[Zack de la Rocha] We are in Aguascalientes inLa Realidad, Chiapas. It is an honor to be here with InsurgentSubcommander Marcos of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.We want to thank you very much for the opportunity you have givenus to interview you today. [Subcomandante Marcos] Well yes, we are very glad that Latinopeople in the United States are concerned with having the voice ofthe Zapatistas reach all the families who listen to this program.I would like to take the time to explain a little about our wordsand our way of thinking and how the situation is at this time. [Z.D.] Very well, we have a series of questions, so let's beginwith the first one. In January 1994, the armed uprising seems tohave been used to create a political space and a voice for theindigenous people who suffer in Chiapas, and for all poor peoplein all of Mexico. Has this political space been crushed, havethese political avenues ended? [S.M.] Well see, what happened January first of 1994, is theculmination of a conspiratory process, secret, which involved tensof thousands of indigenous people, to, as we say, knocking downthe doors in the house of history, it was above all theculmination of a slow but decisive "enough" which had been ingestation, and led to a howl to the world on January 1st, saying"Here we are", which is the voice of the Zapatista indigenouspeople. A desperate situation in communities with a high mortalityrate, specially among children, with bad health conditions andnutrition, land problems, repression, the ideal framework for anethnocide of huge proportions. Facing that situation, theindigenous communities decided to say "enough"--as we say--andmake themselves known, and make their situation known. Whathappened is that this "enough," this knocking down of the doors inthe house of history by the indigenous people in January 1994,coincided with a period of political crisis in Mexico, or ratherit unleashed it, or made it evident, and also with a crisis at theworld level in respect to ideologies, in respect to hope, and theways to fight or the willingness, that allowed this howl of theindigenous people, "enough!," to acquire reverberations orrepercussions that had not been foreseen by us, that we hadn'teven imagined, as if before in an apparently tranquil sea, or apond, we threw in a rock, and the ripples it produced upontouching the water's surface became waves, huge waves. So whathappened, is that one of the first waves produced by this"enough" of January 1994 is that the Mexican people suddenlyremembered that they have a history, and that within that history,the indigenous people are very important. So in that sense, thefirst reaction of national public opinion was one of turning tosee their indigenous past and toward recognizing that it had beenforgotten and that it was willing to sacrifice it in honor of itshypothetical entry into the first world. At the internationallevel, the first reaction was comparable, for the same reason.What happened in that country which had become a model ofneoliberalism, of the globalization process, of modernization,which suddenly was shaken by an indigenous rebellion, with all itsconsequences. A lot of people expected to see the indigenouspeople carrying bows and arrows, not surfing the internet orcommunicating via satellite. So this first shock allowed for aseries of political spaces to be opened to indigenousparticipation, and for the recognition that in the Mexican nationa new social pact is necessary, a new relationship between thestate and the indigenous communities at the national level. But onthe other hand, the most reactionary sectors to this rearrangementin the political and social life of the indigenous communities inMexico, the great landowners, caciques, finqueros, reacted againby rearming or regrouping their white guards, their death squads,in order to respond. So the political space that had been openedfor the indigenous movement in particular is sort of an accordion,sometimes it expands, sometimes it closes, depending on repressivepolicies that it faces in each of the places it appears. So thatis, let's say, the immediate effect, the most evident of what theZapatista movement is. A second wave, perhaps less intense, thatput the political language in crisis was the whole concept ofnational values, which the party in power had been using, thesystem of the party of the state, and which forced professionalpoliticians to revise the use of words. Politics is suddenly nakedand confronted in the place where it is the most vulnerable, whichis in the meaning given to words. A third wave that thereverberation produced, an even less intense one, is that whichforced the nation to recognize that the spaces for democraticstruggle were not wide enough, so much so that it has beennecessary for a group of citizens to rise up in arms in order tobe heard, and that it is necessary to open the spaces of politicalparticipation, even though it is still understood that politicalparticipation is electoral participation. That caused the lastreform of 1994, in February or March of that year as well as thetalks which we have now to reform the electoral process in Mexico,one which supposedly will guarantee clean elections. Those are thethree great political spaces that have been opened, and, as I wastelling you, are a kind of accordion or balloon which inflates anddeflates every so often depending on social conditions. [Z.D.] The second question is as follows: Is it true that theEZLN is organized based on traditional indigenous communitydemocracy, and what does this mean? [S.M.] Well, yes in fact. There are two levels, and let me remindyou that EZLN was born as a political-military organization,similar to the political-military organizations of the sixties andseventies. I am talking about a very authoritarian centralcommand with decisions made as a group or by an individual, andhence a kind of pyramid where decisions are made at the top andthey run towards the base. When this conception of life andpolitics - authoritarian, political, military - in that sense, isconfronted by the community's conception of life, which is a morehorizontal organization... It is not even an upside-down pyramid,but a horizontal plane where decisions are made collectively--allthe decision of community life, not just the governmentalconditions but also living conditions, religious conditions, evenleisure and pleasure. Those two conceptions crash together and,finally, it is solved in the following manner: On top, in supremecommand, is the horizontal position, the communities representedin the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee, andsubordinated to this supreme command is the military, hierarchicalstructure of the EZLN, which has a general command. In one way oranother, for its political and organizational work, the EZLNfollows the tradition of community democracy - a direct,horizontal democracy, which permeates all aspects of everydaylife. The military side follows the organizational ways of aregular army, with chains of command, with military units,uniforms, with all that. What I am trying to say is that thefundamental base, the one who makes the decisions, is that ofcommunity democracy, and it is the one who subordinates and whogives its raison de etre to the military structure, the EZLNproperly speaking. [Z.D.] Very well, the next question is: What is the actualsituation of the struggle of the Zapatista Army of NationalLiberation? [S.M.] Well, right now we find ourselves in a dialogue with thegovernment, which deals with three aspects: One is to demand andobtain a new pact between the nation and the native inhabitants ofthese lands. I am talking about a solution to the indigenousquestion at a national level. I am talking about their political,social, cultural conditions, their way of life, all of which haveto be solved. A second level is that of the opening of democraticpolitical spaces so it becomes possible to fight through civil andpeaceful means, so it is not necessary to take up arms. I amsaying that the State must guarantee, for the EZLN, and for anycitizen, that it will respect peaceful civil struggles inpolitics. And the third track, or aspect we are looking at, isthe destruction of the State Party System, meaning the end of theparty dictatorship we have in Mexico, and the transition to apolitical model where political forces can compete in equalcircumstances but, above all, where power is at the service ofsociety, where power limits itself only to govern and not todirect society. In other words, let society be the one whodecides which way is it going, and let the government haveadministrative duties. This is what a government should do. Thatis what we mean by 'to rule by obeying.' That dialogue process isa... on one side, it is with the government, on the other, withcivil society, on the other with political forces of oppositionand in yet another, with solidarity groups or national andinternational intellectuals. [Z.D.] Could you please explain the significance of the ZapatistaNational Liberation Front, which you alluded to in the lastquestion, and its proposal for a peaceful transition towarddemocracy in Mexico? [S.M.] The proposal of the Zapatista National Liberation Frontwas born as a meeting place, or as a way to try to build a meetingplace where the Zapatista civilian society could walk towards ameeting with the EZLN, while the EZLN walked towards meeting withthe civilian society. We had had several other attempts, that ofthe Democratic National Convention in 1994, where we told thecivilian society to take command, to direct the transition towarddemocracy. That was not successful. Before that, in January 1st1994, the EZLN attempt to spearhead the transition towarddemocracy, failed. So now we say that the EZLN cannot do it byitself, and the civilian society who symphatizes with Zapatismoalso cannot do it on its own either. So it becomes necessary totry to see if together we can accomplish it. The Zapatista Frontis above all the effort to create a meeting space among these twoforces, were the profile of a political organization which is notfighting for power can be sketched, but a political organizationwhich is fighting, as you mentioned, for the transition towarddemocracy. With destruction of the system of State Party, I amtalking about a party which has... which is part of the Stateitself, it is part of the government, which has a very closerelationship with the great power of capital, which has a veryclose relationship with mass media, and which permeates, orinvades, or contaminates, the width of the social spectrum in sucha way that politics becomes a synonym of corruption, of exercisingpower, of arbitrary acts, so that the transition toward democracyin Mexico means that the system of State Party must be destroyed.It has to die or finish dying - because it seems to be in itsterminal phase - and make room for a new space, and not a changeof personalities or parties in power, but, above all, a change inpolitics, a change in the way politics is carried out and a changein the political players. We think that for the transition towarddemocracy to be effective, the political parties must stop seeingpolitical work as electoral work, society must start seeing thattheir participation in politics goes beyond their participation inthe electoral process and, in general, the government mustunderstand that its relationship with society is not one ofsuperiority, of power exercised over another, but should be one ofsubordination, and its work should be administrative. Broadlyspeaking, those are the lines along which the Zapatista Front ofNational Liberation and the Zapatista Army of National Liberationwould coincide, with the advantage that the Zapatista Front hasmore growth possibilities, to make contacts, insofar that it is apeaceful civilian organization and, at the same time, representsan opportunity to prove to the EZLN that it is possible to dopolitics in ways other than the armed and clandestine way. [Z.D.] Thanks. We now have a series of questions about thesituation with the United States, beginning with this one: Inwhat ways is the government of the United States and the interestof the businessmen, of Capital, in the United States affectingMexico, affecting the struggle of the EZLN? [S.M.] Well, first is... the most evident is the militarymeddling in the Mexican Government's position towards the EZLN.The United States Government has not been satisfied with sendingweapons, equipment, ammunition for the Federal Army to chase,harass or attack indigenous communities, it has also sent advisorswho can be seen in the San Quintin community in the Lacandonjungle or in the Guadalupe Tepeyac community, now occupied by theFederal Army, and also in what used to be the Las Margaritasmunicipality. In addition to that, the United States Governmenthas forced an ever greater dependence of the Mexican Federal Armyregarding its initiatives, regarding its strategy and eventactics. Now they speak without any shame of joint maneuvers.This coincides with the globalization process, and with theintention of the United States to homogenize this globalizationprocess, the intention to make the National Armies disappear andmake them policemen and that there is only one armed force, basedin the United States armies, in the American hemisphere above all,and specifically in the countries who make up the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico.Besides, there is..... the domination of the United Statesfinanciers, of the United States capital in Mexico is clear, thepressure they exercise so that Mexico gets rid of and cheaplysells natural resources such as oil, electricity, railroads. Allthat used to be the national infrastructure has been put up forsale, and it won't be long before they privatize the nationalhealth system (National Social Security Institute) and otherthings which are part or used to be part of the national structurewhich had been created to meet the social needs of the people ofMexico. They would not take long in privatizing the Presidency.Maybe later we will find that the National Palace has beenprivatized and we need to pay, as if it was a toll booth, a fee tobe able to go in. In one way or another, Capital, mainly that ofthe United States, Power, we say, permeates everything, and keepsother political forces from freely developing. The problem hereis that when we speak of the United States' power, is that we fallinto confusing the United States Government with the people of theUnited States, or the power of the United States with the peopleof the United States, the great relationship between the powerfulof the United States with the leaders of the United States to see themselves as owners and masters of the planet. Of course, also asrulers of an underdeveloped country as the Republic of Mexico. Weneed to differentiate that, and how this enters... this country wecall Mexico... how can I put it? For Power in the United States,the world is a huge mall, which has department stores. In thiscase, Mexico is a department store who sells oil and labor,people, Chicanos, say, who are cheap. Sometimes it is cheaper tokeep them in the U.S., if not you have to kill them or chase themor turn them back. Sometimes it is cheaper to keep them in thestore which is Mexico and put them to work there. But that this isconceived in this way by the great owners or those who possessdoes not mean that the people of the United States share eitherthose feelings or expectations. A lot of times they sufferbecause of them. [Z.D.] To what extent has the United States military been directlyinvolved, militarily, in trying to destroy the movement towarddemocracy in Mexico? [S.M.] Well, there are antecedents to that. What we know, what wehave endured as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation is theparticipation of military advisors who have been seen even in thearmed columns which maneuver through the communities - U.S.advisors wearing the U.S. uniform, outright directing militaryunits in the operations they carry out. There are also, withinthe peaceful civilian national movement some complaints. We don'tknow about them directly because it is not in our medium,regarding infiltration or provocations or espionage, above allespionage of the CIA, the FBI and the State Department of theUnited States, of course, the Embassy. You know well that U.S.espionage has the trait of spying on itself. There is a rivalrybetween the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, the embassy. Buteven so, they are more united in Mexico because it is a matter ofa store, which is too close to the house of the owner in thiscase. They face a country which is next door to the country whichconsiders itself the owner the world, so they truly have invadedthe entire political life, I don't think they are very interestedwith the democratization movement, or the democratizing movement.They consider it to be divided, defeated, ugh, too small, and withtoo many defects to consider it an enemy worthy of combat. Whatworries them the most is the different factions which move withinthe power, in order to know who is going to end up in one place oranother. It is evident that their greatest efforts are directed toknowing very well what is happening within the InstitutionalRevolutionary Party and within the National Action Party and thewhole political class who decides, or supposedly decided thedestiny of this country. [Z.D.] What is your opinion of Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and thecoming election in the United States? How could it affect theZapatista Army of National Liberation? [S.M.] Speaking of U.S. politicians, not just of Bill Clinton andMr. Dole, who--evidently--is very liked by the Latino community inthe United States, but about politicians in the U.S. in general,we should at least speak of three great moments. One is in normalpolitical life, say, when there is no electoral political process.There they are one kind of politician, they transform themselvesprevious to the electoral process, during the primaries, when eachparty selects its candidate, and they go through anothertransformation during the electoral process to elect the UnitedStates President. So this way we could speak in general of UnitedStates politics and the subjects it touches upon. When killingLatinos is electorally attractive, they kill them. When it iselectorally attractive to defend Latinos, they defend them. Whenit is electorally attractive to strike Cuba they do so, when it isnecessary to loosen the climate because it will bring votes theyloosen it. There is not a well defined policy in the UnitedStates, not even in the right wing in the United States, speciallyat this time, the pre-electoral process in the United States.Each issue, and one of the most sensitive ones, of course, isMexico. Other issues in foreign policy would be Cuba and theEuropean Economic Community. These are handled by politiciansbased on what market of votes they are interested in capturing,what market of votes are they interested in attracting. So it isvery hard to determine if that is going to be the position of thegovernment who happens to be elected or if they are simplymanipulating electoral positions in order to get ahead. Accordingto our analysis, it seems that the people of the United States arefacing a decision between the right or the right, whether it iswith one party or the other. The minorities, the erroneouslycalled Latino or Black or Asian minorities in the United States,have absolutely nothing to gain from any government who remains inpower, be it Republican or Democrat. Making their rights be heard,or getting them to be recognized, and then respected, does notdepend in the position of a leader or political party in power,but in their internal process of organization and in the strugglethey can develop. I think each time it becomes clearer that theso-called minorities in the United States cannot settle forreceiving the attention, or be the subject of political attentiononly during the political process, and that they must demand tobe taken into account during the whole period. I mean, the Latinocommunity in the United States does not only suffer persecutionand racism during the electoral process, they suffer it throughoutthe year, during the whole governing period, and a lot of timesfrom the very government who during election times said wouldprotect them and respect them. We think that in the UnitedStates, in Mexico, China, Japan, Russia, Italy, Spain, Chile,Ecuador--wherever-- people can only have the rights they arewilling to fight for, willing to defend. Nothing comes from theleaders, whatever their political sign is --center, left orright-- which isn't demanded, or which doesn't have weight in thesocial organization, in the organization of society, as we say, incivil society. Whatever the victorious government is, whetherDemocrat or Republican, in the coming Presidential elections inthe United States, the decision about support to the EZLN willhave to do with calculating the economic interests that the UnitedStates has, mainly its interest in oil. The greatest part of thearea where people sympathize with the EZLN live, or which --likethe Government says-- is under control of the EZLN, is rich in oildeposits. Evidently, the Power in the U.S. will be interested inhow to extract it without any hindrances. We know that the greatbusiness powers in the United States are willing to sacrifice notonly the EZLN, but all the indigenous communities, and erase themfrom the face of the Lacandon jungle in order to extract the oilwithout any hindrances. But it will have to, of course, face manyforces against it. One of them, and a very important one, is thatof the democratic movement in the U.S. in which I would includenot only Chicano organizations and Latinos but also the blackcommunity, intellectuals, members of the left in the UnitedStates, progressive groups, all those movements who see a verylarge social cost to this globalization process, and who are notwilling to continue living, or continue building their well beingbased on crime, based on the suffering of millions of people inother parts of the world. [Z.D.] What are your opinions of the International Monetary Fund,of the mass media, and of Rock and Roll? [S.M.] [laughter] Three very varied subjects, practically from oneextreme to the other... The IMF represents the cruelty, cynicism,and crime with suits, computers and a lot of elegance. The IMF isa huge criminal, as any gangster, but one who dresses elegantlyand who makes great decisions, who kills without staining itshands. With just one decision it makes, the IMF, in order toapprove a loan, can decree death for millions of human beings orcondemn them to an undignified life for a long time. If we aretalking about the International Monetary Fund, we should define itin few words and it is this: A gangster, clinical in committingits crimes. As far as the media, there we have a space forstruggle yet to be defined. There are media who decide to lie intwo manners, be it by saying the contrary to what happens inreality because it benefits power, benefits themselves. Or by nottelling lies--this is another option-- but by creating a newreality, a virtual reality which allows the consumer to escapeeveryday problems. If the consumer or public opinion--whichever way the media decides to call its clients-- sees thatits quality of life is deteriorating, that it lives worse andworse everytime, they will not swallow the news telling them theyare living better. So the only thing the media can do to continuereaching consumers without telling the truth is to invent anotherreality, to invent a world of soap operas, of science fiction, ofmovies, things which allow them to evade the people. On the otherhand we have media who are concerned with knowing the truth anddisseminating it even if it means scandal for one side or another.There are few who do this with professionalism and who understandsthat the work of communication, the work of communicating andinforming, is a respectable profession which can be maderespectable by each other. There is also media who reports what ishappening and propose an alternative. Those are alternative media,as we call them, who criticize a system --a system of values, away of life, an economic system-- and propose an alternative forchange. Among these tendencies in which we could classify media...notice how I am not referring to whether media can be goodbusiness or not. I say all three of them can be good business. Itcan be a profitable business in any of these three tendencies. Andat the end, "Last but not least , " as you say, Rock and Roll, wethink --well this now is on a personal level, because I can't saythat as far as Rock there is a lot of agreement in the EZLN,because the majority here likes Corridos and Rancheras more. Rockhas meant from its beginning a breaking up, in one way or anotheran "enough" from emerging youth, and not just that but of aemerging cultural movement that offered itself as an alternativeto everything which power was offering to control, or legitimizeor influence people in a society. Rock and Roll was able topenetrate to the highest sectors of society and the lowest. Itallowed a communication bridge to be built, one that not onlycrossed social classes but also crossed over nationalities. ForRock and Roll there weren't any borders, nor are there any. Thereare no borders or checkpoints or immigration, nor Border Patrol tostop it. None of those things that any foreigner has to endurewhen entering a country or when going from one country to another.Rock and Roll is, I think, more than anything, defiance --a doubledefiance-- defying the power, defying a cultural structure withtendencies to banalize cultural movements and which attempts toattenuate everything that is rebelliousness. Anyway, Rock hasresisted that as a movement. Even though there are parts of itwhich have finally become part of the system, there are alwaysoutbreaks and cracks through which Rock and Roll begins anew andis able to get out and escape that digestive process through whichthe great system, the great power, has to annex everything. Wefind that Rock and Roll is also defiance for whoever produces it.The challenge of handling the lyrics and the music, of wanting tocommunicate something --a feeling, a way of being, a way ofthinking, a word, the heart, as we say-- also means a challengefor whoever produces Rock and Roll, for whoever consumes it,listens to it, for whoever creates it. It is a sort of mirrorwhich makes one reconsider once again if we are really livingaccording to the way we think. Really, among these three things,I'll keep Rock and Roll. Among the International Monetary Fund,media and Rock and Roll, I choose Rock and Roll. [Z.D.] Very well, thank you. The next question: What message wouldyou give to young people in the United States? [S.M.] Well, the first thing we have to clarify is that themessage would be for young people of all ages. Us young people arethe ones who haven't lost hope, who know we can fight. Becausethere are young people who are very old, and there are old peoplewho are very young. So generally for young people in the U.S., wewould ask them not to let themselves be deceived, to always keepthat freshness and the capacity to wonder in order to recognizethat the world deserves another chance. Not just because of them,the young ones, but also for children and other generations whodeserve a chance, a chance which is not going to come from theones in power. That chance is not going to be a concession fromsome god, whatever the religion is.That chance is not going tocome from an invasion by extraterrestrials either, but that chancecan only be given to them by us, by our fighting in our own place,in our own medium. And I am not talking about running to themountains and taking a rifle, or going to Chiapas. I am talkingabout each one, with their own weapon. Sometimes it is words,sometimes it is a pen, sometimes it is the hands, a machine Intheir own place, in their country, in their own medium, they canfight for giving this world the chance to become a better one. Ithink the world deserves this chance for change, to become better,that us young people of the world deserve that chance, that wedeserve another world. Regardless of what has happened andeverything that has happened, we deserve another world. We don'thave to settle for, nor endure or suffer from the world whichPower has passed on to us. That is my message. [Z.D.] We have one last question. What can people in the UnitedStates do to support the Zapatista struggle? [S.M.] Well, what we ask of them is to keep a... to keep informedof what is happening because we already know that mass media doesnot distribute a lot of news. There are networks in the U.S.,mainly Latino organizations, but not only Latino organizations,who have continuous information about what is happening in theindigenous movement in Mexico, and specifically with the EZLN andChiapas. And we ask them this because information --informationwhich is true and timely-- is that which power fears the most. Itis not worried about killing people. But what worries it, is thatit be known that they are killing people. For those who can gobeyond this, who could become organized, maybe they could gatherfood, medicine or clothing, or money, which is directed not to thecombative force of the EZLN --because we are not fighting for us--but which is directed to the indigenous communities, to men women and children. We ask it for the children above all --food,medicine and clothing for children, or money to get it-- becausethey are the ones who are suffering the most in this season ofhunger in the mountains of the south of Chiapas in Mexico. Duringthe months of June, July and August, there is a lot of death and alot of scarcity on the indigenous tables. And lastly, to invitethem to get organized and come to the Intercontinental Encuentro,where there will be people from Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, andthe American Continent, to try to discover how this common enemy,that now has the name of Neoliberalism, but could have had othernames in a different historic time --or could change its name butnot its way of killing-- affects us. Also to find within ourselveswhat kind of world can we build, what kind of world we deserve, asI was telling you in the last question. That Encuentro is goingto be from the 27th of July to the 3rd of August, here in theindigenous communities. There will be five tables, one of themwill be here in La Realidad, site of this interview today, on June18 1996. Here I am, advertising the Encuentro on the radio. Whatis the radio station? I wanted to take this moment to let it beknown. In the U.S. the National Commission for Democracy inMexico, with offices in Texas, somewhere there, I don't know whereexactly because I don't have a telephone, but evidently there arepeople there in the U.S. who can give you information. That isall. [Z.D.] The phone of the National Commission for Democracy inMexico is (915) 532-8382. We repeat (915) 532-8382. We want tothank you very much, Subcommander Marcos, for giving us thisinterview despite your very busy schedule. We thank youprofoundly. [S.M.] Well, thank you all very much and greetings to the peopleof the United States. Tillbaka