Globalising the Zapatistas: from Third World solidarity to global solidarity?

Abstract

The 1994 Zapatista uprising in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas found extraordinary resonance beyond Mexico's borders and generated a range of transnational solidarity efforts. The Zapatistas retain many emancipatory ideals of earlier progressive groups, but formulate their social critique in a manner that is more democratic and global than that of most groups during the Cold War. As a consequence, their interpretation of contemporary social and political problems does not build on the distinction between first, second and third worlds so common in earlier decades. This is evident in the way solidarity is understood by the Zapatistas and transnational activists. The solidarity relationship between the Zapatistas and transnational activists is highly globalised and based on mutuality. In contrast, solidarity relationships in the cold war period, including Third World solidarity, had more of a one-way character in which there was a clear distinction between providers and beneficiaries of solidarity.

Notes

Thomas Olesen is in the Department of Political Science of the University of Aarhus, Bartholins Alle, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. Email: [email protected].

The official name of the Zapatistas is Eje´rcito Zapatista de Liberacio´n Nacional, or ezln (Zapatista Army of National Liberation).

See T Olesen, International Zapatismo: The Construction of Solidarity in the Age of Globalization, London: Zed Books, forthcoming 2004.

C Fuentes, ‘Chiapas: Latin America’s first post-communist rebellion', New Perspectives Quarterly, 11 (2), 1994.

The description of the Zapatistas as armed democrats is inspired by A Touraine, ‘Marcos, el demo´crata armado’, La Jornada Semanal, 22 December 1996.

Of course, there are some partial exceptions to this, such as the way in which radical Third Worldism in the 1960s and 1970s had some impact on New Left thinking with regard to North American and Western European politics. See, for example, V Gosse, Where the Boys Are: Cuba, Cold War America and the Making of a New Left, London: Verso, 1993; and M. Elbaum, Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals turn to Lenin, Mao and Che, London: Verso, 2002.

For an account of historical precursors to transnational activism, see ME Keck & K Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998; and Keck & Sikkink, ‘Historical precursors to modern transnational social movements and networks’, in JA Guidry, MD Kennedy & MN Zald (eds), Globalizations and Social Movements: Culture, Power, and the Transnational Public Sphere, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

GW Seidman, ‘Adjusting the lens: what do globalizations, transnationalism, and the anti-apartheid movement mean for social movement theory?’, in Guidry et al, Globalizations and Social Movements, p 344.

For a more detailed discussion, see T Olesen, ‘The struggle inside democracy: towards a global solidarity?’, paper presented at the European Sociological Association conference, Murcia, Spain, 23–26 September 2003.

R Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage, 1992, p 183; and R Cohen & P Kennedy, Global Sociology, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000, p 35.

One of the most striking examples of this thinking is the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. For a description and analysis of international non-governmental organizations (ingos) in the latter half of the 20th century, see K Sikkink & J Smith, ‘Infrastructures for change: transnational organizations, 1953–93’, in S Khagram, JV Riker & K Sikkink (eds), Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

AC Drainville, ‘The fetichism of global civil society: global governance, transnational urbanism and sustainable capitalism in the world economy’, in MP Smith & LE Guarnizo (eds), Transnationalism from Below, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998, p 47; P Waterman, Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms, London: Mansell, 1998, p 236; and P Cheah, ‘The cosmopolitical—today’, in Pheng Cheah & Bruce Robbins (eds), Cosmopolitcs: Thinking and Feeling beyond the Nation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

M De Angelis, ‘Globalization, new internationalism and the Zapatistas’, Capital & Class, 70, 2000, p 11.

Drainville, ‘The fetichism of global civil society’, p 47.

D Rucht, ‘Distant issue movements in Germany: empirical description and theoretical reflections’, in Guidry et al, Globalizations and Social Movements, p 81.

Seen from the perspective of activists in the country where rights violations are taking place, the ability to mobilise other governments as well as intergovernmental organisations to exert pressure on their national governments is described by Keck & Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, as a boomerang pattern.

Ibid, p 27.

F Passy, ‘Political altruism and the solidarity movement’, in M Giugni & F Passy (eds), Political Altruism? Solidarity Movements in International Perspective, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, p 8.

T Risse & K Sikkink, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction’, in Risse & Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

What is interesting about solidarity work is that, to some extent, it breaks down rational choice-inspired explanations of why people participate in collective action. In other words, engaging in solidarity activities cannot be expected to lead to personal benefits in a more narrow sense. This challenge is especially evident with regard to transnational variants of solidarity work, where distances between those who offer solidarity and those who benefit from it are considerable in physical as well as in social and cultural terms. Rucht, ‘Distant issue movements in Germany’, p 79.

I Eterovic & J Smith, ‘From altruism to a new transnationalism? A look at transnational social movements’, in Guigny & Passy, Political Altruism?, p 198.

Waterman, Globalization, Social Movements and the New Internationalisms, p 235; and Eterovic & Smith, ‘From altruism to a new transnationalism?’, p 198.

U Beck, What Is Globalization?, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.

A Melucci, ‘Third World or planetary conflicts?’, in SE Alvarez, E Dagnino & A Escobar (eds), Cultures of Politics, Politics of Culture: Revisioning Latin American Social Movements, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998.

Brian Dominick, interview, e-mail received November 2000.

Justin Paulson, interview, e-mail received October 2001.

As a result of the coincidence between the uprising and the coming into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (nafta) such an analysis was, however, already indirectly present from the first days of the uprising and served to create an immediate link between the Zapatistas and struggles against nafta in Canada and the USA. HM Cleaver, ‘Introduction’, in Cleaver, Zapatistas: Documents of the New Mexican Revolution ( December 31, 1993–June 12, 1994), New York: Autonomedia, 1994, p 21; and C Bob, ‘Marketing rebellion: insurgent groups, international media, and ngo support’, International Politics 38 (1), 2001.

G Garcia Ma´rquez & R Pombo, ‘Habla Marcos’, Revista Cambio, 28 March 2001, available at www.cambio.com.co/web/interior.php?idp=21&ids=1&ida=898. The article is an interview with Subcomandante Marcos, the primary spokesman for the Zapatistas.

C Monsivai´s & H Bellinghausen, ‘Marcos a Fox: Queremos garanti´as; no nos tragamos eso de que todo cambio´’, La Jornada, 8 January 2001. Interview with Subcomandante Marcos.

Y Le Bot, El suen˜o zapatista, Barcelona: Plaza y Jane´s, 1997, p 142. The book is mainly an interview with Zapatista commanders, including Subcomandante Marcos.

N Higgins, ‘The Zapatista uprising and the poetics of cultural resistance’, Alternatives, 25 (3), 2000, p 364.

Subcomandante Marcos, quoted in J Holloway, ‘Dignity’s revolt', in J Holloway & E Pela´ez (eds), Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico , London: Pluto Press, 1998, p 163.

Holloway, ‘Dignity’s revolt', 1998, p 165.

Ibid, p 173.

J Holloway, ‘La resonancia del zapatismo’, Revista Chiapas, 3, 1996.

This is perhaps most evident in the now famous response from Subcomandante Marcos to a question concerning his sexuality: ‘Marcos is a gay in San Francisco, a black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Isidro, a Palestinian in Israel, an indigenous person in the streets of San Cristo´bal … In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated, oppressed, exploited minority that is resisting and saying “Enough!” ’ Quoted in J Holloway & E Pela´ez, ‘Introduction: reinventing revolution’, in Holloway & Pela´ez, Zapatista!, p 10.

ezln, ‘Palabras del ezln el 27 de febrero del 2001 en Puebla, Puebla’, 2001, available at www.ezln.org/marcha/20010227b.es.htm.

J Johnston & G Laxer, ‘Solidarity in the age of globalisation: lessons from the anti-mai and Zapatista struggles’, Theory and Society, 32 (1), 2003, p 70.

ezln, ‘Primera declaracio´n de la realidad’, 1996, available at www.ezln.org/ documentos/1996/19960130.es.htm.

ezln, ‘Communique´’, 2000, available at www.ezln.org/documentos/2000/ 20000619.es.htm.

Differences persist for example between those working from an anarchistic and highly politicised perspective and those based in more traditional rights solidarity: ‘Day by day the European network is becoming an ever more bureaucratically organised humanitarian aid organisation, that will do anything in the aid of the good cause … The main focus of the European solidarity network has become putting pressure on the European Union and Parliament not to accept the preferential treatment treaty between the European Union and the Mexican government. The other focus is to pressure the United Nations to intervene in Chiapas (as either a mediator or human rights observer). Both the European Union and the United Nations are instruments of the governments of the world, and we see no reason to ask them favours. Asking them for favours is to passively accept their authority and existence. We do not accept that and never will.’ J ten Dam, ‘Solidarity at all cost? On the lack of criticism in the solidarity movement with the Zapatistas’, 1999, available at www.noticias.nl/prensa/zapata/dissolve.htm.

J Johnston, ‘We are all Marcos? Zapatismo, solidarity and the politics of scale’, in G Laxer & S Halperin (eds), Global Civil Society and Its Limits, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003, pp 97–98.

For an argument along these lines, see G Esteva & MS Prakash, Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, London: Zed Books, 1998.