Subcommander Marcos gives his opinion on Chavez and Latin America (in Spanish)

[Herman]

http://www.aporrea.org/venezuelaexterior/n113223.html


"Subcomandante Marcos" dice que Chávez tiene "improntas de caudillo"

Por: Agencias
Fecha de publicación: 28/04/08






http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2006/02/marcos_p.jpg (http://www.aporrea.org/imagenes/2006/02/marcos.jpg) Subcomandante Marcos
Credito: La Jornada
28 de Abril, 2008 - El líder del Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), el "Subcomandante Marcos", considera que el presidente Hugo Chávez ejerce "una política mediática, con improntas de caudillo", aunque reconoce que ha iniciado "un proceso de transformación fuerte" en su país.


En el libro de próxima aparición "Corte de Caja", de la periodista mexicana Laura Castellanos, "Marcos" expresa su opinión sobre diversos líderes latinoamericanos y remarca su admiración por el líder cubano Fidel Castro y por el revolucionario Ernesto Che Guevara.

Castellanos habló sobre el contenido del libro que recoge más de cinco horas de conversación con el dirigente rebelde durante dos entrevistas, celebradas en octubre y noviembre del pasado año en Ciudad de México y en la selva de Chiapas, respectivamente, tras el cierre de la gira de "Marcos" por el país.

El entrevistado expresa, entre otras cuestiones, su opinión sobre el mandatario boliviano, Evo Morales, a quien le da "el beneficio de la duda" y se muestra mucho más duro con el presidente de Brasil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, de quien asegura que "luego desilusionó".

Sobre Chávez, afirma que "tiene un pie en la política mediática, con improntas de caudillo y otro en el movimiento que está despertando en Venezuela".

En este sentido, el líder de los rebeldes zapatistas se cuestiona si es posible estar al mismo tiempo "arriba y abajo" y señala que las versiones que llegan desde el poder "vienen editadas" por los protagonistas, "es decir por Chávez, Morales o (Andrés Manuel) López Obrador", el ex candidato presidencial de la izquierda mexicana, de quien "Marcos" se distanció en la campaña electoral de 2006.

Califica a Castro de "hombre excepcional en todos los sentidos" y reclama para su figura un lugar privilegiado en la historia junto a héroes mexicanos como Pancho Villa y Emiliano Zapata.

En su opinión, el Che "se adelantó. Es un hombre de una generación que todavía no acaba de nacer".

"Marcos" elogió la figura del rebelde argentino no por su "lucha revolucionaria sino por el modelo ético de un ser humano dedicado a los demás".

El líder zapatista se refiere también a las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), de las que asegura que tienen una campaña mediática en su contra para situarlas como grupo ligado al narcotráfico.

Sin embargo, y tras apuntar que el movimiento zapatista no juzga a otros grupos armados, manifiesta su preocupación por las comunidades indígenas que se encuentran en medio de la lucha que llevan a cabo las FARC, el Gobierno colombiano y grupos paramilitares de autodefensa.

El dirigente del EZLN se distancia de la guerrilla mexicana Ejército Popular Revolucionario (EPR), con la que asegura no tener ningún contacto, e indica que el zapatismo difiere completamente de la estrategia de este grupo, basada en la "acción militar" frente al "trabajo de organización" por el que opta su movimiento.

Reconoce que tanto su figura como el movimiento zapatista están en una situación de "indefinición" sobre cómo llevar a cabo un programa nacional de lucha, algo que podría resolverse el próximo mes de junio.

"Estamos como en 1993. Ni nos ven ni nos oyen. La desventaja es que ya nos habían visto y escuchado y ahora nos hacen a un lado", relata "Marcos" en el libro.

El zapatismo, según "Marcos", busca refundar el país en una revolución comparable a la que hubo hace cien años.

"El proceso de destrucción es tal que no hay alternativa (...). Si piensan que vamos a aguantar una dictadura de partido, de Estado. No. El país no aguanta", subrayó.

De sus años de lucha desde el alzamiento zapatista en 1994, "Marcos" admite como su principal error fue el haber acaparado la atención mediática a la que quiso poner fin, pero no pudo.

"Si algo pudiera cambiar sería eso, no haber sido tan protagónico en los medios", dijo el dirigente rebelde, tras afirmar que "quizá" esta sea su última entrevista.

Castellanos, autora de libro "México Armado", había publicado algunos fragmentos de las entrevistas en la revista Gatopardo, acompañadas por fotografías de Ricardo Trabulsi en las dos únicas sesiones gráficas autorizadas por "Marcos".

[Red October]

Is there a translation or could you sum it up for those of us who don't speak spanish?

[Faux Real]

He said Chavez' governing style is too militaristic but there are good revolutionary changes going on in Venezuela, and that revolutionary changes must be in accordance to humanist ethics that bear in mind what is for the common good.

[Forward Union]

Is there a translation or could you sum it up for those of us who don't speak spanish?

Apparently Marcos said that Chaves exercises "media politics" but also recognises that "a process of strong transformation" in ithe country.

(my translation of marcos' quote,s could be innacurate)
Apparently Marcos also adressed the FARC and realises that they have a very real media battle against their assoication with drug trafficking. Presumably Marcos thinks this is a western slander that the farc need to combat, but I'd heard they tax drugs, not trafic them... He also said he feels sympathy for the indigieanous caught in the middle of that conflict and realises the Farc are acting in self defence.

The article then explains how the EZLN have no contact with the EPR (Army of Popular Revolution) who are generally seens as mexicos equivilent of the FARC.

One thing that really interested me...


"Si algo pudiera cambiar sería eso, no haber sido tan protagónico en los medios", dijo el dirigente rebelde, tras afirmar que "quizá" esta sea su última entrevista.


"If something could change would be that (their use of the media), not to have been so leading in the media", the rebellious leader said, after affirming that "perhaps" this will be his last interview.


:crying:
We've known the Zapatista rethoric over the last 4 months has been very much indicative of a war. The Mexican millitary have moved all its forces our of Chiapas and replaced them with special forces, and OPPDIC (paramilitaries) have found themselves with new equiptment and training... but this is a fairly defeatist remark

[BIG BROTHER]

He also said there's a campain against las FARC to make them look more like drug-dealers, and that he's worried about the indigeous people who are caught between las farc, the colombian state, and the paramilitary.

I also want to add another(somewhat useless) fact that i read somewhere, were it says that during the interviews marcos expressed that he had a crush on angelina jolie

[manic expression]

Here's my crappy translation, probably with mistakes:

The lider of the Zapatista National Liberation Movement (EZLN), "Subcomandante Marcos", considers the presidency of Hugo Chavez "a political middleman(?), with ? of leader", although he recognizes that it has indicated "a process of strong transformation" in his country.

In the soon-to-be-released book "Corte de Caja", of the Mexican newspaper "Laura Castellanos", "Marcos" expresses his opinion on different Latin American leaders and emphasizes his admiration for the Cuban leader Fidel Castro and for the revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara.

Castellanos said of the book's content that it encompasses more than five hours of conversation with the rebel during two interviews, completed in October and November of last year in Mexico City and in Chiapas, respectively, after the end of the "Marcos" tour of the country.

The interviewee expresses, among other questions, his opinion of the Bolivian leader, Evo Morales, to whom he gives "the benefit of doubt" and he is much more critical of the president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, of whom he is dilussioned (?).

Of Chavez, he affirms that "he has a foot in the middle-road of politics, with ? of leader and the other in the movement that is awakening in Venezuela".

In this sense, the leader of the Zapatista rebels questions if it is possible to simultaneously "move forward" (?) and point out the versions that bring from the power "of publishing", for the main players, "it is said of Chavez, Morales or Lopez Obrador", the ex-presidential cadidate of the Mexican left, of whom "Marcos" distanced himself from in the 2006 electoral campaign.

He describes Castro as "an exceptional man in every sense" and claimed that for his figure occupies a priveleged place in history along with Mexican heroes like Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.

In his opinion, Che "advanced. He is a man like no other born in any other generation". (?)

"Marcos" praised the Argentinian rebel figure not his "revolutionary struggle but for the ethical model of one dedicated to all others".

The Zapatista leader referred as well to FARC, of which was assured that they had a campaign ? that put them in a position of involvement with narcotics trafficking. (?)

However, after noting that the Zapatista movement did not judge other armed groups, he declared his worry for indigenous communities located in the middle of the struggle between the FARC, the government and paramilitary groups.

The leader of EZLN distanced from the Mexican guerrilla force EPR, with the assurance that there had been no contact, and indicated that Zapatism is completely different in strategy, based on the "military action" in front of "organization work" for the benefit of the movement.

He recognized that so many ? like the Zapatista movement are in a situation of "in-definition" on how to raise a national program of struggle, something that would resolve itself next month in June.

"We are like in 1993. We neither see ourselves nor hear ourselves. The disadvantage is that we no longer see and hear and now we are at a place (?)", said "Marcos" in the book.

Zapatism, according to "Marcos", looks to put the country in a revolution comparable to what has been done for ten years.

"The process of destruction has no alternative (...). If it is thought that we are to tolerate a party dictatorship, of the state. No. The country does not tolerate it", he emphasized.

In his years of struggle from the insurrection of the Zapatistas in 1994, "Marcos" admits how his principle error was how he took the attention ? to make a point, but he couldn't.

"If something could have changed this, not to do would have been so ? in the media", said the rebel figure, after affirming that "maybe" this would be his last interview.

Castellanos, author of the book "Armed Mexico", has published some fragments of the interviews of the magazine Gatopardo, accompanied with photographs of Ricardo Trabulsi in the only two photo-sessions authorized by "Marcos".

(I hope that makes sense)

[Forward Union]

well it's easier to get than the spanish version :p

[Keyser]

We've known the Zapatista rethoric over the last 4 months has been very much indicative of a war. The Mexican millitary have moved all its forces our of Chiapas and replaced them with special forces, and OPPDIC (paramilitaries) have found themselves with new equiptment and training... but this is a fairly defeatist remark


Is the threat of a military attack on the EZLN by the forces of the Mexican state a real possibility or something that the EZLN simply views by way of their own opinion?

What type of military build up has taken place and how many soldiers has the reactionary Mexican state deployed for any possible attack?



The article then explains how the EZLN have no contact with the EPR (Army of Popular Revolution) who are generally seens as mexicos equivilent of the FARC.


Given that both the EPR and the EZLN are both too weak to take on the Mexican state by themselves and given the fact that a new reactionary regime which is totally compliant to the interests of imperialism, the government of President Calderon is now in power, would it not make sense for the EZLN and the EPR to join forces for a joint struggle?

I do have my own criticisms of the EZLN and some of their theories and tactics, yet they do represent a real and just cause of a section of Mexico's society that has known nothing but repression, exploitation and abuse of the worst kind, they do deserve our support, even if it is critical support.

A merger of the EPR and the EZLN would be beneficial to both groups and to the struggle against imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation in Mexico.

[Forward Union]

Is the threat of a military attack on the EZLN by the forces of the Mexican state a real possibility or something that the EZLN simply views by way of their own opinion?

It's happening. The paramillitary group OPPDIC (Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Campesino Rights ) have stepped up attacks. Particularly targeting the Bolon Ajaw Zapatista community.

"Five armed police entered the Zapatista village of Bolon Ajaw on 21st February, firing shots in the air. The villagers mobilised, forcing them to retreat, but not before they had badly beaten two women with their gun butts. These are only two of many different attacks, some of which involve whole villages being violently evicted."

The EZLN has not anounced any more Encuentros (which it has do so religiously until now) and has stoped it's involvement in La Otra Campana. They've explicitly said they must return to the jungle and prepair for war. "those of us who have made war in the past know what prepairatiosn for war look like"



What type of military build up has taken place and how many soldiers has the reactionary Mexican state deployed for any possible attack?


The Federal Army has pulled out almost all it's soldiers from Chiapas and replaced them with Special forces. There are 79 Millitary bases in Chiapas.


Given that both the EPR and the EZLN are both too weak to take on the Mexican state by themselves and given the fact that a new reactionary regime which is totally compliant to the interests of imperialism, the government of President Calderon is now in power, would it not make sense for the EZLN and the EPR to join forces for a joint struggle?

Not for the EZLN. But there's not an easy explaination for why that's the case. There is a reason why the only time you ever hear of the EPR is when they blow something up. They have no popular support. They resort to random acts of terrorism. So they loose the little trust they had.

The EPR actually declared support for the Zapatistas once, and the Zaps responded by saying they oppose the EPR. This is because the EPR have actively declared that they seek state power, and this contradicts the most basic Zapatista demands. If they formally affiliate, the Zaps will be seen firstly as liars, and secondly as statists. Also, the Federal army hasn't attacked the Zaps, as it's still bound by a ceasfire, if teh EZLN say they support a group that regularly commits acts of terrorism, then the Feds can attack (but that wont be relevent if the war properly starts again)

The other thing you have to remember, is that according to Marcos, EZLN was 14 people for about a decade, by which time it was about 12. It stayed like this until it renounced it's position on wanting state power, and stopped getting cash from Shining Path. Then it became popular, and built up. The Chiapan people do not want Stalinism. They know what comes with it.

Lastly, the EZLN can;t make decisions like that, the Juntas (workers assemblies) can. And they wont decide to work with the EPR.


A merger of the EPR and the EZLN would be beneficial to both groups and to the struggle against imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation in Mexico.

It's fantasy though.

This said, the EPR still does maintain support for the EZLN. So it probably would combat Federal forces in the area if a war did start.

Furthermore there are many MANY gurrilia groups in the Region. The EPR is the biggest and the EZLN is the most popular. But there are others. When I was there we saw the odd community that had declared itself "autonomous" in the name of this or that army.

[piet11111]

The Federal Army has pulled out almost all it's soldiers from Chiapas and replaced them with Special forces.

meaning that the army is removing all of its soldiers that are likely to sympathize with the people of Chiapas and replaced them with soldiers that have a bloodlust.