Uprising Is Bigger Than Mexico Lets On
If President Clinton doesn’t throw the weight of U.S. foreign policy behind a negotiated solution in Mexico, his dreams of regional economic cooperation will be shattered by civil war.
The Zapatista rebellion is much bigger than the Mexican government lets on. It may be waged by a rag-tag army, but it is also a genuine indigenous uprising, with mass support throughout Chiapas and the south and sympathy throughout the country.
If the Mexican Army resumes its effort to crush it, the loss of human life will be tragic and the outcome will resolve nothing.
Many Mexicans already believe that this month’s brief military offensive in Chiapas was given the green light by Washington.
It was certainly spurred by pressure from the American investment community. A memo written by Riordan Roett, an adviser for Chase Manhattan Bank, argued that the Mexican government “will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and security policy. … While Chiapas, in our opinion, does not pose a fundamental threat to Mexican political stability, it is perceived to be so by many in the investment community. …”
Since the memo was made public, Chase has backed away from it. Yet the prodding of U.S. investors undoubtedly strengthened the hand of hard-liners in the Mexican government, the Army, and among powerful Chiapas landowners. They want war because they stand to lose if the Zapatista demands for reforms are met.
Most Americans were no doubt surprised to discover that the Zapatista forces were still a factor in Mexico when President Zedillo loosed the Mexican Army on them earlier this month. The U.S. media have been duped by official efforts to belittle the Zapatistas’ strength by portraying them as eccentric and overrated. Press reports of the 12-day war in January 1994 make the government’s decision to call a cease-fire look like a foolish act of good will.
No one reported on the skill and determination of a peasant army that launched repeated frontal attacks on the largest military base in the state for eight consecutive days.
Mexico’s current dilemma shows the extent to which the government is out of touch with the people. The Mexican government should have known that sending in troops would unleash popular fury. Its efforts to make peace last year found widespread support throughout the country. As a member of the government negotiating team said, then-President Salinas had risked the wrath of hard-line supporters to talk peace because “no-one wants to go down in history wading through the blood of their countrymen, particularly when the effort is doomed to fail.”
Today, the government cannot declare war in Chiapas without causing violent social unrest.
In the streets of Mexico City last week a hundred thousand people of all ages and backgrounds packed the enormous Constitution Square. A hundred thousand voices chanted “We are all Marcos” and “Marcos hold on, the people are rising,” to support the besieged Zapatistas and their charismatic leader in their distant rainforest communities.
Perhaps inevitably, President Zedillo has blinked. But even as he calls for peace, a cloud still prevents Mexico from reaching a final settlement. The Army has halted its assault, but the Mexican police are rounding up grass-roots leaders and activists nationwide.
Was the attack on the Zapatistas merely a cover for a more pernicious repression?
The stakes in Mexico are very high. In the next few weeks, the choice between democracy and a descent into a savage civil war will depend on how the Mexican government and its allies in Washington deal with the fallout from this militaristic venture.
When Mexico’s financial crisis hit, Bill Clinton was quick to whip out a checkbook. Now that the lives of millions of poor Mexicans hang in the balance, let us hope he’s as quick with an olive branch.
xxxx