 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
_____________________________________________________________

