracted, among others, the
"neozapatistas."<br><br>
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:<br><br>
That we are going to come out<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
(To be continued...)<br><br>
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast<br><br>
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos<br><br>
Mexico, July of 2005.<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>