John Ross' "Twenty Questions for Big Al, the Other Campaign, and the EZLN"

Gary Hughes, of the Many Hues blog over at Guerrilla News comments on the “20 Questions” conversation, Mexico, and the Other Campaign. I’ll add a few comments/responses below….

Esteemed colleagues,

 I was impressed and relieved to see the 20 questions article, the reflective opportunities in such an exercise are important.

 I have been spending alot of time in México again, and have been able to compare your site with events on the ground, especially from Feb through June of this year.

 I continue to rely on Narco News, but the way certain sacred cows have been held up as untouchable in the last months (especially since the events in Atenco) has made me more likely to question the veracity and purpose of the news page.

 There are tons of points to discuss in the article, I found it invigorating to dig into the questions and the answers.  I want to add a couple of things.

 First, about Stalin and Mexican leftism.  Unfortunately I think Stalin's influence in Mexico is much deeper than you let on in your answer to Ross's question--take a look at the history of communism in Mexico and you see a sort of blind loyalty to Stalin and the Soviet model, simply because of the supposed opposition to the United States.  The historical dynamics around important artists and personalities like David Siqueiros demonstrate how the Stalin seed is planted deep in Mexican leftism.  The constant appearance of the Stalin poster at Otra events is of Great Concern.  I want nothing to do with Stalinism, punto.  Talk about steps backwards into the abyss.  Communism as a solution to our current crisis?  What a load of antiquities.

Pinche comunistas no tienen ni puta idea que hacer con la crisis ambiental que estamos viviendo, el futuro va a exigir filosofías politicas nuevas y diferentes, el comunismo tal cual es una cosmovisión vieja, absurda, y completamente fuera de contacto con la realidad que vivimos en el año 2006.

 The archaic aspects of much of the radical left in Mexico need to be confronted in order that the movement be better prepared to actually aspire to sustainability.  Unfortunately, the page of late has only given voice to much of that intolerant and excessively rhetorical posturing.

 With this is the banal and immature attitudes of self-righteousness, an example of which is the "I am not going to speak" pouting (just like a three year old brat) if such and such a person is here.  The treatment of Elena Poniatowska by Marcos on 1 May was absurd and childlike, and certainly not the kind of inclusive leadership that we need.  You try to paint it as a personal prerogative, and it is, but it is also extremely immature.  Your defense of this exclusivity in an effort that is painted as inclusive shows the limited capacity of a "we are more hardcore than you are" movement.  Let's make sure we call the kettle black when necessary.  And I think that was part of the point of Ross's questions--why do Marcos's political mistakes get a free ride on your site, but other politicians get lambasted?

 Basically, regardless of this effort to grow a movement from "abajo" there is a dire need for sophisticated leadership to provide guidance in these difficult times.  Lets be sure to hold up a critical mirror to all of our leaders, even those who are considered "sacred cows"--Especially Amongst The Gringos Living Their Revolutionary Romance.

 The fact is, the Otra is not even affecting 99 percent of Mexicans daily lives--Yet.  No need to play it up to be more than it is.  Even if you abandon "objectivity" as a journalistic goal, that does not give you license to exaggerate what is really happening on the ground in Mexico.  Most people I have talked to in Mexico find Marcos to be Old News, which I believe is incorrect as La Otra has a very important chemistry that must be recognized...but it does reflect a real lack of critical mass of this leftist movement that has had little success in finding a message that reverberates with a significant percentage of the Mexican people.  

 I hope that changes, but to do so means we have to be honest with ourselves, don't you think?  That is why your piece answering Ross' questions is so important for your newspage.

 Those are a few thoughts, thanks for running the 20 questions piece, it helps reaffirm my interest in Narco News.

 Que les vaya muy bien,

 Gary

Al comments:

1.    You write, “take a look at the history of communism in Mexico and you see a sort of blind loyalty to Stalin and the Soviet model, simply because of the supposed opposition to the United States.” The example you cite – that of the Mexican muralist Siqueiros who historians say participated in an assassination attempt on Stalin’s most feared critic (and Russian exile) Leon Trotsky, something I don’t doubt – dates from the 1930s. In terms of Russian influences on the Mexican left, my observation is that Trotsky’s dwarfs that of Stalin or Lenin.

Indeed, Mexico served as the geographical fulcrum for that global debate. Mexico was, after all, the country that, during the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas gave refuge to Trotsky. Another Mexican muralist, Diego Rivera, marked his break with Stalinism to a great degree in his defense of Trotsky: Rivera was the celebrated chairman of the Communist Party in Mexico. Stalin purged Rivera from the party because of his support of Trotsky. But greater than any Russian or foreign influences on the Mexican left, are those of Mexicans like Emiliano Zapata and the anarchist Ricardo Flores Magon.

In March I spent some quality time with Mexican writer Alberto Hijar, professor (one of his students was the man that Mexican authorities say is Marcos), of the Workshop for Socialism – Hijar is not an anarchist – discussing historical influences on zapatismo. I asked Hijar to define the Other Campaign’s political “tendency.” He answered, “anarchist, specifically, Magonista.” I agree. And if you look at the theory and practice of the Other Campaign – in a word, autonomy - you can see the Magon influence is much stronger than any foreign influence, and certainly more than Stalin, and that the indigenous influence – which doesn’t have the names of late theoreticians so attached to it – continues to make it very “other” than any previous historical example.

2.    You write, “The treatment of Elena Poniatowska by Marcos on 1 May was absurd and childlike, and certainly not the kind of inclusive leadership that we need.”

That’s one opinion. Let’s flesh this out and observe the context of Poniatowska’s behavior, too. I'll begin with a first-hand account. In early January, some of us from the Narco News Road Team were dining on ten-peso (one dollar, more or less) fish sandwiches in a neighborhood restaurant about ten blocks from the City Square in Mérida, Yucatán. My witnesses who can confirm what I am about to share are: Quetzal Belmont, Sarahy Flores, Greg Berger, Karla Aguilar, Teo Ballvé and Barrett Hawes. And in walked… Elena Poniatowska with an entourage. She recognized Greg, greeted him, at first, warmly, and asked, “what are you doing here?” Greg explained that we were preparing the coverage for the upcoming visit by Marcos and the Other Campaign on the Yucatán Peninsula. Poniatowska was evidently displeased, and saying nothing, abruptly turned around and walked out. I thought it was pretty funny at the time.

In her own words, she believes that “what Marcos is doing is dividing the left, which seems absurd to me.” She’s also a titled member of a six-member steering committee for the presidential campaign of López Obrador; not merely a sympathizer, but an official in his campaign. When, later, the PAN party attacked her in a TV ad over her AMLO-advocacy, she made great hay out of it, painting herself as some kind of “victim” over being criticized by words and images (it never ceases to stun me how some of us who live by the word are so oversensitive when on the receiving end of it). It was on the heels of that 15 minutes of fame – those moments in which an author’s books receive a boost in sales – that Poniatowska decided to suddenly act like she wanted to sincerely support the “Other Campaign” that she had, a short time prior, claimed was “dividing the left.”

On April 28, she called a good friend of mine, asking him to accompany her to an Other Campaign event. He replied in the negative, urging her to rethink her idea given her own public statements against the effort. This was not a case of a sincere person just wanting to show her support. No, she was trying to extend her 15 minutes, provoking a media circus, cynically entering an effort that she had drawn a line against previously. You speak of “maturity” as an issue here. Do you think her position was a mature one?

We can also discuss, philosophically, how desirable “maturity” – by “educated” standards – is in political movements in countries with young demographics, along with related terms like “manners,” or “decorum,” or “civility,” or "using the King's English to fight the King." I mean, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas is “mature” to the point of practically being a statue made of stone. But does that connect with the rebel in anyone?

As I replied to John’s question, I take the same position as Marcos did in such situations. I don’t sing anyone who, for example, has tried to censor me. Maybe that’s immature, but it’s my position in other situations, not just that of the Other Campaign. My point is that since my position is obviously very similar to that of Marcos’, it’s not quite fair of you to imply that in recognizing this comfort I have with that stance, that I was somehow “giving a free ride.” That would only be true if I secretly disagreed with something. In other words, your criticism on grounds of “maturity” is a legitimate tactical (or cultural) point, upon which we can agree to disagree, but the implication that my differing view somehow indicates “sacred cow” treatment or the granting of a “free ride” is not, because what I have said is 100-percent indicative of what I fervently believe.

3.    You write, “Lets be sure to hold up a critical mirror to all of our leaders, even those who are considered ‘sacred cows’--Especially Amongst The Gringos Living Their Revolutionary Romance.”

You know, I’m not exactly on vacation. July 3rd will mark nine years that I’ve lived South of the Border. I don’t really have any place up North to go “home” to: this is my land now. I do share the implication of your statement that we gringos and foreigners have extra responsibilities when it comes to analyzing and speaking of events in other lands, but I would emphasize a different point. There is a lot of social conditioning – I like the term “oversocialization” – that comes with being from the “developed world” and the USA in particular. If one has been ground-up in the Higher Education mill, it’s even more severe.

There are preconceptions about the role of journalists that are precisely related to the horrible state of journalism in the United States. And one, in my opinion, is the concept that a journalist can’t have loyalties (all of them do, the better question is: do we disclose them?).

Another is a kind of self-appointed role that plagues gringo activism in particular and believes, “it’s MY job to keep OTHERS honest.” Excuse me. I think we all have our hands full keeping our own selves honest. Disclosing that someone tells a lie, for example, is a worthy calling, especially if that someone has power. For a journalist, it’s a duty. But phrasing disagreements in tactics, or even strategy, as “holding up a critical mirror” is a distinctly gringo way of thinking. There’s a difference. Because none of us can say, with certainty, what the future holds: whether a tactic is going to help lead to victory, or have no effect against defeat, or, worse, cause a defeat.

I think that the EZLN and its spokesman have accomplished something that no other group or individual has accomplished in our time: the construction of a gigantic social base (I estimate the Zapatista support base population in Chiapas indigenous communities at 400,000 persons), and the organization of that base in a way that ran out the plantation owners, took control of the lands, reorganized their management collectively, improved life measurably for those involved, and did this without selling itself to any State power. As they went about doing this, there were many actions they took that I – and probably most others from the outside – did not at all understand at the time. In the “educated activist” mindset, “I don’t understand” too often translates into “time to hold up a critical mirror.” I’m not speaking of you – because I don’t know – but of a larger trend in activist circles that I see as defeatist.

A related mindset – I do think that John’s “20 questions” reflect this one – is “I don’t understand, so I demand that you explain it to me right now, or I am going to presume the worst.” Well, as any change agent knows, there are times when, in the midst of battle, you don’t telegraph your strategic and tactical thinking to anybody, because that information in enemy hands (the State, the economic system, the mass media) can and will be used to its – and not your – advantage. Its an assault on the developed world ego when, suddenly, “I” am not at center stage, when one realizes that the strategy or tactic is not dependent on “my” being briefed as to what it is at the moment. For journalists, who by definition are at the sidelines, observing, it runs against our mission. And with zapatismo in particular, there has always been this tension from some solidarity circles, particularly the “educated” or those rigidly indoctrinated in (failed) USA-style forms of activism.

I consider my role to be to report what is said and done. To the extent I can offer some analysis as to what I think it means, that’s also fine, but its secondary. And I think it is entirely appropriate and honest to, when something amazes us, to share that sense of wonderment, too. No, one could never do that at the New York Times. But I’m grateful that I’m able to do it here.

4.    You strongly imply that my coverage “exaggerates” what is happening “on the ground” with the Other Campaign in Mexico. You don’t offer any specific examples. Any reader is always invited to question or criticize what I – or any journalist – says or writes. I try very hard to simply report, honestly, what I observe and hear. If you think something in specific has been exaggerated, let’s hear it. But I don’t see any specific claim in your letter. Before I would make any such claim about somebody else, I would have specific examples to offer with it. Part of what I’m trying to do with this conversation is to take questions of public interest out of the realm of gossip and unsubstantiated claims, and bring them back to the worthy – and collective – effort to develop and accurate picture or roadmap of what is really happening.

All that said, I appreciate your letter. It embodies the very kind of discussion that I hoped this conversation would foment. I also appreciate the time and research you put into your comments: that is also Authentic Journalism. Now that you’ve contributed with your labor to this effort, and especially if you’d like to respond to what I’ve written here, your invited to have an account here on the Narcosphere so that next time you can post your comments directly.

Thank you, Al, for the great follow up on my letter to the publisher.

I have to thank you for so much great writing over the years.  I assure you I have been an avid reader for a good while.

I accept the invitation to be more active in the Narco News community.  It might be a slow start; I am a bit shy and I am not sure about the splash with my letter.  I don't think I would have written if I had considered a reading public. The 20 questions article is very relevant, and it just got me thinking and I was compelled to write a letter.  Your response was really thorough, and Muy informative.

You can post this letter to the piece in the Narcosphere, too, if you want, as I am really comfortable with your response.  

Readers perhaps could note that I have never before made a contribution to the Fund for Authentic Journalism, but I just did it now.  It was pretty modest, but it would be a pleasure to support your work, and all the people on your reporting team.  Those of us who can afford subscriptions should be pitching in.  That is the solidarity part, as typical as it is, from living en el otro lado.

Truth is, I miss México, but it is hard to make a living--there are still a few kinks in the system, as it were, that have to be worked out.  I appreciate and thank you for sticking with it.

Un saludo grande,

Gary

Narco News received this commentary via email from Mary Ann Tenuto, a respected Zapatista solidarity organizer in California who has spent much time in the autonomous communities of Chiapas:

My Thoughts on the John Ross Article "A Report from the Red Alert"

BY: Mary Ann Tenuto-Sanchez

In his latest article about the Zapatistas entitled "A Report from the Red Alert; Zapatistas at Critical Crossroads," John Ross recaps the current situation of the Other Campaign, the apparent results of the presidential election and the aftermath of the police attack on San Salvador Atenco.  These are indeed the events affecting the Zapatistas' present political situation.

Ross begins to describe what the Red Alert means to the Zapatista communities in Chiapas.  Part of his description is accurate, but important parts of it are not.  First, Ross alleges that the Red Alert orders the local autonomous governments (the Good Government Committees) to disband.  That is false.  Ross is referring to the regional government structure, what I call the Good Government Juntas.

The Juntas are not ordered to disband. They are ordered to stop meeting in their public offices (which are closed) and to stop serving the public.  Their offices are in the Caracoles and, therefore, the Caracoles are closed. But, the Juntas are definitely not disbanded! They continue to function as to internal regional matters.  The local governments are the  autonomous municipal councils (county councils). They govern the civilian affairs of the many local autonomous Zapatista municipalities (counties).  They are not ordered to disband either. They continue to function as to internal matters only and do not meet in their regular offices.  [The number of autonomous municipalities is higher than the number of 29 which Ross uses.] Subcomandante Marcos recently spoke about the Red Alert in Atenco. An article published in La Jornada quoted him as saying:

"When the companeras and companeros are on Red Alert it means that the insurgent troops are prepared to fight if they attack us. And it also means that the communities are like on strike." (see, www.jornada.com.mx/2006/07/28/018n1pol.php)

The same article reports that Marcos stated: "If you are going to the Caracoles, which is where people from all over the world go, everything is closed. The cooperatives and all are not functioning." Marcos added that "If anyone goes there, he is not going to find anyone to speak with.  He cannot talk to the comandantes, the Juntas or the autonomous counties.  They continue functioning, but only internally, not for the outside."  And finally, he said that "there are no contacts with the outside, but if someone gets sick our health promoters attend to him, and classes continue in the autonomous schools."

The accurate part of Ross' description of the Red Alert refers to the cessation of NGO projects.  It is true that if an NGO was giving training classes to health promoters or education promoters, the classes stopped.  However, the education promoters (teachers) are indigenous Zapatista community members, and they remain in the communities to teach the children. The same is true for the health promoters.  The schools and clinics are open to care for the Zapatista population.  But, those who work for the NGO's have to return to their offices in San Cristobal de las Casas. They cannot remain inside the communities. Some of these NGO workers are internationals, but many are Mexican.  Since the Caracoles are closed, the national and international peace campers are no longer inside the Caracoles in peace camps.  However, there are other peace camps in many communities throughout the conflict zone.  Some of them remain open to national and international peace campers, depending on the local situation. As to Ross' claim that members of Zapatista base communities are restricted in their ability to travel, I would like to know his authority for saying that.  Does he mean, for example, that a young Zapatista who works in a city like Altamirano or Ocosingo but lives in a rural Zapatista village has to give up his or her job during a Red Alert? I seriously doubt that!  Ross adds:  "commerce and other connecting points with the outside world are broken off." Who does he consider to be the "outside world?" Does he means non-Zapatistas living in a community down the road?  Or, is he referring to those members of civil society who visit the Zapatistas and attend language school or shop for crafts?

Ross' next assertion is that Subcomandante Marcos can call the Red Alert without consulting the CCRI-GC commanders. I do not know how the political-military arm of the EZLN functions and do not know if this is true or not.  However, common sense and experience both tell me that to maintain a Red Alert for three months, it is simply not credible that there is not "un chingo" of consultation going on between Marcos and the CCRI-CG. Marcos' recent announcement that some commanders would travel to Mexico City to assist in the defense of the Atenco political prisoners indicates that there is on-going communication and consultation.  If Ross' underlying criticism is that the Red Alert is undemocratic because it was made by the military arm of the Zapatistas, hello!  Armies are not democratic. Ross next quotes an anonymous "fact-finding mission" of "observers" who went to "the Zapatista autonomous zone" and came back saying that the Red Alert was "disproportionate" and unjustified."  Of course this would be the view of NGO workers. They cannot do their jobs.  The Red Alert is very hard on the civilian communities which produce goods to sell to the outside world and can no longer do so. It is also very hard on NGO workers, academics and many others of us who are accustomed to visiting the autonomous communities.  I would expect a lot of disgruntled folks!

Ross goes on to repeat speculation about a rift between "civil Zapatismo" and the political-military structure, although he acknowledges that this is just rumor.  The next leap is to assert that the Sixth Declaration underscored "this internal conflict." Ross is referring to the portion of the "What We Are Now" part of The Sixth where the process of gradual conversion from military to civilian control is described. I read that part differently.  I do not read it as decribing an internal split, but as being honest about the difficulty of this gradual transition.  The Sixth goes on to tell how this tension was addressed.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist, as they say, to figure out that a change of power from one  structure to another will have its tensions!   But Ross goes on to cite what he calls "reception committees" as an example of the political-military structure not relinquishing control.  What Ross refers to as the "reception committee" is what was referred to as the "casa de vigilancia" (vigilance house) in the series of comunicados which announced the creation of the Juntas in 2003.  I think the Oventic Caracol may have changed the name in order to cater to visitors from civil society.  But, in the Caracol located in La Garrucha, they called it like it was: the Casa de Vigilancia, a security check and also a facilitation mechanism. The Casas de Vigilancia were turned over to civilian control following the consultations held during the Red Alert in 2005.

I have no personal knowledge as to whether there is a rift between the civilian structure and the political-military structure and I do not feel it is productive to speculate on it.

The next target of criticism is the "Sup's top-down control of the Other Campaign."

Ross says this is the domain of the Sixth Commission, which is correct, but then repeats speculation that the Sixth Commission is limited to Marcos.  To those of us who participated in the preparatory meetings for La Otra or attended the plenaria in La Garrucha, this is absurd. The Sixth Commission was publicly introduced at the plenaria in La Garrucha and members of the regional Sixth Commission were introduced at the preparatory meetings. Recordings of these meetings were sent out to civil society and appear on the EZLN web page. The next criticism is aimed at the alternative press, which Ross thinks has been too positive about the Other Campaign.  Ross did not accompany the Other Campaign and neither did I, so I would refer folks to the comments of Al Giordano and John Gibler posted on www.narconews.com  Both of them accompanied the Other Campaign as journalists.

The next assertion is that attendance has dwindled at Other Campaign events.  Surprise, surprise!  Mexico is embroiled in a crisis over whether it is a democracy or not. The focus of this attention is Andrés Manuel López Obrador and the PRD, not Marcos and the Other Campaign. Given López Obrador's militant fight to overturn the alleged fraud, a fraud acknowledged by Marcos and a fight he acknowledges is necessary, one might expect this situation to continue until the electoral drama plays itself out.  Interestingly, Ross admits that the Zapatista position regarding elections and political parties may "have more scratch" due to the allegedly fraudulent election results. In other words, when the fuss about the election is finally resolved, some people will take another look at what the Other Campaign's anti-electoral position means and adhere to it.

But Ross tells us that Marcos "is said to be about to call upon the Zapatista communities in Chiapas to march on Mexico City, a move that can only occur once the Red Alert is lifted."  So, he asks a couple of young Zapatistas he meets on the road and thinks that they agree with this.  Whether that is about to happen or not, it is up to the EZLN to announce it, not John Ross. All that has been made public so far is that some commanders are going to Mexico City to join Marcos in the struggle to free the political prisoners from Atenco.

I agree that the current political situation is a very difficult one to navigate.  The way the presidential election turned out and how it is being pursued by López Obrador is an immediate issue, much bigger than the Other Campaign to voters.  Thus, with the Other Campaign pushed into the background of the Mexican political scene, these are difficult times for Marcos and the Other Campaign.  I think there are legitimate questions to ask about the Other Campaign; such as,  was it wise to take such a hardline position against the PRD and López Obrador at the outset of the Other Campaign, and was it wise to postpone the Other Campaign and call the Red Alert because of the police terrorism in San Salvador Atenco? The Zapatistas took calculated risks when they staked out these positions and only time will tell what the answers might be.  Those of us, like myself, who have supported the Zapatistas for many years can only wait for the answer and continue to offerr what political support is requested.

I was also in Chiapas during this Red Alert and heard all kinds of rumor and speculation.  However, I do not feel rumor and speculation are really helpful to anyone in getting through this difficult period and chose not to dignify what I heard by repeating it.