Chiapas Support Committee
Home of the Compañero Manuel blog on zapatistas & mexico
Gustavo Castro: Foreign Relations delayed his return
GUSTAVO CASTRO REPROACHES THE SRE’S DELAY IN ATTAINING HIS RETURN FROM HONDURAS
Gustavo Castro Soto
By: José Antonio Román
Gustavo Castro, the Mexican activist held almost a month in Honduras due to being a witness to the murder of Berta Cáceres, reproached the delay with which the Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE, its initials in Spanish) acted to attain his return to national territory.
“Faced with the evident lack of application of Honduran laws in my case, and the irregularities, it’s strange that the Mexican government here had not acted sooner, and that it waited for so long having legal frameworks and mechanisms for doing so,” the coordinator of the Otros Mundos Chiapas organization said.
In his first statements in the country, where he arrived last Friday, he said that this delayed action of the Mexican Chancellery prolonged his stay in the Central American country in the midst of total uncertainty. “For me it was like psychological torture not having clarity about what assistance the government (of Honduras) wanted, what it wanted from me, and also including the possibility that my stay there could be prolonged.”
Castro remained almost a month held “illegally and arbitrarily” by that country’s judicial authorities that are investigating the murder of the human rights defender Berta Cáceres, perpetrated with gunshots in the early morning of last March 3 in the leader’s home casa.
At a press conference, Castro said that it would be “absurd” to oblige him to return to Honduras for the investigation, because during his retention he cooperated with authorities and gave a statement about everything he knew about the Honduran activist’s murder; she had invited him to her country to participate in several workshops on sustainable projects. Berta Cáceres was advising different indigenous communities against a hydroelectric project that would affect several rivers.
Nevertheless, in response to an express question, he pointed out that he has not yet decided whether he will file a complaint or not against the Honduran government for this “arbitrary and illegal” retention committed against him. “It’s something about which I still have to speak with the lawyers,” he said.
On the other hand, representatives from diverse organizations that accompanied Castro’s defense process during his retention lamented the “poor political and diplomatic behavior” that the Chancellery realized from Mexico for a co-national to whom the Honduran State did violence and re-victimized.
They even deplored that Foreign Relations now brags that its gestures caused Gustavo Castro’s return to Mexico, when it was the work of the Mexican activist’s lawyers and the growing national and international pressure demanding his liberation that was cornering the Honduran government into terminating the retention. This is also pointed out in a joint position with the Mexican Network of those Affected by Mining (Rema) and the Mexican Movement of those Affected by Dams and in Defense of Rivers.
They mentioned that the Chancellery proposed waiting for the 30-day “immigration alert” imposed on Gustavo Castro to conclude to act. They were also the ones that offered information to the functionaries for the diplomatic mediation. Chancellor Claudia Ruiz Massieu refused to receive the Mexican activist’s family members, arguing a “tight agenda.”
In contrast, the organizations as well as Castro recognized the “excellent protection operation” that Mexico’s ambassador in Honduras, Dolores Jiménez Hernández, and Consul Pedro Barragán had, for guarantying his security.
———————————————————-
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
En español: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/04/05/politica/014n1pol
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
20 Years of millions of dollars and Chiapas remains poor
MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF A MILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC SPILL AND CHIAPAS REMAINS JUST AS POOR
By: Isaín Mandujano
Chiapas is the state that has received the most resources to combat poverty in the whole country during the last 20 years; nevertheless, the measurements demonstrate that it has not been reduced; to the contrary, it seems to increase in a slow but sustained way. [1]
That’s what they concluded in the presentation of the report “Inequality and Social Exclusion in Chiapas, a long-term view,” realized by Chiapas social and economic researchers and financed buy the international organism Oxfam México.
The document elaborated by Jorge López Arévalo and Gerardo Núñez Medina, two researchers from the Autonomous University of Chiapas (UNACH) reveals the critical situation that exists in Chiapas, which has received millions of dollars since the 1994 armed uprising that have had little impact among the state’s indigenous and campesino communities.
Elvia Quintanar, coordinator of the research project, said that a large part of the reason these resources have no impact, is the corruption with which the bureaucratic government apparatus in Chiapas is plagued at every level, the federal, state and municipal
He said that the lack of any transparency and the absence of accountability favor a recurring corruption that doesn’t end in Chiapas and that consequently, of the resources (funds) that are designated for fighting poverty, only a few drops reach the recipients.
Ricardo Fuentes de Oxfam México said that there is a growing tendency of inequality and that it’s a global phenomenon about which Oxfam has warned since 2014, when it revealed that 85 people possess more wealth than half of the world’s population.
He explained that the inequality crisis that the world is experiencing has special characteristics and that is why, in June 2015, Oxfam México published the document “Extreme Inequality in Mexico: The concentration of economic and political power,” wherein they warned about the gap that exists between those that have it all and those that have nothing.
“We found that in Mexico the fortunes of four people grew five times in the period 1996-2014, while, in the same period, the per capita GNP grew at less than 1% annually. The country with 55.3 million people in poverty is also the country of some of the richest men – yes, men – in the world. “Many Mexicos,” is a common, but no less certain phrase,” Ricardo Fuentes said.
He added that the document presented Thursday in Chiapas, specifically seeks to give a reason for the inequalities that exist in different regions of Mexico, their causes and consequences from territorial and communitarian constructions; as well as the exit routes that can be sketched from the local.
“A system in which it’s possible that 55 million people live in poverty worries us,” he indicated.
The report points out that Chiapas is considered as the state with the greatest concentration of its population in poverty and extreme poverty. Consequently, it is the state that has received the most resources (money) in Programs to Combat Poverty for the last 20 years. However, the measurements show that it has not been reduced; to the contrary, it seems to increase slowly but surely.
The document is divided into four parts: Inequality in Chiapas: the problems on the inside and the outside; Social inequalities: the difference between being born into an indigenous family and into a mestizo family; Inequalities and public expenditures and Development with equity: Conclusions and proposals.
(….)
The document emphasizes that Chiapas, has experienced a slow growth for more than a century, which has deepened in the last 35 years, configuring a weak and unstructured job market: it presents the lowest rate of salaried work at the national level and one of the highest rates of informality, which reached 80% in the second trimester of 2015.
It points out that inside of Chiapas, the precariousness of employment, added to the loss of the real value of wages, are the principal determinants of the economic inequalities. In addition, access to job opportunities is tied to discriminatory factors that sharpen the fragile condition of the indigenous populations.
The report says that during the last century, the population of Chiapas increased and the economy grew; nevertheless, the living conditions of its inhabitants did not improve.
In 2010, Chiapas occupied seventh place in terms of population on a national level, with a total population of 4.79 million inhabitants. In economic terms, the same year it generated 1.8% of the GNP and it occupied the 19th place, as well last place in the country’s per capita GNP.
As a result of a historic process with high rates of population growth, recurring crises and economic stagnation, a vicious circle has been generated between poverty and inequality so that the state reports the highest indices of poverty and inequality in every ambit.
An important Note
[1] Although it is not specifically stated in this article, it is almost certain that Zapatista communities are not represented in this report because the EZLN does not permit this type of research in its civilian communities. Importantly, this study would seem to support the recent EZLN communiqué regarding the deteriorating condition of the non-Zapatista communities affiliated with the political parties.
——————————————————————
Originally Published in Spanish by Chiapas Paralelo
Friday, April 1, 2016
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
IACHR condemns campaign against experts
Members of the Group of Independent Experts
By: Emir Olivares Alonso
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) categorically rejected “the defamation campaign that takes place in Mexico” against the Grupo Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI), which works on the Ayotzinapa Case, and against its Executive Secretary, Emilio Alvarez Icaza Longoria [1] –investigated by the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR, its initials in Spanish) for alleged fraud in prejudice of the Mexican State–; trusted in the functionary’s integrity and classified the complaint against him as “unfounded and reckless.”
The IACHR gave its complete support to the members of the GIEI and to the work they have carried out for almost a year, as well as their reports. It reminded that family members of the victims as well as government representatives endorsed the selection of the five experts.
It also gave total support to Alvarez Icaza, denounced before the PGR by José Antonio Ortega Sánchez, president of the Citizen Council for Security and Criminal Justice, [2] for alleged fraud damaging the Federation for almost 2 million dollars, money destined for the investigation of the Ayotzinapa case.
On this point, the IACHR expressed its absolute confidence in Alvarez Icaza’s integrity, because the money was deposited directly in the accounts of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States by means of the secretary of administration and finances. “The IACHR did not administer those resources; so, neither did the executive secretary.”
It emphasized that at the signing of the cooperation agreement with Mexico –adhered to by government authorities and representatives of the victims–, Alvarez Icaza acted in representation of the Secretary General of the OAS.
“The IACHR expresses its consternation and considers inadmissible the opening of a preliminary investigation into the basis for that complaint, which because of not containing any act constituting a crime turns out to be reckless and unfounded,” and expressed confidence in Alvarez Icaza’s innocence because his behavior is known, in relation to the specific theme as well as in relation to his whole term.
The human rights organism stated that the three parties that subscribed to the agreement agreed to the GIEI’s incorporation “for carrying out a technical verification of the actions initiated by the Mexican State” after the disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students, beneficiaries of precautionary measures.
It emphasized that the report of the investigation and the GIEI’s first general conclusions, presented on September 6, 2015, pointed to “irregularities, inconsistencies and/or absences in the investigation of the facts by the state authorities. In particular, it questioned ‘the historic truth,’ a version of the facts announced by then head of the PGR, Jesús Murillo Karam, saying that the normalistas had been incinerated in the Cocula garbage dump. As a consequence of the GIEI’s work and recommendations, the Mexican State has pointed out that new lines of investigation have been opened, which represents a significant advance in the search for truth and justice in this case.”
[1] Prior to his appointment as the Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Emilio Alvarez Icaza was a key member of Javier Sicilia’s Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity. He was also president of the Federal District’s Human Rights Commission. http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2012/092.asp
[2] The Citizens’ Council for Public Security and Criminal Justice has previously been described as an ultra-conservative and pro-military rightwing group. See: http://compamanuel.com/2016/02/04/ayotzinapa-investigators-face-rightwing-smears/
———————————————————-
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
En español: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/03/30/politica/006n1pol
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
Gustavo Castro returns to Mexico
THE ACTIVIST GUSTAVO CASTRO SOTO RETURNS TO MEXICO AFTER BEING HELD FOR 27 DAYS IN HONDURAS
Gustavo Castro Soto
By: Blanca Juárez
The activist Gustavo Castro Soto, the only witness to the homicide of the environmentalist Berta Cáceres returned to Mexico yesterday after being retained for almost a month by Honduras authorities in that country.
Just this Thursday Honduran justice revoked the order for the director of Otros Mundos/Friends of the Earth-Mexico to remain there as a witness and collaborate in the clarification of the Cáceres murder, perpetrated by unknown individuals last March 3.
He arrived at the International Airport in Mexico City a little after 11 o’clock in the morning on Flight TAI430 of Avianca Airlines. The plane made a stop in El Salvador and afterwards headed for Mexico.
The sociologist traveled in the company of his brother Oscar and of the Mexican Consul in Honduras, Arturo Corrales. Other family members received him when he arrived, as well as authorities from the Secretariat of Foreign Relations, who assisted him in his return, according to information from that department.
After his arrival, Castro Soto was led to a distinct area of the arrival gate, where various reporters were already waiting for him, but he did not give statements to the press.
Last March 6, three days after the armed attack in the home of the social struggler Berta Cáceres, and in which the Mexican received minor injuries, authorities of the Central American country impeded his exit. They intercepted him at the Tegucigalpa International Airport when he was attempting to take a flight to Mexico.
Cáceres was the coordinator of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. La indigenous Lenca woman stopped one of the largest hydroelectric projects in her country, which would have affected nearby communities if it had been completed.
Despite the formal request from the Mexican government –which was repeated on several occasions– for the environmentalist to be able to return to the country as soon as possible, the sociologist could not abandon Honduras until yesterday.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) requested Gustavo Castro’s presence in Washington on next April 6 so that he participates in the 157th session. They permitted the activist to leave after the Mexican government’s insistence and international pressure.
———————————————————–
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
Saturday, April 2, 2016
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/04/02/politica/007n1pol
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
Chomsky: Humanity’s most critical moment
THIS IS THE MOST CRITICAL MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY
In an extensive conversation, Chomsky reviews the principal tendencies on the international scene, his country’s militarist escalation and the growing risks of nuclear war. He stops on the United States electoral process and sketches a reflection on hopes for peace in Colombia
Noam Chomsky in an image from September 2009 during a visit to Mexico. Photo: Carlos Ramos Mamahua
By: Agustín Fernández Gabard and Raúl Zibechi
“The United States was always a colonizing society. It was eliminating the indigenous population even before being constituted as a State, which meant the destruction of many Native nations,” the U.S. linguist and activist Noam Chomsky synthesizes when he was asked to describe the global political situation. A most bitter critic of the foreign policy of his country, he maintains that since 1898 the international scenario was upset with the control of Cuba, “which was essentially converted into a colony,” and by later invading the Philippines, “murdering a couple of hundred thousand people.”
He continues patching a sort of counter-history of the empire: “Later it robbed Hawaii of its original population, 50 years before incorporating it as one more state.” Immediately after the Second World War the United States became an international power, “with power unprecedented in history and an incomparable security system, it controlled the Western hemisphere and both oceans, and naturally drew up plans for trying to organize the world to suit its whim.”
He accepts that the superpower’s power has diminished with respect to what it had in 1950, the peak of its power, when it accumulated 50 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product, which has now fallen to 25 percent. Even so, it still seems necessary to remember that the United States continues being “the richest and most powerful country in the world, and is incomparable on the military level.”
A one-party system
Chomsky compared the elections in his country with the selection of a brand of toothpaste in a supermarket. “Ours is a country with only one political party, the party of enterprise and businesses, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans,” he proclaims. But he believes that it’s no longer possible to continue talking about those two old political communities, since their traditions suffered a complete mutation during the neoliberal period.
“The modern republicans are the ones that call themselves Democrats, while the old Republican organization remained outside the spectrum, because both parties moved to the right during the neoliberal period, just like what happened in Europe.” The result is that the new Hillary Clinton Democrats have adopted the program of the old Republicans, while those were completely displaced by the neoconservatives. “If you look at the TV spectacles where they say they are debating, they just shout at each other and the few policies that they present are terrifying.”
For example, he emphasizes that all the Republican candidates deny global warming or are skeptical, which means that while they don’t deny it they say that the governments shouldn’t do anything about it. “Nevertheless, global warming is the worst problem that the human species has ever confronted, and we are heading for a complete disaster.” In his opinion, climate change has effects only comparable to nuclear war. Even worse, “the Republicans want to increase the use of fossil fuels. We are not facing a problem of hundreds of years, but rather of one or two generations.”
The denial of reality, which characterizes the neoconservatives, responds to logic similar to that which impels the construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. “Those people that we try to turn away are those who flee from the destruction caused by United States policies.
“In Boston, where I live, a couple of days ago the Obama government deported a Guatemalan that lived here for 25 years; he had a family, a business, he was part of the community. He had escaped from the Guatemala destroyed during the Reagan administration. In response, the idea is to construct a wall to protect ourselves. It’s the same in Europe. When we see that millions of people flee from Libya and Syria to Europe, we have to ask ourselves what happened in the last 300 years to arrive at that.”
Invasions and climate change feed on each other
The type of conflict that we observe today in the Middle East didn’t exist just 15 years ago. “It is a consequence of the United States invasion of Irak, which is the worst crime of the century. The US-British invasion had horrible consequences, they destroyed Irak, which is now classified as the least happy country in the world, because the invasion cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and generated millions of refugees, which were not given shelter by the United States and they had to be received by poor neighbor countries that were in charge of picking up the ruins of what we destroyed. And worst of all is that they instigated a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that did not exist before.”
Chomsky’s words remember the destruction of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, instigated by the West. Just like Sarajevo, he emphasizes that Bagdad was an integrated city, where the different cultural groups shared the same barrios, married members of different ethnic groups and religions. “The invasion and atrocities that followed instigated the creation of a monstrosity called the Islamic State, which was born with Saudi financing, one of our principal allies in the world.”
In his opinion, one of the greatest crimes was the destruction of a large part of the Syrian agricultural system, which assured nourishment, and which drove thousands of people to the cities, “creating tensions and conflicts that explode just as the repression begins.”
One of his most interesting hypotheses consists in crossing the effects of the Pentagon’s armed interventions with the consequences of global warming.
In the war in Darfur (Sudan), for example, the interests of the powers converge with the desertification that expels entire populations from the agricultural zones, which aggravates and sharpens the conflicts. “Scary crises flow from these situations, like those that happen in Syria, where the biggest draught in their history is taking place. It has destroyed a large part of the agricultural system, generating displacements and exacerbating tensions and conflicts,” he reflects.
We have still not thought thoroughly, he emphasizes, about what this denial of global warming implies and the long-term plans of the Republicans that seek to accelerate it: “If the sea level continues rising and goes up much faster, it will swallow countries like Bangladesh, affecting hundreds of millions of people. The Himalayan glaciers are melting rapidly putting the water supply for Southern Asia at risk. What will happen to those hundreds of millions of people? The imminent consequences are horrendous, this is the most important moment in the history of humanity.”
Chomsky believes that we are facing a turn of history in which human beings must decide if we want to live or die: “I say it literally. We are not all going to die, but the possibilities of a dignified life would indeed be destroyed, and we have an organization called the Republican Party that wants to accelerate global warming. I don’t exaggerate –ending it– it’s exactly what they want to do.”
Next, he quotes the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and his Doomsday Clock, to remind that the specialists say that at the Paris Conference on global warming it was impossible to get a binding treaty, only voluntary agreements. “Why? It’s because the Republicans would not accept it. They have blocked the possibility of a binding treaty that could have done something to impede this massive and imminent tragedy, a tragedy like never has existed in the history of humanity. What we are talking about, are not things of minor importance.”
Nuclear war, a certain possibility
Chomsky is not one of the people that are impressed by academic or intellectual modes; his radical and serene reasoning seeks to avoid furors and, perhaps because of that, he is reluctant to ring the bells quickly over the announced decadence of the empire. “It has 800 [military] bases around the world and invests as much in its army as the whole rest of the world together. No one has anything like that, with soldiers fighting everywhere in the world. China has a principally defensive policy, doesn’t have a big nuclear program, although it’s possible that it may increase.”
The case of Russia is different. It’s the principal stone in the shoe of the Pentagon’s domination, because “it has an enormous military system.” The problem is that Russia and the United States are both expanding their military systems; “both are acting as if war were possible, which is collective craziness.” He thinks that nuclear war is irrational and that it could only happen in the case of an accident or human error. Nevertheless, he agrees with William Perry, ex Secretary of Defense, who said recently that the threat of nuclear war is greater today than what it was during the Cold War. Chomsky estimates that the risk is concentrated in the proliferation of incidents that involve the armed forces of nuclear powers.
“War has been very closer innumerable times,” he admits. One of his favorite examples is what happened during the government of Ronald Reagan, when the Pentagon decided to put Russian defenses to the test through the simulation of attacks against the Soviet Union.
“It turned out that the Russians took it very seriously. In 1983, after the Soviets automated their defense systems, they detected a US missile attack. In these cases the protocol is to go directly to the high command and to launch a counter-attack. There was one person that had to transmit this information, Stanislav Petrov, but he decided that it was a false alarm. Thanks to that, we are here talking.”
He maintains that the United States’ defense systems have serious errors and a couple of weeks ago a case from 1979 was published, when a massive Russian missile attack was detected. When the National Security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was picking up the telephone to call President James Carter and to launch an attack in reprisal, the information arrived that it was a false alarm. “There are dozens of false alarms every year,” he asserts.
At this time the provocations of the United States are constant. “NATO is carrying out military maneuvers 200 meters from the Russian border with Estonia. We would not tolerate something like that happening in Mexico.”
The most recent case was the downing of a Russian fighter that was bombing Jihadist forces in Syria at the end of November. “There is a part of Turkey almost surrounded by Syrian territory and the Russian bomber flew across that zone for 17 seconds, and they brought it down. A great provocation that luckily was not responded to with force, but it took their most advanced anti-aircraft system into the region, which permits it to bring down NATO planes.” He argues that similar acts are happening daily in the China Sea.
The impression that one infers from his gestures and reflections is that if the powers that are attacked by the United States acted with the same lack of responsibility as Washington, the die would be cast.
———————————————————–
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
Sunday, February 7, 2016
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/02/07/politica/002n1pol
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
EZLN: Progress on “The Zapatistas and ConSciences for Humanity”
PROGRESS ON THE ENCOUNTER “THE ZAPATISTAS and THE CONSCIENCES FOR HUMANITY”
ZAPATISTA NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY
MEXICO
March 2016
Compas and non-compas:
Now we are going to let you know how plans are going for the Encounter “The Zapatistas and the ConSciences for Humanity”:
As of March 14, we have received 50 applications for the event.
There are applications from Norway, Brazil, Chile, France, the USA, Japan, and Mexico.
Scientific disciplines: So far invitations are being considered for scientists of Astronomy, Biology, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Medicine, Genetics, Pediatric Pathology and Nephrology, and Microbiology. We will continue to keep you informed of further developments with the invitations.
The scientists invited to the encounter “The Zapatistas and the ConSciences for Humanity” can offer a critical reflection on their scientific theory or practice, or an explanation of the general elements of their specialty given in an accessible manner (that is, an educational talk).
The email address where you can register to attend the encounter “The Zapatistas and the ConSciences for Humanity” is: conCIENCIAS@ezln.org.mx.
Date and location for the ConSciences Encounter: December 25, 2016 to January 4 2017, with an ‘intermission’ on December 31 and January 1. It will be held at CIDECI in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.
Only the invited scientists with their exhibitions and the selected Zapatista youth with their questions will be given the floor at the festival.
There is no cost for registration but the Zapatistas cannot pay for travel, lodging, or food.
Boys and girls may attend as videntes [viewers] and escuchas [listeners], but must be accompanied by a responsible adult.
The production, consumption and sale of drugs and alcohol are strictly forbidden.
That is all for now.
Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés. Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano.
Mexico, March 2016.
From the diaries of the cat-dog:
Echoes of March 8i
March 8, 2016. Place: EZLN Headquarters. Document obtained from the diary of someone calling himself “supgaleano,” thanks to the Trojan malware called “finders keepers, losers weepers” version 6.9.
Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés and the present writer were here discussing the upcoming CompArte festival and how the Zapatista communities are organizing to participate. While we were talking a compañera insurgenta came in and said simply: “there is going to be a soccer game. We women were challenged to a game.” I knew the motivation behind this, because it was not the first time that it had happened. Let me tell you that in this barracks, the insurgent women [insurgentas] outnumbered the insurgent men [insurgentes] two to one. To explain this difference in numbers, there are two different stories: the official version is that it is because the majority of the insurgentes are doing highly specialized work which only men can carry out with panache and grace; the real version is that there are in fact more compañeras than compañeros. Publishing the real version is of course prohibited, so only the official version has been distributed to the Tercios Compas.
Despite this reality, obvious from a simple glance, it occurred to one of the insurgentes to say as he finished breakfast: “since today is March 8, we men challenge the women to a game of soccer.” The commanding officer realized the error almost immediately, but the deed had been done. A female official from the insurgent health service responded: “it’s on.” The men crowded around the naïve challenger to scold him. Realizing the reason for the frustration that was spreading through the masculine ranks, the insurgente tried to clarify, “but with an equal number of players on each team.” “No way,” said the women, “you said that the men challenged the women, and so it is all of the insurgentes against all of the insurgentas.”
Clouds began forming in the sky and a strong wind foreshadowed misfortune.
After lunch (the menu was tamale shakes and coffee with chili pepper), an insurgenta came by to let us know that the game was about to start and asked if we were going. Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés couldn’t go because he had to review the registration list for the festival. I abstained, intuiting that the environment would not be a propitious one for gender inequity. So neither of us went.
The horizon was already darkening when they returned. On earth and in the sky the storm is lady and mistress of everything.
The insurgenta arrived to report in. I asked her how the game had gone and she responded, “we tied.” “How many to how many?” I asked. “I don’t remember” she said, “but we won a game and then we changed sides on the field and they won, so we tied: one each.” She said it with such self-confidence that she seemed like the president of the National Electoral Institute reporting the official results of any election.
Something smelled fishy to me, and so I went to see the commanding officer and asked about the results: “We won 7 to 3” he responded tersely. “But the Health insurgenta said that you tied because they won one game and you all the other?” I asked. The official smiled and clarified: “no sup, we only played one game; what happened was that in the first half they were winning 3 to 2, and in the second half, after switching sides on the field, we made 5 goals. The result: insurgentes – 7, insurgentas – 3.” Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés, spokesperson of the eezeeelen, in the name of all of the Zapatista men, women, children and elders exclaimed: “We men won!” Another insurgenta who was walking by admonished “what is this about ‘we men won,’ ha! you two didn’t even go.” “It doesn’t matter,” said the official spokesperson of the eezeeelen, “we men won.” The storm appeared to diminish and the wind and water settled down. But the horizon was far from clear.
Later that night, when as we toasted masculine supremacy with our coffee, Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés explained to me: “Look, what happened is that among the men, only two of them really know how to play soccer and both of them were on guard duty, so in the first half the insurgentes were down two players and the insurgentas, well, there’s already more of them. In the second half, those two guys finished their shift and they were incorporated into the game and well, the men won.”
I asked if the insurgentas knew how to play soccer: “they do,” he said, “but they also have one player who is young and runs up and down the field and everywhere; she is the team’s real strategist and tactician because when she gets tired of running she just yells, “ball, ball” and all of the insurgentas run and surround the guy who has the ball and they all kick and since there is only one ball, well, a whole lot of kicks get the compañero.”
We raise our cold cups of coffee and toast the new triumph of gender even in adverse conditions.
In the mountains, the wind and rain had already drunk of the nocturnal force. It was not yet morning when they subsided, with even more force if that is possible.
But (there’s always a “but”), the next day at breakfast one of the men, with ill intentions, asked how the soccer game had gone, “We tied,” an insurgenta rushed to say before the little machos managed to respond, and she turned to the other women around her: “Right compañeras?” “Yeessss!” they all shouted and, well, since they are the majority, well…anyway, the risks of democracy.
That is how the insurgentas converted a sports defeat into a triumph and won…with a tie. Final score: insurgentes – 1, insurgentas – 2.
But the machos didn’t give up so quickly, they asked for a re-match. “Sure” said the compañeras “but next year.”
Desperate, the insurgentes looked to the person who best encapsulates the highest values of machismo-Zapatismo, which is to say, me. They asked me when “men’s day” was.
“What?” I asked them.
“Yes,” they said, “if there is a woman’s day, then there must also be a man’s day.”
“Ah” I agreed, understanding: ”yes indeed there is one.” And I showed them what, with concise wisdom, one tiger had tweeted: “Men’s day” (when you celebrate the slavery of the woman to the work of rearing children) already exists. It is May 10.”
I think that they didn’t understand what you might call my sarcastic tone because they went away saying, “Ah, ok well then it’s still a little while off.”
-*-
Reading comprehension questions:
- – Is the health insurgenta who subverted the semantics in FIFA’s rules a feminazi, a lesbo-terrorist, or someone who does away with the rules, destroying imposed [gender] roles and damaging masculine sensibility?
- – Is the person who summarized with such grace what happened on this fateful March 8, 2016, in a Zapatista barracks: hetero-patriarchal, Eurocentric, species-ist, ableist, classist and etceterist, one more victim of the system (well look at that, it sounds like the name of a music group), or does he not celebrate May 10 because he lacks the above listed attributes?
- – As the women that we are, should we give a rematch to those damned men who, well, you know, you give them an inch and they want a mile?
Send your responses to the concierge of the Little School. Note: all not-so-nice comments will be returned to sender.
I testify under gender oath/protest:
SupGaleano
March 8, 2016
i_ March 8 is known around the world as International Women’s Day.
ii_ The original is “mentadas que no sean de menta.” “Mentada” is like a telling-off or insult. Menta is mint. Literally this would be unminty insults.
———————–
Nestora Salgado: I will fight to free political prisoners
Family members, friends and activists received Nestora Salgado upon leaving the Tepepan women’s prison in Mexico City. Photo: Yazmín Ortega Cortés.
By: Georgina Saldierna and Josefina Quintero
Yesterday, the leader of the Regional Coordinator of Community Authorities-Community Police (CRAC-PC), Nestora Salgado García, committed to continue fighting for the liberation of the 500 political prisoners that there are in the country, among them nine of their compañeros, after attaining her release after almost three years of prison accused of kidnapping.
She added that she went free because she is innocent and rejected that they had permitted her to leave prison on the condition that she abandon the country. “Those are stories that are told… I don’t have any reason to flee. I can hold my head up very high because I am not ashamed of anything,” she emphasized.
At 9:49 in the morning, the community police commander of Olinalá, Guerrero, abandoned the Tepepan women’s prison, where family members, friends and community colleagues were waiting for her. Once she greeted and hugged her allies, Salgado García headed to the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Centro to offer a press conference that at times derived into a political meeting.
The place was insufficient for the dozens of members of social organizations that sought to express their support, so that many of them had to remain outside the building. Among the attendees that achieved entering, the priests Alejandro Solalinde and Miguel Concha stood out, as well as Ayotzinapa activists and leaders from the Peoples Front for the Defense of Land, like Ignacio del Valle.
Nestora Salgado made use of the word after family members of political prisoners that are also members of the CRAC-PC criticized the detention of people that have fought for the good of their people and that the criminals remain free. It was the participation of Grisel Rodríguez, Nestora’s daughter, who at the point of tears lamented the three years of life that her mother lost in prison that no one is going to return.
In a 25-minute discourse, the commander said that she would continue fighting for the liberation of political prisoners and if it is necessary to be crucified in order to obtain it, that’s what she’s going to do. “If I have to end up in front of the United Nations building, I’m going to do it,” she emphasized.
She made a call to add on to this campaign and, in particular, she asked the governor of Guerrero, Héctor Astudillo Flores, for the prompt release of her political fellows, because they are not criminals, added.
She assured that she was detained for denouncing the corrupt municipal president of Olinalá, Eusebio González; the town prosecutor Patrón Jiménez and the ex governor of Guerrero Ángel Aguirre Rivero. “Thanks to him I was passing horrible times,” she accused.
She also considered that staying in prison without having committed a crime provokes horrible psychological damage. “It feels like being buried alive,” she added, and next added that for 20 months she was incommunicado and isolated for a crime that she didn’t commit.
Salgado García said that with that they delight in causing the greatest harm and pain possible to those who are defenseless and that it’s difficult to fight against the government, when there is a countersign. Later she judged that Isabel Miranda de Wallace, of the Stop the Kidnapping organization, didn’t have the heart to accuse her, but “I already forgave her.”
Similarly, she said she isn’t afraid of reprisals and reported that she would travel to the United States to take care of a health problem. Upon returning from that trip, she insisted, she will continue fighting. But she asked that they not come to offer anything, because she would not occupy any political position.
To the question about what message she sent to President Enrique Peña Nieto, the commander asked him to respect the indigenous peoples and the community police.
In the press conference as well as upon leaving the Tepepan prison she thanked those who promoted her freedom for their support. She demanded the same support for the parents of the disappeared Ayotzinapa students and that justice is done. She added that she distanced herself from any political party and clarified that she is not campaigning, because her principal motive is the people’s defense.
On the esplanade of the re-adaptation center, one by one the members of the community police greeted her and put themselves at her orders, because they said that for them she continues being the commander in chief.
After the reception and the symbolic breaking of the handcuffs that tied her hands, Nestora emphasized that her freedom is due to everyone.
The community leader was detained on August 21, 2013 accused of committing 50 kidnappings.
In the evening, Nestora Salgado met with students and members of social organizations at the Autonomous University of Mexico City, Del Valle building, she remembered the situation of injustice that is experienced in the peoples; consequently, now “that the doors of other countries are being opened to us, I will go and talk about the injustices.” She affirmed that she would do everything within her power to help people.
——————————————————————-
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
En español: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2016/03/19/politica/003n1pol
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
About CompArte: a few questions, a few answers
ABOUT CompArte: A FEW QUESTIONS, A FEW ANSWERS
Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés. Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano
Zapatista National Liberation Army
Mexico
March 14, 2016
Compas and non-compas:
We write to tell you a little about how plans are going for the activities in July, October, and December of 2016. We have received a few questions, so here are a few answers, but only regarding the festival “CompArte for Humanity.”
“How is the registration for the art festival looking?”
As of March 12, 2016, we had registered:
21 attendees from Mexico and 5 from other countries; and,
99 participants from Mexico and 30 from other countries (Chile, Argentina, Greece, Canada, United States, Spanish State, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Peru, Cross-border or Without Borders, Uruguay, France, and the Sufi Community with Islamic music).
“What kinds of activities or artistic works are registered so far?
According to those who have registered so far, there is: rap, poetry, visual arts, contemporary dance, painting, engraving, literature and stories, theater, puppets, embroidery, iron work, silk-screening, photography, documentaries, cinema, sculpture, ceramics, short films, illustration, reggae, rock, graffiti, gastronomy, aerial dance, murals, music, music, and more music.
“What is this about “alternate sites” for the CompArte Festival?”
We are hoping that the compas of the Sixth in Mexico and in the world understand what you might call the subliminal message of the convocation and organize activities—in their own geographies and in accordance with their own calendars—either before, during, or after the festivals/gatherings convoked by the Zapatistas. That is, we hope that whether at local, regional, zone, or national levels, the Sixth organizes festivals and gatherings to give space for and echo to artistic activities. And of course, also to celebrate the National Indigenous Congress’ 20 years of rebellion and resistance, as well as a space where scientists will find attentive ears and critical thought.
“Is it necessary to register to attend, without participating in, the ‘CompArte’ festival?”
Yes, just clarify that you are registering as an attendee.
“Is necessary to register to attend and participate in the “CompArte” festival?”
Yes, and we ask you to specify the form your participation will take.
“What is the email where one can register for the ‘CompArte for Humanity festival’?”
The email is comArte@ezln.org.mx
“Can you tell me again the dates and locations for the ‘CompArte for Humanity’ festival?”
No, those are already in the communiqué from February 29…. Okay, okay okay, here they are:
Dates: July 17-30, 2016
Location:
July 17-22 in the Caracol of Oventik. Only Zapatista bases of support will participate in this part. Attendance is open for escuchas [listeners] and videntes [viewers], but requires registration.
July 23-30, 2016 in CIDECI, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas. All registered artists can participate. Attendance is open for listeners and viewers, but requires registration.
“Is there a registration fee, either for attendees or participants?
No.
“Are you (Zapatistas) going to pay for travel expenses, food, and lodging?”
No.
“According to Zapatismo, is gastronomy an art?”
Everyone can categorize their practice as they see fit. In the case of the difficult culinary arts, the insurgentas, as an echo of March 8, will contribute a menu that is…hmm… how can I put it… disconcerting: “tamale shakes and coffee with chili pepper” (note: for the tamale shake they don’t use a blender or any other machine, only the cooking fire and their “wisdom”). I already suffered… I mean, tasted it and it is… disconcerting.
“Can children participate?”
Yes, children can register to participate or attend. Except for the girls, because what a shame, the deadline has passed, it was March 8, so oh well…eh? But it’s that… ay! Okay, okay okay: the girls can register too. Note: all minors should be accompanied by a mother or father or tutor, tutora, or tutoroa.
“Is anything banned from these events?”
Yes, the production, consumption, or sale of drugs and alcohol is strictly forbidden. If you aren’t capable of making or enjoying art without taking something before or during, well your method is mistaken.
“There still isn’t a report back on the Little School?”
No. The questions sent by students are currently being reviewed. When something is ready, we’ll let those interested know.
That’s all for now.
Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés. Subcomandante Insurgente Galeano.
Mexico, March 2016.
From the diaries of the cat-dog:
The time of the police (part one):
One: In Mexico, a Latin American country that suffers the global crisis like they all do, but which is fueled by the solid triad of corruption-clumsiness-ignorance made into a government, the official in charge of public education, Aurelio Nuño Mayer, cannot hide his passion for the policing profession. Encouraged by his accomplices, Mr. Nuño believes that he can win the presidential candidacy for his party, the PRI, if he functions more as paid thug than as promoter of Mexican education. Fond of making threats, running his own repressive squads, and operating like any boss in the early stages of savage capitalism, Mr. Nuño finds special pleasure in converting the teaching profession into a destination not for better schools, training, and salaries, but for arbitrary injustices, beatings, and firings. Playing the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury; of Labor Minister (decreeing firings without severance); of Minister of the Interior (using the police and the army at his whim); of clumsy media spokesperson, dismal builder of “spontaneous” support, and twitterer in permanent slow motion, Mr. Nuño’s only resumé merit is having sheltered himself within that group of criminals who engage in criminal activity with total immunity. Despite his suits and ties, his heavily made up and photo-shopped media image, Mr. Nuño cannot hide what he has always been: a sad and mediocre policeman who gets pleasure from and money for repressing and humiliating others. Mr. Nuño has always longed to be a good policeman, but… when the den of thieves is insufficient to accommodate so many, when his secret protector falls, Mr. Nuño will also show he is a good runner… when fleeing becomes the order of the day.
Another one: In this country known in the realm of the world cups (although no further than the quarterfinals) as “Mexico,” in the so-called “highest place of study,” the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM), Mr. Enrique Graue Wiechers has reached the highest bureaucratic position (and ladder to governmental post): the title of rector [like chancellor or dean]. In addition to the fact that his academic and professional career has been located within the bureaucracy of academia and carefully guided by the Zedillo Ponce de León family’s psychiatrist, Mr. Graue did his graduate work in a North American university know for having invented the energy drink self-named “Gatorade,” which should give you an idea of how advanced he is in his specialty field of ophthalmology. A few days ago, Mr. Graue declared he was “outraged” because of the insufficient quantity of drugs police planted on one of the activists from the Che Guevara Auditorium (which the university authorities are futilely trying to call the Justo Sierra Auditorium). Mr. Graue was not enraged that the federal budgeting for higher education would not be sufficient to cover hundreds of thousands of young people; nor was he enraged by the mercantilist conditions that academic faculty and staff are subjected to; nor was he enraged because the UNAM has become a nest of undesirables, that is, of bureaucratic functionaries who don’t even know how to write the name of their overseer (that is, the rector); nor was he enraged by the lack of security endured by faculty, staff, and students on the UNAM campuses (assaults, rapes, and murders); and he was not enraged because an anti-democratic gangsterism had placed, in the highest post of the “highest place of study,” a mediocre bureaucrat.
No, Mr. Graue was enraged because the police didn’t do a good job of setting someone up to be framed. And this outrages Mr. Graue because all his life he has endeavored to be a good police agent. With his indignant police discourse (seconded by people who don’t even know where the Justo Sierra Auditorium is, much less the Che Guevara), Mr. Graue gives a lecture: “the problem with higher education in Mexico lies with a vegetarian cafeteria, a screen printing workshop, and a bakery training space, among other things. These subversive activities are promoted by a group of anarchists, that is, dirty, ugly, and bad people who contrast sharply with the neatness and style of the university bureaucracy. They don’t even sell Gatorade, but rather water and juices of unknown origin. They are drug addicts (the high, medium, and low-ranking officials hide cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy, and even crack and an occasional roach in their desk drawers —even within bureaucracy there are classes, my friend), they’re anarchic-anarchists, not part of the university community (various officials swallow hard) and that auditorium… the auditorium, what’s that auditorium… secretary quick, what’s the name of that auditorium that we want to liberate.. ah yes, the Justo Sierra Auditorium in the School of Medicine… eh? …It’s not in the School of Medicine?.. huh?… you’re recording? Give notice!… okay… in the School of Philosophy and Letters of Acatlán… no?… is it in Ciudad Universitaria?…Oh isn’t CU where the Pumas play?…So there are academic departments there too?… I’m only familiar with the rector’s suite… well anyway, wherever it is, it should be “liberated” by the police, and by police who know how to plant the evidence properly, not those scatter-brains that don’t even know how to place a bit of “spearmint” in a backpack. That’s why an elite group of my officials are going to start a degree program on how to place drugs in briefcases. Yes yes I know that’s not the same, but we don’t carry backpacks, we carry briefcases. As I have said… what, no applause? Turn on the recorder man! No, not that one, you’ll ruin my cabinet career ambitions. The other one! Yes that one! Thank you, thank you to the authentic university community members who know that the university serves to domesticate, not to teach nor investigate! Thank you, thank you, thank you! How was that? What? I said turn that recorder off! No not the one with the cheering, the other one, the one that’s recording!
Mr. Graue is furious, he was just trying to be a good police agent.
I testify: woof-meow.
Cat-dog.
Copyleft 2016. Permission from the Good Government Council under conditions of “we’ll be back tomorrow to see if its ready, who knows, maybe it will be a new Council rotation by then, but in the meantime let me tell you the history of Zapatista autonomy. You already know it? Well then we should review it, as they say, until it truly sticks in your head. Did you bring your notebook? Write in “resistance and rebellion” or “rebellion and resistance,” it’s the same thing, because the order of the “r’s” doesn’t’ affect our autonomy. Haven’t you studied mathematics? Just songs? Well look, you need arts and sciences, there’s no way around it.”
—————-
Originally Published in Spanish by Enlace Zapatista
El Cambalache presents: Inter-Change Value
APRIL 1, 2016 7:00 – 9:00 PM
OMNI COMMONS, 4799 SHATTUCK AVE., OAKLAND, CA
The capitalist economic system has provoked a social rupture and loss of community values, such as mutual aid and bartering or exchanging. This rupture foments a sense that people and things are discardable. In El Cambalache (The Swap in English) in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico, by using exchange and inter-actions we work to generate change from the personal out to those around us and use things that appear to no longer have value. We seek to mend the rupture that we see in our worlds.
The Cambalache, with its nucleus-generating group of six women involves people through their visits to exchange day by day. The idea is that we re-enforce the development of the Cambalache precisely through constructing networks with people and organizations that have similar goals. In this way we share the construction of an inclusive community through workshops where economy members gather participants to take part in/of the knowledge, abilities and services that are offered. We walk hand in hand with these and other social and political processes. El Cambalache is an economy built in feminism and decoloniality. As women, Mexicans, Americans, and Indigenous people we can create an economy in our own visions that is liberating from the weight and exploitation that comes with capitalism. For more information: (510) 654-9587.
Sponsored by the Chiapas Support Committee
C0-Sponsored by: Global Women’s Strike/Omni Collective
Zibechi: The social bases of the new rights
Last Sunday, millions of people demonstrated against the government of Dilma Rousseff. Photo: Afp.
By: Raúl Zibechi
A new right is emerging in the world and also in Latin America, a region that presents its own profiles and a new social base. It’s necessary to become familiar with it in order to combat it, to avoid simplistic judgments and to understand the differences with the old rights.
Mauricio Macri is very different from Carlos Menem. He introduced neoliberalism, but was a son of the old political class, to the point that he respected some legal norms institutional times. Macri is the son of the neoliberal model and behaves according to the extractive model, making dispossession his principal argument. His pulse doesn’t tremble at the time of stepping over the values of democracy and the procedures that characterize it.
Something similar can be said about the Venezuelan right. It’s about attaining objectives regardless of the means. The modus operandi of the new Brazilian right even differs from the privatizing government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Today the referents are characters like Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi, or the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a militarist and warrior, who don’t respect either the Kurdish people or the legal opposition, whose offices and meetings are systematically attacked.
These new rights relate to Washington, but it’s of little use to think that they act mechanically, following orders emanating from an imperial center. The regional rights, above all those of the big countries, have a certain amount of autonomy in defense of their own interests, above all those that are supported in a more or less developed local business group.
But what’s really novel is the broad support they get from the masses. As has been said, the Argentine right had never before reached the Casa Rosada through the electoral path. This novelty merits some explanation that cannot be exhausted in this short space. Nor does it seem adequate to attribute all the advances of the right to the media. What reasons are there for maintaining that voters on the right are manipulated and those of the left are conscious and lucid votes?
There are two questions that would need to be cleared away before entering a broader analysis. The first is the manner of doing things, the non-stop authoritarianism almost without argument. The second is the reason for the support of the masses, which includes not only the middle classes, but also a part of the popular sectors.
About Macri’s authoritarian decisions, the writer Martín Rodríguez maintains: “Macrismo acts like an Islamic State: his occupation of power signifies a sort of irreverence for the sacred Kirchner temples” (Panamarevista.com, 28/01/16). Mass firings are supported on the firm belief of the middle classes that the state workers are “privileged” and collect paychecks without working. The political cost of those tremendous decisions has been very low as of now.
The comparison to the methods of the Islamic State sounds exaggerated, but has a point of contact with reality: the new rights come in cleaning house, sweeping away everything that gets in their way, from workers rights to institutional rules of the game. For them, being democratic is just counting the pieces of paper in the ballot boxes every four or five years.
The second question is to comprehend the mass support attained. The anthropologist Andrés Ruggeri, a researcher in recovered companies, emphasizes that the right was able to “construct a reactionary social base capable of mobilizing itself, based in the most backward sectors of the middle class, sectors that always existed and that supported the dictatorship in the 1970s” (Diagonal, 13/02/15). That social base is anchored in a voter-consumer “that acquires a vote like a supermarket product.”
He considers that the big error of the Cristina Fernandez government consisted of, instead of fomenting an organized popular subject, in promoting “a dismembered social group, individualistic and consumerist, which also thought that the conquests of the fight in 2001 and the social benefits attained in those 12 years were acquired rights that were not at risk. Convincing them of the latter was a great achievement of the rightwing campaign, the key to its triumph” (Diagonal, 13/02/16).
The middle classes are very different from those of the 60s. They no longer are referenced in the layers of professionals that are formally trained in state universities, who read books and continued studying when ending their careers, aspired to work for mid-level paychecks in state divisions and socialized in public spaces where they come together with the popular sectors. The new middle classes revere the rich, aspire to live in private neighborhoods far away from the popular classes and the urban framework, are deeply consumerist and distrust free thought.
If a decade ago part of those middle classes banged on casseroles against the “economic closures” of the Economic Minister, Domingo Cavallo, and on occasion came together with the unemployed (“picket and casserole, is just one fight,” [1] was the slogan of 2001), now they just worry about property and security, and think that freedom consists of buying dollars and vacationing in five star hotels.
These middle classes (and a part of the popular sectors) are culturally modeled by extractivism [2]: by consumer values that financial capital promotes, so distant from the values of work and effort that an industrial society promoted barely four decades ago.
The defenders of the neoliberal model attain a level of support at around 35-40 percent of the electorate, as all of the processes in the region show. We often don’t know how to confront this new right. It’s not agitating against imperialism like we will overthrow it, but rather demonstrating that one can enjoy life without falling into consumerism, debt and individualism.
[1] It rhymes in Spanish: “piquete y cacerola, la lucha es una sola.”
[2] Extractivism – Zibechi’s use of this term is similar to David Harvey’s accumulation by dispossession. It implies corporations taking a resource or possession away from people in order to create profits.
————————————————————
Originally Published in Spanish by La Jornada
Friday, February 19, 2016
Re-published with English interpretation by the Chiapas Support Committee
Chiapas Support Committee 