For indigenous communities in Mexico, political and social problems have reached the boiling point. The states of Chiapas, Guerrero, and Oaxaca have slipped into rebellion because of grinding poverty, a corrupt political process, and serious human rights abuses. According to Onesimo Hidalgo, the co-director of the Center for Economic Research and Social Action, even though there are nine armed rebel groups operating in Mexico, many people have chosen to reject armed conflict. Instead, they have embarked on a path of radical non-violence and self-initiated constitutional reform.

Hidalgo was in Vancouver recently as part of a month-long speaking tour in the U.S. and Canada. He has worked for nearly 20 years with indigenous communities in Chiapas and hopes to strengthen the cross-border social justice movement by speaking with people in both Canada and the United States. While in Vancouver, Hidalgo spoke with the author about creating alternatives to the current political system.

Chiapas is located on the southwestern tip of Mexico and is bordered by Guatemala. It is also one of the poorest Mexican states. Nearly 80 per cent of the municipalities live in what the government refers to as a state of “acute marginalization.” Roughly 30 per cent are illiterate, while 62 per cent have not completed primary education. Over 35 per cent of the houses lack sewage or electricity, and 19 per cent of the population that works receives no wage. In 1993 alone, approximately 15,000 people died of malnutrition and curable diseases.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has not only led to the collapse of many small and medium sized businesses, but one of the ongoing consequences of NAFTA, says Hidalgo, is that the price of agricultural products in Mexico is below the cost of production. According to Public Citizen, “NAFTA has eliminated 99 per cent of Mexico’s agricultural tariffs,” leading to a 15-fold increase in the amount of corn dumped onto the Mexican market.

A Dollars & Sense article stated that with over three million farmers growing corn, “NAFTA included a 15 year phase-out period for corn tariffs, along with strict import quotas.” Soon after the phase-out was negotiated, however, farmers were treated to a dose of economic “shock therapy” in which the government refused to collect tariffs and agreed to import at levels above the set quotas.

This downward pressure on agricultural products, coupled with the rising price of basic necessities and the loss of communal farms under NAFTA has created a crisis situation amongst rural farmers.

At the time of the signing of NAFTA, said Hidalgo, roughly “âe¦40 million Mexicans lived in poverty.” Thirteen years after NAFTA was signed into law, the indigenous people in southern Mexico still find themselves at the blunt end of globalization, with “âe¦60 million Mexicans [living] in poverty, [and] 40 million of them living in extreme poverty,” says Hidalgo. This, he says, “is one of the reasons that Mexicans are migrating to Canada, the United States, and Europe.

“The U.S. knew that this would happen,” he said, “and this is why in 1993 they started building the wall [between the U.S. and Mexico].”

Mexico rising

In 1992, President Carlos Salinas ended the historic commitment to land reform for the people of Mexico by amending Article 27 of the Constitution. Article 27 was a major accomplishment of the 1917 revolution. It was the legal foundation for the distribution of community-based farms, referred to as ejidos. By 1992, roughly half of the farmland in Mexico was in the form of these community-based farms, which could not be sold, but was held in perpetuity by the communities. In preparation for the signing of NAFTA, and under pressure from both the United States and Mexican business interests, the government of Mexico not only amended Article 27 but made hundreds of additional amendments to the constitution. The move to eliminate land reform effectively plunged 24 million Mexicans into even deeper poverty, as many were forced from their farms.

On Jan. 1, 1994, when NAFTA became law, a masked peasant army calling themselves the Zapatistas emerged from the jungles and into the still-sleeping town of San Cristobal, and proclaimed NAFTA, a “death sentence.” In response to the peasant uprising, the Mexican military occupied the state of Chiapas with some 70,000 troops.

The fighting between the Zapatistas and the Mexican army lasted less than two weeks. On Jan. 12, 1994 the government and the Zapatistas agreed to a ceasefire, which led to a series of sporadic talks between the two sides. Some two years later, the talks culminated in the signing of the San Andreas Accords, which have yet to be implemented by the government. The Mexican government, in conjunction with paramilitary groups, launched a campaign of low-intensity warfare against the Zapatistas while the peace talks were taking place. In 1995, Chiapas was second only to the country of Columbia for violations of human rights. Violations included disappearances, torture, murder, and rape. In the face of these attacks against the people of Chiapas, they have chosen a surprising alternative to retaliation.

Guerillas in the ethernet

Some 2,400 years ago, Thucydides observed “âe¦that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.” As a result of the communications revolution, this historical balance of power has begun to shift. Despite the fact that in 1994 50 per cent of the world had never made a phone call, consumer technology became a powerful tool for social and political change. Text messaging and e-mail has not only toppled a government in Manila, but has sunk a proposed trade agreement and brought corporate giants like Shell, Nike, and McDonalds to heel. The telecommunications revolution — and particularly consumer technology — has enabled the global justice movement to transcend both traditional media and borders to revolutionize political engagement. The margins are now talking back to the centre in a way never before possible.

Thanks to the Internet and the declining power of states, human rights organizations and social justice groups have been able to engage in a more direct approach and confront governments on their home turf, something that would have been almost unthinkable during the Cold War. Groups such as Christian Peacemaker Teams, WITNESS, and Project Accompaniment have been instrumental in using the World Wide Web to create support networks for fledgling human rights movements. By placing observers on the ground, groups such as these have become the eyes of the world. Today, the national policies of governments are not only a local issue, but part of world consciousness. It is this ability to connect with citizens the world over (and the heightened sense that struggles are indeed shared), which has shaken governments and corporations alike. Perhaps the most striking example of this has come from the Zapatistas themselves.

In reaction to the Mexican government’s contentious land reform policies that arose from NAFTA, the Zapatistas renounced violence and gathered the support of the international community via e-mail communiqués to oppose the treaty. Zapatista supporters and communities have responded to this sentiment in force, forming unarmed civil defence groups and a growing network of international observers, church groups, and human rights organizations. According to the RAND Corporation, the Zapatistas have turned a “war of the flea” into a “war of the swarm” with the use of the Internet. The successful transition from violent uprising to one of civil sector participation marked the Zapatistas as the first postmodern guerrilla army in history.

Tilting windmills

The Zapatistas have stated that they have no interest in obtaining power, holding political office, or even being an army. Their goal is much broader and reaches well beyond simple military conquest — namely, creating a democratic space where divergent viewpoints can be discussed. Out of this democratic space and a hard-wired respect for an autonomous and cooperative approach to social change, another radical idea has arisen.

Running alongside Mexico’s 2006 presidential elections, the Zapatistas started their own campaign. Known as “The Other Campaign”, it began on Jan. 1, 2006 with the Zapatista rebel leader touring the country. For this campaign, which ended in June of the same year, Subcomandante Marcos adopted the name “Delegate Zero.” Marcos, however, was not on the ballot and was not accepting political donations.

Amid death threats and attacks, the second phase of The Other Campaign began at the end of March, 2007, and will continue until April, 2008, says Onesimo Hidalgo. The campaign will have three main stages, with three main axes. The second axis — and perhaps the Zapatistas’s boldest idea — is to create their own “âe¦constituent congress, which will consult with the public for the purposes of drafting a new constitution and have grass roots [support].”

“Once we have this new constitution and the backing of the people, we will to take it to the [Mexican] Congress, with the idea that it will be rejected,” says Hidalgo. “The third axis of this campaign would be the creation of a national plan of struggle which would involve sectors from all over the country, with the purpose of uniting the other movements and paralyzing the country to bring the constitution into power,” said Hidalgo. When asked what he thinks the prospects of success are for such a plan, Hidalgo stated, “I already consider this to be success because we have the moral authority, and the authority to convoke at the national level.”

“But the greatest potential success,” says Hidalgo, “will come if they can gather the joint strength of civil society.”

For anyone interested in traveling to Chiapas, there are many opportunities to do so.