Don Samuel Ruiz, the Catholic Bishop of Chiapas, has long been associated with the theology of liberation and the Church's "option for the poor." He has been an articulate spokesperson for the grievances of southern Mexico's indigenous poor, and since the uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) on January 1, 1994, he has played a key role in the mediation of the conflict between the Zapatista rebels and the Mexican government. He was interviewed in his office in San Crist6bal, Chiapas, in March, 1997, by Fred Rosen and Jo- Marie Burt via telephone hookup from the studios of WBAI in New York What is the present status of the negotiations between the EZLN and the government in Chiapas? he dialogue that had been established in the town of San Andr6s, in the highlands of Chiapas, has only been interrupted-not broken off, just interrupted. The EZLN has said that it does not believe that the government is sincerely willing to negotiate. The government's low credibility is most evident when its representatives question alreadysigned documents with the excuse that terms they have already agreed to have to be "clarified." At the same time, the government depicts the Zapatistas as intransigent. I am not aware of the government's motives. They have never stated them and have always insisted on their willingness to negotiate. Yet there have been delays that seem inconceivable, like the passing of ten months without a concrete legislative proposal. Yet we are less concerned with the dialogue than we are with the peace process itself. Our major concern at the moment is to be able to prepare ourselves for future developments and contingencies so that we can avoid further interruptions of the peace process every time there is some kind of change in the format of the negotiations. The idea is to allow the peace process to run its course and arrive where it needs to arrive, which is at a transformation of the community as whole. And what is the status of the peace process itself? The San Andr6s negotiations have been a dialogue between the EZLN and the federal government because the Zapatistas declared war against the Mexican army, not the state of Chiapas. The Zapatista leadership saw the problems of Chiapas as national problems-and not just national indigenous problems, but problems of the nation itself, with its current political situation and its current economic model. So, at the outset, the San Andr6s negotiations had quite a disturbing impact on the reigning sense of calm in Mexico. But since then, a series of movements and actions have produced a disjuncture between the negotiating arena and the nationwide peace process. The dialogue, for example, has never been able to overcome the fact that perhaps 40% of the Mexican army is presently occupying the state of Chiapas. A peace process is hardly helped along by the military tensions that are generated by the rather violent patrolling of the region. The army travels through conflict zones pointing their weapons at the population and sending out low-flying patrol planes, all of which heightens the tension. Thus the negotiations and the process of peace itself are not advancing side by side, and in fact are dislocated. This is where we are at this rather tragic moment. The Catholic Church has played an important role in mediating this crisis. Can you tell us how that came to be? First, for the sake of perspective, I would like to say that the Church is not the Bishop. It is made up of Christians. Your assessment that the Church has played an important role is correct, because there are Christians who are very active in the process of social change and reconciliation. Christians have been involved, for example, in promoting dialogue within and between indigenous communities, many of which are being harassed from the outside. The northern region of Chiapas has become a source of concern in this respect. This is a region of remote villages, and until recently, because of the lack of reliable communication, not much has been known about what was happening there. Now we see that there is an continued on page 42VOICES ON THE LEFT ongoing attempt in this region to exacerbate local tensions in order to take away the base of support that the EZLN enjoys here. All this harassment is being undertaken by powerful interests who feel threat- ened by the current political ferment. There has been a great deal of vio- lence in northern Chiapas and those mainly responsible have been shrouded with impunity. Groups of Christians have set up camp in the region to oversee the return of the more than 5,000 people who have been displaced by this violence, some of whose homes were de- stroyed. The situation in this area is being dealt with through negotiation and dialogue. Yet it has not been completely resolved, since some of the agreements-among the commu- nities and between the communities and the government-have yet to be implemented. The actions of Christians and thus of the Chiapas Church in different communities deserves great admira- tion. There are people who are feel- ing the effects of these conflicts and community divisions, but whose We are seeing the increasingly rapid breakdown of social organization as a result of the tremendous power of this globalization. When all values are reduced to merely economic values, we see a tremendous deterioration of society. faith and hope has not wavered and who remain active in the search for reconciliation, even speaking to enemy groups who have killed some of their own people. This work towards peace is indeed a powerful thing. And your own role? My role has been as a member of the National Commission of Mediation (CONAI), which chairs the meetings at the EZLN-government negotiations. CONAI is not simply a disinterested part, but nor are we representatives of either the EZLN or the govern- ment. Our mediation is active at the negotiating table, and also very intense during the periods preceding talks when many communication tasks need to be attended to. Our work intensifies even more when the talks are interrupted. We have remained quite active disseminat- ing information and responses so that both parties can have a full picture of what is going on. This has favored the EZLN which until recently had been suffering from a great deal of isolation, and was consequently at an informational disadvantage. I think this has changed. What would be the ideal result of the peace process for you? What would the future of Chiapas need to look like for there to be peace? the dramatic drop I have to say that the future of Chiapas is part of the future of the United States, Canada, England- the future of the world. We are experiencing the results of a system that is not native to Chiapas; it is a globalized neoliberal system. The First World is not free from blame for what has happened here and in other parts of the world. As long as this system, with all its inhumane consequences, is in place, it is evi- dent that peace will only be cos- metic. We are seeing the increas- ingly rapid breakdown of social organization as a result of the tremendous power of this global- ization. When all values are reduced to merely economic val- ues, we see a tremendous deteriora- tion of society. I can tell you, for example, that one of the final events that pushed the situation towards conflict-the final one but certainly not the only one-was the drop in the price of coffee. This price is set by the inter- national market; it isn't set in Chiapas or in the four coffee-pro- ducing municipalities affected by in the income earned from coffee exports. The impoverishment that resulted from that price drop led some people in those areas to declare war. This situation was the latest in a long list of abuses to which the indigenous people of Chiapas have been subjected. Both the neoliberal economic system and the countries that live within it and promote it are in some way responsible. We cannot ask for radical change in Chiapas without a real transformation of the system which generates these violent situations. In this sense, the question returns northward. In yourjudgement, what are the forces in Mexico and in the world that can accomplish the changes necessary to build a more just system? That is really a question for an economist, because I really do not have that perspective. However, I know that the problem lies there. I think that there are certain things that we cannot expect in an ideal form, like a total transformation of this global system that might open a road to peace. That would be a bit like approach- ing the eve of the apocalypse. I do not think we need to wait for something like that. We can, however, do things that oppose the oppressive dynamics of the sys- tem. For example, if particular productive projects do NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS VOICES ON THE LEFT not acknowledge the places they affect and only slightly benefit the poor in those communities, they must be replaced. There are housing projects, for example, where 40% of the total budget goes to executives and managers, 20% to merchants of materials, 30% to the people on the ground who actually visit the communities, and only 10% reaches the community for whom the hous- ing improvements had been destined in the first place. All the while, the community contributes with its own efforts 80 or 90% percent of the total labor costs of the project and receives only 10% of the funds. This is how this system works at the micro level and at the macro level as well. This is what has to change. Why not instead give the support directly to communities which can themselves make decisions, hire technicians, acquire the materials, and so on? In this way there would be real investment in the communities, which would help them out of their present situations. We can engage in such concrete projections and then rely on the technicians and experts to help us invert the logic of the system. That logic should not be to turn a profit, but to invest in the potential of the lower classes. Why do you think the struggle of an impoverished people with primitive arms in a small corner of Mexico has received so much worldwide atten- tion? Mexico today is highly polarized. I want to reiterate that the Zapatistas did not declare war on the state gov- ernment or on the local police, but on the Mexican army. This is because the conflict is a response to a problem which is not native to Chiapas. The play of forces takes place in a much broader context. It is of national and, as I have sug- gested here, international scope. Moreover, both those who oppose change and those who support it coexist within this context. Because of this, the Zapatistas have been the beneficiaries of strong interna- tional solidarity that has been very important in the playing out of the conflict. The ability of the Zapatistas to gain international recognition, which is so often talked about, has been facilitated by the current global situation. The publicity sur- rounding the situation in Chiapas has been generated by the partial erosion of the lines dividing the First and Third Worlds. The objectives of the global economic system, and in particular the excesses committed under its processes of production, are causing irreparable damage to natural resources and must be transformed. This problem has emerged in Chiapas not because of anything particular about Chiapas, but because the uprising took place as concern was growing about the concrete global threat created by the productive sys- tem. This threat is creating new allies that must strug- gle together for planetary survival. Moreover, the presence of the Third World within the First has in certain ways overcome the borders that once existed. Western Europe is full of peoples from the South and East who not too long ago were insignificant proportions of its population. We can obviously see that Latin America is powerfully present in the United States and in Canada. Mexico's second-largest city is not within the national territory, but in the United States-in California. The same is the case with other groups in certain parts of Europe. The Indian of the American continent- not only in Chiapas but wherever there is an indigenous population- has emerged after 500 years not destroyed or transculturated, but present and aware of Indian values in spite of the weakening of indigenous cultures. Many people see the Zapatista uprising as a revolt on behalf of indigenous people in general. Do you agree? The presence of the Third World in the First coincides with a con- vergence of ecological concerns and demands for social justice. This has contributed to the emer- gence of a new subject: the Indian of the American continent, not only in Chiapas but in Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador, Bolivia, and wherever there is an indigenous population. The Indian has emerged after 500 years not destroyed or transcul- turated, but present and aware of Indian values in spite of the weakening of indigenous cul- tures. This allows us to understand that the Zapatistas emerged without faces because they are represent- ing many unseen faces from else- where which are now emerging as new subjects. The possibility of social transformation is thus cre- ated by these faceless subjects who are part of a new and power- ful continental phenomenon.
