Mexico
Stop the war! Zedillo Resign !
by Ulises Martinez by On 9 February the Mexican government broke its fragile truce with the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). Half the soldiers in the Mexican army were deployed in a military and police attempt to wipe out the Zapatista leaders. By 11 February, the government of Ernesto Zedillo had authorised an indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population in the Lacandona forest region where the EZLN is based.
A handwritten press release by the EZLN military command, smuggled out of the combat zone on 12 February, reports that, since midday on 10 February, "four helicopters bombard the Morelia and La Carrucha regions, and direct machine gun fire at the entire zone under Zapatista control... So far, we have done all we can to withdraw without fighting [to save the civilian population]"
The government's justification for breaking a truce respected by the other side, and their fakes astonishment at the discovery of supposed EZLN arms caches across Mexico verge on the ridiculous. As National Democratic Convention president Rosario Ibarra told the magazine Proceso, "for one year, they have negotiated with armed rebels, and now they are suddenly surprised to discover arms." And the existence of the Zapatistas in other zones of the country was public knowledge from the start, even though open conflict had been confined to Chiapas state.
It was clear to some of us that the government was preparing this new hard line even while negotiations were continuing. It should have been clear to everyone on 8 December, when President Zedillo participated in the inauguration of Eduardo Robelo, PRI candidate in the falsified state elections in Chiapas state. The EZLN had already called this step a tacit declaration of war.
And although the economic crisis of December-January obliged the government to calm the political situation for a while, it now returns reinforced by its foreign loans, to reestablish itself politically, including over the Chiapas conflict. But as a result of that economic crisis, the government is weaker and more vulnerable to all kinds of pressures than even two months ago. It seems clear that one of the pressures towards a military "solution' of the Chiapas conflict comes from international financial circles. Already on 13 January a representative of Chase Manhattan Bank told journalists that the Mexican regime would have to "eliminate" the Zapatista rebellion as a proof that it was in charge of the entire territory. The United States government is another of the pro-war factors in the government camp: as the New York Times points out, the discovery of the EZLN arms caches across Mexico and the alleged identification of Marcos as one Rafael Guillen could only have come about through U.S. secret service cooperation with their Mexican counterparts. And according to the Washington correspondent of Mexico's El Financero newspaper, "sources close to the U.S. security forces claim that the order to arrest the Zapatista leaders are the result of an "ultimatum" to president Zedillo from the U.S. armed forces command.
The Mexican leader relies much more on the military than on the other institutions of the state. But a military coup is unlikely in the current international context, where the imperialist powers prefer to see countries ruled by the regular institutions of bourgeois democracy. What seems more likely is a repetition of developments in Peru. Zedillo has effectively charged the army with "solving' what is the country's most pressing social and political problem, and given the generals complete freedom of action. The parliament is relegated to a back seat, and the traditional supporters of the regime: the apparatus of the ruling P.R.I. party, the peasants' associations and trades unions are out in the cold.
All this suggests that the new hard line will not just be applied to the Zapatistas in Chiapas, but to the democratic opposition as a whole. Leaders of a range of civic associations have already been arrested as supposed Zapatistas: their organisations' offices have been raided, police surveillance of militants in a range of social movements has been intensified and so on. There have even been attempts to tar the bishop of St.
Cristobal, Samuel Ruiz, as a militant of the EZLN, rather than the honest negotiator and friend of the Maya Indians which he is.
Meanwhile, the Zapatistas evaporated before the advancing soldiers without the slightest difficulty. The regime desperately claims that it is winning a total victory, whereas, once again, the Zapatistas have demonstrated their superior tactics and impressive preparations for the expected government invasion.
In Mexico City, over 100,000 persons demonstrated against the government invasion on 11 February. Chanting "we are all Marcos," they demanded an end to the war, the immediate liberation of all detainees, and a government commitment to a peaceful negotiated solution which would respect democracy, justice and the dignity of ordinary Mexicans.
The wide range of speakers at the demonstration suggests that the inept government intervention has in fact galvanized civic society and the opposition currents, rather than split it into "militants" and "moderates".
The road to this kind of united action has been a long one. A fragile kind of unity was achieved at the third assembly of the EZLNsponsored National Democratic Convention (CND) on 5 February 1995. But while a clear majority supported the call for a National Liberation Movement (MILN), the conference revealed the existence of two tendencies: a majority of delegates, including those closest to the EZLN, supported a motion limiting the common platform to the democratic struggle against the Party-state, for liberty and justice. The purpose of such a platform is to allow the widest possible pluralist movement, including political and social forces of the centreground. A minority inside the CND argued for a working-class based alliance, uniting proletarian social sectors, the other oppressed groups, and those political forces which clearly identify themselves with the struggle of the oppressed
The military intervention on February 9th pushed this divergence into the background for the time-being, as all of us are now trying to establish the maximum unity around the demand to end the war. From one of a list of secondary demands, the call for the resignation of president Zedillo has become the number one slogan of the movement. This is the best strategy to assure a radical change in the way the country is run.
For those outside Mexico, the 11 February demonstrations outside Mexican Embassies and Consulates in Buenos Aires, San Francisco, Madrid and Paris should be the inspiration to further activities! *
14
International Viewpoint #264 MARCH 1995