McLaughlin 1

The Zapatista Movement Online: How a global presence reshaped a local struggle Victoria McLaughlin December 16, 2011

HILA 4501- The Mexican Revolution Professor Klubock

McLaughlin 2

“It came to me that the Internet was going to be something that changed the very nature of humanity. It was like humanity getting a nervous system. It’s as if each of the cells in the human organism had access to all the information, the cumulative information, of humanity. And it’s very difficult to hide information. If it was possible to do a conspiracy in the past, it’s very hard to do a conspiracy now.”

Elon Musk, engineer & co-founder of PayPal

Preface

In 1958 the United States Department of Defense started a special agency, the Advanced

Research Projects Agency (ARPA), intended to foster innovation in science and technology; the

website description reads, “It was founded in response to the surprise Sputnik launched in 1958 and

fathered the Internet somewhere along the way.”1 On September 2, 1969, four ARPA engineers at

UCLA made the first network connection between computers, creating Arpanet; by 1973, Bob Kahn

and Vint Cerf had designed Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol, the basic tools for

interconnecting networks, the foundation of the Internet. In a 2008 interview with Vanity Fair Cerf

says, “We absolutely knew what could happen if our work was successful. We knew about the

mobile possibilities. We knew about satellite. We had some idea of how powerful this was,”2 Cerf is

now an executive at Google, ‘chief Internet evangelist’.3 Less than twenty years later, the European

Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), one of the largest physics laboratories in the world,

1 DARPA, www.darpa.mil (Accessed December 2, 2011). 2 Keenan Mayo and Peter Newcomb, “How the Web Was Won: An Oral History of the Internet,” Vanity Fair, July 2008, http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/07/internet200807?currentPage=1 (Accessed December 2, 2011), 3. 3 Mayo and Newcomb, 2.

McLaughlin 3

launched the World Wide Web4; by 1994 there were over 10,000 unique web servers and 10 million

users.5

The Internet, first conceived as a defense project, and the World Wide Web, inspired by the

need for information sharing between scientists around the globe, struggle to be defined as narrowly

today. The potentials of the Internet itself are broad and paradoxical; founded with ambitions of

open and free communication between people, the Internet, above all, is a social space: Facebook,

Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr—they all aim to recreate real-world communities and social

structures in the cyber-sphere—gaming services like Xbox Live even re-imagine what a community

could be. However, considering that in order to be part of this sociality you have to park yourself in

front of a computer, smart phone, or gaming system, the Internet seems wildly alienating as well.

Everyone can conjure up the stock image of an Internet addict: someone relatively young, usually

male, unshowered, wearing a flannel that even Kurt Cobain would be jealous of, sits in a dark

basement—probably at his mother’s house--, surrounded by empty Big Gulps and bags of Cheetos.

He goes to sleep around dawn, not to wake up until dinnertime, and rarely leaves the house. A

recent study done by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that this is not the case—or at

least not the rule, in the United States. The Internet has actually helped people form more diverse

social networks, in some cases stronger social networks, and online interaction does not discourage

face-to-face interaction.6

4 The World Wide Web is specifically a network of interlinked documents accessible through the Internet; the Internet, in contrast, is a ‘network of networks’, connecting various computer networks via TCP/IP. 5 “How the Web Began,” European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/WebStory-en.html (Accessed December 2, 2011). 6 Keith Hampton, et. al, “Social Isolation and New Technology,” Pew Internet & American Life Project, http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/18--Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology/Executive-Summary.aspx (Accessed December 11, 2011).

McLaughlin 4

More and more we are seeing the Internet (or rather, its users, though the Internet does seem

to have a life of its own at times) realize its potential as the perfect library; there is a true free market

of ideas and a vast—limitless—information commons.7 Wes Boyd, co-founder of Berkeley Systems

and Moveon.org said, “I think the biggest shock for us, and it was from the very beginning, was not:

Oh, boy, these big people are paying attention to us. It was that there are no big people: it’s up to all

of us. And that’s a very scary thing, you know, when you realize what a vacuum there is in many

ways in politics,”8 the Internet is about equality between people; it is about individual autonomy and

community responsibility; it is about freedom of information; it is about personal imagination.9 The

advent of the Internet, though not a ‘real’ space, has made political and social imaginings possible in

a more real way than the material world ever has; it is a tool of democracy and revolutionaries with

implications potentially more profound than those of Gutenberg’s printing press, invented 500 years

ago.

7 Siva Vaidhayanathan, The Anarchist in the Library (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 121. 8 Mayo and Newcomb, 7. 9 Vaidhayanathan, xvii.

McLaughlin 5

Introduction “Mexican Brothers and Sisters, We are a product of 500 years of struggle…”

First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle

On January 1, 1994, the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) famously

declared ¡YA BASTA!, enough. Enough with the hunger, poor health care, disappearing land rights,

second-rate education, fraudulent democracy, and empty promises from the government—the

EZLN would wage war. Three thousand faces veiled under black ski masks descended upon the

central plaza in San Cristobal de las Casas in Chiapas, Mexico. A black flag with the letters EZLN

printed in red went up in the middle of the square; the now infamous Subcomandante Marcos came

out onto the balcony of the Municipal Palace and addressed San Cristobal de las Casas with the First

Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle. Subcomandante Marcos and the EZLN had declared war

against President Salinas and the Mexican government.10

Enough is enough. That same day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),

signed by the United States, Mexico, and Canada was slated to go into effect. NAFTA was expected

to bring economic growth to all three countries and bring Mexico into the First World11; it

symbolized the apex of the neoliberal vision and a ‘death sentence’ for the indigenous communities

of Mexico. Officially, neoliberalism is the set of policies that removes barriers to free trade, such as

tariffs and regulations, so that the private sector controls the market. Neoliberal policies reflect great

faith in market to correct itself. Marcos, however, describes neoliberalism otherwise, “And the truth

is that, as I discovered, neoliberalism is the chaotic theory of economic chaos, the stupid exaltation of

10 Paul Kingsnorth, One No, Many Yeses A Journey to the Heart of the Global Resistance Movement (London: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 3-4. 11 John Womack, Jr. Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader (New York: The New Press, 1999), 44.

McLaughlin 6

social stupidity, and the catastrophic political management of catastrophe,”12 neoliberalism is a

ticking time bomb. It assumes the answers to problems that it cannot solve; it is self-destructive; in

maintaining itself, free-market capitalism, it destroys local markets globally. Though there are

potential long-term benefits to free trade agreements such as NAFTA, Mexican agricultural markets

have only experienced its drawbacks, considering that the U.S. agricultural market is heavily

subsidized and Mexican farmers cannot compete with their prices.13

Enough is enough. Signing NAFTA into effect required that President Carlos Salinas de

Gotari repeal Article 27 of the Constitution, legalizing the privatization of communal land by

corporations and foreign nationals. Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution, previously, had protected

the indigenous right to ejidal land—a right that Salinas was now effectively denying. The majority of

Mexicans in Chiapas—Mayans really—still worked the land for their livelihood, a livelihood that is

not modern, nor is it progressive, and therefore it is not realistic in a neoliberal state.

Enough is enough. The Mexican government, according to the EZLN declaration of war, had

violated Article 39 of the Constitution, which reads, “National Sovereignty essentially and originally

resides in the people. All political power emanates from the people and its purpose is to help the

people. The people have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter or modify their form of

government.”14 The government, especially that of Salinas, has denied the people that right. The

EZLN demands justice, equality, and democracy. The EZLN demands “work, land, housing, food,

12 Subcomandante Marcos, “Durito: Neoliberalism the Chaotic theory of Economic Chaos,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 174. 13 Laura Carlsen, “Americas Policy Report The Mexican Farmer’s Movement: Exposing the Myths of Free Trade,” International Forum on Globalization, February 25, 2003, http://www.ifg.org/analysis/wto/cancun/mythtrade.htm (Accessed December 15, 2011). 14 Subcomandante Marcos, “First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 643.

McLaughlin 7

health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.”15 The people of

Chiapas have nothing—as Marcos says, “For everyone everything, nothing for us.”16

Enough is enough. “JOIN THE INSURGENT FORCES OF THE ZAPATISTA NATIONAL LIBERATION

ARMY.” To the people of Mexico, to the peoples and governments of the world, enough is enough.

The peoples of the world got the message, and 1994 saw a sudden influx of activists and Non-

governmental organizations in Chiapas. The Encuentro of 1996 drew thousands.

However, this revolution would unlike any revolution before. It has no formal manifesto, no

single ideologue, no political platform; it is a revolution to make room for revolution. In the Second

Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle, the EZLN writes,

“We aren’t proposing a new world, but something preceding a new world: an antechamber looking into the new Mexico. In this sense, this revolution will not end in a new class, faction of a class, or a group in power. It will end in a free and democratic space for political struggle.”17

In this sense, it is extremely difficult to define the Zapatista movement. They cover their faces with

ski masks to highlight their invisibility; Marcos is a subcomandante because he does not lead the

revolution—the marginalized people of the world do; the EZLN seeks autonomy within—as

opposed to without—the Mexican state. The EZLN called on an amorphous civil society to bring

about revolution by reconstructing power, not just usurping it from the Mexican state. Especially at

the onset of the Zapatista movement, its ambiguity was the source of its greatest strength; by

addressing both local and global issues in the same breath, Marcos and the EZLN were able to call

upon the peoples of the world to support and enact their revolution.

15 Subcomandante Marcos, “Second Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 645. 16 Subcomandante Marcos, “Third Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 657. 17 Subcomandante Marcos, “Second Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 648.

McLaughlin 8

The Zapatista’s greatest tool for reaching out to the international community was the

Internet, especially in the first months of 1994. The Internet served as a vehicle for the rapid

dissemination of information; numerous web pages dedicated to Zapatista goings-on sprung up early

on in the movement and they served two purposes: one, to get the word out and woo sympathizers,

and two, to counter the war of disinformation waged by the Mexican state (of course not the only

war that the state launched against the EZLN). The EZLN General Command acted as the

intermediary between Marcos and the rest of the world. The General Command delivered messages

to Marcos and distributed his writings form the Lacandon Jungle to the relevant press outlets; it is a

popular misconception that Marcos himself types and uploads his writings to the Net from Chiapas,

one of the poorest regions in Mexico with little infrastructure and dubious access to electricity, let

alone the Internet.18 There are a number of listservs devoted to Zapatista news, including ‘chiapas-1’

run through the Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), ‘fzln-1’, a function of the Zapatista

National Liberation Front, and the now defunct Chiapas95 listservs, which operated in both Spanish

and English (archives through April 2007 are available online).19

Though the importance of the Internet to the global Zapatista movement is unquestionable,

it would be hyperbole to maintain that it was the sole contributing factor to the EZLN’s success as a

global movement. The Internet did help to bring the Zapatista struggle into the global arena—

cyberspace encouraged the growth of international solidarity networks, both formal and informal.

Additionally, the Zapatista movement brought exceptional attention to the ‘Indian Question’ in

Mexico, bringing those issues to the forefront of national politics, Alex Khasnahbish continues in

Zapatismo Beyond Borders, “If this was all the Zapatista movement had accomplished, it would be a

18 Harry M. Cleaver Jr., “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political Fabric,” https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/zapeffect.html# (Accessed October 30, 2011). 19 Cleaver, “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political Fabric.”

McLaughlin 9

tremendously significant outcome in itself.”20 However, it is important not to romanticize the

solidarity networks or overestimate their role because the international solidarity networks did not

function independent of people or of a global context. Locally, the Zapatista movement arose amidst

a culture of revolution: since the Mexican Revolution of 1910, and even that of Benito Juárez in

1857, allusions to revolution and its principles have featured prominently in political and national

rhetoric. However, when Salinas ascended to the presidency, he chose to rework this structure,

which “definitively signalled the state’s abandonment of its own mythologized revolutionary

tradition as Mexico’s elite looked forward to NAFTA as their ticket into the First World,”21 the

Zapatistas, then, were uniquely poised to capitalize on both the Mexican tradition of revolution and

esteem for its leaders as well as the government’s essential abandonment of the Mexican national

narrative. This local context serves to globally situate the Zapatista movement: since the dissolution

of the Soviet Union, neoliberal, capitalist economics had been flourishing. Salinas abandoned the

Mexican national narrative with the aim of insinuating Mexico into the relevant global sphere;

Mexicans were not the only people experiencing the effects of neoliberal capitalism.

The movement resonated transnationally in part because of the Internet, but also because, as

Marcos notes, the world is engaged in the ‘Fourth World War’, this time of economic policies versus

humanity.22 This is not just rhetoric—Khasnabish elaborates on Marcos’s observation, “The socio-

political challenge today…is rather one of a geopolitical system and its arsenal of agents, armies, and

weapons—economic, political, social, cultural, military, intellectual, etc.—versus the vast majority of

20 Alex Khasnabish, Zapatismo Beyond Borders: New Imaginations of Political Possibility (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 120. 21 Khasnabish, 110. 22 Khasnabish, 273.

McLaughlin 10

humanity,”23 the Internet and international solidarity networks, therefore, are not inherently

valuable. They are valuable because of the way that they speak for and serve the greater global issues

that the Zapatista movement inadvertently came to illustrate; the Internet and international

solidarity networks are important to the Zapatista movement because of how all three complement

and contradict each other, not simply because they exist.

Though the Internet has various symbolic meanings and powers, they cannot be immediately

translated into real consequences for the EZLN and the Zapatistas in Chiapas. There is a great

distance between transnational Zapatismo and Zapatismo in Chiapas; the former is a set a principles,

really, and the latter a praxis. Khasnabish writes,

Zapatismo in Chiapas is constituted and lived by communities in resistance. Zapatismo transnationally—and particularly in Canada and the United States—has instead found resonance within people who have ‘defected’ from the system. This makes for markedly different histories of struggle.24

Considering that meaning is created and recreated online—or distorted—it is important to consider

how the Zapatista movement interacted with the Internet and global civil society to create

something new. However, although, the Internet played a very important role in transforming the

global consciousness as it related to the Zapatista movement, it may have been less important—

perhaps ultimately irrelevant—to the Zapatista project on the ground in Chiapas. The Internet has

great transformative capabilities, but their value is not the same in international and local contexts.

23 Khasnabish, 273. 24 Khasnabish, 277.

McLaughlin 11

Overview of Paper

The first section of this essay will provide a brief description and analysis of early Zapatista

activities from roughly 1994-1997 and discuss the early ideas and basis of transnational Zapatismo.

In the second section, I will discuss the Internet as a rhizome, to borrow a term from Gilles Deleuze

and Felix Guattari. That is, I will discuss the way in which the Internet expands—horizontally and

without one single narrative—and how it fits the Zapatista vision of a ‘world of many worlds’. The

following section will address the actual role of the Internet in the Zapatista movement and its role

in the formation of international solidarity networks and transnationalism. However, despite the

importance of the Internet in developing the Zapatista movement internationally, it is not clear that

it had any concrete success on the ground. Therefore, the final section will discuss Zapatista political

imaginings and assess the effects of Internet in the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, looking

specifically to the San Andres Accords and Acteal Massacre as examples. To conclude, I will discuss

the duality of the Zapatista movement and if achieving success on a international level really

precludes realizing the local goals.

The Zapatistas, 1994-1997 “Zapatismo is not just an armed rebellion—it is a whole region in daily resistance.”

Paul Kingsnorth

For twelve days in January of 1994, the EZLN engaged in an armed struggle with the

Mexican state; for the next few years there would be sporadic negotiations between the EZLN and

the state, and a continuous low-impact war against the EZLN in Chiapas. On January 12th, 1994,

both sides signed a ceasefire agreement, which the Zapatistas have not broken. Harry M. Cleaver, Jr.,

McLaughlin 12

international activist and economics professor at the University of Texas describes the state’s reaction

to the Zapatista war,

We now know that the Mexican government's position has actually been fairly consistent ever since: a public façade of negotiations behind which the state has elaborated a highly repressive counterinsurgency program of systematic terrorism against Zapatista communities using not only every available police and military agency of the state itself but including the financing, arming and cooperation with paramilitary groups that have murdered dozens and driven thousands from their homes and villages.25

The state attempted to crush the rebellion on both military and conceptual levels, sending troops to

the state of Chiapas and distributing misinformation intended to distort the Zapatista plan and

distract the international audience from what was happening on the ground.

The latter project failed; within days, news of the insurrection had spread and delegations

from various non-governmental organizations and human rights watch groups were arriving in

Mexico City and San Cristobal de las Casas. The NGOs made contact with representatives from the

EZLN and in many cases, developed communications infrastructure that had previously not existed

in Chiapas in order to communicate amongst themselves and with the media. As a result, the EZLN

quickly transformed into the greater Zapatista movement; the uprising of January 1, 1994 was not

just a local insurgency, it was a transnational ‘netwar’ that resonated throughout global civil society.26

The activists on the ground in Chiapas created and nourished a media frenzy to ensure that the

EZLN and its views were portrayed favorably.27

However, domestically, the Zapatistas themselves had already taken up the task of

propaganda by naming themselves after one of the most popular figures of the Mexican Revolution. 25 Harry M. Cleaver Jr., “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network: A review and critique of Judith Adler Hellman's "Real and Virtual Chiapas: Magic Realism and the Left", Socialist Register, 2000,” https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/anti-hellman.html (Accessed November 21, 2011). 26 David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla, “Emergence and Influence of the Zapatista Social Netwar,” Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy (Arlington, VA: RAND, 2001), 172. 27 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 181.

McLaughlin 13

But, the Zapatistas did not entirely invoke Emiliano Zapata, the first revolutionary for the

indigenous,

Votán Zapata, light that came from afar and was born here from our land. Votán Zapata, named again forever a man of our people. Votán Zapata, a timid fire who lived our death 501 years…The name without a name, Votán Zapata looked in Miguel, walked in José María, was Vicente, was named in Benito, flew in a bird, rode in Emiliano, shouted in Francisco, visited Pedro. We lived dying, named without a name in our own lands. Votán Zapata arrived in our lands. Speaking, his word fell into our mouth. He arrived and is here. Votán Zapata, guardian and heart of the people.28

The Zapatistas also invoke Votán, an important mythical figure for the indigenous, who taught the

elements of civilization at the beginning of time. Both Votán and Zapata function as types of

propaganda, but they also fulfill a greater role. By invoking Votán, the Zapatistas reaffirm the

indigenous features of the rebellion; by invoking Zapata, they also reaffirm the their own

Mexicanness.29 Khasnabish writes, “In essence, the Zapatistas did not set out to reclaim history, they

set out to reinvigorate a future of possibly through the use of national, and particularly

revolutionary, myths,”30 the Zapatistas adopt the narrative that the state had already discarded and

change it; they become more Mexican than the state in two ways: they embrace Mexico’s

revolutionary past, referring to the Mexican revolutionary elite, above, and their platform embraces

Mexico’s revolutionary future because it puts forth the groundwork for possibility and change.31

In August 1994, the EZLN held the First National Democratic Convention, attracting over

3,000 people from 40 countries. In December of the same year the EZLN declared autonomy for 38

indigenous municipalities. In 1995, Chase Bank called for the elimination of the Zapatistas and the

28 The Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee—General Command of the EZLN, “Votán Zapata or Five Hundred Years of History,” in Zapatismo Beyond Borders, by Alex Khasnabish (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 96. 29 Khasnabish, 97. 30 Khasnabish, 115. 31 Khasnabish, 114.

McLaughlin 14

Mexican government reengaged in low-intensity war.32 In 1996, the EZLN and the Mexican

government signed the San Andrés Accords, granting territory, cultural rights, and autonomy to the

indigenous of Mexico, as well as provisions for reforms in the Mexican government, namely

democratic decentralization and municipal strengthening.33 Zedillo rejected the San Andrés Accords

the following January. Also in 1996, the Zapatistas held the first ‘Intercontinental Encuentro for

Humanity and against Neoliberalism’ and when they expected only a few hundred visitors,

thousands came.34 In 1997, the Frente Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (FZLN) was formed in

Mexico City to be the civil and political face of the movement in Mexico.35 At the end of the year,

on December 22, a paramilitary group attacked the Las Abejas group in Acteal, massacring 45

people.36

The Zapatistas gained international notoriety as the movement continued and developed;

interestingly, as the movement developed, it became less globally focused and more locally focused.

As John Womack notes, in the First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle, there is no mention of

Indians, allegedly, “According to Marcos, this omission followed the lead of the most Indian Indians

on the drafting committee, who insisted that the struggle was not particularly Indian but national,”37

furthermore, the First Declaration is radical in a way that the following declarations are not. It reads,

“According to this Declaration of War, we ask that other powers of the nation advocate to restore

the legitimacy and the stability of this nation by overthrowing the dictator,”38 instead of calling on

32 Cleaver, “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political Fabric,”; Oliver Froehling, “The Cyberspace ‘War of Ink and Internet’ in Chiapas, Mexico,” Geographic Review Vol. 87, No. 2, Cyberspace and Geographical Space (April 1997): 302. 33 “San Andrés Accords,” http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/san_andres.html (Accessed December 3, 2011). 34 Kingsnorth, 36-7. 35 Womack, 328. 36 Womack, 346. 37 Womack, 246. 38 Subcomandante Marcos, “First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 644.

McLaughlin 15

‘civil society’ to just recognize governmental abuses of power, here the Zapatistas call for government

overhaul. The Second Declaration calls for ‘civil society’ to convene in a National Democratic

Convention, “from which a provisional transitional government can emerge, be it by the resignation

of the federal executive or by an electoral route,”39 the Declaration continues, “We will not take

anything from the government. We will resist until those who are in power exercise their power

while obeying the people’s will.”40 The Second Declaration, like the First, does not mention the

indigenous either, and only Chiapas once, however unlike the First, the Second Declaration has the

distinct voice of Marcos.41

Despite the lack of mention of the indigenous in the Second Declaration, before its release

the Zapatistas had been engaged in negotiations with the government, releasing a communiqué that

calls for indigenous autonomy and rights in 15 of its 34 demands.42 Zapatista demands remain very

specific and often indigenous focused after the Second Declaration as well. The Third Declaration

makes specific points towards achieving ‘national liberation’ and the Fourth Declaration engages

civil society in the indigenous struggle rhetorically, “The arrogant wish to extinguish a rebellion

which they mistakenly believe began in the dawn of 1994. But the rebellion which now has a dark

face and an indigenous language was not born today. It spoke before with other languages and in

other lands,”43 though the rebellion in Chiapas has specific demands for indigenous rights, the

Zapatista rebellion is not the first of its kind; the Fourth Declaration emphasizes the universality of

the movement despite its seemingly narrow focus on indigenous autonomy within Chiapas.

39 Subcomandante Marcos, “Second Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 649. 40 Subcomandante Marcos, “Second Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 652. 41 Womack, 279. 42 Womack, 268. 43 Subcomandante Marcos, “Fourth Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 661.

McLaughlin 16

The Fourth Declaration states, “When the homeland speaks its Indian heart, it will have

dignity and memory,”44 and continues, discussing the Plebiscite for Peace and Democracy, “The

massive participation of international civil society called attention to the necessity to construct those

spaces where the different aspirations for democratic change could find expression even among the

different countries.”45 Dignity, memory, and desire for democratic change are not unique to the

indigenous faction of the Zapatistas, however without online communications and media presence,

it is doubtful that they would have reached international civil society. Online communications

allowed for information to flow out of Chiapas, but it also allowed for information to flow back in;

responses from different countries, that perhaps spoke of aspirations for democratic change,

influenced Zapatista rhetoric and essentially forced the Zapatistas in Chiapas to add a global

component to a movement that had begun as indigenous, but above all, Mexican.

Put succinctly, “Visibility changed the war in Chiapas,”46 writes Oliver Froehling. The

Zapatista online and media presence made it nearly impossible for the government to control or

manipulate information leaving Mexico. While the Zapatistas destabilized power structures from

below, the media destabilized them from above, making room for the configurations of power that

the movement demanded. The primary concern of the EZLN remained indigenous rights, however

the call for democracy, justice, and an end to neoliberalism resonated transnationally thanks to the

communicative possibility of the Internet. The Internet symbolically realized core Zapatista

demands: direct democracy, freedom, education, and new configurations of power because, online,

there is always room for revolution.

44 Subcomandante Marcos, “Fourth Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 662. 45 Subcomandante Marcos, “Second Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 664. 46 Froehling, 303.

McLaughlin 17

The Internet as a Rhizome

The Internet, then, played a unique role in the Zapatista movement and the diffusion of its

ideas. In The Cyberspace ‘War of Ink and Internet’ in Chiapas Mexico, Oliver Froehling contends that

the Internet did not only revolutionize communication, it redefined the design of struggle.

Cyberspace, according to Froehling, takes the form of a rhizome, a word drawn from biology that

Froehling describes as “an intermediate and contested social space composed of flows that transcend

boundaries and forge new connections between events and places.”47 The rhizome is a metaphor for

the dynamics and consequences of social movement. In theory, the Internet is limitless; it can always

host new servers. Information can travel globally between computers, making national boundaries

and distance irrelevant; thus, it forms the basis for transnationalism. The chance connections made

between networks, servers, computers, and people, form the basis for an infinite number of

communities that, despite existing in only virtual space, have very real meaning and impact.

Cyberspace, the territory of the Internet, is a contradictory space like any other, it “is a site of

struggle, rather than a straightforward tool of liberation or domination…[it] is continually

produced, reproduced, and contested.”48 There exists a tension between the individual and the

structures that contain him, however, in contrast with real space, the structures do not limit him.

Through standardized protocol, new spaces—web pages, connections between individuals—spring

up unhindered. Cyberspace, argues Froehling, has become part of our reality—despite the fact that

all peoples may not be universally connected. It is important to acknowledge that the Internet has a

strong first world bias and English, especially true in 1994; however, the connections made in

cyberspace reconfigure geopolitics in such a way that they become immediately internationally 47 Froehling, 291. 48 Froehling, 293.

McLaughlin 18

relevant, regardless of who specifically is connected, “The role of the Internet is to enhance the scale

of an event in order to increase its visibility and draw in actors from outside the immediate area of

struggle. Scale thereby becomes an object of the struggle, part of which is carried on in cyberspace.”49

The initial Zapatista program was strictly local: it was necessary that they survive the

immediate military conflict and keep hold of their territory in Chiapas. However, as Froehling notes,

social movements, like the rhizomes of cyberspace, multiply horizontally; they find their profundity

in their ability to unite individuals and reach across nations.50 Social movements, like the rhizomes

of cyberspace, are seductive and enchanting—but not deceptive—they are significant for the flow

that they create between people and ideas. A social movement, more often thought about as a

collective movement towards a goal, with little attention paid to whether or not the goal was

realized. A social movement, therefore, is about a series of relationships between actors more so than

a pragmatic list of goals. These relationships online have the potential to link us together in ways

that we often have yet to realize. Cleaver writes:

The "Internet" is not the web. It is something much vaster and more alive. For the most part the web is a stock of accumulated pieces of information. Over time there is something like a flow as web pages are constructed and expanded, but it is generally slow and cumulative. The real flows are the daily postings of e-mail that circulate through the aforementioned listservs and PeaceNet conferences, that pour into the mailboxes of those in the solidarity networks throughout the day and night.51

When considering the importance of the Internet, especially as it applies to the Zapatista movement,

it is important to remember that its significance comes only from how people use it. The Net

provides a structure that was uniquely suited to the Zapatista project because it showed that small

49 Froehling, 292. 50 Froehling, 294. 51 Cleaver, “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network.”

McLaughlin 19

groups of individuals did have the power to challenge the nation-state and omnipotent neoliberal

doctrine.

Despite the fact that both consume marginalized groups in the real world, they regained their

voice in the virtual world, “The powerful came to extinguish us with its violent wind, but our light

grew in other lights. The rich dream still dream about extinguishing the first light. It is useless, there

are now too many lights and they have all become the first,”52 connections made across cyberspace

amplified the Zapatista message and it echoed globally—each echo was unique, but they had ‘all

become the first’. The Internet challenged existing power structures in such a profound way that it

was irrelevant that the Zapatistas themselves were not connected to the Net; the voice that came out

of the international and transnational solidarity networks espoused the evils of neoliberalism, the

indigenous right to autonomy, and demonstrated the power of decentralized authority.

52 Subcomandante Marcos, “Fourth Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 661.

McLaughlin 20

Solidarity Networks & International Resonance

The Zapatista movement represented a new and novel type of insurgency; the uprising was

not obviously class based or ethnically motivated and notoriously lacked an ideology. Even more

confounding, its ideologue, Subcomandante Marcos, passionately denies being an ideologue. The

rebellion, as Carlos Fuentes notes, is the world’s first post-communist and post-modern insurgency;

in protesting neoliberal politics, Zapatismo denied a single global or cultural narrative as well as

objective truth, a tenet of modernism—unless relativism as objective truth counts as ‘modern’. Their

rhetoric spoke of prefigurative politics, that is “a politics that anticipates and rehearses what it seeks

to create,” 53 which their actions reflect: Zapatista leadership, “Govern[s] by obeying.”54 The primary

primary tool of revolution would be other group’s use of the Internet to spread the word.55

In, Emergence and Influence of the Zapatista Social Netwar, David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla

describe the structure of the Zapatista movement, noting that its structure is part of what makes it

unique, claiming that there are three layers within the movement. The first layer of the Zapatista

movement is its indigenous social base—this is the layer that Marcos claims is at the heart of the

revolution. The values of the indigenous social base are “egalitarian, communitarian, and

consultative.”56 The second layer, the leadership of the EZLN, is usually not indigenous. They are

often ladinos, middle-class, and educated. The authors claim that this leadership “aspired to organize

hierarchical command structures for waging guerrilla warfare in and beyond Chiapas.”57 Local and

transnational NGOs (mostly from Mexico, Canada, and the US) represent the top layer. Many of

53 Yarimar Bonilla, “Guadeloupe is Ours,” Interventions 12:1 (2010), 127. 54 Subcomandante Marcos, “Fourth Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 668. 55 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 171-2. 56 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 174. 57 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 174.

McLaughlin 21

these NGOs were already linked technologically and had developed extensive networks within

themselves while protesting NAFTA and US-Central American policy in the 1980s.58 Each layer has

different values and goals; there was therefore no single strategy or narrative for the movement. The

Zapatista movement has developed ad hoc, adjusting to the requirements of the day; its flexibility,

really, has been one of its primary strengths.59

According to Ronfeldt and Arquilla, the top layer was necessary to transform the movement

into the first post-communist rebellion, without the network of NGOs the Zapatista movement

would probably have resembled a class- or ethnically-driven insurrection. The top layer coordinated

communications and constructed the network framework, which helped to shape the development

of the movement. It was a propitious time for revolution and new configurations of power: both the

NGOs and the Zapatistas were not interested in achieving political power so much as, “they wanted

to foster a form of democracy in which civil society actors would be strong enough to counterbalance

state and market actors and could play central roles in making public-policy decisions that affect civil

society.”60 The agendas of various NGOs and the Zapatistas in the 1990s were actually very closely

aligned—they both recognized the threat of neoliberal capitalist ‘war machine’ and wanted to stop it

in its tracks.61

Alex Khasnabish quotes Marxist theorist John Holloway in his book, Zapatismo Beyond

Borders, who says, “If dignity is taken as a central principle, then people cannot be treated as means:

the creation of a society based on dignity can only take place through the development of social

58 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 180. 59 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 174. 60 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 175. 61 Khasnabish, 40.

McLaughlin 22

practices based on the mutual recognition of that dignity,”62that is to say, individual dignity is what

is important to 21st century social movements. Therefore, movements will not be rooted in class,

nationalist, or ethnic interests, they will instead be rooted in ideals of autonomy and characterized by

interconnectedness between peoples; emphasizing how individuals relate to each other instead of

accentuating the ways in which they conflict.63 To some extent, it is just convenient that the

Zapatista movement fits such a description, because after all, it does have an ‘Indian heart’. But, as

the movement developed, it became clear that the Zapatistas were not fighting on behalf of the

indigenous against the rest of the world, nor even on behalf of Mexico alone against neoliberalism,

“In the world we want many worlds to fit. The Nation which we construct is one where all

communities and languages fit, where all steps may walk, where all may have laughter, where all may

live the dawn.”64

In his book, Khasnabish claims that because the Zapatista movement is transnational,

‘resonant’, and politically imaginative, it is therefore able to effectively communicate the programs of

various activist movements. The Zapatista movement is fundamentally a movement promoting

indigenous rights to autonomy and self-determination in Mexico, however, it is also legitimate as a

global movement for pushing the very same program.65 The Zapatista movement takes place on

multiple levels—the local, the virtual, the international—and thus acquires multiple, at times

contradictory meanings, which Khasnabish calls resonance. The phenomenon of resonance is the

“lines of flight that seek to bring into being a political space of practice and imagination that

transverses, transgresses, and lie beyond the hegemony exercised by dominant conceptions of the

62 Khasnabish, 40. 63 Khasnabish, 28. 64 Subcomdante Marcos, “The Fourth Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 669. 65 Khasnabish, 28.

McLaughlin 23

state, the nation, and the current world (dis)order they constitute,”66 resonance, similar to the

Internet, is significant because it represents likes of communication; both are a conduit, to borrow a

word from Cleaver.

However, the Zapatista solidarity networks were not perfectly resonant, just as the Internet

was not the only conduit of Zapatista ideas; old structures remain relevant. Cyberspace may have

become a reality, however its dominance has not eclipsed that of the nation-state and national

politics, Zapatista solidarity networks did not displace hegemonic power structures.67 Within

Chiapas, information is spread through word of mouth, sometimes writings, but it is not spread via

e-mail and webpage postings. E-mail and webpage postings are things of resonance, they represent

the conversations and new political imaginings of activists, both internationally and those who

flocked to Chiapas, in the mid-nineties. Khasnabish elaborates,

This is not a struggle engaged in by a homogenous group of people; it is not a struggle built according to strict principles or a revolutionary blueprint; it is, rather, a struggle that is being joined by people all over the world seeking to affirm their autonomy and interconnectedness, their will to live in a world capable of holding many worlds.68

Each transgression of accepted power represents a rhizome of imagining political possibilities; the

structures of resonance and Internet allow for multiple, infinite options, as opposed to just one.

It is ironic that the primary tool of the Zapatistas after the initial uprising and during the

subsequent rebellion was the Internet, invented by the staunchly neoliberal United States.

Additionally, though it facilitates democracy by encouraging individuals to participate, liberty

through the freedom of information, and justice through a war against misinformation, global access

to the Internet is and was wildly unequal. The Zapatista international solidarity network existed

66 Khasnabish, 6. 67 Froehling, 292; Khasnabish, 6. 68 Khasnabish, 9-10.

McLaughlin 24

primarily in the United States, Canada, and Europe and was especially biased towards English. “The

very channels used to deploy and engage these Zapatista-inspired political landscapes,” writes

Khasnabish, “are simultaneously deeply linked to other processes that form a significant portion of

the Zapatista’s rationale for rising up in rebellion in the first place,”69the role of the Internet in the

Zapatista movement definitely represents tensions—between global and local demands, between

thought and practice—but the Internet does not embody neoliberalism, especially its purported

consequences. In fact, the potential of the Internet runs immediately counter to them: it is

democratic and egalitarian—online, each person has an equal voice regardless of his or her standing

in society—and people have equal access to information; only government regulation of the Internet

makes it compatible with the capitalist system.

In a 1996 interview with Yvon Le Bot, an accomplished Frenchman and scholar of Latin

America, Marcos discussed the Zapatista movement, and the evolution of civilian Zapatismo. He

says,

So there’s the EZLN as such, the Indian communities. That’s original Zapatismo, let’s say. Then civilian Zapatismo, which appears in the dialogue of San Cristóbal, then in the National Democratic Convention, and looks for how to organize. I mean, it begins as a kind of diffuse committee of solidarity, focused on what’s happening here, and that evolves into a political organization…Then there’s the third Zapatismo, bigger, more dispersed, people who have sympathy for the EZLN and are ready to support it, but who have no intention of organizing or who already belong to other political or social organizations.70

Zapatismo in Chiapas is very distinct from Zapatismo abroad; Marcos says that Zapatismo is

really “the common point, or the pretext for converging,”71 and a reminder of the need to

struggle. There is a tension between the different forms of Zapatismo because they are all

69 Khasnabish, 17. 70 Subcomandante Marcos, interview with Yvon Le Bot, in Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader, by John Womack, Jr., (New York: The New Press, 1999), 325. 71 Subcomandante Marcos, interview with Yvon Le Bot, 325.

McLaughlin 25

fighting for different things, some more tangible than others and it is important not to

confuse them, “It’s Zapatismo’s most serious problem at this point. More than the soldiers,

the rupture of the dialogue, the plans, and the tanks. That’s what’s going to decide its

future,”72 the future of Zapatismo, Marcos tells Le Bot, depends on whether or not

Zapatistas look at the stars or their hand pointing to the star—that is, if Zapatismo is to be a

dream, a series of possibilities, or a tangible struggle towards the dream.73 On the ground, it

is clear that Zapatismo is the hand pointing towards the star, but outside of Chiapas, it is

most likely just the star.

Although international human rights groups and NGOs are very often products of the

capitalist system, how they were borne is irrelevant—the Zapatistas are not looking for specific

reforms—they are looking for revolution and to redefine global understandings of power. The

Zapatistas claim to be the product of 500 years of struggle, “first against slavery, then during the

War of Independence against Spain led by insurgents, then to avoid being absorbed by North

American imperialism, and later the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz denied us the just application of

the Reform laws…”74 however they are not seeking reparations in the form of power or money.

Instead, they are seeking the space to begin rectifying these past wrongs, and to begin imagining a

more just world. Therefore, as long as the NGOs and other sympathizers have that goal in mind as

well, there is no compelling conflict between them and the Zapatistas.

The Zapatista movement resonates domestically because of the Mexican icons, myths, and

symbols it has appropriated, and it resonates internationally because it is focused on issues that

transcend borders. Though it is not perfectly transnational, or even close to it, themes of democracy,

72 Subcomandante Marcos, interview with Yvon Le Bot, 326. 73 Subcomandante Marcos, interview with Yvon Le Bot, 326. 74 Subcomandante Marcos, “First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle,” 643.

McLaughlin 26

liberty, justice, and dignity speak to the human condition; they speak to oppressed peoples around

the world. Examining the writings of Subcomandante Marcos quickly demonstrates that the

Zapatista movement does not believe itself to be isolated from the rest of the world. The Zapatistas

wanted to form links with other struggles so that they could support and reinforce each other, more

than anything links between these revolutionary social movements underscored the legitimacy of

their grievances: neoliberal policies and their effects were not only problems in Mexico, or in

Chiapas, they were wreaking havoc globally. “The Zapatistas’ ability to communicate with the world,

and with Mexican society, propelled a local, weak insurgent group to the forefront of world politics,”

75however, despite the symbolic importance of the Zapatista movement, it is necessary to remember

that it was the skills and knowledge of NGOs on the ground, attuned to the technology of the

information age, and not the EZLN itself that transformed the network and framework of the

movement. At its heart, the Zapatista movement remains a movement in favor of indigenous rights,

with an international flair.

Some contend that phenomena such as ‘resonance’ and ‘transnationalism’ are misleading

because the listservs and web pages that inform the international community communicate an

extremely simplified version of the complex situation in Chiapas. Furthermore, even if they were to

communicate the ‘reality’ of Chiapas, people (or the exact recipients of said ‘resonant’

communications’ are unable to grasp its complexity. In, The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support

Network, Harry M. Cleaver, Jr. criticizes Judith Adler Hellman’s critique of the Zapatista cyber

network. According to Cleaver, there were three reactions from the left to the idea of cyberspace as a

new terrain of struggle: the first group immediately embraced the technology and the ideas, spinning

webs of possibility that had little to do with reality; the second group immediately denounced 75 Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 191.

McLaughlin 27

Internet activists for not engaging in struggle on the ground; the third group did not immediately

embrace or denounce cyberspace, instead, they sought to expand the struggles they witnessed on the

ground in the virtual realm.76

In her article, Real and Virtual Chiapas: Magical Realism and the Left, Hellman writes,

I will show that virtual Chiapas holds a seductive attraction for disenchanted and discouraged people on the left that is fundamentally different than the appeal of the struggles underway in the real Chiapas. Solidarity with the real people who inhabit the real Chiapas requires far greater political maturity and tolerance for ambiguity than the most passionately dedicated support for virtual Chiapas. Understandable as the urge to simplify may be, I will show that it is politically important to distinguish between the Chiapas on our computer screens and the actual situation on the ground.77

However, as Cleaver is quick to point out, Hellman herself does not accurately represent the

situation in Chiapas. She accuses the Internet of only diffusing a ‘flattened’ version of the conflict in

Chiapas, but Hellman herself flattens both the conflict and the entire movement by dividing it into a

false dichotomy: the virtual versus the real. The critiques that highlight the inability of the Internet

to show the ‘real’ Chiapas ignore the way in which the real and virtual fuse, conflict, and ultimately

reinforce each other in the Zapatista movement; the Chiapas on our computer screens and the actual

situation on the ground have become indistinct from one another.78

As discussed earlier, the Internet actually does the opposite of simplify the movement—it

highlights and even develops the complexity of the Zapatista movement and the local insurgency in

Chiapas. When Subcomandante Marcos writes to President Zedillo, “You are no longer you. You are

the personification of an unjust system, anti-democratic, and criminal. We, the ‘illegals’, the

‘transgressors of the law’, the ‘professionals of violence’, the ‘nameless’ ones, are today, and always 76 Cleaver, “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network.” 77 Hellman, Judith Adler, “Real and Virtual Chiapas: Magical Realism and the Left,” Socialist Register, 2000, in “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network,” by Harry M. Cleaver, Jr., https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/anti-hellman.html. 78 Cleaver, “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network.”

McLaughlin 28

the hope of everyone,”79 he speaks with a universal voice that addresses both the local and

international ambitions of the movement. He also speaks with a voice that represents the multitude

that is the Zapatista solidarity network. In this passage, Marcos first speaks as to President Zedillo as

a Mexican, and then he speaks to him from a global perspective. The unjust system that he

references is not specific to Mexican, in fact it is not even endogenous to Mexico—it comes from the

outside, from the great global powers. The local Zapatista insurgency represents the will of the

marginalized around the world, whether or not they even come out in support of him. This passage,

and others like it, circulated cyberspace, making contact with an immeasurable amount of people

and the message and voice of the movement thus grew—rhizomatically. The broad language—

unjust, anti-democratic, illegal, hope—will take on a different meaning and a different resonance for

each individual whom it reaches. Thus, expressions of the Zapatistas online are inherently complex,

because they represent a multitude of incongruous desires (formed on the ground in Chiapas and

every other site of struggle) with one voice. Constituents of the Zapatista movement are citizens of

their respective nations, of Chiapas, and of the world.

The Internet, then, serves an obviously symbolic role in the Zapatista movement. It is not

just a tool for the media, information war with the state, or organizing; it is a medium that amplifies

the Zapatista message and intensifies the global struggle for justice. The Internet draws people in for

practical and symbolic purposes, Paul Kingnorth writes, “Zapatismo has survived not because of the

few guns the guerrillas wield, and not even through international solidarity—though this has played

a crucial part. It has survived, above all, because it has a seemingly unbreakable community base.”80

Kingsnorth refers specifically to the autonomous indigenous communities of Chiapas; however, the

79 Subcomandante Marcos, “Letter to Ernesto Zedillo,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 82. 80 Kingsnorth, 19.

McLaughlin 29

base vital to the Zapatista movement is global thanks to its online presence. The power of the

Zapatista movement is that its rhetoric, solidarity network, and resonance turns the extensive global

support network into an ‘unbreakable community base’. However, taking into account Marcos’s

interview with Le Bot, it is not immediately clear that the Internet transformed the movement

entirely for the better. Because so much of the Zapatista rhetoric did have to cater to an international

audience—an international audience that served it well—the struggle on the ground may have been

forgotten. Only Chiapas looks at the hand pointing to the star; the rest of the world looks to the star

and sees success because it can finally dream of possibility. But this is certainly not to say that the

Internet simplified the movement; it is only to say that in opening up Zapatismo to being a world of

many worlds, part of the Chiapaneco movement may have been sacrificed.

Imagination & Political Possibility Confront Reality “Find any mirror, place it in front of you and assume a comfortable position. Breathe deeply. Close your eyes and say to yourself three times: ‘I am what I am, a little bit, of what I could be. The mirror shows me what I am, the crystal what I could be.’ Once this is done, open your eyes and look at the mirror. No, don’t look at your reflection. Direct your look downward, to the left. Ready? Good, now pay attention and in a few moments another image will appear. Yes it is a march: men, women, children, and old people who come form the southeast…”

Subcomandante Marcos

The Zapatista vision is couched in visions and imaginations of political possibility. When

viewing what is, Subcomandante Marcos asks what could be—and demands that the world do the

same. In Power as a Mirror and an Image, Subcomandante Marcos outlines the construction and

perpetuation of power; Power is a farce, continuously constructed and reconstructed by Power in

order to maintain itself.

McLaughlin 30

The first mirror, Subcomandante Marcos explains, shows the contradiction of Power; it

shows that neoliberalism has no direction and that there is thus no secure future for Power. Instead

of facing the contradiction, Power looks backwards, sustaining itself on the certainty of the past

instead of surrendering to the ambiguity of the future, “ ‘I or uncertainty’,”81the officials say to

themselves, “ ‘I exist because I am necessary, I am necessary because I exist, therefore: I exist and am

necessary’,”82 Power convinces itself. Power imagines nothing; upon close inspection, the first mirror

reveals that Power is rooted in a tautology.83

Subcomandante Marcos describes three more mirrors, all of while slowly deconstructing

Power. The second mirror shows Mexico’s political parties that oppose Power. However, parties on

the left and the right share a ‘cannibalistic’ mirror: it consumes all of the ideology and reflects back

only fragments, pieces of their beliefs. However, between the fragments of the left and the right

emerges the third mirror, which reflects the people. Civil society looks into the third mirror and sees

the economic crisis. However, despite being united on one front, politics remain divisive; the first,

second, and third mirrors are bound by the status quo. The fourth mirror, plagued by the ‘illness of

hope’, however, abounds with hope. The fourth mirror sees the status quo and rejects it, in favor of

the uncertainty of the future, because the certainty of Power is a fallacy. The fourth mirror, in the

lower left corner, reflects the march of people from Chiapas to Mexico City; it reflects change,

imagination, possibility, and hope.84

Political possibility, as the narrative of the mirror shows, takes place on many levels and has

many incarnations; in many instances imaginations of political possibility have not even been fully

81 Subcomandante Marcos, “Power as a Mirror and an Image,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 154. 82 Subcomandante Marcos, “Power as a Mirror and an Image,” 155. 83 Subcomandante Marcos, “Power as a Mirror and an Image, 154-6. 84 Subcomandante Marcos, “Power as a Mirror and an Image,” 156-60.

McLaughlin 31

developed. The problem with a mirror, especially of Power, is that is poses its reflection as an

alternative when it is really only showing an inversion of what already exists, it “simplifies all its

political relationships (and human ones as well, but that is another subject).”85The new image

contributes nothing to social knowledge, and so when Power looks at itself and thinks it sees the

future it is really being conned: it only sees a reduced, simplified version of complexities that were

already being overlooked. Political morality, as Subcomandante Marcos sees it, leaves no room for

gray area and because of that characteristic, the people of Mexico and the world must demand a new

one—or create it themselves.86

As shown by Marcos’s description of the fourth mirror, the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas

represents a call to action. The indigenous of Chiapas are calling on the rest of Mexico and the rest

of the victims of neoliberalism to being imagining new structures of power. Naomi Klein elaborates

on the duality displayed by the fourth mirror:

In the seven years since, the Zapatistas have come to represent two forces at once: first, rebels struggling against grinding poverty and humiliation in the mountains of Chiapas and, on top of this, theorists of a new movement, another way to think about power, resistance, and globalization. This theory—Zapatismo—not only turns classic guerrilla tactics inside out, but much of leftwing politics on its head.87

This paper has looked extensively at the latter force, which Klein describes as one about ‘power,

resistance, and globalization’. After all, these are the aspects of Zapatismo that made is resonate so

strongly around the world and they are the forces which the Zapatistas must control and manipulate

in order to empower the first force and emancipate it from the claws of neoliberalism, as Marcos

indicates in the discussion of image and reflection in a mirror. So, what of the rebels struggling

85 Subcomandante Marcos, “Of Trees, Criminals, and Odontology,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 213. 86 Subcomandante Marcos, “Of Trees, Criminals, and Odontology,” 213-5. 87 Naomi Klein, “The Unknown Icon,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 18.

McLaughlin 32

against grinding poverty and humiliation in the mountains of Chiapas? Will they make it from the

southeast of the country, the periphery, to Mexico City? The Zapatista movement has been

successful in many regards, however the demands for indigenous rights remain unfulfilled.

Internationally and transnationally, imagination and political possibility propelled the

Zapatista movement forward, but this momentum has not translated to the real situation of the

Mexican indigenous. Consider the events surrounding both the San Andres Accords and the Acteal

Massacre.

In January of 1996, the EZLN and the Mexican government agreed on a set of principles

and proposals called the San Andres Accords, named for the village in where negotiations took

place.88 The Accords called for indigenous rights—namely the indigenous right to autonomy within

the Mexican state, characterized by the right to both territory and self-determination. The Mexican

government agreed to adopt (and abide by) principles of ethnic pluralism, sustainability of

indigenous territory, language, and culture, and democratic decentralization. Furthermore, the

Accords asserted the indigenous right to full justice, cultural and language protection, education, and

basic needs—demands that the EZLN made in their First Declaration from the Lacandon Jungle.89

When Vicente Fox was elected President in 2000, he sent an indigenous rights bill to Congress for

approval, which was passed in July 2001—with so many amendments it was unrecognizable. Despite

the Zapatista’s extensive international presence and support, the Mexican Congress held little regard

for their demands. The version of the San Andres Accords that was passed reaffirmed existing

structures: the Indians would be subject to government will, as would natural resources on their

88 Kingsnorth, 16. 89 “San Andres Accords.”

McLaughlin 33

land.90 The San Andres Accords represent a failure for the Zapatista movement and a victory for

neoliberalism.

The talks surrounding the San Andres Accords, more than anything, were for show. The

question of indigenous rights, writes Womack, was a big one at the time; the UN, Human Rights

Commission, Organization of American States, World Bank, and others, had been pushing for

recognition of indigenous rights in Latin America. 91On top of that, Zedillo was planning a trip to

Europe, and hoped not to incur any bad press. Thus, the two groups dialogued and came up with a

list of commitments, but the Mexican was under no real pressure to recognize actual autonomy of

indigenous groups in Mexico.92 Marcos writes, “The Mexican government has continually referred

to the situation of the Indian peoples as the product of ‘left-over’ economic inequities which can be

resolved through private investments and social programs,”93 the government would not fulfill the

San Andres Accords, because that would be acknowledge the Indian history that neoliberalism, the

market, and money so fervently work to deny. Though the government did dialogue, it was not

actually open to political change. However, Marcos is optimistic about the morals of history, “But

History, that stubborn and rude teacher of life, will return to pummel a truncated reality, faked by

the masks of power and money! History will return for a rematch…”94 History will vindicate the

Zapatistas in the future (which the static state cannot foresee, as shows the first mirror).

On December 22, 1997, in the interim between the drafting of the San Andres Accords and

its bastardization by the Mexican Congress, 45 people were killed during a prayer meeting of Las

Abejas Civil Society in the Acteal Massacre, including pregnant women. Many of the people 90 Kingsnorth, 16-7. 91 Womack, 305. 92 Womack, 307. 93 Subcomandante Marcos, “The Table at San Andrés,” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising, ed. Ziga Vodovnik (Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004), 293. 94 Subcomandante Marcos, “The Table at San Andrés,” 285.

McLaughlin 34

murdered had already been harassed—they were in Acteal as displaced persons, additionally, outside

of the chapel where Las Abejas were holding their prayer meeting was a sign, “Peace, Neutral

Zone”.95 At about 11:00AM a paramilitary group descended on Acteal, shooting until nightfall. The

attack is widely believed to have been sponsored by the federal and state governments, neither of

which aided in investigating the massacre; the state attorney did not photograph or secure the site96

Municipal President Arias is quoted saying, “What happened is an act of revenge. It’s not a political

problem, and that’s why we can’t solve it,”97 when no other official would confirm an attack.

Nearly twelve years after the massacre, the Supreme Court of Mexico the paramilitaries’

convicted for the Acteal Massacre sentences, despite confessions by the perpetrator and eyewitness

testimony of survivors.98 After the massacre, state repression against the EZLN did subside, but only

because the state directed their efforts elsewhere. After the massacre, the Mexican government began

to expel any foreigners from the country that were involved in activities related to Chiapas or the

EZLN on a constitutional basis—the foreigners, the government asserted, were disrupting Mexican

internal affairs.99 Said the Interior minister to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “We do not

consider it appropriate to internationalize the conflict.”100

The San Andres Accords and the Acteal Massacre both show that the international solidarity

network was of no actual consequence to the Indians in Chiapas; the EZLN asked for indigenous

rights, demanded indigenous rights, and fought for indigenous rights with nothing to show for it.

However, that is not to say that the international solidarity network or imaginations of political 95 Womack, 352; 346. 96 Womack, 348. 97 Womack, 348. 98 “The Acteal Massacre, December 22, 1997, Acteal, Chiapas State, Mexico,” Indigenous and Latina Women & Children's Human Rights News from the Americas, August 28, 2009, http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Mexico_Chiapas_Acteal_Massacre.htm (Accessed December 4, 2011). 99 Thomas Olesen, International Zapatismo (New York: Zed Books, 2005), 81. 100 Womack, 57-58.

McLaughlin 35

possibility will be ultimately irrelevant, both are extensive and complex processes that become

stronger as time goes on. Actually, it would seem that new configurations of power in Mexico and

globally will actually be a prerequisite to the tangible, local demands of the Zapatistas. Until the

neoliberal philosophy loses its legitimacy, actors will still follow it, and the Mexican state will as well

in order to stay relevant on a global level. The previous two examples, then, do not discredit

Zapatista achievements with regard to consciousness and networking; rather, they are reminders that

no matter how enchanting ideas of international resonance and transnational cyber-communities are,

they have yet to realize the ultimate goals of the Zapatista movement and, thus, have not had a

definitive impact on the Zapatista movement itself.

Conclusions

This paper has performed a careful analysis of the role of the Internet in developing

international solidarity networks and what influence these solidarity networks have had on the

Zapatista movement internationally and in Chiapas, Mexico. International solidarity networks and

cyberspace effect the Zapatista movement on a meta-level, that is, they have helped to further the

Zapatista goal of having a revolution to make room for a revolution. However, all of the conditions

that led to the January 1st call of Ya Basta! Still remain in Chiapas. The indigenous are still denied

land rights, cultural rights, self-determination, and autonomy; the indigenous are still poor,

uneducated, and lack basic health care; the indigenous still exist somewhere between ignored and

forgotten within the Mexican state.

Why, then, is the role of the Internet in the Zapatista Revolution so storied? The Internet

did help bring media attention to Chiapas, preventing the EZLN from being taken out by the

McLaughlin 36

military in one fell swoop and it did help the Zapatistas achieve many of their greater goals,

emphasizing transnational motifs such as democracy, justice, autonomy, and anti-neoliberalism.

However, it is not clear that international presence was really one of the goals of the Zapatistas; as

Marcos said in his interview with Le Bot, it is important not to confuse the various levels of

Zapatismo, and so much focus on the international-ideological level obscures the very real struggle in

Chiapas.

The Zapatista movement rose in 1994 on a platform of transnational hope, to counter

NAFTA’s transnational capitalism. From the beginning the movement was couched in lofty rhetoric

of ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ but it also discussed very tangible problems like lack of food, healthcare,

and education for the indigenous of Chiapas, however, these are problems that are very real for

marginalized groups around the world. It was not until the movement developed and garnered

international attention, though, that the public statements became focused on local issues. Perhaps it

was because the Zapatista cause, formulated by a committee of Indigenous leaders, was so coopted

by the international arena that they began to write specifically as Indians in Chiapas. By this point

though, Zapatismo had already taken on infinite other meanings, as it touched individuals

worldwide.

The Internet is important for how it changed how people thought about the indigenous in

Mexico and also for how people thought about politics. Khasnabish writes, “At a time when the Left

on a global scale found itself largely without direction and was confronted seemingly on all sides by

the ascendancy of neoliberal capitalism, the Zapatistas provided a striking example of resistance and

possibility,”101 the Internet, then, did contribute to the Zapatistas realizing their goal of making

room for a revolution, as perhaps movements like Occupy Wall Street show. It is difficult to discuss 101 Khasnabish, 276.

McLaughlin 37

the role of the Internet in the Zapatista movement because, really, it is hard to know what its actual

role was. For this reason, it was not my goal to assert that the Zapatistas were engaged in a ‘netwar’

that transformed their entire movement, rather, I intended to discuss the way the Zapatista

movement and the Internet interacted, and where they intersected.

In order to realize success in Chiapas, perhaps Zapatista ideals need to succeed on a global

scale before they can be implemented in Mexico; perhaps the revolutionary scale and structure of the

Internet will give activists the tools to realize change. Deciding whether or not the Internet was

important to the Zapatista movement demands that you decide what the point of the Zapatista

movement is—a movement for global consciousness or a movement for indigenous rights—when

the richness and the resonance of the Zapatista movement comes from the fact that it a movement

for both. It is true that Marcos distinguishes between them, but he only really distinguishes between

the types of actors.

International Zapatistas only see the star of hope, and not the struggle, of Zapatistas in

Chiapas. However, Zapatistas in Chiapas see the hand pointing to the star—they see the struggle,

but also hope. Both the local and global struggles require a double movement, there are literal

demands, but there are also abstract ones couched in the realm of possibility. It is therefore overly

simplistic to try and conceive of the Zapatista movement as one for consciousness or one for

indigenous rights. In order to appropriately appreciate and understand the role of the Internet in the

Zapatista movement, it must be understood that the Internet functions differently in each context,

but that the results of the interaction between the Internet and consciousness do affect the fight for

indigenous rights, and vice-versa, as the Internet shows. The Internet is the only space where

something local and global can exist; real time pictures of Chiapas arrive in inboxes in Italy, Canada,

McLaughlin 38

Japan, and servers with new information are updated from Mexico City, from the U.S., wherever

there is a struggle. The Internet served as the best host for the ideas of this kind of movement

because its lack of formal structure allowed for infinite imaginings of possibility and incarnations of

Zapatismo. Zapatismo resonates transnationally because it is simultaneously local and global, and in

asserting its own complexities, it acknowledges and confirms the complexities of the lived experience,

making it easy for international civil society to identify with Chiapanecos over the Internet.

At the end of the first Encuentro, Subcomandante Marcos addressed the people who had

come to Chiapas from all over the world. He spoke of the disembodied force of neoliberalism, but he

also spoke about human potential. The revolution is not over, and as the network of Zapatistas

grows and the negative influences of neoliberalism become more glaring, the global consciousness

will come to locate itself in Chiapas, the first site of rebellion against the new world order. The

Zapatista movement is local—it is located in the mountains of the Mexican southeast, but the voice

is global and its echo inspires men and women around the world to finally declare YA BASTA!

One the one side is neoliberalism, with all its repressive power and all its machinery of death; on the other side is the human being. There are those who resign themselves to being one more number in the huge exchange of power…But there are those who do not resign themselves…In any place in the world, anytime, any man or woman rebels to the point of tearing off the clothes resignation has woven for them and cynicism has died grey. Any man or woman, of whatever colour, in whatever tongue, speaks and say to himself or to herself: Enough is enough! Ya basta! A world made of many worlds found itself these days in the mountains of the Mexican southeast…Let it be an echo of our own smallness, of the local and particular, which reverberates in an echo of our own greatness…an echo that recognizes the existence of the other and does not overpower or attempt to silence it. An echo that takes its place and speaks its own voice, yet speaks the voice of the other…Let it be a network of voices that resist the war Power wages on them.102

102 Subcomandante Marcos, in Kingsworth, 38.

McLaughlin

Works Cited

“The Acteal Massacre, December 22, 1997, Acteal, Chiapas State, Mexico.” Indigenous and Latina Women & Children's Human Rights News from the Americas, August 28, 2009. http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Mexico_Chiapas_Acteal_Massacre.htm (Accessed December 4, 2011).

Arquilla, John and David Ronfelt. “Emergence and Influence of the Zapatista Social Netwar.”

Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. (Arlington, VA: RAND, 2001): 171-199.

Bonilla, Yarimar. “Guadeloupe is Ours.” Interventions 12:1 (2010): 125-137. Carlsen, Laura. “Americas Policy Report The Mexican Farmers’ Movement: Exposing the Myths of

Free Trade.” International Forum on Globalization, February 23, 2003. http://www.ifg.org/analysis/wto/cancun/mythtrade.htm (Accessed December 15, 2011).

Chiapas 95. https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/Chiapas95/chiapas95.html (Accessed

November 23, 2011). Cleaver, Harry M., Jr. “The Virtual and Real Chiapas Support Network: A review and critique of

Judith Adler Hellman's "Real and Virtual Chiapas: Magic Realism and the Left", Socialist Register, 2000.” https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/anti-hellman.html (Accessed November 21, 2011).

Cleaver, Harry M., Jr. “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the Rise of an Alternative Political

Fabric.” https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/zapeffect.html#* (Accessed October 30, 2011).

DARPA. www.darpa.mil (Accessed December 2, 2011). Froehling, Oliver. “The Cyberspace ‘War of Ink and Internet’ in Chiapas, Mexico.” Geographic

Review Vol. 87, No. 2, Cyberspace and Geographical Space (April 1997): 291-307. Goulet, Lauren Sessions, Keith Hampton, Eun Ja Her, and Lee Rainie. “Social Isolation and New

Technology.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/18--Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology/Executive-Summary.aspx (Accessed December 11, 2011).

“How the Web Began.” European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/WebStory-en.html (Accessed December 2, 2011). Newcomb, Peter, and Keenan Mayo “How the Web Was Won: An Oral History of the Internet.”

Vanity Fair, July 2008.

McLaughlin

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/07/internet200807?currentPage=1 (Accessed December 2, 2011).

Khasnabish, Alex. Zapatismo Beyond Borders: New Imaginations of Political Possibility. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 2008. Kingsnorth, Paul. One No, Many Yeses A Journey to the Heart of the Global Resistance Movement.

London: Simon & Schuster, 2003. Klein, Naomi. “The Unknown Icon.” in Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising. ed. Ziga

Vodovnik. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004, 15-49. Olesen, Thomas. International Zapatismo. New York: Zed Books, 2005. “San Andrés Accords.” http://struggle.ws/mexico/ezln/san_andres.html (Accessed December 3,

2011). Teslik, Lee Hudson. “NAFTA’s Economic Impact.” Council on Foreign Relations, July 7, 2009.

http://www.cfr.org/economics/naftas-economic-impact/p15790 (Accessed December 15, 2011).

“Timeline of Zapatista Movement.” Casa Collective. http://www.casacollective.org/content/timeline-

zapatista-movement (Accessed December 4, 2011). Vaidhaynathan, Siva. The Anarchist in the Library. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Vodovnik, Ziga. Ya Basta! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2004. Womack Jr., John. Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader. New York: The New Press, 1999.