|
| |
Editorial Article
January/February 2001
Mexico's 'opening'-to what?
The new Mexican administration of Vicente Fox has used its first two months
in power to claim that Mexico is experiencing a "nueva apertura," a new
opening, after 71 years of single party rule. Jorge Castaneda, the new
foreign minister culled from the ranks of leftist academicians, wants his
country to open up to the UN and take a more active international role.
Felipe de Jesus Preciado, commissioner of immigration, wants to open the
doors to foreign observers, especially those who engage in, as he calls it,
"guerrilla tourism" in Chiapas. Carlos Maria Abascal, secretary of labor,
speaks of a "new labor culture" in which "class struggle has ended," to be
replaced by dialogue when "conflicts of interest" arise.
But in a recent talk given to a group of industrialists Fox tried to
encourage their interest in peace by saying once it's achieved they will
have won themselves a new land, full of natural resources and cheap labor,
where thay can place new maquiladora plants. On Jan. 13, on his weekly
radio show, he went so far as to claim with regard to the Zapatistas
(EZLN), whose 1994 rebellion in Chiapas shook Mexico to its foundations,
that he will "steal subcomandante Marcos' voice" when he fulfills the
EZLN's three conditions for resuming a dialogue. These include release of
EZLN prisoners, troop pullback from seven specific camps, and a
constitutional amendment on indigenous rights and culture. Four days later
he travelled to Chiapas, providing his country with an amazing spectacle.
The night before his arrival 400 soldiers destroyed and abandoned the
"Roberto Barrios" army encampment. That brought to four the number of bases
evacuated in the past three weeks, leaving three more to meet the EZLN
demand. By the end of his stay, Fox pledged the others will soon be vacated
also.
No less incredible was the nationally televised interview Fox initiated on
his first day in Chiapas with Maria Nuñez Ruiz, an indigenous Tzeltal woman
who berated the army and demanded they exit their communities "because
they've only come here to make us suffer all the more. Before we didn't
know what a soldier was, what prostitution was. Now, thanks to them, we
have that experience." Fox answered by saying his government has a debt to
pay the marginalized and needs to "replace the soldiers with jobs." So far
he has also released some of the Zapatista political prisoners and sent the
1996 San Andrés accords to Congress for debate and, supposedly, passage.
It's easy to expose what the Mexican press has called the "zig-zagging" in
this former Coca-Cola executive's sincerity. One day in January, for
example, he insisted the EZLN must lay down its arms in order for a
dialogue to resume, a favorite line of the former Zedillo administration.
The following day his spokeswoman struggled to explain that he merely meant
this as an "invitation" to do so. He has also refused to recognize the
existence of the fascistic paramilitary groups that work in tandem with the
army.
Fox's "vision" for Chiapas's future is the total opposite of the autonomous
control spelled out in the San Andrés accords. Not by coincidence,
President George W. Bush's first foreign trip will be a Feb. 16 meeting
with Fox in San Cristobal. But it should not obscure the fact that we are
indeed witnessing an opening, an opportunity for new mobilization on the
part of campesinos, workers, and solidarity activists.
The Zapatistas plan to take advantage of this by marching to Mexico City
Feb. 25 to present their case to Congress. This is an event we must support
in all ways possible, for it will reveal much about where this movement is
at in one very crucial respect: its relationship to the urban working class.
Whether Fox will be able to use the Zapatistas to further his own image as
a populist reformer, or whether the Zapatistas will be able to use Fox,
revolves around whether workers see the need for a coalescence with the
indigenous/campesino struggle.
The seven years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has
been in effect have produced levels of poverty, both rural and urban, not
seen since before the 1910 Revolution. Capital has thus done its part to
foster the needed coalescence.
Whether revolutionaries can now deepen their critique of capital to the
point Marx did where he revealed the "new passions and new forces" that
alone can reconstruct society on a new human foundation is what must be
worked out. This is what our solidarity with the "other Mexico" must reach
for.
|
|
