💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dermot-sreenan-the-ezln.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:18:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The EZLN
Author: Dermot Sreenan
Date: October 1994
Language: en
Topics: EZLN, Red & Black Revolution
Source: Retrieved on 4th August 2020 from http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr1_abezln.html
Notes: This article first appeared in Red & Black Revolution No 1.

Dermot Sreenan

The EZLN

The name of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) rebels is

taken from the Emilano Zapata who played a major role in the Mexican

Revolution {1910 — 1921}. 73 years has passed since the Mexican

Revolution . The memory of Zapata had faded onto the worn pages of

history.

Indeed the heirs of the betrayers of Zapata, headed by the Institutional

Revolutionary Party and President Carlos Sallinas, are in power today in

Mexico. They have remained in power for the last 75 years. But the

Zapatistas have come back to haunt them.

A New Year a New Dawn.

On New Years Day of 1994 people awoke to the news that four towns in the

south-eastern state of Chiapas had been taken over by a group calling

itself the Zapatista National Liberation Army. Militarily they had timed

their strike against the Mexican army well and thus even managed to

capture General Abslon Castellanos (former Chiapas Governor). Initially

they took San Cristobal de Las Casas then Oxchuc a town 36km away. They

ransacked 10 government offices. They freed 179 prisoners from the

prison in San Cristobal and attacked the army garrison on January

2^(nd).

They stated:

“We have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our

heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to

freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from

foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children. But we

say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built

this nation, we are millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all our

brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of

starvation!”

On January 4^(th) the big guns hit back. Ten towns in the surrounding

area of San Cristobal were bombed. Reports came in of at least 400

killed in the bombing. Five reported EZLN rebels were found dead in

Ocosingo. In another town, the Zapatistas shot down a helicopter, burned

down the city hall and then left. The bodies of 38 people who had been

killed by the federal army were found. The next day 70 tanks arrived in

the conflict zone and the army attacked a van killing 5 civilians

including one 8 year old girl. Various government ministries circulated

black propaganda about the group labelling them radical with a

professional foreign leadership. The authorities also stated that the

presence of human rights organisations “hinders the dismantling of such

a movement.”.

Why Chiapas ?

The EZLN is based amongst the indigenous people who live in and around

the jungle of Lacandona, east of the high plains of Chiapas. Chiapas is

an atrociously poor area. 41% of the population have no running water.

34.9% are without electricity. 63% of the people live in accommodation

of only one room. 19% of the labour force has no possible income and 67%

of the labour force live on or below the minimum wage — in Mexico you

can take this as being very little. Despite Article 27[1] which promises

Land Reform in the constitution nothing has happened in this area.

President Sallinas recently changed Article 27 further wiping out any

hopes for agrarian reform. Northern Mexico has developed factories to

cater for companies making use of cheap labour. The southern part of

Mexico has been left to become a wilderness. The EZLN fears that

NAFTA[2] (North American Free Trade Agreement) will keep Chiapas further

isolated and underdeveloped.

After the first initial days of hostilities the EZLN withdrew to the

Lacandona jungle where they now are involved in negotiations. A

cease-fire which began on January 17^(th) has held despite the army

breaking on a number of occasions. In February negotiations took place

inside a belt composing of representatives from the NGO’s ([3]

non-governmental agencies). Invitations were issued to the various

political parties asking them to participate in the peace talks. No

weapons have been handed over to the Mexican army.

The State adopted a more conciliatory approach after the international

condemnation of the bombing raid on January 5^(th). The move towards

negotiation seems only to have come about due to the light of

international attention, as prior to this Mexico’s record in human

rights is a diabolical one.

“Torture was frequently used by law-enforcement agents particularly the

state and judicial police, throughout Mexico. Most victims were criminal

suspects but some including leaders of indigenous communities and human

rights activists were apparently targeted solely for their peaceful

political activities”.[4]

As of February ’94 the Secretariat of Human rights of the main

opposition party — Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) — reported that

263 of their members, activists and supporters have been assassinated

since the 1988 electoral campaign.

The EZLN rejected a request to drop political points from the agenda

saying that they were not going to force national agreements but that as

Mexicans they had “a right to form opinions and to protest about aspects

of Mexico’s political life.” In this letter they go on to say that

“Peace without respect and dignity continues to be, for us, an

undeclared war of the powerful against our people.” They then went on to

show their willingness for ‘peace with dignity’ by withdrawing from

certain towns and letting the International Red Cross move in and take

control declaring them ‘grey areas’. They also said that they would

allow free passage of civilians while maintaining mobile patrols to

ensure no military, police, or government officials entered the ‘grey

zones’.

In another statement issued to national newspapers the EZLN asked “Why

is everyone so quiet? Is this the ‘democracy’ you wanted? Complicity

with lies? “Going on to say “How much blood must be spilt before they

(PRI) understand that we want respect not charity? “The statement

finishes with the important lines

“The CCRI-CG (Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee General

Command) of the EZLN will go to the negotiating table with reservation

because of its lack of confidence of the federal government. They want

to buy us with a ton of promises. They want us to sell the only thing we

have left : dignity. The 1^(st) of January was not enough for the

government to learn to speak to its citizens as equals. It seems that

more than January 1 are necessary............Here Zapata lives. Try to

assassinate him again. Our blood is a pledge. That it be taken by he who

is still ashamed.”

They also issued a communiqué to all the NGO’s operating within the

conflict zone saying that they continued to “respect and welcome their

neutrality and humanitarian efforts.”

The month of February and March is littered with accounts of the

spreading popularity of the EZLN. There was a march of 300kms by nearly

200 indigenous people to the outskirts of Mexico city. Banners displayed

read “This dialogue we don’t understand “ which was a reference to the

massacre of students in 1968 and the more recent one in Chiapas. A

demonstration for agrarian reform in Oaxaca was attacked by police.

Students calling themselves ‘Zapatistas’ protested at a stop by the

presidential candidate of the PRI. In Puebla local indigenous groups

blocked the highway. In Tamaulipas dissident oil workers at the state

petro-chemical industry (PIMEX) broke with their unions and organised

strikes, blockades and demonstrations at the plants. Unarmed Indians

have staged land take-overs in the state of Chiapas — throughout the

Mayan Highlands. There are reports that over 120,000 hectares of land

has been expropriated from large private land owners[5]. On April

10^(th), 77 years after the death of Emilano Zapata large demonstrations

were organised and took place in support of EZLN demands in Mexico city.

In June the EZLN rejected a peace offer set forth by the Government.

Declaration of the Jungle issued by the EZLN

“We call upon Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution which states ‘the

people have at all times the inalienable right to alter or change the

nature of their government.’ Therefore in accordance with our

Constitution, we issue this DECLARATION OF WAR... People of Mexico, we

call for your total participation in this struggle for work, land,

housing, food, health care, education, independence, liberty, democracy,

justice and peace.”

Where are they coming from ?

“We are not Marxists, nor are we guerrillas. We are Zapatistas and we

are an army.”

EZLN Major

The first days of 1994 saw the resurgence of the name of Zapata on the

airwaves of the world. The EZLN, are only the most public face of the

Chiapas conflict. The EZLN act as an army, under the direction of a

larger organisation, the CRIC-GC . The CRIC-GC is comprised of delegates

from many indigenous communities and it is they who are responsible for

the politics and organisation of the EZLN. The CRIC-GC is the highest

authority of the movement. The EZLN is subservient to them and exists to

carry out their wishes.

Major Benjamin of the EZLN says

“We are not Maoists or Marxists, sir. We are a group of campesinos,

workers and students for whom the government has left no other path than

arms to resolve our ancestral problems”.[6]

To understand what being a Zapatista means one has to go back to the

origins of todays EZLN. In 1983 twelve young people entered Chiapas to

organise the oppressed population. A vital lesson taught to these young

people was that of democratic organisation. Sub Commandante Marcos

revealed “The Zapatista army was not born democratic, it was born as a

political military organisation. But as it grew the organisational

methods of the communities began to permeate and dominate our movement,

to the degree that the leadership of the EZLN has become democratic in

the indigenous manner.”

The CRIC-GC is organised though a delegate based democracy. It is

composed of delegates from each town and community. It is responsible

for the politics and organisation of the EZLN and is its highest

authority. The decision to take up armed struggle came first and the

CRIC-GC grew from this decision.

“So we decided that there is no way other than to organise and rise up

like this in armed struggle. So we began to organise ourselves like

that, secretly, in a revolutionary organisation. But, as it advanced,

each people elected its representatives, its leaders. By making the

decision in that way , the people themselves proposed who will lead

these organisations. The people themselves have named us. So first,

someone from each people has been named responsible. In that way we

advanced town by town, so that there was time, then to name delegates.

In that way we came to be the CCRI.” [7] Sub commander Marcos is

answerable to the CRIC-GC but remains the leader when it comes to

military matters.

The delegate based democracy on which the CRIC-GC is based is best

explained by a young Zapatista Isaac “if some member of the CCRI does

not do their work, if they do not respect the people, well compa it is

not your place to be there. Then, well excuse us but we will have to put

another in your place.” This is how the community understand democracy

and it is easy to see why they see no relation to what the ‘democracy’

the PRI currently exercise in Mexico.

The conditions these people find themselves in are harsh yet they can

still operate a form of participatory democracy. This disproves the lie

put forth by Leninists that in difficult conditions a dictatorship over

the people must take place in ‘their interests’. It comes as no surprise

that the Zapatistas repeatedly deny being Marxists or Leninists as these

forms of political ideology have difficulty with the idea of

participatory democracy.

Through this democratic process the EZLN developed politics on a wide

range of issues. For example the Women’s revolutionary law supports the

right of women to participate fully in the revolutionary struggle,

control their own fertility, choose partners, and has regard to their

health, education, and well being. This signifies a major advancement

for women of the indigenous population. The peace proposal offered by

the government was rejected by 97% of the people in the Zapatista

controlled areas after consultation took place with all those over the

age of 12.

In the negotiations with the Government, the EZLN put forward ten

conditions which had to be met before a peace could be agreed. Many of

these points for example the dissolution of the present government to be

replaced by a transitional one until proper elections, were obviously

not going to be met by the PRI. Also the EZLN demanded that NAFTA be

revised. Within the core of Zapatista politics there seems to be an

inherent flaw. On one hand they know that their demands will not be met

by the authorities yet on the other hand, given this, the demands they

make are watered down versions of their own political line. The question

is when the Zapatistas were preparing their 10 point peace plan, what

was their political strategy? Assuming that they knew the government

would reject most of their points why didn’t they include a fuller

expression of their program. Perhaps they did have illusions in the

government granting some of their demands, perhaps they felt that

anything more radical would alienate the rest of the Mexican people, we

don’t know! These questions remain unanswered.

They claim to have learned from the guerrilla movements in Latin

America. Firstly, to greatly distrust the surrender of arms, and

secondly not have confidence “only in the electoral systems” [8]. Yet

this position seems to be contradicted by Marcos who refers to the

creation of a “democratic space where the political parties, or groups

that aren’t parties, can air and discuss their social proposals.” [9]

The point is explained further in a communiqué by the CCRI-CG in June

where it says ”...this revolution will not end in a new class, faction

of a class, or group in power. It will end in a free and democratic

space for political struggle.” The EZLN are fighting a revolution for

democratic space? Yet, the type of democracy which they wish is not

tolerated in any Western society and is unlikely to be permitted in

Mexico unless revolution spreads throughout the country.

While it is obvious that no such space exists in Mexico, even the

creation of some form of social democracy will not bring about the

changes which the Zapatistas so desperately need. Social democracy does

not provide liberty or justice. This call for social democracy contrasts

with the beliefs which Marcos says exist amongst the people that “they

(politicians) are changing the leaves of the trees, but the roots are

damaged... We say Let’s uproot the tree and plant it again .” The tree

will not be uprooted though the creation of social democracy.

However the options for the EZLN seem limited. Prior to the Presidential

Elections in August they organised a National Democratic Convention

(CND) which took place in the Lacandona jungle. This logistical miracle

was attended by over 7,000 people[10]. The conference was attended by

many of the established voices of opposition to the Institutional

Revolutionary Party (PRI). Marcos said he wished to turn the CND into

the leaders of civil society and that it should be they who decided how

to respond to the PRI and the fraudulent State. Marcos presented

democratic change as something which should come via peaceful means. The

military solution would be adopted solely as a matter of last

recourse[11] and only be tried when the CND decided upon it. Two weeks

later the PRI presidential candidate went on to win the election amongst

accusations of fraud. The creation of a democratic space through

peaceful means to appears to have failed.

Mexico still needs to build a strong revolutionary movement. It will

require greater numbers than the revolutionaries of the EZLN to destroy

the rotten Mexican state. This difficult task, facing all the people who

wish for change in Mexico, is made more difficult because of its

dominant neighbour, the USA.

Within the EZLN, it seems, there is a widespread belief that their

demands can only be met when as they say “the tree is uprooted. “ They

have developed a democratic structure from which ideas can flow and

develop. They have struck out against the system which causes them so

much death, pain and suffering. Support work has been done by the

anarchist group ‘Love and Rage’ who have members in the USA and in

Mexico. They have sent people down to Chiapas to ascertain the facts,

organised translations of EZLN communiqués and helped in the production

of a book on the EZLN. Here in Ireland we in the WSM have held a picket

on the Mexican Embassy and handed in a letter of protest. This type of

work though it may seem at first to be of minor importance, in fact

ensures that the Mexican government knows that their actions are being

monitored thus decreasing the likelihood of a government crackdown in

the area.

The task facing Mexican revolutionaries is to spread their struggle and

will for change to the cities and to the north of the Country. Although

Marcos and the CCRI-GC are emphasising the role of the media, it is more

important for the EZLN activists to win support on the ground.

In the United States activists must work on raising awareness of the

EZLN amongst the resident Latino population. Pickets can be organised.

Any struggle that remains isolated will face certain annihilation. It is

the responsibility of all revolutionaries to ensure this will not

happen.

The job of anarchists in Mexico is to spread their ideas and to share

their experience as revolutionaries with the people of Chiapas. The

Zapatistas have already rejected the ideas of the authoritarian left.

The demands of the EZLN for liberty, justice, and democracy will not be

realised under capitalism. These demands have never arisen out of reform

of any system in any country. Mexican anarchists should utilise the

fertile ground that now exists for anarchist ideas in Chiapas.

What has happened in Chiapas is encouraging and needs to be supported.

The revolutionaries of the EZLN, however, have not stumbled onto

something new. The basic principle of participatory democracy is one of

the foundation stones of anarchism. The EZLN deserve praise for the way

they have integrated democracy into their struggle against the state.

Now in Mexico where history stopped with the usurpation of power by the

PRI seventy-five years ago, the people are still struggling towards

having control over their own lives and destinies. True democracy needs

to be established and implemented as part of the process of destroying

the oppressive state which keeps all of us chained.

[1] Article 27 in the Mexican Constituition is the one which promised

agrarian reform. It was included in the constituition after the

revolution and was always seen as the guarantee of similar land reforms

as those Zapata implemented in his own region of Morelos during the

revolution.

[2] NAFTA will also drive down the prices paid for some of the basic

crops produced by the indigeniuos people for their crops. The timing of

the uprising was to coincide with the first day that NAFTA was supposed

to take effect in Mexico.

[3] Non-Governmental Organisiations (NGO’s) are groups such as the Red

Cross, Amnesty International, etc.

[4] Quoted from an Amnesty International Report.

[5] Source Peter Martin Morelost who attended the National Democratic

Convention and posted his report onto the internet.. (24.9.94 Mexico’s

National Democratic Convention.)

[6] Quoted from early newspaper coverage of events — listed in Chapter 2

— The first days.

[7] Quoted from interview with Javier of the CCRI 3/2/94 in La Jornada.

[8] Quoted from interview with Subcommander Marcos in La Jornada 4.2.94

— 7.2.94

[9] Interview with Marcos 11 May ’94

[10] Attendance figure quoted from report by Peter Martin Morales.

[11] Peter Martin Morales