Zapatistas negotiate with Mexican state
International Viewpoint #266 May 1995
Mexico prevention. They know they must deal with the structural causes rooted in their conditions and modes of life. They know that this implies remaking daily life on a new basis.
To obtain the rights that they demand, it is not enough to change their little communities, their families, their husbands, and the daily life of each woman. To change the meaning of life of women as such, it is the whole of Mexico that must be changed. For this, peace is necessary. It is not sufficient for there to be a few women officers or women politicians. The war continues and it is the women who are affected: some are chased away from their homes, some become retugees, many remain alone to care for their families.
The resolution of the conflict can only be achieved through the construction of democracy, the transformation of the conditions of life and the way resources are utilized. This requires a redistribution of power, not only between classes, but also between genders, and between all social categories. * The author is a sociologist at Mexico's National School of History and Anthropology and the author of "Mothers, Whores, and Witches", ', a key Mexican feminist work. This article is a translation of some excerpts of her recent in-depth study into the roots of the struggle of the Chiapas Indians, and the role that women play in it. 28 by Ulyses Martinez On 20 April some 5-15,000 indigenous people assembled in San Andres, carrying the red and black banners of the EŻLN (Zapatista National Liberation Force). They announced themselves as a "security cordon". This massive presence showed the depth of the Zapatista presence — which the Government still claims to be limited to four or five districts of Chiapas state. The goverment had refused to hold the negotiations in Mexico city to avoid the scene of mass solidarity demonstrations in the capital. But even in the 'middle of nowhere' the Zapatistas proved their ability to mobilize their supporters. Government representatives used the pretext of this Indian presence to delay negotiations — as if their own 60,000 soldiers deployed across Chiapas state were some kind of guarantee of neutrality! The authorities insisted that the rebel delegation include only insurgents — as if the problem was the 'restoration of order, and as if they wanted there to be as tew witnesses as possible. Once again, the government challenged the legitimacy of the National Mediation Council (CONAl) of Bishop Samuel Ruiz. But of all their mistakes, the greatest government fault was that "once again they show that they assume that indigenous people are incapable of organising themselves, and that they can only start moving if outsiders lead them by the hand" - as the Zapatista leadership commented. "They are mistaken. We indigenous people are capable". The only point finally discussed was the possibility of "measures to calm the situation" - but the two sides had quite different ideas of how to do so. The government suggested that "the EZLN shall group those of its members who are in a state of insurrection in three assembly points to be agreed by both parties. In exchange, the government will assure the physical security of these contingents, and provide the necessary housing, food health and hygiene services". The EZLN proposal was a list of ten points including the withdrawal of government troops to the positions they held on 8 February (ie accepting the loss of rebel territory in the initial government offensive), the maintenance of EZLN forces in their current positions, a cease-fire for the period of negotiation, and a commitment by both sides not to station any troops in any village within their terntory. Negotiations began on April 22, but broke up the next day, without any agreement. According to an EZLN spokesperson the government "cannot even be bothered to consider our concerns about health and the economy. They have said nothing about the agrarian question, and they think that the negotiations are over. It is completely absurd!" The EZLN proposition is different. It recognizes the existence of two armed forces, which should be kept apart, and should remain static until a negotiation is reached which will make the presence of any armed bodies of men in Chiapas state unnecessary It recognizes that negotiations which do not cover the general situation in the country are useless. And the EZLN insist that the negotiations are not a simple matter of restoring the status quo - they must be the starting point for a real national dialogue, concerning a whole range of social forces. Rather than a way to stop the conflict in Chiapas, the Zapatista position is a new initiative directed at Mexican society. All those who have demands to put to the government, all those who have no other way to express their wishes, should come together. * "I appeal to you to support the campaign of aid to the indigenous Zapatista communities" - Rosario Ibarra de Piedra, National Democratic Convention (CND) Send contributions to account 5016464-9, M, del Rosario Ibarra, Bancomer Bank, Mexico DF, Mexico. Please notify all transfers by letter to Rosario Ibarra, Medellin 366, Col. Roma Sur, 06760, Mexico DF, Mexico