On the first day of 1994 the native population of Chiapas, Mexico rebelled against the country’s federal government. The Zapatistas, as they are known, were led by a man known only as Subcomandante Marcos and desired recognition and political autonomy in order to focus greater attention on the region’s dire economic situation. The signing and implementation of the NAFTA agreement served as the impetus for the insurgency, however similar violent outbreaks did not occur in the United States or Canada – why is this? Undoubtedly the primary cause lies in the economic differences between the developed countries of the NAFTA region, the US and Canada, and the developing country, Mexico. Also, historic political and ethnic differences played a large role in the differing reactions across the region.
After the signing of the NAFTA agreement the Zapatistas unleashed their violent fury in a quest to achieve work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace, according to Noam Chomsky’s Profit Over People. The NAFTA agreement, while not the only reason for the Zapatistas’ uprising, reinforced decades of Mexican governmental policy that ignored the concerns of Mexico’s native population. The majority of Mexico’s indigenous people utilize agriculture as a living via the family farm economic configuration. While family farms in the US and Canada exist and are even subsidized, they are not considered a necessary portion of every day life for a large number of people. Simply, the death of family farms in the US and Canada would not create wide-ranging poverty – resources are available for re-training and re-assimilation into the developed economic machines. Mexico, a developing country with a large, agricultural native population cannot stave off mass poverty when agriculture is directly assaulted by unfair trade. Due to agricultural protectionism on behalf of the United States, Mexican farmers are incapable of adequately competing and, thus, lose their livelihood. The natives’ family farms are no longer as profitable as they once were, extending and worsening poverty conditions in Chiapas and other regions where agriculture serves as the main industry for thousands of people. Also, the expansion of agribusiness-backed crash-crop farms has overtaken native family farms in order to compete with American food dumping. However, pay remains low in these mass production farms and do little to aid the poverty-stricken.
NAFTA, however, is not the only reason for the Zapatistas’ continuing discontent or why similar uprisings did not occur in the US and Canada. The Zapatistas’ concerns started long before the signing of the agreement, decades ago with the rise of the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s (PRI) impenetrable grip on power led to wide-ranging corruption. Mexico’s elite profited greatly from the PRI’s control, whereas the native population were subjugated and their concerns completely ignored. Current president Vincente Fox, who broke the PRI’s decades-old hold on power by way of his National Action Party (PAN), was supposed to bring about change and autonomy for Mexico’s natives in Chiapas. Instead, Fox proved completely ineffectual and, following the 2003 mid-term elections, serves as little more than a lame duck with basically no chance of meeting the Zapatistas’ many demands. The US and Canada both had fairly healthy democracies throughout the 20th century, unlike Mexico, which led to better representation at the federal levels. The Zapatistas as of 2003 have resulted to ignoring the federal Mexican government as much as possible since adequate representation of their interests appears to be an impossible goal, especially during a time of political uncertainty under an unpopular Vincente Fox.
While the Zapatistas have not gained all they have demanded, their concerns have been voiced and the world has noticed. Economic differences and unfair trade practices have negatively affected the already poverty-stricken in Mexico and the legacy of corrupt one-party rule continues to make a wide-reaching agreement between the indigenous rebels and the Mexican government an untenable outcome. The US and Canada, both highly developed democracies with diverse, yet inclusive populations, have not seen the same problems concerning NAFTA. Until Mexico can achieve comparable healthy institutions and competitive economic structures, the Zapatistas’ situation will not improve.
Related Posts:Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
