THE MAYAS AND THE GLOBAL MARKET -- the situation in Chiapas --by Salvador Peniche, Mexican Network Against Free Trade National Autonomous University of Mexico "I'm resolved to struggle against everything and everybody" -- Emiliano Zapata's Revolutionary Proclamation of war in 1911. What is happening now in the Mayan jungles (the historic Maya area including present day Belize, Guatemala, Honduras and southern Mexico, with an estimated indigenous population of 6 million people) is the latest battle in the Maya peoples' long resistance war of for survival. In western history, the Mayas have no place other than as a curiosity in a museum. Nevertheless, their role in the consolidation of modern capitalism has been great. To understand the present situation -- i.e. the socio-economic evolution of the "National States" that have been built on land of the Maya and their link to the World Market -- a different perspective on Maya history is indispensable. The Mayas have always demonstrated a great capability for survival. Theirs is a resistance based on intense pride and adherence to their beliefs. They never surrendered to the Spaniard conquistadors or other aggressors. (This applies equally to the British in Belize, the landlords in Yucatan and the Criollo Armies in recent history.) They have always found ways to survive -- if not freely on their own lands, at least in the mountains or valleys of the region. In response to this libertary vocation [WHAT DOES THIS PHRASE MEAN?] they have been treated with discrimination, genocide and exploitation. Their "crime" has been to oppose the type of life that the system had planned for them -- to funciton as the slave labour force in coffee, corn or henequen plantations. (Henequen is the cactus used to supply the fibers for a range of products. It was a major industry in southern Mexico until the early years of the 20th century.). These were the economic relations that the formation of the world market had created for the Mayas in this region. Great transnational corporations such as the Standard Oil conglomerate and the American Cordage Trust did a thriving business with the local oligarch based on these conditions. In the 1990s the situation has changed. We now live under what the leaders of the new transnational world refer to as the "Global Economy". The international order of the 21st century is profoundly different from that of the past, as are the roles that its component parts are expected to play. If the Maya resisted integration into the market system before, they have every reason to intensify their opposition now. For the Maya and other indigenous peoples know that in an era of production based on high technology and massive agro-business, the "Global Economy" threatens them with extinction. The Global Economy threatens the Maya and any other community rooted in a collective, social model of land exploitation, with an irreversible separation from their lands. Free Trade, a key tool in the construction of the Global Market, forces national economies to make more "effective" use of land, regardless of the social impacts that this may cost. The Maya have survived for hundreds of years thanks to their profound understanding of the relation between people and their environment. Their cultural identity and their physical survival is rooted in the integrated relationship they have built betweem the land and community. The arrival of the Global Market, with its emphasis on maximizing agricultural production, means a death sentence for them. The defenders of Free Trade promise a future in which the standard of living of peasants in general and of indigenous peoples in particular will rise. For them, the experience over the past 10 years with the neo-liberal agenda that has culminated in NAFTA -- the unilateral opening of the economy to foreign investment, "structural adjustment" programs that have resulted in the slashing of social spending and the privatization of government-owned assets, and economic modernization which has displaced tens of thousands of workers and peasants -- does not constitute evidence that these policies have failed. Instead, neo- liberals affirm with a religious-like conviction that these socio-economic consequences of modernization are a necessary sacrifice to a better future based on integration with the world market. It is clear that NAFTA is an important step towards the consolidation of an region integrated according to corporate priorities. It is also clear there is no turning point after which the free market will "bring back" the socio-economic benefits for the common citizen. The market just does not work that way. NAFTA can only accelerate the process of deterioration that our societies have been experiencing. The agreement will deepen and perpetuate the destructive processes that communities, including those of the Maya, have suffered. The implementation of the Free Trade agenda allows capital to flow freely into Mexico's agricultural sector, the sector that affects the Maya most. Until 1993, this was impossible in Mexican agriculture. Emiliano Zapata was personally responsible for this fact. His struggle promoted the basic principle of land possession in the country based on traditions of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, that the State should own all the land of the Nation and give access to it to field workers to work. This principle, promoted by the armed forces Zapata led, was the basis of the famous Article 27 in Mexico's National Constitution. The resulting communal lands, known as ejidos, were designed to counteract the anti-social effects of the market. The State ensured that the people benefitted from the country's agricultural economy by supporting this system. This situation prevailed until 1993, when the government effectively repealed Article 27. With this change, it is now possible for Mexico's fieldworkers to own their lands and compete "freely" for their survival. President Salinas has realized the Zapatista slogan "land for the fieldworkers" by perverting its fundamental meaning. The new law places the campesinos on an equal footing with domestic and transnational agro-business. The market, we are told, will reward the productive and punish the inefficient. In the end, they say, everybody will benefit. Thanks to the dogmatic adherence to classic economic thought, a basic premise --that equal treatment among unequals is unjust -- has been forgotten. Can Mexico compete with Canada and the US? For the past 50 years, governmental "economic development" policies have used the surplus generated by Mexico's agricultural sector to promote the country's industrialization. The transfer of resources from the agricultural sector to the industrial sector has been continuous and massive. In this process, the State abandoned the ejido system, creating a capitalist elite and leaving millions of Mexicans out of the national project. [This needs elaboration and clarification.] This process resulted in the technical and economical inefficiency that have characterized Mexico's traditional agriculture system, the breakdown of the production and the impoverishment of the country's campesinos. Over time, two types of production resulted: 1) a relatively small, highly productive and profitable type of export production of vegetables tightly linked to the North American market; and 2) a mass of small, inefficient campesino holdings which provided the food supply for the country's internal market. It is obvious which of these two sectors will survive in the Global Economy and which is promoting the recent changes. The gradual opening of the economy, which began January 1 and will be carried out over a period of 15 years, will mean a slow death for the campesino sector. Free Trade does not allow governments to provide subsidy assistance to producers. So compesinos will be left at the mercy of the market, without financial or technical aid. Year by year they will see the prices of their crops decline as tariffs are reduced and cheaply produced foreign imports capture an ever-increasing portion of the internal Mexican market. Over time they will find it more and more difficult to stay in business. The impact of all this will be devastating. It is anticipated that millions of compesinos will be forced off the land, further aggravating Mexico's existing urban crisis. We have seen the effects already. There has been the loss of the country's food supply, the shift of the production within the agricultural sector from grains and cattle raising to export-oriented production of flowers, tropical fruits, vegetables and forage. This is where there are opportunities to compete -- against other Latin American countries! What will be the effect of the transformation of the land possession system? Dr. J. L. Calva has estimated an expulsion of at least 15 million people from their lands as a result of the opening of the agricultural market. That is the death sentence that the Zapatistas referred to. (1) "Globalization" means more efficiency and an integration of the global market. It also means the disappearance of those who are not economically able to compete. It means the formation of one great factory in which each country, region or community plays a certain role. The Maya will be forced to become part of the unskilled labour force by being forced off of their "unproductive" lands. Their future is grim: they can struggle for a job in a maquiladora zone or in a poverty- stricken suburb of Mexico City or they can go to the US as an illegal worker to experience exploitation in sweat shops and be the subject of racial discrimination. What we witness with the Chiapas uprising is the Maya actually taking the option that they have always been forced to take throughout their history: to fight for their right to survive, to reject a life of misery, hunger and fear and to insist on the right to develop their own community life. They have no other real options. What do they have to lose? But, who are these Zapatistas? It is clear now that the Zapatistas are a well organized group who have been preparing for this action for a long time. From what we have heard, they have no links with any major political movement in the country and there is no evidence of their links with any other movement of guerrillas in Mexico's recent history. It also has not been proven that they are linked with any "external" (non- Mexican) interest, although the struggle of the people in Chiapas cannot be separated from the struggle of the Maya everywhere. This is as true today as it was in the past. They have no reason to respect "international" boundaries established by the ladinos. The Zapatistas clearly have an efficient and sophisticated public relations apparatus and capacity to negotiate. They also have imagination and great creativity. (Note the fact that they took advantage of the New Year's festivities and the related fireworks and the gunshots to provide cover for their actions.) They also have a coherent (if archaic) political philosophy. Their leadership is modern and educated. For all this, it is likely that this is a local movement rooted in a legitimate indigenous organization. Their uprising does not constitute a revolt; it is an organized guerrilla.[?] [Guerilla is an adjective in English.] In order to have a more complete analysis and understanding of the political impact of the situation, given today's context, it is necessary to consider the following factors: a) The Maya had no strong relation with the armed Zapatistas during the Mexican Revolution. They have had their own heroes. Why not take the name of Prince Kan Ek, or that of a heroe of the 19th century Yucatecan Caste War leader Jacinto Pat? Zapata's progressive ideas on the subsject of land reform have their counterparts in the program of almost every peasant movement in Latin America. Zapata's great virtue was to make his ideas on land reform famous by attempting to put them into practice. It seems likely that the modern Zapatistas are deeply influenced by the idea of Zapata's "communas" and want the right to put their principles in reality again.(2) b) Is it likely that the Mexican government was not aware that a military force of 2,000 guerrilla soldiers, possessing highly sophisticated resources, existed in Chiapas? Is it possible? By the same token, if their existence was known to the army, as recent events in the region may suggest, why was there no attempt to resolve the crisis by political means before the uprising began? c) Consider the influence and actions of the army and the church. Both have always had a presence (if not an overt one) in the political situation in Mexico. Now we will undoubtedly see a more direct presence of the Mexican Army in the new political conjuncture and the open participation of various Church figures, especially in negotiations, for the first time since the war between the Catholic Church and the government in the late 1920s. These elements could have an enormous impact, given the fact that this is the beginning of an electoral year. (The presidential election is scheduled to take place on August 21, 1994.) Since the Mexican Revolution, the army's official position has always been one of loyalty to and defense of the country's institutions. But it is well known that sectors of the military have had disagreements with the civil authorities that run the country. This might be an opportunity for the military authorities to achieve certain negotiating positions. With respect to the churches, they have only been allowed to participate openly in politics since the changes to the Constitution last year. This is the first major national issue to confront the Church since then. It is well known that contradictions exist between the "official" Church and the grassroots organizations, contradictions which have been present in many political situations. The Chiapas affair is likely to generate further polarization between these sides and an atmosphere of confusion when the elections take place. d) There are tremendous contradictions between the groups that share power within the Mexican State. These include the conflict that exists between corrupt local authorities; landowners who employ labor under slavery- like conditions and modern capitalist enterprises; the agents of transnational companies; etc. The economic reforms carried out by President Salinas affect the whole traditional system of relations. There are groups in power in different regions of the country which, despite the fact that they form part of the national oligarchy, are threatened by the government's modernization program. These include the groups that formed the basis of the old Mexican state -- caciques, hacendados and others whose power is rooted in non- capitalist modes of production. The government has done little to change the old system of political control and gives the population few options for democratic change. In the last years there has been a reinforcement of the local power and the position of the old oligarchy instead of movement toward the democratization of local power. President Salinas has tried to bring economic changes without political reform. The uprising is in a way proof of the failure of his political experiment. e) A new formation has been introduced in the political scene that could have a major effect during the presidential elections. The center/left, which is backing Cuauhtemoc Cardenas for the presidency in this year's elections, has gained strong momentum. There is fear that if the government commits another gross electoral fraud this could set the stage for further popular outrage and possible widespread revolt. The Chiapas affair is proof of the necessity of a political change rather than a narrow reaction to economic issues. In fact, the situation in Chiapas can be seen as a political as well as an economic crisis. The indigenous people have experienced economic misery for a long time, but the lack of democratic political alternatives has pushed them to violence. This is clear from their demands. They are seeking basic democratic conditions that will allow them the possibility of creating the economic change necessary for their survival. This is the present situation: the lack of democracy, the impossibility of freely electing candidates of choice, the widespread presence of human rights violations, the impunity with which the government and its allies function, the lack of access to reliable information, and the absence of freedom of speech -- all of this has been exposed by this uprising. The present government, with its disregard for civil society, may confront a violent end if it does not show the political will to negotiate an effective transition to democracy. With all the political forces and institutions that are now in motion, the PRI is clearly losing its grip on the levers of social and political control. f) There are three main lessons to be gleaned from the present situation: i. The uprising has destroyed the image that the government and the media have been presenting of Mexico as a modern, democratic state. Now the world knows that there are at least two Mexicos, divided by an enormous economic and political gap: a modern corporate elite (composed of 200 families?) and a great mass of starving citizens. (See below for information about neo-conservative economic policy and its dangers.3) ii. For the first time in the post-revolutionary period, the rampant racism in the country that has been experienced by numerous indigenous groups has been exposed to the world. (Mexico has over 60 ethnic groups, with a total population of over 15 million people.) iii. The Maya-Zapatista showed to the world they are tired of the neo-liberal "Free Trade mania". Clearly it is time that the various sectors of civil society of North America -- Mexico, the U.S. and Canada -- start acting in pursuit of their own interests instead of merely responding to the intitiatives of transnational capital.. PEOPLE EVERYWHERE MUST BEGIN TO DEVISE THEIR OWN WAYS TO STOP THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VIOLENCE THAT FREE TRADE BRINGS TO THEIR COMMUNITIES, BASED ON THE CONDITIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. END NOTES: (1) Comparative data on the enormous productive gap between the agricultural sectors in Mexico, Canada and the US. COMPARED PRODUCTION COSTS ON BASIC GRAINS ($/Ton) products Mexico US Canada corn 258.62 92.74 -- wheat 152.51 143.71 93.11 COMPARED PRODUCTIVITY (kilograms/hectare) corn 1,732 6,975 6,240 beans 542 1,661 1,865 rice 3,303 6,242 -- TECHNOLOGIC SUPPORT OF PRODUCTION (use of tractors) 1 tractor per 3 tractors 2 tractors 50 workers per worker per worker SUBSIDES (millions of American dollars) Mexico: 0.0 (2.92% of the national agricultural product) US: 39,295 (35% of the national agricultural product) Canada: 7,467 (43% of the national agricultural product) Calva, Jose Luis. Probables Efectos del Trastado de Libre Comercio en el Campo Mexicano. Fontamara, Mexico 1992. (2) In 1914 in the Mexican State of Morelos, Zapara was able to put into force an agrarian reform that has been used as a model by the Zapatistas in Chiapas. The agrarian reform proposed to "destroy at the roots and forever the unjust monopoly of land, in order to realize a social state which guarantees fully the natural right which every man has to an extension of land necessary for his own subsistence and that of his family." Lands taken from communities and individuals since the passage of the Amortization Law of 1856 were restored; maximum limits were set for the size of holdings according to climate and fertility; and the lands of the enemies of the revolution were declared national property. Technical schools, tool factories, and rural credit banks were established; sugar mills and distilleries were nationalized and became public services... the revolution tied itself to tradition and functioned "in conformity with the custom and usage of each pueblo... that is, if [a] certain pueblo wants the communal system, so it will be executed, and if another pueblo wants the division of land in order to admit small property, so it will be done." E. Galeano. Open Veins of Latin America. Monthly Review Press, N.Y. 1974. p 138. (3) Neo-liberal economic policies -- they are referred to as "neo-conservative" in Canada -- have had a devastating social impact in our country. Mexico is a neo-liberal disaster zone. The effort that has been made to generate economic growth has been made without regard to the human consequences. The economic program has focused on reducing inflation, shrinking the federal deficit and obtaining resources by re-negotiating the foreign debt on onerous terms. All of this was done in the hope of generating growth and creating a favourable environment for foreign investment. While some of the goals have been achieved, the inflation rate remains at 10%, far above the levels prevailing elsewhere in North America. And the levels of growth and investment have been insufficient and very unstable. Additional trouble has been caused by the fact that interest on the debt remains very high and that foreign investments has been concentrated in Mexico's stock market. This has meant that there is little private or public investment in increasing the country's productive capactiy. While the macro economic achievements have been modest, the negative impact on the society has been enormous: The share of wages in the GNP has decreased from 39.4% in 1980 to 27.8% in 1989, while the proportion of the profits in the GNP has grown from 52.2% to 61.7% in the same period. This, together with the reduction on the government's real social expenditure, means that a total of 40 million Mexicans -- half of the country's population! -- are living under the poverty level. Betweem 14 and 17 million are living in extreme poverty. What a historical record! The situation is serious in health, housing, education and other social service sectors. The indigenous people are the part of the population that has been hurt most by the impact of the neo- liberal policy. According to a nation wide study on nutrition conducted by the National Indigenous Institute, illiteracy and malnutrition have reached their highest levels in modern history. Nationally, the adult illiteracy rate is 10%. In Chiapas the rate is 23%. Across the country, 5.5% of the population suffers from malnutrition. In Chiapas the figure rises to 46.6%. (The population of Chiapas is 70% indigenous. This amounts to approximately 1.5 million people). On the other hand, the concentration of wealth and power has been enormous in the same period. According to Fortune magazine (June 28th 1993), there are several Mexican businessmen in the list of the richest men in the world. The personal wealth of Emilio Azcarraga -- the TV czar with links to American media -- is $3.9 billion, which places him at number 39 on the list, higher than Ross Perot, at $3.1 billion.) The major financial groups of Mexican big business are fully integrated with the largest transnational corporations. _____________________________________________________________ Note: the author can be reached via email at PENICHE@socialwork.ubc.ca _____________________________________________________________