Negotiations in bad faith
THE INTERNATIONAL MEETING against neoliberalism and for humanitytook place after six months of rising tension between the
Zapatistas and the government. On several occasions, government provocation almost caused a new military confrontation. The most serious incident was the sentencing of two Zapatista militants to heavy terms.
Comrades Entzin (sentenced to 6 years) and
Elloriaga (13 years) were convicted of membership of a terrorist group the
EZLN.
The judgement flagrantly contradicted the March 1995 Law on Dialogue,
Conciliation and a Just Peace in Chiapas. By this law, the Mexican Congress refused to define the EZLN as "terrorist," but as "a group of Mexican citizens, mainly indigenous people, who are in rebellion.
The law authorised the free circulation of the
Zapatistas, within the framework of the dialogue process. This meant that the heavy dialogue process This me tot to han prison sentences for two civilians accused of
EZLN membership represented a real cause for war, and fully justified the EZLN breaking off the negotiations which had begun in January 1996 and produced limited results in terms of the "Indian question."
The EZLN said negotiations could resume when Entzin and Elloriaga were freed. The government claimed this was impossible, since Mexican courts are independent of the political executive wing of power. They combined this ridiculous claim with a clear threat: "If the EZLN does not return to the negotiating table, the Law on Dialogue will no longer be relevant, and warrants could again be issued for the arrest of the rebels. The Army will be responsible for implementing these warrants. Libertad para Entzin y Elloriaga!
After a powerful national and international campaign of solidarity, the two Zapatistas were released on 6 June. Negotiations resumed, and the two sides established a detailed list of subjects for discussion and the mechanisms of consultation and discussion which would be adopted.
Having "cleared the mines," the International Meeting against Neo-liberalism and for Humanity, convoked by the Zapatistas, could go ahead. It seems that the government reasoning was as follows: let them hold this meeting. We would have liked to forbid it, but it is not something which will seriously affect the balance of forces in the EZLN's favour. By allowing the Meeting, we show our good will, in the eyes of the world. Which government has ever allowed a guerrilla movement to organise a public international meeting in the territory it controls? When negotiations restart, we will
Comandante Tacho of the EZLN at the International Meeting against Neoliberalism and for humanity.
adopt a much firmer attitude. No more significant concessions. We can resume our strategy of tiring and discrediting the enemy.
If he again leaves the negotiating table, the advantage will be ours. Public opinion will become favourable to a strong fist approach.