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.
Menu
