Solidarity at all cost?
On the lack of criticism in the solidarity movement with the Zapatistas

Our discontent grew and grew. In November 1996 Javier Elorriaga and his life companion Gloria Benavides (two former political prisoners who were arrested in February 1995 as presumed Zapatista leaders) visited Paris (France) as representatives of the FZLN and as officially appointed representatives of the EZLN. They were invited by the crème de la crème of the French vested centre-left political parties, unions and cultural elites. They visited Mitterands former top advisor Régis Debray, chatted with Mitterands widow Danielle and visited the `socialist' mayor of the city of Montreuil. This same mayor had, some weeks before ordered the riot police to evict, with the violence that accompanies such evictions, some houses squatted by sans papiers (illegal immigrants who do not have the required residence permits). Then, when these sans papiers broke into a meeting of these two FZLN/EZLN representatives with the radical chic from France in the famous Odéon theatre, the two representatives were not interested in talking to those without face and voice from France. This tragic spectacle led to a split in the Parisian solidarity committee. Outside Paris the conflict was not taken seriously. Almost nobody expressed any opinion about the misconduct of the FZLN/EZLN representatives. Neither did the EZLN react in any way to what had happened in Paris. That was to become their structural policy.
The EZLN accepted, and still does accept all support (that does not come from the Mexican government) without any scruples. In the spring of 1996 they received Danielle Mitterand, with a great deal of media spectacle in their stronghold La Realidad (in the Lacandon jungle). During the International Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-Liberalism in July/August 1996 they had Alain Touraine as one of their guests of honour. Touraine, a French sociologist, had strongly rejected the wave of wildcat strikes that had paralized Paris and France in December 1995. Upon strong protests, from some of the French and German participants, against Touraine's presence, Marcos replied that the meaning of the encounter was to discuss Neo-Liberalism, and the ways to fight it, with everybody, "even with our enemies as we also talk with our enemies" [the Mexican government]. The French backed out because they could not agree among themselves to criticise Marcos or the EZLN openly at the Encounter. Some French participants even went so far as to argue that it should not be criticised because "it would damage the image of France and the French support groups" (sic). But also the German groups who had been critical of the conduct of the EZLN backed out, because the French participants did not stick to their initial criticism. The criticism that the EZLN normally expresses against most of the Mexican old left, was and is omitted when it concerns foreign old leftists or sympathising pseudo leftists.
This same pattern can be seen in their contacts with the `reformed' Italian communist party Refundazione Comunista. The EZLN accepted a project paid for by the Venitian (Italy) city council (in which the Refundazione Comunista has a key position) for the electrification of the Zapatista village of La Realidad. We can only see that as a selective acceptance of authoritarian ideology and political parties. This selectiveness is surely the result of an opportunistic way of dealing with offers of help, which the Zapatista support bases do need in order to survive in certain parts of Chiapas.
Back to Europe once more. In the summer of 1997 the Second International Encounter for Humanity and against Neo-liberalism took place in Spain. The organisation also came in for a lot of criticism. Even with the preparations it became clear that a small group of apparatchiks, mainly from Madrid and Zaragoza had imposed their idea (which was an almost identical copy of the First Encounter in 1996) of how the Encounter should be organised. Groups with a more critical view and different ideas were not given any space to venture their opinions, but strangely enough most of these critical groups did in the end drop their criticisms and participate. This Encounter included the same ridiculous show of accreditation and ausweis-like identification papers that were compulsory during the first Encounter. The two Zapatista delegates were almost completely sealed off from the other participants, as if they were visiting heads of state that needed bodyguards to watch over their safety. Once again the organisers behaved like dictators who treated volunteers who came to help with the preparations as voiceless labourers. Anyone who dared to criticise the way things were organised could expect to be treated as if they were spies, there to sabotage the Encounter.
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. It seems to have lost its grip on how things are going in Europe. It ignores the existence of an ever more powerful European Community moloch which excludes non-European people from its territory, which is homogenising day by day on a military and internal security (police) level and which is creating an enormous economic block where people only count when they adopt the role of production generating wage slaves. 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. The same accounts for asking mayors and city councils to sign petitions against the human rights abuses in Mexico. The solidarity work that is carried out in Europe seems to be confined to talking about human rights. Maybe they should go and join Amnesty International. Amnesty has been known to do good work, but still always evades taking political standpoints, and questioning the legitimacy of any political systems. That is what the human rights focussed activities of the European solidarity network look like.
Maybe you have got the impression that our work has been only horrible and disillusioning. This is of course not true. We have met scores of magnificent, intelligent, warm, combative, and humorous people from all over the world. All of whom, each in their own special ways, have tried to find ways of thinking and acting. Collaborating with them we have found out that there are many forms of solidarity work possible. One example of a more mutual though not perfect solidarity action in which we participated was a project that was carried out during 1997 and 1998. This was mainly carried out by the more critical groups from France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands. The original idea was thought up by some unemployed people who were familiar with the world of fishing boats and dock workers in the towns of Rouen and Le Havre (France). The idea was launched at the European Encounter in Berlin in 1996. The central aim was to go with a sailing boat from Europe to Mexico and to get directly in touch with different grassroots campaigns along the way and in Mexico. The idea was to mutually exchange experiences about social struggles both here and there. The mutual exchange of ideas and experiences would then replace the ingrained mechanism of one- way communication that so often (also in the case of the solidarity work with the Zapatistas) characterises solidarity campaigns. In March 1997 the French boat Le Rêve d'Absolu left the port of Marseilles (France) and reached the Oaxacan (Mexican) coast two months later. Contacts were made with grassroots movements in Mexico City, Oaxaca and Chiapas. Although the communication between the boats(wo)men and those of us in Europe was not always as complete as we would have wished we received interesting letters from the sailors. Unfortunately the idea that more boats would leave for Mexico and further develop the contacts that we have made has not yet come to full fruition.
Whilst we suspended our activities as the Mexican Solidarity Committee in March 1998, some of the old members will keep themselves informed about the developments in Chiapas and Mexico. For the time being one member will keep updating our web site with current information (in Dutch) and run an e-mail newsletter (also in Dutch) to which people can subscribe. It is also possible that some of us will compile an information pamphlet from time to time (such as this one), as people continue to be interested in the developments in Mexico and Chiapas. One of us will also keep in contact with other autonomous groups within the European network in order to develop ideas for solidarity campaigns with the Zapatist bases without having to go through the institutional channels.
Our archives, with a lot of printed and e-mail information about Mexico, Chiapas and the Zapatistas will, for now at least, remain accessible to those interested. The same is also true for our extensive video archive (a list of which can be found in our archive and on our web site. We no longer ask for financial contributions as at the moment we no longer know of any project that we wish to support. We would also like to thank everyone who made a donation or gave us a hand, for their support.

Jeroen, May 1999