Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:49:34 +0200
From: SIPAZ Webmaster <webmaster-AT-sipaz.org>
Subject: AUT: SIPAZ Report on the Zapatista Caravan to Mexico City




"We're Dignity in Rebellion, The Forgotten Heart of Our Country"
The Zapatista Caravan in Mexico City

The Zapatista March to Mexico City from February to March 2001 has shaken the entire country and generated a new political environment in Mexico, with repercussions for the international community. SIPAZ offers readers its perspective on this decisive moment for the peace process in Chiapas.

Background  
New state politics are needed, and not just for today.  The current Federal Government commits to developing, within the framework of profound state reforms, actions that raise the level of well-being, development, and justice for indigenous peoples, and that strengthen their participation in the diverse forums and decision-making processes, with inclusive politics. 
-San Andres Accords, Document 1 (2/16/96)

It has been five years (February 16, 1996), since the first accords regarding Indigenous Rights and Culture were signed by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) and President Ernesto Zedillo of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).  It was the first stage in negotiations. However, halfway through the same year, the peace process was interrupted and, with it, the rest of the topics on the agenda. The EZLN withdrew from the negotiating table, accusing the government of refusing to implement the February accords and of carrying out a low-intensity war (fundamentally through militarization of the conflict zone) incompatible with the peace process.

Before the break in the dialogue, the National Mediation Commission (CONAI), headed by Bishop Samuel Ruiz, and the congressional Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA) promoted a series of meetings with the EZLN, which resulted in the latter's drafting a set of constitutional reforms to implement the Accords. The COCOPA bill was accepted by the EZLN, but rejected by Zedillo, who presented an alternative bill, which was in turn rejected by the EZLN.

In the following years (1997-2000), the peace process remained at a standstill and the low intensity war heated up, aggravated by the appearance of paramilitary groups linked to the PRI in the Highlands and the Northern regions of Chiapas. The rise in political violence caused the internal displacement of thousands of indigenous peoples.  In this lengthy period, the EZLN showed itself on few occasions, withdrawing to the jungle in silence. Nevertheless, in March of 1999, a National and International Referendum was launched, in which nearly three million Mexicans participated, expressing their support for the COCOPA bill and for including the Accords within the Constitution.



The Post PRI Era  
All of us have a historical debt and a moral commitment to the indigenous peoples. Recognizing their right to autonomy is none other than recognizing their legitimate right to be respected and to offer them a worthy space within the Mexican nation. We can not wait any longer to lay the groundwork for an intense participation on the part of indigenous peoples in national development. 
-Luis H. Alvarez, government Peace Commissioner for Chiapas, (3/07/01)

The triumph of Vincent Fox  in the presidential elections (July 2000) and of Pablo Salazar in Chiapas' gubernatorial elections (August 2000) led to a new stage in the conflict. Both indicated their willingness to resume the peace process and reach a solution to the conflict, and both gave early indications of this commitment.  Fox named Luis H. Alvarez (ex-Senator and member of the COCOPA) as the new Peace Commissioner, which received the support of the EZLN.

Soon after Fox was sworn in, the EZLN put forward three conditions for resuming peace talks: (1) the withdrawal of seven military bases in Chiapas; (2) the freeing of all Zapatista political prisoners, and (3) the approval of the COCOPA bill.  It also announced its intention to send a delegation to Mexico City to speak to Congress on behalf of the bill. On his part, four days after assuming the presidency, Fox sent said proposal to Congress.

Between December and January, the Fox administration gave Chiapas a prominent place within its agenda: it annulled the expropriation of lands in the Zapatista community of Amador Hernandez (the source of a prolonged and bitter conflict), and ordered the withdrawal of four of the seven military posts. On his part, Governor Salazar ordered the revision of cases in the state courts, which resulted in the liberation of 86 Zapatista prisoners in Chiapas.  However, three Zapatistas remain imprisoned in Tabasco, two in Queretaro, and ten in Chiapas who have been charged with crimes which fall under federal jurisdiction.

National Controversy Surrounding the Zapatista March  
If we haven't asked Marcos to surrender, then he shouldn't expect Congress to fall at his feet, nor should he expect Congress to tremble before him. 
-Senator Majority Leader Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, (3/7/01)

During the month of February, public debate centered on the Zapatista march.  The enthusiastic support on the part of organized civil society contrasted with the diversity of reactions in Congress. While the PRD showed its support, the more conservative sectors of the PAN expressed their rejection.  Distancing themselves from Fox, PAN representatives failed to reach a consensus with respect to the bill, betraying the divisions that exist within their party.

President Fox and his cabinet reacted positively to the march, assuring that they would guarantee security conditions. Shortly thereafter, a controversy arose with regards to the thwarted protection of the caravan by the International Red Cross, which raised tensions on both sides. The EZLN stated that the march's objectives included dialogue with civil society, with indigenous peoples, and with congressional representatives, and that it would not meet with the Executive Branch until after its three conditions were met.

Simultaneously, Mexico's two largest television stations launched a media campaign with the motto United for Peace, asking citizens to sign a petition for peace in Chiapas and organizing a large pop music concert in the Azteca Stadium. The objective seemed to be convincing public opinion that peace was just around the corner, ignoring the conditions set by the EZLN and the idea that peace can only be the fruit of a lengthy process. The campaign included statistics such as "23 million Mexicans have now signed in favor of peace."

Civil organizations began to lobby Congress, asking citizens to urge their senators and representatives to support the COCOPA bill. They also formed a commission to spread their views on the march and their conception of peace, as well as the contents of the bill and the San Andres Accords.

The March for Indigenous Dignity  
We're here to see and show ourselves, so that you can look at us, so that you can look at yourself, so that the other can see him or herself in us^ÅWe are and will be one more in the march, the march for indigenous dignity, for the color of the land.  That which revealed and awoke the many Mexicos that beneath Mexico are hidden and in pain.  We are not your spokesperson.  We are one voice among all of these voices.  An echo that dignity repeats among all voices.  We join these voices, and with them we multiply. 
-The EZLN in Mexico City (3/11/01)

February 24, 2001 San Cristobal de las Casas was shaken by the arrival of 24 Zapatistas (20 men and 4 women, 23 commanders and 1 sub-commander) and thousands of civil support bases--men, women, and children.  Coming from communities throughout the conflict zone, wearing ski masks and handkerchiefs, carrying posters, and shouting slogans, they peacefully took the city in order to form a huge human chain around the delegation.  In the Zapatistas' first public activity in more than four years, the EZLN told the biggest crowd in San Cristobal's history that its march would be one of "dignity" and not "false peace," an allusion to the television campaign and Fox's speeches.  Early the next morning, the delegation began its journey, accompanied by more than 50 vehicles packed with hundreds of supporters, observers, and journalists from Mexico and abroad.

Repeating the itinerary of Emiliano Zapata almost a century later, the march passed through a dozen Mexican states over the following two weeks, gathering support and solidarity from the hundreds of thousands of people that congregated along the roadside and making statements at each stop, even in those states and cities which are considered to be the most conservative or to have little indigenous presence.

Distinct sectors of Mexican society spoke out about the march. On February 2, the Mexican Episcopal Conference greeted it as a positive step towards freeing up the peace process and asked that Mexicans listen to the Zapatistas, that legislators receive them, and that the Zapatistas respectfully accept Congress' decision with respect to the COCOPA bill, whatever the outcome might be.  On March 14, Jorge Espino, the Director of the Mexican Confederation of Industrialists (COPARMEX) declared, "Mexican legislators would have to be out of their minds to approve a law on indigenous rights and culture." Some businessmen also warned Fox that such a law would rule out the Puebla-Panama Plan and other economic initiatives.

The strongest criticisms, however, came from Senate hard-liners, who were headed up by the PAN senator Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, who threatened to resign if the Zapatistas entered the Congressional Chambers.  
In the end, who do you represent, Marcos?  Do you represent the indigenous peoples of Mexico and the world^Å which will win you the Nobel Peace Prize and the chance to write and sell your memoirs in Mexico and abroad?  Will you be the new symbol for those who struggle against globalization on behalf of the vulnerable, trying to flag down the train of neo-liberalism and the almighty dollar?  Will you be the new messiah or the new political boss of Mexico that leads us to the Promised Land?  Will that solve the problems of the indigenous peoples?  And above all, have your plans been sanctioned by the vote of Mexicans and Indians? 
-Francisco Fraile Garcia, Senator for PAN Party, member of the Commission on Indigenous Affairs

The legislators of the PRI steadily changed their position as the EZLN gained support, showing themselves more open to receiving the Zapatistas and to supporting the bill.  


Indigenous Voices Spread Across Mexico  
Those who speak to us from up on high say that the individual is most important, that one ought to look after oneself, not everyone else, that cynicism and egoism are virtues, that goodness and solidarity are faults to be corrected, that everything that has to do with thinking collectively or in common is a sign of totalitarianism, that there's no freedom outside the individual and the personal...Well, we're Zapatistas, rebels who refuse to be numbers, who prefer to be worthy, to not sell out, to not give in, we're the ones who, when we want to look to the future, don't look for a dollar sign, the ones who, when we get up in the morning, search for and see a child and in him or her look for and find--not what we were, but a mirror of what we'll be. 
-The EZLN in the National Autonomous University of Mexico (3/21/01)

For fifteen days the Zapatista March served as a crucible in which a great variety of voices and colors, languages and races melted together.  They were all called together by the clamor of Mexico's most marginalized group: the indigenous peoples.  The crowds came to listen to the commanders, but also to share with them their own worries and hopes and to ask them to take their demands to the seat of Mexican political power.

The Zapatistas made reference to the history, culture, and identity of each place in which they spoke, identifying themselves with the public. The Zapatistas received presents and blessings, participated in ceremonies and rituals, and spoke with various sectors of society, as well as the national and international press.  They lodged with peasants, students, and even nuns.  They also listened to the threatening reactions of some of the most conservative sectors of Mexican society, from the ranchers of Chiapas to the governor of Queretaro.

In any case, the EZLN succeeded in putting indigenous rights on the national agenda, reawakening different indigenous peoples and sectors of society who were able to overcome their differences and unite under the Zapatista cause.  
The economic packages that are coming out of the Mexican Congress, for us they just mean more taxes, a raise in prices, salary cuts, more unemployment, fewer workers' rights, less support for public education, less for housing, fewer public services, less food, less land, fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, less medicine...  With these economic laws things get done fast. As for our demands, they get slowed down, backlogged, and swamped...  They take our territories, and on these lands we make them the owners of airports, but we never travel by plane, we construct highways, but we don't have cars, we make fun parks, but we never have access to them, we construct shopping centers, but we never have money to spend in them, we construct new urban zones with all types of services, but we only see them from afar, we build modern hotels, but we never spend a night there.  In the end, they propose a world that excludes us, one that will never accept us, and yet, nevertheless, they wouldn'!
t ex
ist without us. 
-The EZLN at the Polytechnical Institute, Azcapotzalco Zone, Mexico City (16/3/01).

With the sizeable political support that they have accumulated, the question arises, "What will the Zapatistas do when they return to Chiapas?"  Some analysts believe that returning to hiding or continuing armed resistance will be difficult after such a public spectacle.  Others insist that the Zapatistas should integrate themselves once and for all in the legal and political life of the country.  Marcos has stated, "Creating a political party would amount to an act of suicide for the Zapatista movement."  But beyond these dismissals of what it will not do, the EZLN refuses to yield to pressure or speak about its political future before the fulfillment of its three conditions and the renewal of peace talks.



The EZLN and the National Indigenous Congress (CNI)  
^ÅWe declare that we are still alive and that we continue to honor the worthy memory of those who brought us into the world, and with wisdom and love, taught us to be the Indians we are:  we who come from the land; we who live off corn; we who dress with the color of hope; we who are true brothers and sisters.  We are the Indians that we are... That we will not renounce who we are.  That we will continue to defend our autonomy and at the moment we defend it, we will defend the autonomy of all those who, like us, want to live out with dignity their differences, their color, their song, their own vision of life and liberty. 
-Declaration of the Third National Indigenous Congress (3/4/01)

The Zapatistas had announced that participating in the Third National Indigenous Congress would be one of the objectives of their trip.  On March 2-4, in Nurio, an indigenous community in the state of Michoacan, representatives of 41 of Mexico^Òs 52 indigenous peoples debated and approved a single demand under which to unite their diverse groups.  This historic decision was to give their unanimous support to the COCOPA bill, ^ÓConstitutional Reform with respect to Indigenous Rights and Culture.^Ô  The CNI also declared their support for the Zapatista march and decided to accompany the EZLN in its lobbying efforts.

The ^ÓNurio Declaration^Ô sums up the demands of Mexico^Òs indigenous peoples:  constitutional recognition for their rights as contained in the COCOPA bill, recognition of their existence as indigenous peoples and their inalienable right to autonomy within the Mexican state, recognition of indigenous norms within the legal system, and recognition of their ancestral lands, which ^Órepresent the totality of the physical area in which we as peoples renew our physical and spiritual existence.^Ô

Finally, the declaration calls for the reorganization of Indian peoples and the strengthening of the CNI as ^Óa meeting place for all groups.^Ô  Finally, it invites civil society to support the ^ÓThe March for Indigenous Dignity^Ô and to come out in favor of recognition for indigenous peoples.

The Caravan in Mexico City  
The time has come for Indian peoples, for the color of the earth, for all the deep-down colors that we are in spite of the color of money... Mexico: we haven^Òt come to tell you what to do or lead you anywhere.  We have come to ask you, humbly, respectfully, to help us.  Don^Òt let another morning dawn without finding a place of dignity within this flag for those of us who are the color of earth. 
-The EZLN in the main square of Mexico City (3/11/01).

Many observers have pointed out that the crowd that gathered in the main square of the capital was one of the largest in Mexico^Òs recent history.  More than 200,000 people attended the gathering, including a number of prestigious international figures.  In their address, the Zapatistas sought to represent the communities who belong to their movement and who have been in resistance for over seven years.  ^ÓWe ought not be here,^Ô said Subcommander Marcos, reminding the audience of the EZLN's civilian supporters and calling out the name of each of Mexico^Òs indigenous peoples.  He also reiterated that the EZLN had no intention of ^Ótaking power and afterward imposing its own ideas and plan.^Ô

In its first two weeks in Mexico City, the Zapatista delegation met with various social groups, gave press conferences, and participated in discussions, though it concentrated its forces on Congress.  Discussion centered on the terms under which the meeting between the EZLN and Congress ought to take place, with little or no analysis of the COCOPA bill.  Unfortunately, disagreements within the political parties and Congress itself caused each side to close itself off, raising tensions and putting any further dialogue at risk.

The EZLN, which had asked to speak before Congress and meet with representatives unwilling to approval the COCOPA bill, refused a meeting with ten senators and ten representatives.  On March 12, in a very strongly worded press statement, the EZLN said that this proposalwhich contained neither signatures nor letterhead^Óshows that the legislators do not hear the cry of the Mexican people and national and international public opinion, and that there has been an attempt to lessen the historical dimension of the national and international mobilization.  The proposal reflects the triumph of congressional 'hard-liners' who want to deep-six negotiations before they even begin."

In the following days, while President Fox reiterated his invitation to speak with Marcos, the COCOPA made intense but unsuccessful efforts to overcome resistance within the Senate.  As a result, the EZLN announced that it would conclude its visit and return to Chiapas on March 23, citing "the stubbornness of the political elite."  The Zapatistas gave the following statement to the press: "The executive and legislative branches want to continue with the same old politics, as if nothing had changed in this country, as if we Indian peoples could be treated as we have been for the last two centuries of Mexican history.  We Indian peoples have not gone nor will we go begging door to door for a chance to be heard and attended to.  Respect for our worthiness isn^Òt just our demand, it belongs to all honest Mexicans and to all good people in the world."

The next day President Fox announced his decision to immediately fulfill the two other conditions that the EZLN had set for the renewal of peace talks.  In order to do so, he asked that the Zapatistas hand over to him a list of all prisoners held in federal prisons so that he could proceed with freeing them.  He also announced that troops would soon be withdrawn from La Garrucha, Rio Euseba, and Guadalupe Tepeyac, and that the military installations would be converted in community development centers for nearby villages.  The next day, the army dismanteled their base at Rio Euseba.

Meanwhile, congressional representatives made last-ditch efforts to arrange a meeting between Zapatistas and legislators.  Finally, on March 22, the House of Representatives narrowly approved, with the consensus of all the political parties with the exception of the PAN, a resolution to receive the EZLN.  The Zapatistas quickly accepted the invitation and announced that they would prolong their stay in the capital in order to respond to it.

On March 22, the 23 Zapatista commanders gave a written response to the invitation that President Fox made to Subcommander Marcos, in which they state, "we represent the real leaders of our organization:  the Zapatista peoples.  For this reason we are the ones who should respond [to your letter.]"  In their response the commanders also wrote, "You know that for many years we have been deceived with false statements, and on account of that we do not put our faith in words but rather in actions."  The commanders reiterated that when the three conditions they had put forward have been met, the EZLN would "immediately and without adding any further conditions, make contact with the Peace Commissioner, Mr. Luis H. Alvarez, in order to reach an agreement with respect to the location, date, time, and agenda for the renewal of peace talks."

The same day, the EZLN carried out a demonstration in front of Congress in which seven commanders asked the people of Mexico and the world to unite their steps on "a path that will lead us to a more just and worthy life, without racism or discrimination, and to continue organizing and participating from wherever you may be, so that together we can establish a new society and a new way of doing politics in our country and the world."  

What Peace is at Stake in Chiapas?

Nobody wins nor loses. We will all come out winners:  Marcos is winning, he's gaining popularity and making his message better understood, and I'm winning, too, because the people are waiting for the resolution of this conflict, for us to agree on a peace that is fair, true, and lasting.
-President Vicente Fox (3/13/01)

Some analysts have seen the Zapatista march and official reactions to it as a kind of ^Ómedia war.^Ô  Fox himself has on several occasions portrayed the situation as a kind of competition between his own image and that of Marcos, avoiding the deep roots of the conflict in Chiapas and the necessary complexity of any solution. Without denying the good will that may exist in Fox^Òs ^ÓChiapas Team,^Ô one can note among its members a troubling lack of familiarity with their Zapatista counterparts and the indigenous world in general.

When we speak of the need to "sign a peace agreement," we seem to be forgetting that peace is a lengthy process that is built through concrete steps, plans, and programs, and that the case of Chiapas also involves the complicated question of indigenous rights, beginning with the application of the COCOPA law, the necessary revisions and modifications of secondary laws and the implementation of public politics at all levels.

At the same time, once the Zapatistas' other two conditions are fulfilled, peace talks ought to resume. For the EZLN, it will be necessary to redefine the form that the negotiations will take, together with the steps, the agenda, and the participants, (some speak of the need to include wider sectors of the population and not just the EZLN, so that it would be more representative of indigenous peoples and civil society). This process, not any less complicated or important, would probably occur simultaneously with the implementation and verification of the COCOPA law.

On the other hand, it stands out that said implementation will inevitably bring new conflicts at every level: in the communities, in the counties, and at the state and national levels. A key point in the concept of the autonomy of the indigenous peoples is the use and enjoyment of the existing natural resources in their territory.  This right will not be compatible with the high-investment economic projects (forestry, oil, agriculture, etc) of large multinational corporations in Chiapas and other regions of Mexico.  A range of people, from the heads of companies to the governor of Oaxaca, have expressed, for example, that projects such as the Puebla-Panama Plan or the Tehuantepec Isthmus project cannot be realized without the approval of the indigenous peoples, who have rejected these projects which affect their territories and communities.

Indisputably, Fox's government wants peace in Chiapas, and has made rapid and significant progress towards its goal. However, it is very likely that the official concept of peace differs in many ways from that of the indigenous Zapatistas or of other social sectors that support them.

The Fox administration needs to resolve the conflict in Chiapas in order to ensure its ability to govern and to permit massive investment in the Mexican Southeast. Various political analysts have also indicated the President is acting out of "moral conviction," also calling him "astute." 

The indigenous peoples represented by the EZLN have shown that, for them, peace can only be the consequence of a process of structural change on all levels, that is to say political, economic, social, and cultural--that will assure the full enjoyment of their collective and human rights.

Meanwhile, the tension has not lowered in Chiapas: paramilitary groups' fear of being arrested and broken up could lead to extreme actions in an effort to maintain power in their respective areas. The social fabric in the communities is profoundly damaged and the conflicts between political organizations continue to worsen, as well as religious intolerance in some parts of the state. Today more than ever, a collective effort to advance towards peace is needed.

Things undreamt of are daily being seen, the impossible is ever becoming possible. We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of non-violence.
-M.K. Gandhi 

International Service for Peace (SIPAZ)

March 24, 2001

1  A Commission made up of legislators from all four parties represented in Congress whose task is to facilitate the peace process.
2 The COCOPA presented its bill in November of 1996 and Zedillo presented his counter-proposal in March of 1998. The National Action Party put forward yet another in March of 1998.
3 Candidate for the PAN and a coalition of other political parties.
4 Candidate for the Alliance for Chiapas, made up of the PAN, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the Labor Party (PT), and other opposition parties.
5 Civil Alliance, Peace with Democracy, the Convergence of Civil Organizations for Democracy, etc.
6 International free trade agreement between Mexico and the countries of Central America

P.S. For more information on the San Andres Accords and the COCOPA proposal, consult the upcoming SIPAZ report (May 2001) or visit our web page: www.sipaz.org/info/indrghts.htm

HTML VERSION: