By Soneile Hymn, dec. 2006
\
ÒA
new world war is waged, but now against the entire humanity. As in all world
wars, what is being sought is a new distribution of the world.
By the name of
"globalization" they call this modern war which assassinates and
forgets. The new distribution of the world consists in concentrating power in
power and misery in miseryÓ
-Subcomandante Insurgente
Marcos 1996
Today, there is hardly an
activist on the planet that doesnÕt know what had begun those first moments of
1994, the day that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) went into
effect, and the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in the Mexican State
of Chiapas took up arms to say, ÒEnough.Ó Hailed as the first revolutionary
movement of the post-Cold War world, since the 10th anniversary of the
uprising, the media has often portrayed the Zapatistas as having fallen short
of their aspirations. But if you
look at the Zapatista Revolution over the topography of the cold war-era
revolutions of Latin America, perhaps this revolution, though it does not move
so quickly and spectacularly, has been more threatening to the world capitalist
system than the revolutions of Che, the Sandinistas, El SalvadorÕs FMLN, etc.
This rebellion, though incomplete without its guerilla army, is better
understood by the western mind not as a revolutionary uprising aimed at
liberating the masses by over-throwing the government and installing a new,
more enlightened one, but rather a social movement resisting the dominant mode
of globalization that is being imposed from above. This rebellion has had an understanding, from the beginning,
that liberation is not something assigned from an authority, but a process of
the individuals and the communities.
This idea is mirrored in the feminine aspect of the rebellion, which was
also intact from the beginning, rather than an afterthought, as has been
characteristic of all preceding Latin American guerilla uprisings (Kampwirth 2004:24).
This rebellion of poorly armed Maya Indians in an obscure corner of Mexico has
rippled across the globe, sparking a movement that has concretely slowed
corporate globalization.
Though the expression is
somewhat new, ÒglobalizationÓ is not a new concept. The term merely refers to another face of capitalism:
From its beginnings, in the 16th
and 17th centuries, capitalism has sought to profit from the
exploitation of the people and the natural resources around the globe. Enormous world movements of cotton,
sugar, tobacco Ð and most unconscionable, of enslaved Africans Ð fueled the
accumulation of capitalist wealth.
The colonization of huge areas of the globeÉwere all central parts of
capitalist developmentÉcapitalism has always been global in orientation.
(McNally 2004:30)
In order to understand
globalization, it is important to understand that is has a long history as part
of the continuing legacy of capitalism and is a new attempt to concentrate more
power in another round of what Karl Marx coined Òprimitive accumulation.Ó[1] Capital and its owners, in their
endless drive to multiply and grow, grab at every opportunity to capture
anything of worth that has not yet been appropriated into the global capitalist
system.
As globalization consumes the
world, including its people, and integrates itself more and more deeply into
global political and social systems, attempting to transform our world
increasingly into one big capitalist machine, it has paradoxically opened new
political space for contestation as it ruptures existing patterns of relations
between state and civil society. Once Marx put the proletariat and the site of
production as center stage for the site of dissent against capitalism, but the
process of globalization has made for business owners the ability to move from
site to site based on lowest labor costs practically hassle-free. With loss of stable production sites,
the basis for collective action by an organized working class becomes unstable
and fragmented. However, new sites
of dissent have emerged to challenge the consolidation and determination of
global integration. The struggle
is no longer primarily based in the struggle against exploitation as defined in
the workplace, but increasingly an assertion of the right to live in a world
with diminishing subsistence base.
This struggle is not so much for the right of the worker and his ability
to provide for his family, as it is the rights of a community to survive, not
only physically, but culturally as well.
"We
have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no
land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and
democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and
no justice for ourselves or our children. But we say enough is enough! We are
the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are the millions of
dispossessed, and we call upon all of our brethren to join our crusade, the
only option to avoid dying of starvation!"
Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) Declaration of the
Lacandon Jungle, 1993
Much of Chiapas is comprised
sub-subsistence indigenous communities and campesinos. As globalization encroaches into some
of its last unconquered territories in the Western Hemisphere, it continues to
work to undermine and destroy these ways of life.
Indigenous struggle against
capitalism for land is nothing new; beginning the first day the colonizers set
foot in foreign lands. Capitalism probably couldnÕt have even taken off without
its colonization of the Americas and the Òblood and sweat that for two
centuries flowed to Europe from the plantationÓ (Federici 2004:103). As the indigenous lands of Chiapas
became closed in on all sides by hegemonic western culture and large land-owners
who have habitually stolen indigenous territory, the battle for land and
self-determination began to heat up to the boiling point. The Mexican revolution and subsequent
constitution of 1917 poured some cool water on the situation. Article 4 of the new constitution
affirmed autonomy of Indian pueblos by guaranteeing municipal autonomy and
ridding towns of the rule of ladinos and mestizos, which was a major indigenous
demand during the Mexican revolution.
Article 27 provided for the return of communal lands taken during the
Porfiriato[2]
and the assignment of national lands by the central government in years
proceeding (Nash 2001:49). These
lands are called Ejidos, are considered the property of the community and are not to be bought
or sold.
Sadly, this attempt of the
return of indigenous land began late in Chiapas (around 1930) and did not last
long under pressure from foreign capital interests. Furthermore, the ruling Party, the Institutional Revolutionary
Party (PRI), used the land reform laws to buy the loyalty of indigenous groups
(by favoring them) which helped in maintaining their power, which lasted 70
years. In 1982, due to the debt
crisis, the government started cutting programs and funding to indigenous
communities, though still favoring some, while excluding others. This made for the basis of the deep
division that can be seen deeply rooted in the indigenous territories of
Chiapas. Some of the ZapatistaÕs most deadly enemies are the PRI backed
indigenous paramilitary group, Guardias Blancas.
Today, the Òglobal factory,Ó
controlled by power to concentrate more power, is portrayed and accepted as the
inevitable product of modernity and progress. This has put nation-states in a position that in order to
thrive in our global capitalist system they must attract and keep as much
global capital as possible. They become an enforcer of austerity to attract
global capital (Angelis 1998).
Seeing as post-debt crisis Mexico was not seen favorably by capital
interests, NAFTA was to play a role in bringing Mexico from the margins of the
neoliberal system, to a strong force in the global factory. In preparation for NAFTA, - to make
property laws more closely resemble the rest of North America - in 1992 the
Mexican government made an amendment to Article 27, allowing for the
privatization of the Ejidos. The
government, in fact, began selling them off, only offering a small
compensation, if any at all, to the people living there. The land under indigenous
control, including Zapatista areas, tends to be the most pristine land in the
world because of the indigenous tradition of land stewardship, as opposed to
the dominant cultureÕs tradition of the ownership and exploitation of land for
profit. Foreign interests from all over the world have their eyes fixed on
Chiapas and its bountiful resources, and this makes the Zapatistas a huge
impediment. Once Chase-Manhattan
Bank stated that ÒThe [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the
Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territoryÓ
(Roett 1995), under the threat that the country may no longer receive Chase
ManhattanÕs investment in Chiapas.
New Struggles for Land
Many land battles focus on
changing land use patterns in indigenous regions. Technological ÒadvancesÓ such as genetically modified plants
and intense global competition between giant food and agriculture conglomerates
have renovated agricultural procedure.
These products of globalization work to expel subsistence farmers and
replace the sustainable farming methods that are the backbone and heritage of
indigenous communities with monopolized chemical and biotechnical
enterprises. While capitalist
interest exists in indigenous culture, it is mainly in obtaining and patenting
seeds that may have commercial value.
And now that these same large firms like Monsanto and Novartis have come
to Chiapas to sell corporate-controlled seed Ð ironically under the slogan,
ÒFood, Health, HopeÒ Ð Mayan
campesinos are forced off their land to sweatshops in the North, or to try
their luck for a better life in the USA.
Much of this imported corn is highly subsidized, making it impossible
for the Mayan people, who were once called the "people of the corn"
to be able to farm and make a living off of it. To make matters worse, genetically modified corn, the corn
that Monsanto assured us could be contained, has somehow contaminated corn all
over Mexico. Much of this corn
isnÕt even fit for human consumption, but is manufactured as animal feed and is
threatening thousands of years of Mayan cultivation and tradition. This is one example of many of
how a bio-tech monopoly can help to destroy culture and promote global
integration. This is not an isolated
incident. Almost the exact same
scenario has played itself out in India, where wheat is the sacred grain.
In the highlands of Chiapas,
where large-scale agriculture is next to impossible due to the steep slopes and
lack of accessibility, corporations are still a constant threat due to the fact
that these areas are rich in oil, uranium, rivers (for hydropower) and precious
lumber. The state of Chiapas
provides 55% of MexicoÕs hydroelectric energy and 20% of its electricity. At the same time, 70% of indigenous
communities have no electricity and 90% have no power. Of course this isnÕt isolated to
Chiapas, as indigenous populations of the world, estimated at 300 million, live
in zones that have 60% of the worlds natural resources (Marcos 2003:261).
NAFTA, among other Òfree tradeÓ
agreements, could be referred to as what subcomandante insurgente Marcos calls
a Òneoliberal bomb.Ó ÒThe neoliberal bomb reorganizes and reorders what it
attacks and remakes it as a piece inside the jigsaw puzzle of economic
globalization. After itÕs
destructive effect, the result is not a pile of ruins, or tens of thousands of
inert lives, but a neighborhood attached to one of the commercial megalopolis
of the new world supermarket and a labor force rearranged in the new market of
world laborÓ (Marcos 2003:260).
ItÕs about the destruction of cultures, nations and groups of nations in
order to integrate them into the North American capitalist model where people
and communities are for the global factory. NAFTA is, according to the EZLN, a Òdeath sentenceÓ for Mexican
Indigenous. In order for it to commence, Mexico needed to comply with
Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) as imposed by the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). True to form, these
SAPs call for the privatization of land and services (i.e. the expropriation of
people from their means of sustenance), deep cuts in social spending, and an
emphasis on export production. These are some of the tactics used to isolate
and fragment individuals and communities, which in turn tends to open them up
to appropriation into the neoliberal plan:
The result of these strategies is human
fragmentation and atomization thatÉhas constituted the condition of a new
process of capitalist integrationÉaiming at the constitution of a global
factory. Fragmentation and atomization on one hand and integration on the other
are therefore two sides of the same processÉbecause [the global factory is
everything] and outside this capitalist process individuals and systems of
individuals are nobody and their needs are irrelevant. (Angelis 1998)
Once integrated into the world
factory, there really is no going back.
That would be like melting down a necklace that was a family heirloom in
a vat of hot metal and then trying to recreate the original piece.
Corporate globalization gives
capital a set of wings, while cornering people into roles of subservience to
it. More freedom to capital
inevitably seems to lead to the tightening of borders. Every year since Mexican
government has dedicated its country to conforming to the neoliberal model,
immigration has increased due to poverty and joblessness, the very things that
it promises to solve.
Globalization is eroding
sub-subsistence base of Mayan people.
Mexico has the largest and most diverse indigenous population in the
Western hemisphere, despite the countries curious efforts to undercount
indigenous Mexicans.
Ethnicity in Mexico is determined for legal and social purposes by
language. Many of the direct
descendants of the original people of Mexico are considered Mestizo, rather
than indigenous, even if their genetic makeup is 100% indigenous. This greatly
reduces the numbers who are counted as indigenous. Furthermore, this causes absurdities, such as that a baby
born of two indigenous parents is not legally counted indigenous until she is
old enough to talk! (Kampwirth 2004:125)
This has some significance in why indigenous condemnation and resistance
is so deeply rooted in culture and why assimilation is analogous to death to
indigenous peoples.
Because of MexicoÕs
pluricultural[3] populace,
the struggle for cultural survival is very much alive. Indigenous peoples in Chiapas, which
number 1.3 million or one-third of the population, are often seen by outsiders
as one group, Mayans, but they actually are nine different distinct ethnic groups
with their own traditions and languages,
which often do overlap across margins (Rovira 2000:182). There are many more Mayan ethnic groups
when you look across the border into Guatemala (and Chiapas used to be a part
of Guatemala, until the hacienda owners decided they wanted Chiapas to be a
part of Mexico instead) and to a lesser scale, the Yucatan. This pluricultural is largely due to
the customs of the indigenous groups of the area going back for thousands of
years - customs that place a high value on autonomy. Though indigenous groups would war against each other, once
the battle subsided, the tribes would reformulate into a pluricultural society,
which could be seen as the anti-thesis of Old World dominance and suppression
of cultures conquered (Nash 2001:42).
As governments sell out the
people and give up the nationsÕ autonomy so as to annex itself onto the world
market and welcome Òmodernity,Ó the autonomy of indigenous groups is likewise
under attack. Autonomy, or Òthe
right to dance to ones own tuneÓ as is a common saying in Chiapas, has always
been a keyword in the Zapatista struggle.
ÒWithout the theft of aboriginal lands
and the destruction of native ways of life, without the enslavement of
Africans, without colonization and imperial domination of most of the peoples
of the globe, the actual capitalism we face today would not exist. To organize in any meaningful sense
against the historical reality of capitalism is impossible without organizing
against racism, the oppression of women, and imperialismÓ McNally 2002:222)
The community is a site of
cultural reproduction. ÒIt is at the level of individuals, households and
communities thatÉtraditions are kept, local organizations forged, class or
ethnic consciousness developed, and quiescence or rebellion chosenÓ (Enge,
Whitford 1989:8). The community is
the habitus[4]
in which Mayans cultivate practices and beliefs that reproduce their cultures
and traditionally is the realm of feminine power.
When women are faced with
difficulty in performing reproductive work, it clearly is mirrored into their
political work. For example, in
Nicaragua, women fiercely opposed the dictator Somoza when it became impossible
to carry out their responsibilities of the household. Similarly, they turned against the revolutionary victors
over Somoza, the Sandinistas, when the contra war exacted too many deaths and
maimings of their families. Women are central to these newly aggravated
conflict exposed by the Zapatista rebellion because of their commitment to
social reproduction. There is a
universal Mayan belief, that has become somewhat eroded by European invasion
and religions, that Òproduction and reproduction are unified in a cosmic whole
that relies on a balance between forces of the upper and lower worlds of gender
and their cosmic counterpartsÓ (Nash 2001:32). Reproductive work still holds more importance among
indigenous tradition and is far more connected to community than it is in
individualistic western culture.
Indigenous women have been the
protectors of culture as western culture has imposed itself. This role has, however, been one
imposed on women by men, in an attempt to preserve their culture. Most indigenous women have, until
recently, only been permitted to speak their mother tongues, and as well have
been the ones to reproduce the traditional clothing and artisania. Though many women in the villages are
now learning to speak Spanish and can occasionally be seen wearing t-shirts or
even pants, as they struggle against the sexism in the communities, they still
dedicate themselves to the reproduction of their culture. They have also acknowledged that just
because something is a custom does not mean that the Mayan people cannot change
it. Outside cultures often point
out some of the "archaicÓ or ÒbackwardsÓ customs and beliefs that manifest
in Mayan society. The Mayan women
however generally do not want outside help to correct these problems, perhaps
owed in part to the tradition of autonomy in their philosophy. ÒThey always
talk about our bad customs. We also have good customs. And those are the
customs we want to preserve. The bad ones, we want the right to changeÓ (Maria
de Jesus Patricio during speech at the first Indigenous National Congress). As
the Zapatista movement is a movement from below, so is the movement of the
Zapatista women. Customs are
created in the habitus of the community, thus cannot be changed from an outside
authority.
Women are the glue that holds
Mayan communities together. And
the community is a site for dissent of the Mayans. Chiapas is the poorest state in Mexico. While poverty grows and the subsistent
ways of life of the indigenous people is eroded, women face increased unwaged
labor. As globalization takes
root, privatizes and accumulates more and more communal and subsistence land,
the resistance of the Zapatista women resounds around the world.
The government and military are
taking notice of this new contender and responding accordingly. The Mexican military as well as the PRI
paramilitaries have begun targeting women, seemingly more than men. I believe this is a direct
attempt to undermine the communities, as their attempts to destroy the
Zapatistas via military might have failed. Without the community, the resistance will cease to exist.
In the case of the terrorist massacre of Acteal in December of 1997, 21 of the
victims were women, 15 were children and 9 were men, and to further instill
horror in those who witnessed the results of the attacks, the 6 pregnant women
had their bellies cut open and the fetuses and entrails were strewn[5]. There has been over 1500
counter-insurgency assassinations and slaughtered people and more than16,000
Indigenous have been exiled by PRI and White Nights (another indigenous
paramilitary group backed by PRI) divisions in the six years following the
cease fire that commenced after the 12 day Zapatista uprising. Women and
children have been shown no mercy in the war killings; in fact, women are
easily the majority of victims during these killings.
Perhaps if the factory is the
site of control and resistance for the MarxÕs [male] proletariat and its
production, then the body is the site of control and resistance for womenÕs
reproductive work. Activist and
historian Silvia Federici maintains that Òthe body has been for women in
capitalist society what the factory has been for the male waged workers: the
primary ground for their exploitation and resistance, as the female body has
been appropriated by the state and men and forced to function as a means of reproduction
and accumulation of laborÓ (Federici 2004:16).
Rape has been on the rise since
the uprising, as a military tactic of terrorism in indigenous villages. And not only that, but the
official EZLN representative to the United States, Cecilia Rodriguez, was
brutally attacked, gang-raped and threatened with death in Chiapas soon after
three Mestiza nurses were raped near a Zapatista clinic that they had begun
working in. This makes it
difficult for women to go about their normal activities and work. During some peace negotiations in
Lacondon Jungle a young girl, Hermelinda, spoke of the problem. ÒThe soldiers
are now all over our land, we canÕt do our work, when we go to our maize fields
they are walking on the road. They
scare us, they threaten us and we women canÕt walk alone if they are around,
and sometimes when we go out to look for medicines or buy provisions, they are
around, we are afraid. Army: get
out!Ó (Rovira 2000:105).
Inspired by and inspiring the
Zapatista movement, women have been standing up to say, ÒYa Basta,Ó not only
with their communities but in their communities. As women join the ranks of the EZLN, their presence
challenges the military construction of masculine identity. When once, for women to join Latin
American guerilla ranks meant proving herself as worthy or ÒmanlyÓ enough, and
assimilation into the masculine hierarchical military construction, women have
made a place for themselves in the EZLN, and furthermore made sure that womenÕs
issues are specifically contended with.
For example, women of the EZLN are granted free and safe (as safe as can
be) abortions, in a country in which abortions are illegal and a region where
it isnÕt even spoken of. This is
not to say that the EZLN isnÕt still a hierarchical military organization, but
it is making space for women as women and as well, answers to a democratic
body.
Safety in the Globalization of the Movement
A saving grace for the
Zapatistas was their ability to help to globalize the resistance. The Mexican Army counter attack forced
the Zapatistas back into the forests and the Zapatistas small army of badly
armed insurgents probably would have been crushed had they not used their words
of universal struggle and networks of people and technology to build a sort of
wall of protection.
The
people of Mexico had been tormented by political unrest, sporadic violence and
resistance to it for many years.
Once the Zapatistas had their armed rebellion, the struggle was suddenly
much more visible. The internet
released an onslaught of information from eye witnesses and alternative
sources. Subcomandante Marcos, the
prolific writer and spokesperson for the EZLN, sent his first press release to
every member of the foreign press club on January 2, and has since reported on
the mood and events of the Zapatistas.
Since then networks of information have been constructed and popular
website posted. Foreigners travel
to Chiapas as "peace observers" or just civilians and report back on
what they see. In fact, foreign
presence has been a saving grace for the villages, as the armyÕs assault is not
an all out offense on the indigenous, but a quiet and sneaky Òlow-intensity
warfare.Ó The only warfare it
seems they are capable of, as the world watches Chiapas. It seems that the tradition of
corporate globalization has helped to put in place the resources for a
globalized struggle against it and hopefully, one day, a globalized unity.
ÒThe internationalization of
indigenous political movements combined with the convergence of indigenous
womenÕs political participation is revolutionizing the way global trends are
being defined and resistedÓ (Nash 2001:29).
Conclusion
Globalism seems to
have become synonymous to modernity in todayÕs discourse and modernity is the
trajectory to the straight line of progress lead by the productive masculine
subject. No one seems to have a
clue as to where that progress leads us, but only that it is our destiny,
always to be pursued.
Pluriculturalism is seen by the capitalists as a hindrance to modernity. Most people have come to an acceptance
that globalization in some form is inevitable, and this has always been an
excuse as to the elimination of the small atypical cultures that globalization
has eaten. Now these Mayan rebels
exclaim from the mountains and the jungles of Chiapas asserting the viability
of a collectivist, non-capitalist alternative co-existing with capitalist
exchange. This assertion is yet to
be proven, but does provide us with an ÒinÓ point for Òanother world.Ó As
corporations have worked to globalize capital and present their plan as
inevitable, these once forgotten people have made huge strides in creating a
unified global resistance.
"There
once was a bay horse that was pinto like a bean, and he lived in the home of a
very poor farmer and the poor farmer had a very poor wife and they had a very
skinny chicken and a lame little pig. And so, one day the very poor wife of the
very poor farmer said: We have nothing more to eat because we are very poor so
we must eat the skinny chicken." So they killed the skinny chicken and
made a skinny soup of skinny chicken and ate it. And so for awhile they were
fine, but the hunger returned and the very poor farmer told his very poor wife:
'We have nothing more to eat because we are so poor so we must eat the lame
little pig. And so the lame little pig's turn came and they killed it and they
made a lame soup out of the little lame pig and ate it.
And
then it was the bay horse's turn. But the bay horse did not wait the story to
end; it just ran away and went to another story."
-Old
Mayan Tale
[1] A short definition of primitive accumulation is as
follows, in MarxÕs words, Òthe historical process of divorcing the producer
from the means of production. It
appears as primitive, because it
forms the pre-historic stage of
capital and of the mode of production corresponding with itÓ (Marx 1867).
[2] The ÒPorfiriatoÓ is called such after Porfiriato D’az,
the activist turned dictator from 1876-1911. During this time foreign capital poured into Mexico, he sold
much of the land occupied by indigenous peoples to hacienda owners and mining
and big agriculture.
[3] Pluricultural is when various distinct cultures exist
and cohabitate inside one county, such as Mexico. Not to be mistaken for a
multicultural country like the USA.
[4] Habitus is a complex concept
referring primarily to the non-discursive aspects of culture that bind
individuals to larger groups.
[5] As an example of the globalized characteristics of this Ò4th World War,Ó and US involvement, the 6 pregnant women murdered in Acteal had their bellies split open and the contents exhibited as war trophies. This is a trademark ritual of the "Kaibiles"; part of the US trained Guatemalan military responsible for 40 years of counter-insurgency war that left approximately 200,000 civilians dead. After January 1994, a selected group of Mexican army officials accepted the Guatemalan army's offer to train Mexican forces in counterinsurgency warfare. Since then additional groups have been trained. This is not the only US connection to the warfare strategies used by the Mexican military. Between 1988 and 1998, over 700 Mexican military officials had been trained at the School of Americas in the USA, more than from any other Latin American country. Hundreds of millions of dollars in US military aid have been sent between 1994 and 1998, primarily under the auspices of the war on drugs. (Source: Mariana Mora, Massacre in Chiapas http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb98mora.htm.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angelis, Massimo De. 1998 ÒLimiting the Limitless: Global Neoliberal Capital, New Internationalism and the ZapatistasÕ Voice.Ó http://libcom.org/library/zapatistas-voice-massimo-de-angelis. Nov. 27, 2006.
Federici, Silvia. 2004 Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation. Autonomedia. Brooklyn, NY 2004.
Kampwirth, Karen. 2004 Feminism and the Legacy of Revolution: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chiapas. Center for International Studies, Ohio University.
McNally, David. 2002 Another World is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism. Arbeiter Ring Publishing, Manitoba, Canada
Nash, June C. 2001 Mayan Visions: Quest for Autonomy in an Age of Globalization. Routledge, New York, NY
Retort. 2005 Afflicted Powers: Capital and Spectacle in an Age of War. Verso. New York, NY.
Rovira, Guiomar. 2000 Women of the Maize: indigenous Women and the Zapatista Rebellion. Latin American Bureau, London
Roett, Riordian 1995 ÒChase ManhattanÕs Emerging Markets Group Memo.Ó The infamous Chase Manhattan Memo http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/chase-memo.htm Nov. 22, 2006.
Ross, John. 2006 ÒZapatistas Launch the Other Campaign Ahead of 2006 Presidential Election.Ó SourceMex Economic News and Analysis on Mexico. University of New Mexico Latin American and Iberian Institute.
Marcos. 2004 Ya Basta: Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising AK Press, Oakland California
2006 The Other Campaign: The Zapatista Call for Change from Below.
Wagner, Valeria and Moreira, Alejandro. 2003 ÒToward a Quixotic Pragmatism: The Case of the Zapatista Insurgence.Ó Boundary 2 30.3:185-212