Canada, Mexico and the Zapatistas

Canada is so well-behaved that Americans, who should be interested in its better system of government, pay no attention to it. Yet it is a major country, and its worldview is different from that of the United States. It ias an uncomfortable relationship with the US, as to a greater degree does Mexico. The US westward conquest resulted in territorial losses for both. Given this fact, and Canada's ties with Cuba, which also suffered from US imperialism, what is the Canadian attitude toward the Zapatistas? Roberto Hernández calls our attention to an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail (3/29/01), a world-class newspaper. Its author is Ken Frankel, who chairs the Latin American group at Torys, an international law firm. He has worked in Mexico as a historian and political writer, and frequently contributes to the Latin American Advisor, a daily e-newsletter of politics and economics. We quote the opening and closing sections of the article, which may surprise Mexicans. It suggests that Marcos and Fox feel differently about NAFTA and globalization:

"Thank goodness for the Latin American "guerrilla."

Just when we were reaching the final stage of acceptance in the international, cultural-death march called 'global homogenization,' our passions are stirred by the sight of Subcomandante Marcos riding into Mexico City at the conclusion of the "Zapatour."

Once again, the figure of the Latin guerrilla has sent romantics into a blind reverie and reactive skeptics into a spasmodic rage. He's either a self-sacrificing (why else, Canadians wonder, would anyone wear a balaclava in summer?) David battling global-capitalist Goliaths and their regional NAFTA disciples, or the patronizer of indigenous peoples who could resort to ETA-style tactics if he doesn't get his way. Or so it would seem, given the public debate in Canada.

Underlying this political and economic situation was the Mexican psychology of solitude, so aptly described by Octavio Paz several decades earlier. Mexico, the poor and ridiculed neighbour of the United States, struck a geopolitical Faustian bargain with the world that was not good for Mexicans or the development of Mexico: In return for keeping a low global profile, Mexico expected that no one would meddle with its internal affairs.

The irony is that Marcos's bogeyman, free trade (as personified by NAFTA and other trade treaties), has contributed to, but has not caused -- as some free trade die-hard supporters would argue -- the creation of a political environment that allowed Mr. Fox to triumph, for Marcos to ride unmolested through Mexico City, and for Mr. Fox to invite a guerrilla to the presidential palace to negotiate, mano a mano. Yesterday, Zapatistas made a historic first appearance before the Mexican Congress.

So, how have these changes altered the way Marcos's influence or success will be assessed? There is no doubt that Marcos has been instrumental in making the plight of the indigenous groups a front-page issue in Mexico and across North America. Previously, achieving such awareness might have been considered the whole point. Even Marcos's ability to survive physically would have been considered by many to be a moral victory.

But that measure of success only functions when there is a foil. An intransigent and undemocratic government that refuses to recognize legitimate claims and opts for a military solution would have been a dramatic and newsworthy foil. Mr. Fox, it would appear, refuses to play the foil. He has recognized the legitimacy of the underlying Zapatista claims and has invited Marcos to be his partner in finding a solution.

It will not be easy. Marcos will not be measured by his ability to give a rousing speech in the central square in Mexico City. He will be measured by how well he handles the opportunity to author a solution with Mr. Fox.

If Marcos and Mr. Fox are successful, it will be easier for Mexico to clear its throat and speak out internationally on a number of issues that interest and affect Canadians. In a narrow sense, a more socially and economically equitable Mexico is good for Canadian investment and trade.

In a broader sense, Canada could gain a stronger partner in counterbalancing U.S. predominance in the hemispheric and global debate concerning the more troublesome elements of globalization. This is an important opportunity and challenge for Canada. To engage Mexico as a partner, Canada must first recognize that local politics in Mexico are not far from being local politics in Canada."

Ronald Hilton - 3/29/01