Peace, Justice and Dignity
Interview with Rosario Ibarra of the National Democratic Convention
Rosario Ibarra de Piedra is a member of the International). She entered politics as a "Mother
National Council of the National Democratic in Black" - demanding that the state release her
Convention (CND) and a Deputy in the Mexican "disappeared" son Jésus, or admit his torture
Federal Parliament. In the 1984 presidential election she was the candidate of the
Revolutionary Workers' Party (Fourth She was interviewed on 22 March by Alfonso Moro
International Viewpoint #265 April 1995
Mexico
Ibarra: This is probably the final phase of the crisis facing the Mexican regime. But as so often before in Mexico, a severe crisis, and terrible consequences for the society, has not provoked the simultaneous emergence of a global alternative. The crisis is expressed as a generalised lack of belief in those holding power, but not the development of an alternative set of policies which we could suggest in the place of the current system. The Zapatistas are the best placed to develop such alternatives, but they are effectively contained to the Blue Mountains of Chiapas state [on the border with Guatemala. They have found an echo among the population, but they don't have the possibilities to build a structured, organic response of the masses to the current crisIs.
The regime chose to use the Federal Army to intervene in Chiapas, sending soldiers into the Lancandona forest to flush out the Zapatistas, and placing them in day-to-day contact with the indigenous populations of the region. This move has complicated the crisis facing the government, by provoking a polarization of opinion in the armed forces. Some soldiers and officers have expressed a more democratic — patriotic — opinion, others are increasingly reactionary, even fascist in their pronouncements. It won't be as easy for the regime to control the army as it was a few months ago. Viewpoint: The presidency is a pillar of the repressive system in Mexico. For the first time in our history, popular groups, capitalists and even sections of the ruling PRI party have attacked the 'untouchable' president Zedillo. Why ?
People used to think that our strong presidential regime contributed to our 24 and murder. stability and successes compared to other Latin American countries. As you say, the president was untouchable. But now the opposition of poor to rich, and of the political opposition parties and the employers towards the centre is changing. People are no longer afraid of the president, and no longer respect the institution of the presidency. So this is a historic change in the way Mexicans express themselves. Whatever the future brings; a dialogue that brings the Zapatista's message to the people and allows democratic reforms, or a military coup, I don't think we can go back to the strong president of yesterday. That system has shown its limits. From 1988 to 1994, President Salinas de Gortari presented our economy as a paradigm Tor the region. All this dissolved when the peso fell through the floor this winter, and the current crisis developed.
For those for whom the economy is a set of macro-economic indicators, Mexico indeed seemed to be growing rapidly, and coming out of the crisis of the early 1980s. But the problem is that the policy of Presidents Miguel de la Madrid (19821988) and Salinas created an unprecedented economic and social polarization. A bunch of adventurers made fortunes overnight through speculation. The winners in this casino economy" were generally friends of the president — the "happy family" as the 40 million Mexicans who live in misery called them.
The crisis deepened brutally in December 1994. President Zedillo blamed the Zapatistas — the very people who had risen up against the policies that fed the crisis! The Zapatistas simply showed our misery and pain - and our shame, because Mexico is a rich country - to the world. The rebellion also showed that the model was a failure — not just in human terms, but in terms of its own fragile macro-economic measuring sticks.
The reforms of the 1980s made us more and more vulnerable in our relationship with the United States. We are so dependent on those to our North that our cooperation' looks more and more like a kiss of death. I don't think any country ever made such massive transfers of wealth to another country - $US 52,000 million ! The conditions the U.S.A. puts on the repayment of our debts have violated our national sovereignty. Under the agreement between our Ministry of the Economy and the U.S. Treasury Department, a New York Court will judge infractions of the agreement between the two countries — in other words, Mexico will be subject to the legal system of the United States. A judge in New York will issue orders which will be legally binding on the government of Mexico. And at the same time we go through the farce of asking ourselves if the Mexican parliament agrees or disagrees with the specifications of the letters of credit. How absurd, when a District Judge in North America will be taking the fundamental decisions which affect Mexico! The text of the agreement reduces the Mexican Consul to an "agent of notification." And the income from our oil sales will go to the United States, and they will decide what do do with the money if the Mexican government falls behind with its debt payments. President Zedillo has won the support of opposition parties in parliament, including the [left-wing] Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD) for a "National Political Agreement". How could the PRD agree to such negotiations?
International Viewpoint #265 April 1995
Ever since the 1994 elections a section of the PRD has concluded that the more radical, intransigent campaign of the party under Cuahutémoc Cárdenas failed. They propose instead a policy of negotiation with the state - like the PAN tried when the government cheated them in the 1988 election. The 'new realists' of the PRD note that the PAN was subsequently permitted to win a few more seats in various states, and even a few posts of state governor.
As soon as Zedillo "won" election, he let the PRD know that, once Salinas left, a new policy of national discussion and cooperation would be introduced. A part of the PRD lapped this up. Even before Zedillo was invested, some PRD deputies were meeting him for Rosario Ibarra addressing the CADT assembly in Brussels, 18 March 1995 lunch or dinner, stitching up a pact which disgusted the rank and file of the party. How could one accuse the government of fraud in August, and spend September trying to come to an arrangement with
For the 'realists' of the PRD, the revolt in Chiapas, the existence of the Zapatistas are obstacles in the way of a reform and reorganization of the Mexican state. I don't know what Cuahutémoc Cárdenas' position is, but I have the feeling that a majority of the PRD is opposed to this new line. How have the Zapatistas affected left politics ?
The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) developed outside state structures. The power of co-option in Mexico is so strong that the emergence of an organisation completely outside the state apparatus is completely new. Part of the crisis of the regime is over how to deal with this.
The EZLN differentiates itself not only from the regime, but from the traditional parties. It has incorporated the ethical dimension into politics — take for example their slogan "everything for everyone, nothing for us alone." They talk of themselves as the "little Mexicans," the "little people." They say they do not want power, because it would be a tragedy if an armed group took power. They continually call on civic society to take control of political life. All this has changed the traditional political discourse in this country. The left is developing a new, more fundamental kind of politics, where the question of dignity, of believing truly in what one says and does is more central than it was before. For sure, the mainly Indian composition of the rebellion is a major reason for this new discourse.
Large parts of society identify with this new discourse. They have had enough of the Institutional Revolutionary Party regime, which has held onto power since the revolution, and betrayed, institutionalized and violated the heritage of that revolution. Like in the Soviet Union ?
Since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., Mexico is the longest 'post-revolutionary' regime. But unlike the end of the U.S.S.R., the crisis here is within the context of a radicalisation towards the left. A large part of the civil society is very enthusiastic about the new political force which is emerging 'from below." So what do the Zapatistas want ?
They say they represent "basement Mexico," the marginalized, indigenous, pauperized Mexico, and that they want to overturn the measures of the last few years. They cry "enough" and say we must rebuild the nation, and that democracy is the only way to do so. They say they want a free Mexico, and that once we are free, we will see what we want.
They want a Mexico where different political projects can express themselves, and people can say what they think. In the old days, left organisations were lavant guardist' — they told people not only what we had to do to overturn the regime, but what we would have to build afterwards. The EZLN says that, until the working class, the peasants and the employers themselves are able to form their own organisations and defend their own interests, the main priority is to give oxygen to society, to free Mexico from the domination of the party state and the state as such.
Of course, if in a country like Mexico, you struggle for land, health care, wages, housing, water, democracy, peace, justice and dignity, then you are struggling against the system of domination. Indeed, without shouting it from the rooftops, they have challenged imperialist domination. After all, what interests the American government is cheap Mexican labour, tied up in deeply reactionary trade unions.
The base of the revolt in Chiapas are peasants, of Indian culture. But the EZLN constantly affirms that the changes they want to see cannot happen without the working class. I infer from their statements that they imagine a kind of alliance between basement Mexico and the ground floor - working class Mexico. Not since the revolution of Zapata and Villa have we had such an alliance, which can offer an global alternative, for a new nation.
The CND is a space in civil society -which had no political instruments, and was made up mainly of people outside the existing political parties. Many people without previous political experience found a means of expression in the CND. So as well as some 300 organisations (trade unions, cultural and political organisation) the CND is also a place for citizens themselves.
Ours is a new social phenomenon, less than a year old, and evolving rapidly. After the first large assembly, we went through a difficult moment, when some of the people who ought to be with us did not feel the climate in the CND was favourable for their active participation. At the same time, some social organisation which claim to be not only non-party but even anti-party wanted to make the CND into a political
25
International Viewpoint #265 April 1995
Mexico: interview with Rosario Ibarra de Piedra structure which could be their tribune. There are still powerful sectarian currents in the CND which want to transform the organization into an expression of what they think the far left is. But I am still convinced that the CND can become the expression of the wishes of the popular and radical sectors of society, with a supple tactical line, and flexible alliances. At the first assembly of the CND, EZLN subcommandante Marcos "returned" the national flag to your hands. Why?
This piece of cloth is the symbol of our country. I accepted to look after this banner on behalf of those who honor this symbol, who have risked their lives to bring us to a more just Mexico, where democracy is a reality, with peace, justice and dignity. The public appeals of the EZL are more and more dramatic Can the CND respond?
Some of the forces in the CND have not always listened to the appeals of the Zapatistas. And this has held us back. But there is no easy solution: the CND is a real organisation, and it regroups lots of different people. On any question you raise in the CND, you find a range of opinions, sometimes quite extreme.
In my opinion, the CND needs to adopt a strategy, clearly fixing our objectives. We came together to democratize the country, because the constitution had been amended, beaten, raped, and beaten again by this miserable government. But the CND wasn't created to realize the socialist programme, or fight imperialism. And I say this even though the CND has a programme which is clearly anti-imperialist. Because to attain its objectives, the CND needs to form alliances, regroup forces, without thinking we can impose the programme of the CND on those forces, and on the various political parties.
In December 1994 the EZLN proposed the formation of a large, pluralist Movement of National Liberation (MLN). 26
Some of our comrades were opposed to this. Then they said they were in favour of the MLN, but they placed so many conditions on any new alliance that, in practice, it would have been very difficult to find anyone to form the MLN with !
Each component of the CND must be free to develop and popularize its own programme, but the movement as a whole must search for the lowest common denominator, the programme that will unite all the opposition to the regime, and move us towards a democratic alternative
There are four potential sectors for a real Movement of National Liberation: the CND, the EZLN, the movement around Cardenas (including most of the PRD, and some people outside it), and finally all those forces which have participated in the CND over the last ten months, but "Readers of International Viewpoint, knowing your feeling of solidarity, I appeal to you to support the campaign of aid to the indigenous Zapatista communities. You can send your contributions to account number 5016464-
9, Maria del Rosario
Ibarra, Bancomer Bank, Mexico DF, Mexico. Please notify all transfers by separate letter to me, at
Medellin 366, Col. Roma
Sur, 06760 Mexico DF,
Mexico." - Rosario Ibarra de Piedra dropped away since, and which continue to be active in civil society, in the organisation of solidarity with the EZLN, in support of indigenous activities, and so On. You recently visited the Zapatista strongholds in the Lacandona forest. What are the conditions like now?
Terrible. Whole communities have fled deep into the forest - from fear of the army or to support the Zapatistas. I visited many communities where the army had destroyed the few possessions the Indians of Chiapas have — their cooking pots, stoves, milk churns, and ponchos. In Nueva Estrella I saw something worse. The houses had been abandoned, and in them we could see the machetes and boots of the inhabitants. But a peasant or an Indian never goes into the forest without these two things. How could he or she make a path ? So I worry that these people were in fact illegally arrested by the army.
How to describe the fear of people in villages with 110 inhabitants, occupied by 1,000 soldiers, where the women say they can no longer wash themselves, because there are always soldiers waiting by the river ? It reminds me of Guatemala, Vietnam and El Salvador. I didn't think it could ever happen in this country.
The world the Zapatistas created in that forest, where you could breath freely, where there was no conflict between neighbors and the people solved their problems in an open assembly has been replaced by a vision of confrontations and hatred. The army has brought peasants from other regions to occupy the deserted buildings and fields. They are creating strategic villages, where poor fight poor for the possession of a miserable hut and a few tools. In March parliament approved a goverment-sponsored amnesty law. You were one of the seven deputies who voted no. Why?
The law says nothing about the withdrawal of the army. This is fundamental — there is no dialogue when the other party is holding a pistol against your head. And yet, since the law suspends the warrants for the arrest of Marcos and the other leaders, the official justification for the military intervention has evaporated.
It all depends what you want to do as a deputy. I don't want to win a little concession here or there, I want to represent the people. Either a parliamentarian has his eyes on the centre of power, or on the people. And the people demand the withdrawal of the army. No-one wants to listen to a deputy who can't bring himself to demand even that minimum. Some of my radical colleagues see their parliamentary work as pressing for the reform of the president's excessive powers, or acting as a pressure group to win superficial modifications here and there. I disagree. *