textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000654.txt

To whom it may concern:

This is the english translation of an interview that I and several
other comrades from different alternative media conducted with
Subcomandante Marcos, spokesperson for the EZLN, on May 11, 1994.
Please feel free to re-publish this interview in other alternative
media. . . This is not the complete text of the interview; several pages at
the end have yet to be transcribed and translated. The complete text will
appear in an upcoming book published by Autonomedia and that should appear
publically around August first. The book will contain four other
interviews that we conducted with other members of the EZLN as well as
translations of all of the communiques that they have issued. For more
information about this book or about solidarity work with the EZLN (or to
obtain the original Spanish text of this interview), please contact:

Infoshop Berkeley 
3124 Shattuck Ave
Berkeley, CA 94705 USA
Telephone: +1 510-845-8813
Fax: +1 510-845-8816
email: resist@burn.ucsd.edu

In solidarity,
Pablo  

Interview with Subcomandante Marcos, Eje'rcito Zapatista de
Liberacio'n Nacional (Zapatista National Liberation Army)

Wednesday, May 11, 1994
Somewhere in la Selva Lacandona (the Lacandon Jungle)

Interviewers:
Pablo Salazar Devereaux (Haitian Information Bureau)
Ana Laura Herna'ndez (Amor y Rabia/Me'xico)
Eugenio Aguilera (Nightcrawlers Anarchist Black Cross)
Gustavo Rodri'guez (Amor y Rabia/Me'xico)

Special thanks to Robin Flinchum and Selene Pinti Jaramillo for
their help with the translation.

Interviewers: Much has been written and said about the Zapatistas,
but little concrete is known about your ideology. There are many
who are trying to claim your struggle as their own. The Maoists say
that you are Maoists; the Trotskyites say that you are Trotskyites
and the list goes on . . . 
Marcos: The anarchists say that we are anarchists . . . 
Interviewers: No, we have never been able to say for sure
[laughter]. We need proof. However, you have insisted that you are
Zapatistas. Even now we remember the words of an EZLN Major who
affirmed: "We are not Marxists, nor are we guerillas. We are
Zapatistas and we are an army." Anti- authoritarianism is felt in
each of your words and actions, in the manner in which you are
organized, in the structure of the Clandestine Committees, in the
collective participation (within the EZLN). In Mexico, the only
precedents for your actions and attitudes go back precisely to
those whose names you constantly evoke: Zapata and Mago'n. Has
Magonismo permeated your ideology?
Marcos: This is a question?
Interviewers: [laughter]. No, a presentation.
Marcos: I thought it was a speech.
Interviewers: No, no, a presentation.
Marcos: Well then, I'm going to explain. The EZLN was born having
as points of reference the political-military organizations of the
guerilla movements in Latin America during the sixties and
seventies: That is to say, political-military structures with the
central aim of overthrowing a regime and the taking of power by the
people in general.
     When the first group of the EZLN arrived here, to the jungles
of Chiapas, it was a very small group with this political-military
structure that I am talking about. It began to adapt itself to the
surroundings, to try to survive - that is to say, to permeate the
territory, to make it survivable. But, above all, it began to forge
in the combatant, in that initial group of combatants, the physical
and ideological strength needed for the guerilla process. I mean by
this that the mountains served as a school for cadres, inflexible
and constant day and night. But things were taking shape. In this
period there weren't cameras, there weren't recorders, there wasn't
any press, nor were there military actions. The only thing that
lets you stick to the mountains and endure is hope, because there
isn't any payment. I'm not referring to monetary payment, of course
there never was any of that, but to some moral payment, to
something that would serve as some sort of assurance that it is all
worth it.
     Ten years ago, we were clinging to the hope that everything
that we were learning, with much suffering and many problems, was
going to have results someday. In that period, there is a double
learning process: the learning process of the mestizos (the
inhabitants of this area call everyone who lives in the city
"mestizo") and the process of the indigenous peoples. The process
of the indigenous people includes learning the very basics - to
speak Castilian [Spanish], the history of Mexico, reading and
writing, basic notions of mathematics, geography, biology,
chemistry - in all, everything that we mestizos have as our basic
culture. And we for our part had to learn and understand not only
the world view of the indigenous peoples of this zone, but also
learn a series of physical aptitudes that are not innate to the
indigenous peoples, but that they learn when they are small: to
handle a machete, to carry large loads over long distances, to
reduce their food intake to the minimum required - in this case
corn and sugar.
     In this interplay, this exchange, this give and take, we both
went to the mountains changed. What I mean is that for the
indigenous people the mountains are something sacred, something
special, something magical and ultimately something terrible. No,
the indigenous peoples do not go to the mountains. In fact, when we
entered the mountains, many of them feared that something would
happen to them before they could accomplish anything. The mountains
are the place of the dead, of the gods, of good gods and bad gods,
and because of this there was nobody who had experienced, not even
on their part, life in the mountains. The indigenous people were
only used to living in their villages, to going hunting, to
searching for land where they could plant. We should talk about
this "romantic vision," if you understand me, of guerilla war, with
its references to grandiose military actions: the taking of power
and triumph, all of those things that could be references to the
triumphant guerilla wars of that era, the Cuban and Nicaraguan
revolutions.
     The environment brings you back to reality and makes you
understand that all revolutions have a cost and only those who are
disposed to pay it can carry out the revolution. To begin with, in
that time you had to be crazy or stupid to try to carry it out. I
think that we were both stupid and crazy. There was nothing that
would tell us that we were fine and that the venture was going to
have a future or that it had a chance. There was the fact that we
had tried to bring about change - not necessarily revolutionary
change - by other methods and in different places. But all our
struggles, our struggles in the university, peasant struggles,
workers' struggles collided with the State, with Power. It is
better to speak about Power, because there are places in which the
action of the State is not perfectly definable as such and it makes
more sense to speak of Power - in this case, the Power of a
dominant class that spreads to other areas, culture for example.
Then you arrive at the conclusion, intuitively or scientifically,
that another road is necessary, the road of armed struggle.
     We then confronted the common belief that an armed revolution
was possible in any country other than Mexico. That is to say,
Mexico was considered the country of solidarity, but never the
country of the revolution. When we proposed a revolution, we were
considered heretics among the left. The left said that revolution
wasn't Mexico's role, that we were too close to the United States,
that the regime in Mexico resembled the European model and that
because of this a "revolutionary" change was only possible by
electoral methods, by peaceful methods, or, in the most radical
scenario, by insurrectional methods. This means that the unarmed
masses, with broad mobilizations, would disrupt the economy and
create a crisis in the State apparatus, which would then fall and
a new government would take power. When we proposed a guerilla war,
an armed struggle, we broke with this tradition, a tradition that
was very strong during that time. With what was happening in
Nicaragua and what was beginning to happen in El Salvador, well .
. .  Similar things had always been happening there but they were
becoming more intense. The struggle in Guatemala was rejuvenating
itself a second time, a third, a fourth. I don't know. Eventually
someone said, "And why not here in Mexico?" Immediately, there was
a sense of caution, of prudence, as if to say, "Not here; here our
role is to help those peoples that are liberating themselves and
only later, eventually, Mexico might aspire to revolution." The
fact that we broke with this idea implies that we also broke with
other theoretical schema.
     We were always confronted with the mountains. Let's say we
survived that first stage, that this first stage was in effect
about two things: surviving and beginning our political work. In
this initial political work, a connection began to take place
between the proposals of the guerilla group, the initial group of
the EZLN, and the communities. This means that there are different
expectations of the movement. On one hand, there were those who
hoped that armed action would bring about a revolution and a change
of power, in this case the fall of the governing party and the
ascension of another party, but that in the end it would be the
people who took power. On the other hand, there were the more
immediate expectations of the indigenous people here. For them, the
necessity of armed struggle was more as a form of defense against
groups of very violent, aggressive and powerful ranchers. In
addition, there was an approaching storm - no, let's not say
approaching storm - as if there was a wall, a wall that was the
same mountain that separated the jungle from the city and that
separated the indigenous peoples from political power.
     It was this wall that permitted the EZLN to grow so
scandalously without anyone realizing to what point it had grown.
The indigenous peoples realized the necessity of learning to defend
themselves. They had weapons, but they used them only for hunting
or to protect their homes from animals or thieves. Then, we found
each other and we began to speak in two different languages, but in
this common point of necessity of armed struggle a relationship
began to develop. They needed military instruction, and we needed
the support of a social base. And we thus tried to convince them of
the necessity of a broader political project. That didn't occur
until elements of the community entered the army. In that moment,
the difference between combatant force and civilian force began to
disappear until it reached the point you see now when whole
communities are Zapatistas, when there is no line that separates
the civilians from the Zapatistas.
     Then, when this began to occur, there began a confrontation,
a relationship of convenience, between two ways of making
decisions. On one hand, there was the initial proposal of the EZLN:
a completely undemocratic and authoritarian proposal, as
undemocratic and authoritarian as an army can be, since an army is
the most authoritarian thing in this world and also the most absurd
in that one single person can decide the life and death of his
subordinates. On the other hand there was the indigenous tradition
that before the Conquest was a way of life and that after the
Conquest became their only way of surviving. In other words, the
communities, isolated, cornered, saw themselves obligated to defend
themselves collectively, to live collectively, to govern themselves
collectively.
     Since the internal life of the communities was totally
separated from national and local political forces, the important
thing was the work done by the communities and because of this a
collective government came about. No, it was always there: a way of
making decisions in common about problems that affect the entire
community. These decisions included decisions about work that had
to be done in common, judicial problems at an internal level -
because it isn't possible to appeal to judicial power of the State.
What I mean to say is that the isolation of the indigenous
communities provoked the development of another type of "State," a
State to deal with the survival of the collective, of a democratic
collective with these two characteristics: The leadership is
collective and it is removable.
     In any moment, if you hold a position in the community (first,
the community has to have appointed you independent of your
political affiliation), the community can remove you. There isn't
a fixed term that you have to complete. The moment that the
community begins to see that you are failing in your duties, that
you are having problems, they sit you down in front of the
community and they begin to tell you what you have done wrong. You
defend yourself and finally the community, the collective, the
majority decides what they are going to do with you. Eventually,
you will have to leave your position and another will take up your
responsibilities.
     So, on one hand there is this form of organization. I'm going
to make a reference so that you understand better - student
assemblies. Student assemblies are better as forms of protest or
for analyzing problems. In the case of the indigenous communities,
it is a way of life. On the other hand we have the authoritarian
form of the army, of a political-military organization, but a
military organization after all. One began to see a confrontation
between these modes of decision-making until people from the
communities began to join the EZLN and the indigenous form of
decision- making began to take precedence.
     I want you to understand me; we didn't arrive and say, "It is
necessary that the collective and democracy guide us." That isn't
true, of course. This wasn't our conception. Our conception was
vertical: "What is necessary is a group of strong men and women,
with ideological and physical strength, with the resistance to
carry out this task." Our conception was that we were few but of
high quality. Well, I'm not saying that we were of that high
quality, but we sure were few.
     Finally, I can't say exactly when - it's not something that's
planned - the moment arrived in which the EZLN had to consult the
communities in order to make a decision. At first, we only asked if
what we were doing was going to cause problems for the compan~eros.
And later, when we left the jungle and entered the mountains, we
also entered the assemblies and discussions of the communities. A
moment arrives in which you can't do anything without the approval
of the people with whom you work. It was something understood by
both parties: they understood that we wouldn't do anything without
consulting them, and we understood that if we did anything without
consulting them, we would lose them. And this flow, this increase
of men and women who left the communities in order to enter the
mountains, made us realize that we couldn't draw a solid line
between combatant forces and civilian forces. Even geographically
this line had broken down. There were military units that didn't
live in the mountains but that instead lived in the communities and
participated in communal labors. They gave military instruction,
but they also participated in the work of the communities. When we
reflect on this now it isn't a question of "us" and "them" - now
"we" are the entire community. It was necessary to organize, to
establish this collective authority along side the absurdity of a
vertical, authoritarian structure. Then, it was possible to divide
the process of making decisions. I mean by this that strategic
decisions, important decisions have to be made democratically, from
below, not from above. If there is going to be an action or series
of actions that are going to implicate the entire organization, the
authority has to come from below. In this sense, even the
Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee isn't able to make
every decision. You could say that the EZLN is different because in
most political-military organizations there is only one commander,
and in the EZLN the Clandestine Committees are composed of 80
people, 100 people, 120 people or however many. But this is not the
difference. The difference is that even the Clandestine Committees
cannot make certain decisions, the most important decisions. They
are limited to such a degree that the Clandestine Committees cannot
decide which path the organization is going to follow until every
compan~ero is consulted. In the EZLN a decision cannot be made
until everyone is consulted, even if it appears that the majority
of the compan~eros have already decided for one of the options.
Only after consulting everyone can the Committee say, "We have
asked everyone and this is the result." The Committee cannot say,
"We consulted the majority and . . . " This could cost you your
life. You can't play games here.
     In this way, we were not a guerilla group, but an army, an
army with territory, with troops, with a general strategic plan.
Our initial plan was a defensive plan, a plan in which the
compan~eros could participate in one of three different ways: as
part of the regular combat force that lives in the mountains, as
part of the irregular combat force that lives and works in the
communities, or as part of a reserve force composed of the elderly
and children. These last also receive military training. At last,
we were arrived to the point where we were able to mobilize five
thousand people and concentrate them in a village as part of a
military exercise.
     What was it that made this possible? A centralized command?
No! Rather, it was that decisions of this kind were made by
consensus or consultation. It is more than consultation; it is not
a consultation in order to see what you think but more to ask,
"What do you want to happen?" The purpose of this is to give power
those who should have power. 
     Then, in this interweaving, in this exchange between two
different forms of decision-making, the most orthodox proposals of
Marxism or Leninism, theoretical concepts or historical references
- for example, that the vanguard of the revolution is the
proletariat, that the taking of state power and the installation of
the dictatorship of the proletariat is the aim of the revolution - 
were confronted by an ideological tradition that is, how can I say
this, somewhat magical. It is magical in one sense, but very real
in another. What I mean by this is that it is an ideological
tradition born of  war - in this case, the war of the Conquest that
began, well, not exactly five hundred years ago, and that continues
through different historical periods. It continues . . .  it
continues, and it grows. If we had been orthodox leftists, we would
never have worked with indigenous peoples. Now, today, I believe
there are many theories in crisis. Who would have thought that it
would be the indigenous peoples who would provoke all of this? Not
even in the Leninist conception of the weakest link was it thought
that it might be the indigenous people, right? I told you that
there was a learning process at the beginning of our work here,
albeit a forced one. It's not like we said, "Well, we are going to
learn and see what happens." No! We were close-minded, like any
other orthodox leftist, like any other theoretician who believes
that he knows the truth. 
Interviewers: Even in "pure" Marxism there is discrimination
against indigenous people.
Marcos: Yes! Definitely. The events of this last January will bring
changes at the theoretical level as well. We arrived here and we
were confronted by this reality, the indigenous reality, and it
continues to control us. Ultimately the theoretical confronted the
practical, and something happened - the result was the EZLN.
Therefore our combatants are right when they say, "We are not
Marxist- Leninists, we are Zapatistas." They are referring to this
synthesis, this coming together, this compatibility that
incorporates - I'm going to be very schematic - the historical
traditions of struggle and resistance of indigenous people and the
necessity of a national revolution.
Interviewers: Excuse me for interrupting. This is exactly the
meaning of the initial question: whether you believe that Magonismo
has permeated the Zapatista movement. Let's look at the history of
the Mexican revolution, in which Mago'n, who was also a descendent
of indigenous people, of indigenous parents in Oaxaca, had a
similar vision. He took into account the needs of the indigenous
peoples and didn't limit himself to saying, "Those poor indians!"
but also assumed the responsibility of analyzing how to create an
army with indigenous bases, an army with a collective participation
in the command structures. This is the point of the first question:
do you believe that Magonismo has permeated the ideological
formation of the EZLN?
Marcos: Look, I have to be honest. When we talk about Magonismo, it
also makes me think of the orthodox line, close-minded and stupid.
This is the truth. The Mago'n brothers are only talked about in the
context of the labor movement, although we know that they developed
many other important projects as well. But, ultimately, the
unintentional result is that they are talked of in this. We
referred to the Flores Mago'n brothers in order to highlight the
need for the workers to participate in the revolution, and in order
to highlight an important force that existed during the time
previous to the outbreak and spread of the armed struggle in
1910-21.
     Ultimately, this synthesis or confrontation that I am speaking
of occurred in such a way that the EZLN was born without any links
to the workers. I think that perhaps the synthesis was not enough.
Probably it could have used more influence from Mago'n. It probably
lacked more input from the history of the Mexican worker's movement
so as to be able to truly incorporate the workers into the armed
struggle. I'm not saying that we didn't consider this on a
theoretical level, but evidently in practice nothing happened. This
is to say that there was an error, not in the reality - I can't
say, "Reality is stupid because it doesn't suit what I am
thinking." It means that we were stupid because we didn't
understand reality.
Interviewers: In this sense, the Zapatista movement and the
Zapatista revolution have been called the first postmodernist
revolution. Now, let's analyze the fact that many current theories
of the new left, of an anti-authoritarian left with a definite
tendency toward libertarian communism, break with the blueprint
that sees the working class as the vanguard of the social
revolution. Many of these new theories even see the working class
as a class in decline, a class that does not recognize itself as a
class, a class that less and less wants to be considered the
working class. Is this conception of the working class one that you
have adopted during your experiences?
Marcos: No, definitely not. Those idols against which we were
fighting were different. The idea that armed struggle was possible
in all places except Mexico was so omnipresent that we were
obligated to confront it first and leave the rest for later. Beyond
this, in historical or theoretical terms, who would have speculated
before December 31, 1993 that it wasn't going to be the proletariat
leading the revolution. Then who? Who was it going to be? They
could have speculated that it would be the teachers, they could
have speculated that it would be the unemployed, they could have
speculated that it would be the students or some sector of the
middle class, they could have speculated that it would be  leftist
or democratic factions within the Federal army or within the
supposedly democratic faction of the PRI. They could have
speculated many things, including that the United States would
become socialist and then they would invade us and make us
socialists [laughter]. This was the reasoning then. Even in the
university this idea had taken root.
     It didn't occur to anyone that the indigenous peoples were
going to play this role and that they would manage to demand their
place in the nation or that they would demand that the nation
recognize that they have a proposal, that they have a proposal for
the nation. The same or better or worse - it's open for discussion
- as any other proposal that intellectuals or political parties or
social groups have for this country.
Interviewers: We don't want to deviate much from the questions that
we planned to ask you, but now that you have brought up the term
"Nation". . .  There have been many discussions regarding this
concept. Even within the discussions of postmodernism the term
"Nation" continues to be marked by a petit-bourgeoise conception.
The "Nation" is used as an abstract feeling of a patriotism that
ultimately does nothing more than pit us against one another,
country against country. And in this sense, we have felt a certain
distance, for example, between points such as the autonomy of the
indigenous peoples and the national proposals of which you speak.
We would like it if you could tell us a little of the vision of
which you speak. When you refer to your national proposals, is it
with this bourgeoise vision of the nation-state-fatherland, or are
you merely using a language a little, well, we could say,  more
common - something more direct and easier to understand?
Marcos: When we speak of the nation we are necessarily speaking of
history, of a history of common struggle with historical references
that make us brothers to one group of people without distancing us
from other groups. But what more do we have in common with the
history of what is today called Mexico? I say this because the
first accusation against Zapatismo is that it is aligned with
Central America. Therefore it has to delineate itself and explain
that its vision is not directed towards the south, but rather
towards the north. That is to say, to that historical tradition
which has brought it together with a group of people - in this case
with the Mexican people, not with the Central American peoples.
Because. . . remember that the other thing being said is that this
revolution is the last Central America revolution. Some say it is
the first postmodern revolution, others say that it is the last
Central America revolution, even geographically speaking.
      What occurs as a result of this insistence. . .  when the
concept of autonomy is brought up, the State understands it in this
way: "Well, what the indigenous peoples want are reservations, like
the ones North American indians have." This is where the
compan~eros say, "No, if we are going to end up like the North
American indians on reservations, no." This is not the concept of
autonomy that we want, rather that they recognize, for example,
this structure of government that I have explained, a structure
that gives us validity. We don't want them to operate as if they
were conquering territory. When the Federal army entered the
communities before the war, or the judicial police or the public
security police, or the municipal police, they entered as an
invading army in enemy territory, even physically. When an army
invades a country, everyone from that country is an enemy. When
they entered the communities, they entered acting as if everyone
were an enemy. At that point, the compan~eros said, "We have our
own forms of government, we have traditions of community
decision-making that must be respected by the government. And not
only that - these traditions are a good example for the national
government, for the government of this country, for any government
that pretends to be a democracy." 
     For this reason we speak of Mexico, of the Mexican nation,
because we must mark our boundaries, we must say, "It is not
nostalgia for Central America, it is not nostalgia for Nicaragua,
nostalgia for El Salvador." On the other hand, when they speak of
autonomy they are speaking as sectarians. They don't look to the
future but to the past, the nostalgia. . . They look to ethnicity
in a pejorative sense, as if we wanted to create a bubble, a bubble
like the one in the movie, a bubble that isolates you from
contamination or from what happens outside it. Therefore, any
concept that you put out there. . . We must make clear what we are
speaking of in all senses.
Interviewers: From our point of view. . . We felt a little shocked
by the discrepancy in your positions. For example, what is put
forward as the "nation" of Mexico we understand to be very similar
to what indigenous peoples understand to be the "nation" of the
United States. It is a large nation that dominates a large number
of indigenous peoples, of small indigenous nations. In this case
they may be Choles, Tzotziles, Triquis, Yaquis. The same thing
happens in the case of the United States. It is a large nation that
has oppressed a large number of small nations, such as the Yaquis,
the Pomos, the Apaches, the Dakotas, etc. And in this sense we
understand Mexico to be an imperialist nation that has kept all of
these peoples oppressed without recognizing their culture, their
traditions, their identities, a nation that has imposed a culture
and an identity and that is trying to maintain the entire territory
under its control without the least respect for cultures,
traditions, identities or anything of the kind. This then we see as
a kind of contradiction, speaking of a national project. . . Well,
we can see it in history with the example of Lazaro Cardenas when
he was in the army. He went to war against the Yaqui, no? And this
was to massacre and oppress the Yaqui people, a people who were in
rebellion and who had not allowed themselves to be oppressed, a
people who were one of the bastions of resistance against the
so-called "New Nation." Therefore, we see a contradiction. I don't
know if you have given thought to this, if you have come across
this contradiction in your experiences.
Marcos: No, this is your position, but since this is my interview,
I am going to explain ours. Look, we believe that today's Mexico,
the Mexico that we are fighting against, is not a Mexico in
abstract but rather a project of a certain class, of a certain
social group. This project was born of the disorder or of the
internal agreement provoked by the revolution at the beginning of
this century. The implementation of this project has brought about
a series of things as you indicate: domination, questions of land,
of forms of government. For example, the lie that there is a
federation when in reality the states depend upon the central
government, or the lie that there are free municipalities when in
reality the municipalities are dependent. We believe that it is
possible to have the same Mexico with a different project, a
project that recognizes not only that it is a multi-ethnic state -
in fact, multi-national - but also that new concepts are needed in
order to reform the constitution. But, since there isn't a just
relationship between the federation and its parts, we are proposing
autonomy. We are proposing this because we are mostly indigenous
people but what we say with respect to the need for autonomy could
be applied equally to the municipalities, to the unions, to social
groupings, to peasant groups, to the governments of the states or
to the states that are nominally free and sovereign inside the
federation.
Interviewers: Could it be said that you view the future society for
which you are fighting as one in which the free municipality, the
autonomous municipality will be put into practice, a society in
which a federation will be put into practice based upon a citizen's
confederation?
Marcos: No, before this we have to complete the other revolution.
The EZLN. . . The revolution that we are proposing isn't an
indigenous revolution. The EZLN was born with indigenous demands
due to how it developed, but it aspires to organize the workers,
non-indigenous peasants, students, teachers, and all of the other
social sectors in order to carry out a broader revolution, not just
an indigenous revolution.
     We don't believe that the result of this revolution that we
are proposing will be a new world, a new country; it will only be
a first step, an antechamber that you enter before you enter this
new country. We are proposing a space, an equilibrium between the
different political forces in order that  each position has the
same opportunity to influence the political direction of this
country - not by backroom deals, corruption or blackmail, but by
convincing the majority of the people that their position is best.
I mean by this. . .  If there is a neoliberal proposal for the
country, we shouldn't try to eliminate it but confront it. If there
is a Trotskyite proposal, a Maoist proposal, an anarchist proposal,
or proposals from the Guevaristas, the Castristas, the
Existentialists or whatever "ists" that you may think of, they
shouldn't be eliminated. They shouldn't be discussed in the way we
are discussing them now, in small groups. In this discussion, we
are demonstrating that we know a lot, that we speak very prettily,
but in the discussions that we are proposing. . . the rest of the
country shouldn't be spectators, like they will be to the debate
tomorrow [On May 12, for the first time in Mexican history, the
presidential candidates of the major Mexican political parties
engaged in an open, televised debate - translators]. The people
have to decide what proposal to accept, and it's the people who you
have to convince that your opinion is correct. This will radically
change the concept of revolution, of who the revolutionary class
is, of what a revolutionary organization is. Now, the problem isn't
in fighting against the other proposals, but instead in trying to
convince the people. It's because of this that the Zapatista
revolution isn't proposing the taking of power, it isn't proposing
a homogeneous ideological concept of revolution. We are saying that
yes, we do have our idea of how the country should be, but
something is lacking before we talk about this. We cannot replicate
the same logic as the government. They have a vision for the
country that they have imposed on the people with the arms of the
Federal Army. We cannot reverse this logic and say that now the
Zapatista vision is going to be imposed on the people with the arms
of the Zapatista army. We are saying, "Let's destroy this State,
this State system. Let's open up this space and confront the people
with ideas, not with weapons."  This is why we propose democracy,
freedom and justice - justice in order that certain material
conditions are satisfied so that people have an opportunity to
participate in the political life of the country. We are saying,
"We don't want this new world yet. We are not talking about a new
world yet. We aren't talking about what form Article 27 should
take. We aren't talking about what form the federation agreement
should take. We aren't talking about what form indigenous autonomy
should take. We are talking about a democratic space where the
political parties, or groups that aren't parties, can air and
discuss their social proposals.
Interviewers: Marcos, in analyzing the way in which you are
organized - at least what you have let us see - it's evident that
when you speak of democracy, you are referring to direct democracy,
to total participation, to a participation in which each and every
person that makes up this country, everyone that is living at this
time in Mexico, can participate. Is this interpretation accurate?
Marcos: Yes. Definitely. Look, what we are trying to do. . . We are
a clandestine organization that has taken up arms against the
government, and still we are very careful to try and maintain this
democracy. By this I mean the direct vote, everyone's vote. Yes,
because only the Zapatistas can vote. It's not the kind of process
where you arrive and ask the people, "Are you for war or are you
for peace? Well, I'm for war. And you? Peace." And you go adding up
the votes.
     No, I tell you that it must be the logical outcome of
community discussion. The people meet in assemblies and the
representatives put forth, for example in the case of the
consultations, the demands of the EZLN and the response of the
government. They're explained. What is it that we asked for and
what has the government said in response? And they begin to debate,
"Well, this is bad and this is good." After the community says, "We
have already debated, we already understand, now we can vote" -
this could take days. In fact, almost all the consultations have
gone on for two, three days now and they haven't yet reached the
point of voting. They arrive and say, "Well okay, we are in
agreement, let's vote if we are ready to vote, if we already
understand what it is we are going to decide." It's not about
raising your hand or putting a check-mark for one option or the
other. You have to debate and analyze the pros and the cons.
     In this case you're not voting for a governor where he could
turn out to be a son of a bitch, you're voting for your life or
death as an organization. If you're at war you already know that
you could live or die. But, if you err in a decision and you vote
for war when it is time for peace or you vote for peace when it is
time for war, you disappear as an organization. You might disappear
because they destroy you, because you lose prestige or moral
authority, or because you become a traitor to yourself by signing
a fictitious peace that nobody wants. You can't leave decisions of
this magnitude to a group of leaders no matter how collective they
are or how large the group is. Not even the Clandestine
Revolutionary Indigenous Committee can decide these things. The
Committee can't meet and decide, "We analyzed what Camacho
[Commissioner for Peace and Reconciliation in Chiapas -
translators] said and we are going to decide yes or no." They can't
do that.
Interviewers: Do you strive for consensus in the general
assemblies?
Marcos: No, there is direct voting. It isn't the sort of voting
where at the end they say, "The majority of the people voted yes
and therefore it's yes for all the people." No, it has to be known
how many said yes and how many said no, because these yeses and nos
are added up proportionally. It's not the consensus of the
government, for example, that says, "Well, nobody said no [laughs]
so we have consensus. Are you in agreement? Nobody said they didn't
agree so that means that you agree." No, it has to be a direct
vote.
Interviewers: We want to ask you another question that deals with
ground that's already been covered to some extent, since it's been
made clear during the interview that the EZLN has never considered
itself to be the vanguard of the Mexican revolutionary movement.
Nevertheless, I need to ask this question directly because other
groups, specifically PROCUP [Partido Revolucionario Obrero
Clandestino - Unio'n del Pueblo], have said that they are the
vanguard of Zapatismo, that they as a party are the vanguard of
Zapatismo. PROCUP recently circulated a document where they implied
that the EZLN is one of their "belligerent groups," and that all
the recent events in Mexico are part of PROCUP's national plan, of
which, logically, they are the vanguard. Is this true? Do you have
some connection?
Marcos: The left is very close-minded. The traditional left is very
close-minded. They say, "Well, these people don't draw from any of
the known ideologies, so they must not have one. I will lend them
one." [laughs]. Or they say, "They are good people but they don't
know what they want. I'm going to tell them what they want." Or
"They're good people but they need a leader. I'll be their leader."
This is the reality not just in the case of PROCUP, but with groups
of Trotskyites and Maoists who say, "What the EZLN needs is. .
.ME!" [laughs].
Interviewers: My leadership.
Marcos: Yes, ultimately, "my leadership." What upsets the Pentagon
is that when you punch "Zapatista" into the computer, nothing comes
out that says, "Moscow," or "Havana," or "Libya," "Tripoli,"
"Bosnia" or any other group. And the left, accustomed to the same
way of thinking,  says, "Well, they don't fit in anywhere." It
doesn't occur to them there might be something new, that you have
to retheorize. And they say, "Well then, these poor people don't
know what they want, we need to help them." And furthermore, we are
talking about an armed force at war, surrounded, that isn't able to
receive all the declarations or the newspapers. Eventually, we find
out what is said after a week or maybe 15 days. So, they know that
we will not be able to deny it. We can't stop it. But, we believe
that. . .we have confidence in the people, in the community, in
that we have been clear about our positions and that people will
have difficulty swallowing that we are the armed arm of PROCUP or
of any other organization of any type. But I have seen various
magazines. . .
Interviewers: Very insidious. . .the commentaries.
Marcos:. . .of Trotskyites and Maoists, of all of the orthodox
leftists and of the old dinosaurs that say, "Well, the ELZN is very
good and what they've done is very good and all, but they lack a
program, so here's a program. They lack a party, so here's a party.
They lack a leader, so here's a leader." This attitude is held by
everyone from Aguilar Talamantes [Presidential candidate of the
Partido Frente Cardenista de ReconstruciO'n Nacional - translators]
to the left. 
Interviewers: Yes, he already wanted you to be a candidate for
president, right?
Marcos: No, first he wanted to be our candidate for the presidency.
[laughs].
Interviewers: Later he wanted you to be the candidate.
Marcos: Yes, but he made it very difficult. First I had to prove
that I was more intelligent than he was.
Interviewers: Really? Imagine. Impossible.
Marcos: Evidently it was impossible.
Interviewers: Going back to the previous discussion, Dr. Armando
Quiro'z Alejandre of the ANDH [Asemblea Nacional de Derechos
Humanos] met with comrades of the Zapatista Solidarity Committee in
New York City. During the visit, he insinuated in private
discussions with these comrades that PROCUP has a link to the EZLN
and furthermore that the EZLN is following the same political line
as PROCUP.
Marcos: It's not true, those people need to be publicly denounced.
It can't be. Why should the Zapatistas provide the dead bodies and
the other groups collect the dollars and fool people into thinking
that they're providing solidarity for an organization that never
receives any of this aid? We don't subscribe to their ideologies -
in this case the ideology of PROCUP. We definitely don't subscribe.
. .If we subscribed to the ideology of PROCUP, well, we would be
PROCUP. We are not, we are not in anyway in league with them, we
have not even entered in any kind of conversation with them since
our inception, since their inception. There is absolutely no type
of alliance. Well, in the sense that we are all human beings, you
could also [laughs] link us to Clinton or to Reagan, to Perot, to
Che, to  Zapata.
Interviewers: With anybody. . .Now that we are clearing some things
up. There have been other groups that have manipulated things in a
different way. Specifically in the case of CLETA [leftist culture
and arts group in Mexico City - translators], who said, for
example, that you are their vanguard. This is the opposite of
PROCUP. CLETA needed a vanguard and put you in that position.
Furthermore, as we are talking about the problem of solidarity,
they are one of the groups that has organized concerts and
collected funds saying that they are for you, saying that it is
for. . .  that this aid reaches you, that this money reaches you.
Marcos: Well, we're going to wait until it arrives. But, up until
now nothing has arrived [laughs]. 
Interviewers: Nothing has arrived. A number of very biased press
sources have tried to equate the EZLN with the Shining Path
[Communist Party of Peru - Shining Path - translators]. Making a
simply objective analysis you can see that both groups are very
different. For example, while the Shining Path has committed
innumerable executions, you [the EZLN] tried a criminal like
Absalom [former governer of Chiapas taken prisoner by the
Zapatistas during the January fighting - translators] and you put
him to work in the corn fields and in the end you freed him. We
would like it if you could expound on this because there are
Maoists who say that you part of the international Maoist
revolution, that there is a link between the Shining Path and the
Zapatista Army, etc., etc.
Marcos: No, there is no link. Look, if the Mexicans couldn't accept
that an armed revolution was possible in Mexico, definitely
foreigners couldn't accept the possibility. Come on, everyone saw
or still sees Mexico as the rearguard for political solidarity
work. Now I'm remembering something; let's see if this relates to
the question - it will make the tape recorder jump. We just
received a feminist magazine that says that we are sexists because
we chose war and war is sexist, armies are in and of themselves
sexist, so therefore the EZLN is sexist. Therefore, what the EZLN
needs is to be feminist. The article was brilliant - it moved me to
tears. I don't remember what it was called - it was written by
"pure" feminists. The article goes beyond anything I've seen. 
Interviewers: La Fem? [Mexican feminist magazine - translators]
Marcos: No.
Interviewers: Is it national?
Marcos: No, it appeared to be. . .
Interviewers: Well, on that note, I'm going skip around in the
order of the questions.
Marcos: No, it's that the article says. . .the foreward says, "Only
for Zapatista women." And I disobeyed and read it, but I will pass
it along to the compan~eras. 
Interviewers: Well, one of the things that we are most concerned
about - specifically the compan~eras - are the gender politics
within the EZLN. You facilitated our being able to interview a
number of compan~eras and we have seen - to the point that you have
allowed us to see [laughs] - that there exists an equality. This
can be seen clearly. The women say it themselves: "My partner," -
or in the case of those who are married - "My husband washes his
things, does his work, does his part." And when you ask her if she
has children, she says,  "Yes, I already have mine, my M-16."
Things like this show that yes, there is an equality that exists,
at least in practice. The single compan~eras that we've interviewed
also tell us they do the same work as the men, that they aren't
limited to working as nurses or in the kitchen as a result of being
women. We would like you to tell us, as spokesperson of the EZLN:
What are the politics of the EZLN towards gender issues?
Marcos: Look, there are many problems. I am speaking of the
compan~eras. . . above all in the civilian population, the
civilians have continued practicing many ancestral customs that
don't belong  in even a pre-revolutionary situation. For example,
many still believe that the man should choose the woman that he
wants to marry, but that the woman should have no choice in the
matter. The difference, including the physical difference, between
the civilian women and the combatant women is very clear. At the
age when many of the combatant women have, as you say, an M-16,
many civilian women already have four or five children, are beaten
by their husbands; they don't know how to read or write, they have
no opportunity to develop themselves as people. What the
compan~eras say is that they cannot have their equality decreed
from above, they have to achieve it through struggle. They say,
"You can like it or not, but now we are going to change these
things." By force. That's why in our list of demands to the
government, it doesn't mention anything about gender. The
compan~eras say, "We aren't going to ask the government to give us
freedom, nor are we going to ask you male fools. We are going to
ensure our freedom, our respect and our dignity as women and as
human beings." I'm speaking of the compan~eras. . . They also
criticize us, the men, for our sexist or authoritarian attitudes.
For example, in relationships between combatants, many things have
changed, things that haven't changed in the civilian population.
For example, in the civilian population, when a woman marries, she
is no longer allowed to dance. She is married, and dances are
places where single people meet and decide to get married. If she
is married, then she doesn't dance because now she is somebody's
"property." Amongst the civilians it is still this way. Amongst the
combatants, no, the combatants dance whether they are married or
single, and it is very common that the woman chooses her dancing
partner. They dance just to dance, to have fun, without any other
motive such as to sleep with someone or have a relationship.
     The politics of gender in the EZLN, among the regular forces.
. . There isn't a politic of gender, there are only combatants.
There are women soldiers and there are men soldiers, but in the end
they are soldiers. In order to rise to a  command position, in
order to rise in rank or to carry out actions and missions, we take
into account the soldier's apptitudes; it doesn't matter whether
they are male or female. Many times, in our daily life as
combatants, in couple relationships, sexist attitudes are
reproduced and because of this our laws tend to favor the woman. It
is very common for couples to fight physically when they fight.
Let's say that the difference between the women combatants and
civilian women is that the women combatants hit back [laughter].
Interviewers: They defend themselves.
Marcos: Yes, it's common that it's the man who comes to us
complaining that his partner hit him. We have to be very cautious
in this respect because both are armed, if it occurs to one of them
to shoot the other. . . A blow is much different than a gunshot.
For us - for me it's very clear, and I believe that it's clear to
many compan~eras as well - that equality isn't something that's
conceded. You can't say, "I as a man am going to give you your
freedom and now we are going to be equal." That's not true, of
course. In the same way, the government can't concede us our rights
as indigenous peoples, we have to fight for them. The women are
also fighting for them, many times in very radical ways. I believe
that they've achieved many things inside the combat forces and
inside the civilian population. For example, men who had never
received orders from a women, who couldn't stand it when women
would give them orders in the mountains. . . When they saw them
fighting, they saw that the compan~eras knew how to fight. They
look on them with respect now because they realized that the women
knew how to fight and they didn't. They saw them facing death and
they stopped being women. They stopped being women in the classic
sense of the term, weak and unable to. . .
Interviewers: Women in the pejorative sense.
Marcos: It could be also that you see a women and you think that
she's only there to sleep with. But when it changes to, "She's
going to give me orders and I have to obey her," or "I'm going to
give her orders and she is going to obey me," in that moment you
stop being a female combatant or a male combatant and you become a
soldier, equals. I'm not saying that the women stop being women and
become men, but that both women and men stop being what they are
and become combatants. Since we are soldiers all the time - we
aren't able to take vacations - it is very difficult to tell when
one is acting in the role of combatant and when one is off-duty. I
believe that this has brought more benefits to the compan~eras than
to the sexists, to us men, in the sense that this equality in
combat, in work is transmitted to other aspects of life.
Interviewers: Do you accept the analysis that we live in a
patriarchal society, that men have controlled society for centuries
and that this is also part of the system that feeds Capital, that
feeds the bourgeoisie?
Marcos: Definitely!
Interviewers: We must rise above this and the sexist attitudes that
we hold.
Marcos: Definitely! There are compan~eros who are very
revolutionary politically, but who are real assholes in
relationships, in marriages, in relationships between men and
women. But, I believe that  changes in this aren't going to be our
concession - I'm speaking as a man. The women are going to change
things whether we like it or not, despite our close-mindedness. It
is the same thing as we are doing with respect to the government.
The government doesn't like the fact that the indigenous peoples
have risen up, but we did it. The sexists don't like the fact that
the women are doing what they are doing, but they are going to do
it and that's that. They have fought in combat, they even won. Some
of them led sucessful missions, they won, they defeated men. They
commanded entire units of men. The EZLN is composed of about
two-thirds men and one-third women. It is very common to have
military units where the only woman is the commander; the entire
unit, all of her subordinates are men. This caused many problems
before January first.
Interviewers: And these problems were eliminated?
Marcos: They finally saw that yes, that what was important wasn't
that they were women but that they had learned during their years
in the mountains to lead the same as any man.
Interviewers: We have seen this. We have met many women captains
during our stay here in the liberated territories. We have met many
female captains and this demonstrates the truth of what you are
saying. . .
Marcos: The male captains hide themselves [laughter]. No, that's
not true.
Interviewers: Continuing along this same subject. . . We have seen
that there is also a cultural difference, a difference in
tradition. You said this also, at the beginning when you spoke of
your links to the indigenous communities. Many of the compan~eras
have told us that they aren't allowed to have sex until they are
married, that there is a regulation that says that they must be
married. If they like a man and they want to sleep with him, it's
easier to marry him. We're not speaking of a religious marriage,
but that you, the EZLN, expediate some form of marriage. . . But we
feel this to be a little puritanical, as if to say, "You can't have
sex because you are a woman and you have to be married."
Marcos: No, no, it's that marriage for us means that you are a
couple and you have permission. Let me explain. When you are going
to have a sexual relationship. . . During the day you can't have
sex, you're working. The most logical thing is that you are going
to sleep with someone at night. You have to advise the commander
that you are going to be having sex somewhere, because if you are
attacked the commander has to look for you and. . . We tell the
combatants, "You have to trust the commanders to tell them that you
are sleeping with someone." Why? It doesn't matter to me, I'm not
going to watch you, I'm not a voyeur. It isn't like that. What I'm
interested in is that I have someone covering your position. If we
are attacked, we can't have the entire defensive line having sex.
Well, it could happen, but it shouldn't happen. We don't demand
that they are married.
Interviewers: You mean a woman can have sexual relations freely?
Marcos: Yes, what she is told is to follow a birth-control method.
That's why she is told to let us know, so that she can follow a
method. Because if you become pregnant. . .  you can't stay in the
mountains pregnant, you have to go to town, go abort there. It has
already happened; there are compan~eras that abort on the long
walks that. . . Then, the method has to be followed, you have to
look after yourself. Only when the army says, "Now it's possible to
have children and remain in the mountains or at some positions,"
only then will it cease to be an issue. But, yes, the nurses are
asked to be checking for pregnancy.
Interviewers: Yes, they told us that there is. . .
Marcos: But there is no formal procedure. You do have to ask the
commanders for permission, but it's not as if. . . Interviewers: As
if it's mandatory to be married to have sex, or anything like that.
Marcos: No, no.
Interviewers: Simply put, it's more a matter of coordination, to...
Marcos: Yes, a military question. You let the commanders know, but
generally no, they don't get married to have sex.
Interviewers: They can have sexual relations freely?
Marcos: In fact, they have sex and then they say, "Well, not this
one." Or "Yes, this is the one I want to marry. Or maybe I don't
want to marry this person, but I just want it to be clear that we
are a couple." They say this to avoid gossip - like that he or she
gets in bed with one person and then another, and so on.
Interviewers: That involves culture and tradition as well.
Marcos: Yes, we are talking about indigenous people that come from
the villages. . .
Interviewers: Who hold different concepts than we who come from the
cities.
Marcos: But it is a rule is that you have to let the commanders
know.
Interviewers: Now, when you were explaining this to us, something
else came to mind, another question. You spoke of the possibility.
. . well, of pregnant compan~eras who risk abortion while engaging
in maneuvers. In the Revolutionary Womens Law [One of the
revolutionary laws promulgated by the EZLN in the liberated
territories - translators] it is stated explicitly that a woman has
full rights over her body and her life. Radical feminists have been
fighting throughout the world to truly have control over their
lives and bodies. However, the issue becomes very confused when an
article appears in the media, in a paper like La Jornada, saying
that the EZLN has presented a law proposal to the governor of
Chiapas in which abortion is addressed, but at no time does it make
clear in the media the position of the EZLN concerning the issue.
I don't know if it was intentional or if there really was no
in-depth knowledge about your position, but the media assumed that
the EZLN is opposed to abortion. Thus, I would like to divide the
question in several parts. The first question would be: What is the
proposal of the Zapatistas in relation to the legalization of
abortion? And the second question is: At this time, if a compan~era
becomes pregnant because her contraceptive method fails and she
does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term, if she wants to
interrupt it, does she have authority over her body in order to
decide if she aborts or not? And the third question...
Marcos: Wait, wait, let's start with the first question.
Interviewers: Well, yes, let's go question by question. The first
one is: What does this law proposal consist of?
Marcos: The EZLN demands that the state's penal code be modified
because there is no political freedom. The government, taking
advantage of the fact that we are tied up in talks and that we are
surrounded, is taking the opportunity to reverse the
decriminalization of abortion that existed in the Penal Code. They
say that this is at the EZLN's request, but the EZLN did not
request the modification of the Code in that respect. The stupidity
of this article is based on the argument that this is a position of
Samuel Ruiz Garcia, that it evidences the influence of the church
on the EZLN, and since the church is against abortion they want it
to be penalized. Then, according to the argument, the church
directed us to present this law proposal. We have not presented any
law proposal or anything of the kind - nor a electoral reform
proposal or anything like that either. The proposal says
contextually: "We demand that the Penal Code of the state be
eliminated." We don't say that it should be reformed or replaced by
a more just one. We demand that it be removed because it leaves us
no other form of political participation other than taking up arms.
That's what it says. I sent a letter to La Jornada because of that
stupid article that was published. 
Interviewers: Very insidious!
Marcos: Yes. That answers the first question. Question two: the
compan~era not only has the right to terminate the pregnancy, but
the organization also has the obligation to provide the means for
her to do it with total safety.
Interviewers: Well, that was the third question, you already
answered it.
Marcos: If she says, "I have become pregnant" - it could even be
that she became pregnant on purpose, not just that the
birth-control method failed - "but I don't want it anymore," this
is fine, as long as her life is not in danger; I mean, if a certain
number of months have gone by it can't be done. Then she can demand
by the right of Zapatista law that the EZLN give her the means to
terminate the pregnancy under the best health conditions that the
EZLN can ensure. It is the obligation of the commanders that she is
given these means. If the pregnancy can't be stopped, aborted, then
the commanders have to find the way to resolve the problem.
Interviewers: In this case, for free.
Marcos: It is not in the strictest sense control over their bodies
and the compan~eras demonstrate this very clearly, "We are not free
in this sense because, for example, I can't become pregnant and
continue to serve in the army. In this sense I am not free. I am
free in that if I am pregnant I can stop the pregnancy, but if I am
not pregnant I can't decide to become pregnant, because if I become
pregnant I have to leave the army." And yes, we do tell them they
have to leave the army, because of the conditions we face. That's
why the compan~eras say, "There is no freedom over my own body." In
the case of the female combatants it is only half-freedom, the
other freedom is lacking. Right now they can't decide to carry a
pregnany to term and remain in the army. It is only fair to point
this out, and the compan~eras continue to fight for their right to
become pregnant. The other side of the issue has already been
resolved for many years and we deal with abortions with the means
we have at our disposal. Until now no one has died during an
abortion. In the communities abortion is practiced to the extent
that our resources allow. 
Interviewers: Then it exists also for the civilian population, for
the women in the civilian community. There is that possibility in
case she needs it, if she so wishes.
Marcos: Yes. In general, they don't seek it because of their
beliefs; also for health reasons, since in their nutritional
conditions an abortion can be deadly. Sometimes it is best to let
the pregnancy be carried through, even if there is still time for
an abortion. But we do facilitate the use of contraceptives and all
that, for example.
Interviewers: The compan~eras we met also had access to
contraceptives. The question has been raised of whether there is
the possibility for the organization of women's groups within the
army where women could organize as women of the army but also
autonomously as women. By this we mean self- help collectives where
they could gain and acquire more knowledge about their bodies, and
could even get to the point. . . for example, in the case of
abortions in the first weeks, there are methods that have been
proposed by radical women's groups, like abortion by menstrual
extraction, one of the first methods for aborting early in the
pregnancy. Is autonomy given in this sense or not?
Marcos: No, I didn't know about this method. The situation here is
not so advanced. The most we managed to achieve some time ago -
when I was captain - many years ago, was to have sex-education
classes, explaining the man's body, the woman's body, what was the
mechanism of pregnancy, what things were going on in their bodies.
This was received with much enthusiasm from the men, and much
embarrassment from the women. The men came to see how a woman's
body was. For example - look, this town has a power plant project
that breaks down all the time, but when it works... some months ago
it worked for few days. One of the compan~eros told us, very
enthusiastically, that at last he had "seen" his wife. He said, "I
finally saw all of her." And they have ten kids. He had ten kids
and he didn't know his wife's body. He didn't know his wife's body!
Until there was electric light and they thought of making love with
the light on, and then yes, he could see everything that was going
on. And he talked about it as if it had been his first time. He
already had ten children, one of them fully grown, already an
insurgent [combatant in the EZLN - translators], an 18 year-old, a
member of a combat unit.
     We organized these classes in order to combat the diseases
that afflict the women, so that they understand the necessity of
hygiene. It is a problem for them; the men don't take it into
account. They think that when a compan~era has a urinary-tract
infection, from lack of cleanliness for example - or if she has her
period - that she is just lazy, that she doesn't want to work. We
need to sensitize the men to this so that they understand that a
woman's body is not like a man's, in many senses. And that's why we
organized these classes. We try in the talks and lectures to
address these issues.
Interviewers: Is there an education as far as the use of the
condom- not only as a contraceptive but also to avoid diseases, to
avoid contracting and spreading them? 
Marcos: No, in reality no. In reality, we teach about the condom as
a contraceptive when the compan~eras can't use the pill, when they
get sick from the pill. There are many who get ill from the pill,
they are very young; when they use pills with high estrogen content
they get sick. With all the heavy work they do already they get
nauseous, get headaches and all that - it's very hard on them. They
can't always get IUDs, the rhythm method is really prehistoric, so
then there is the use of condoms. But we should say that the
Zapatistas' sexual horizons are very limited. I mean by this that
gonorrhea, and things of this sort. . . well, we didn't get a
chance to catch them in the cities since we fled before attacking
the whorehouses. We are in the mountain, we are at war - within the
regular troops, I'm saying, it is very, very difficult to spread
diseases. In fact, we have not seen one case. And we can instill
fear, in fact we did it, and they tell you, "Not me, I have never
been with a woman, where am I going to become infected, or in what
whorehouse am I going to catch this?" It's more pragmatic in that
sense. I am not saying it is good, because I do think that it would
be good to promote their use. . . but no, we haven't done it, I
would lie to you if I said that we were doing it. It is recommended
when. . . as a contraceptive, not for sexual hygiene. 
Interviewers: Well, in case that this kind of sexual education
could be resumed. . . do you believe that it would be acceptable
that the problem of disease, in the case of AIDS, etcetera, be
included in the instruction?
Marcos: I believe so. Let's say that we understand, for example,
about AIDS. Well, according to the information that we were getting
when we were in the mountains AIDS is a homosexuals' disease, and
therefore, if you weren't a homosexual, nothing would happen to
you. In fact, we just found that you can get AIDS in other ways, it
can be transmitted even in heterosexual relationships. I am talking
about the basic sexual culture here, because in this case all
references to AIDS are in the context of homosexuality: "If I'm not
homosexual I have nothing to worry about." The main worry here is
different: "What I have to worry about is to not get anyone
pregnant, or that no one gets me pregnant." No, we don't have a
sexual culture based on fear of disease due to our isolation, but
yes, we do need educate about it.
Interviewers: Well, let's relate this to another question. . . We
want to ask another question relating to immediate solidarity. Have
you received or do you have access to condoms? Would it be feasible
to bring them?
Marcos: Yes, but unfortunately they would be very hard to eat
[Laughs]. But yes, we do get contraceptives, condoms and all that.
Interviewers: So, as I was saying. . .
Marcos: These things are allowed through by the Mexican army so
that the Zapatistas don't reproduce [Laughs]. They have enough
problems with the ones that already exist for us to make even more.
Interviewers: Now, relating the answers with other questions. . .
One of the questions that we were asked to ask by compan~eros Mateo
and Robin is what is the EZLN's policy, in the army and in the
liberated communities, toward sexual preference, in this specific
case, homosexuality and lesbianism. Is the EZLN given to the
"satanization" of homosexuality that has sometimes been found in
other leftist groups? Or is it simply unknown what you are talking
about when you attempt to address these issues?
Marcos: No, let's say that at a level of, well, of basic culture,
it is not punished. I mean, they don't say, "He's a homosexual, put
him in jail, kill him." On one hand, they laugh, make jokes, but
homosexuals have a normal life in the community. Our position as an
army is that - let me put it to you in a general way - there are
many minorities that will have to say, "Enough is enough!" Just as
the indigenous people said, "Enough is enough!",  other minorities
not tolerated by the powerful will have to say it also. In that
sense, then, there is no sexual policy in the Zapatista Army.
Interviewers: That is, there is no law - in the communities either
- that forbids lesbianism or homosexuality.
Marcos: No
Interviewers: Not even in the army?
Marcos: No, not even in the army.
Interviewers: There is no policy in the army that says, "We found
two girls fucking or two guys fucking" and well. . . they are
jailed, suspended, expelled - I don't know. . .
Marcos: No, there is nothing like that. They go ask the commanders,
the same as when it is a male-female couple. That means, they let
us know they are not going to be at their posts, because that is what the
commanders are concerned about, that their position is covered.