I'm sure our intemperate fellow will get around to it, but I wanted to bring this debate back to the matters of most importance as soon as possible: not the healthy dialogue between the admirable Council On Hemispheric Affairs and Narco News (which is important itself) but what COHA wrote about the Zapatistas, what the possible consequences are, and what COHA will do about it.

There is not yet a retraction posted or linked at the offending article itself either above or below it.

The anonymous author of COHA's open letter to its readers takes issue with Giordano leaving a particular sentence out of his critique.  The omitted sentence, COHA asserts, shows clearly that ex-COHA Research Associate Federico Lozano, and so COHA, prefers an alternative to state violence:

After hypothesizing that Fox may believe that the Mexican public would accept a confrontational policy, Lozano makes clear that there are better options at hand. He writes, “However, developments this week may point to a more open dialogue between the Zapatistas and the federal government, presenting the EZLN [with] the possibility of participating in Mexico’s political life as an official political party.”

The question becomes, then, when is a presentation of options a threat?

Yes, Lozano implies that he would rather the government resolve the "EZLN issue" with a method other than violence, but he states a rapid resolution is needed, and exactly what alternative does he provide?  Participation in a political system proven corrupt again and again (and again under Fox admitted by Lozano to have brought no help to the poor).  The "better options at hand" COHA continues to point to are a complete surrender of all effective methods the Zapatistas have used and created for fighting for justice.

Here is the complete conclusion of the article, which, more than the omitted sentence, softens Lozano's threat somewhat-- like holding a pillow over the muzzle of a gun.

Vicente Fox: Keeping to Tradition

It is also increasingly apparent, as well as distressing, that President Vicente Fox’s celebrated triumph over the PRI’s 71-year-rule has brought virtually no help to the segment of the populace which needs it the most. Fox’s failure to rein in the PRI’s continued influence in congress and state governments has kept most of his initiatives at bay, leaving the EZLN’s concerns virtually ignored. If the situation does not change in the near future, the tensions will mount until confrontations with the Zapatista fighters become inevitable, offsetting Fox’s persistent efforts to make Mexico a stable and safe environment for investors.

An Urgent Resolution

In fact, Fox may even conclude that an armed encounter with the Zapatistas might be a good thing for his image as well as for his legacy, once he steps down. Fellow Mexicans might be prepared to say (according to Fox’s way of thinking), that the president was willing to preserve Mexico’s sovereignty and cohesiveness at any cost. However, developments this week may point toward a more open dialogue between the Zapatistas and the federal government, presenting the EZLN the possibility of participating in Mexico’s political life as an official political party.

Whether subcomandante Marcos’ decision to call his forces to the colors is well-justified, or simply a political ploy, remains to be revealed. Nevertheless, if Mexico wants to be perceived internationally as a country that is prepared to compete against economic heavyweights China and India in international trade, it will need to resolve the EZLN issue with dispatch. If the country’s politicians fail to do so because of inter-party wrangling and internal power struggles, Mexico’s highly applauded, if often contested, steps toward development, which began with the creation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in 1994, will soon be rapidly diminished.

Lazono was saying -- and now the self-described liberal COHA appears to be confirming -- that the Zapatistas have the options of becoming ineffective or being wiped out as military, social, and political force.  And why?  Because Mexico's steps toward development must continue.  And these steps toward development are represented by NAFTA, despite the historical economic fact that no country has developed in the classic economic sense -- a goal that itself must be questioned -- without significant barriers to trade and governmental intervention in the economy, both increasingly disallowed by the so-called free trade agreements the U.S. is imposing on its poorer neighbors.

So NAFTA has nothing to do with development, and the Zapatistas and much of the poor of Latin America are proposing radically different ways to develop-- to instead build a world where all human needs come first, not the needs of an extremely wealthy few.  To build a world, in fact, where agreements to protect the constant accumulation of capital have no place, where decisions are not made my infinitely corruptable national legislatures, and where we all meet and interact as equals and choose our best paths together.

So COHA:  Identify as liberal, that's fine with me, but don't be blind that there are radical solutions out there– not, at the very least, when you're writing about the Zapatistas.

A complete repudiation of this threat -- err, limited presentation of potions -- to the Zapatistas is awaited.  Also awaited: a notice of your thoughtful self-criticism so far, and any more on further reflection, amending the page of Lozano's lamentable article.