TO THE COMMISSION OF CONCORDANCE AND PACIFICATION,
Sir Legislators:
After many setbacks (the least of which are the military blockade,
surveillance, constant land and aerial patrols, bad weather, isolation
and the etceteras which the war and the jungle add and multiply) we
received your public letter dated March 4, 1997. Almost two months
after, if memory serves us well, we had asked you to define your
position in regards to the terminal crisis provoked by the government
with its counterproposal of constitutional reforms on indigenous rights.
	Nevertheless, your letter is plagued with inaccuracies, omissions
and half-truths. For this reason, permit me to make a brief review of
the facts, thereby avoiding the use of your actual text in the campaign
of misinformation the government has unleashed.
	Sale y vale [translator's note; here it goes];
	At the end of August of 1996 (8 months after the agreements were
signed and not fulfilled), the support bases of the EZLN ordered the
CCRI-CG to suspend its participation in the dialogue at San Andres. The
suspension occurred due to the lack of seriousness in the dialogue on
behalf of the government.  The failure to comply with the signed
agreements, the political prisoners, the military and paramilitary
harassment, the continuance of a racist and incompetent delegation, and
the lack of serious proposals in the theme of 'Democracy and Justice'
are only signs of the gigantic pretense which the government played and
plays with the war against indigenous Mexicans.  They purportedly then
took on the 5 prerequisites the EZLN had stated necessary to renew the
dialogue (By the way the EZLN demanded and demands a government
representative with decision-making power, political will, and respect
for the Zapatista delegation, and not the 'strengthening of the
government delegation' as you say in your letter).  The fact that Mister=

Zedillo does not recognize the agreements his delegates signed confirms
that Misters Bernal and Del Valle do not have any decision-making power. 
History will speak of their lack of political will and respect.)
	The COCOPA then proposed a series of initiatives designed to renew
the dialogue.  The so-called 'tri-partite meetings' between the CONAI,=

the COCOPA and the EZLN were agreed upon in order to discuss openings
which would not only resolve this crisis but redefine the framework of
the dialogue and make it viable.  In fact, the government delegation had
been displaced and the new actor, the COCOPA, appeared. Misters Bernal
and Del Valle had taken the process through one crisis after another and
the failure of their method was apparent.
	After installing the Verification and Compliance Commission (in
spite of the obstacles thrown up by the men at the Interior Ministry)
the COCOPA dedicated itself to seeking a way in which to implement the
signed agreements by the government and the EZLN on the theme of
'Indigenous Rights and Culture'. The EZLN accepted the proposition that=

the COCOPA elaborate a constitutional reform initiative, a fitting task
given its role of facilitator.  At that time in order to construct its
initiative the COCOPA served as intermediary at that stage (in spite of
our warning that it would not give good results) and presented the
proposals of each part to its counterpart.  After that method failed (in
the same way the San Andres method had failed), the parts agreed that
the COCOPA should write a document about the agreements and that the
EZLN and the government would respond to that document.
	You will recall that, having procured this agreement from the
parties which would allow the COCOPA to frame a single document ('in
order to avoid the infinite exchange of documents' were your exact
words) the respective positions were defined, and you were to frame a
proposal for a legal initiative.  You presented your document on
November 29th of 1996 warning us that this was the last effort of the
COCOPA, that only a 'yes' or 'no' would be acceptable and that in=
 case
of a negative response from any of the parts, the COCOPA would consider
it a failed process and would dissolve itself.  In those days, you told
us you had made the exact same warning to the government.  We
acknowledge that the effort of the COCOPA was useful, and that in spite
of the fact that the entirety of San Andres had not been incorporated,
the proposal was at least a step forward.
	Afterwards (we plead for help from your memory) the Interior
Minister (who is still I think  Emilio Chuayffet Chemor) accepted the
document and only asked that we wait for the return of Mister Zedillo
(who was traveling at the time) in order to make public his acceptance.
Then followed the cowardice of Mister Chuayffet and his dishonesty when
he denied accepting the text, saying he had never read it and that he
had only agreed to it because he was under the influence of an alcoholic
beverage called 'chinchon' (or something like that). Then Mister Zedillo=

spoke with you and asked that we give him time for his answer (maybe he
wanted Chuayffet  to have time to recover from the 'chinchones').  Two=

weeks later the government responded with a counterproposal, with which
the COCOPA was unfamiliar, and which essentially refuted the entire
process of San Andres.  We are familiar with the government document and
of course we rejected it.  At that time, two months ago, we asked the
COCOPA to define its position in regards to government posturings.
	The Zapatista 'NO' to Zedillo's counterproposal unleashed an
intense and rich debate, nationally and internationally, in regards to
indigenous rights, particularly the points around autonomy, the
establishment of norms and political participation of indigenous people. 
These raised many contributions and interesting and clarifying opinions. 
Mister Zedillo found no intelligent support for his indelible arguments
against the recognition of the historic rights of Indian peoples.
	In spite of the new ideologue of Mexican fascism, Ignacio Burgoa
Orihuela, no other voice dared to echo the phantom of  'balkanization'. =

This made Zedillo himself take up the frayed banner of racism and,
following the steps of the Interior Minister (who knows, with or without
chinchones?)  he insisted that he would not comply with the commitments
his own representatives had signed on February 16th of 1996.
	In less than two weeks the government lost the national debate and
could not sustain a weighty argument in order to reject the proposal of
the COCOPA.  Then silence came and the attempts to minimize the final
crisis in the dialogue between the EZLN and the government.  It was
quickly clear that the government does not have any argument with which
to reject the proposal of the COCOPA and not fulfill its word. The real
reason, THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE
BRANCH TO COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENTS AND RESOLVE THE CONFLICT THROUGH
PEACEFUL MEANS, became clear and resounding.  Only authoritarianism,
omnipotence and the blind indifference which are intrinsic to
presidentialism took the crisis to its worst point, the one now
delineated by your response, sir legislators.
	There is more, sir legislators, your letter omits the principal
question. What is your position in regards to the counterproposal of the
federal government? It might be convenient to know it now, since you
have been tossed aside from the process by the federal government.
	Your public letter says that it sustains the proposal made on
November 29th of 1996. But the considerations you have made contradict
this, why can't you carry it forward, and what's more you propose to re-
open the negotiations? No? True, you do not propose the re-opening of
negotiations.  In reality you propose that everything start once again,
that we act as though nothing had happened, as though there had been no
war or dialogue and negotiation and betrayal and harassment and
persecution and lies and deceit and extortion and racism and etcetera.
You propose that we go backwards. How far back? Until the betrayal of
February 9th of 1995?
	You say that the majority of those you have consulted believe the
text to be workable, that the problem is to avoid 'imprecisions or
confusion in terms of its implications, interpretation and content'
(point 4 of your letter). This is not so, the public debate proved this.
The majority of those who have made declarations in regards to the
subject say that the problem is a political one and that they are
manifest in the three spokes of the actual strategy (if there is such a
thing) of the federal government for the EZLN; a)no recognition for the
rights of Indian peoples; b) no compliance with the signed agreements;
c) no resolution of the conflict by peaceful means.
	You point out that 'the procedure presented by the COCOPA does not
reach its objective because the parts did not accept the proposed text'
(point 5 of your letter). The truth is that both parties accepted the
proposed text by the COCOPA, but one of them (the federal government)
retracted and took it back, based on the alcoholism of the head of the 
Interior Ministry.
	Point number 6 of your letter is worrisome, precisely because the
Federal Legislative Branch is to be renewed: 'The COCOPA considers that
the unilateral remittance of the original proposal as an initiative for
the Congress of the Union, is an option without viability for
legislative approval'. Chilling.  Here the COCOPA acknowledges that the
Legislative Branch  has no independence from the Executive. If you
acknowledge this lack of viability, what arguments will your political
parties use in the electoral campaign which end on July 6th of 1997? Why
participate in elections to Congress if initiatives which are not
exclusively Executive ones have no possibility of passage?
	In your letter, misters legislators, you forget that one of the
parts is the federal government, the part which refuses to comply with
what it agreed to and which by so doing, makes it impossible to continue
the peace process.  The COCOPA has solicited a  meeting feigning
ignorance about the military conditions, about the persecution against
the leaders of the EZLN (details: new military positions which close the
tactical fence around the zone of 'Aguascalientes' of La Realidad, the=

increase in harassment, the large land artillery columns=973 times larger
and 3 times more frequent on the route of La Realidad, constant aerial
night patrols, blatant alliance between the white guards and the police
in the northern part of Chiapas, increase in evictions, special Army
units gathering information and looking for Zapatista leadership,
increase in the desertions of federal columns due to the certainty of an
imminent government offensive).  You ignore the fact that trust has
suffered a mortal blow.
	The position of the COCOPA is  fixed by consensus. Does this mean
that the 4 political parties represented in the federal legislative
commission agree to your defeat and subordination to the Executive? Why
and how did this consensus come about? Where is the 'healthy distance'=

between Zedillo and the PRI? What did they offer the opposition parties
in order for them to decide to support the surrender of the COCOPA, and
the support to the PRI and Zedillo and their plans for annihilation?
	You have delayed nearly two months in declaring your position in
regards to the government refusal to comply with the San Andres
agreements. You respond now, when the last rains disappear in the
jungle, when the government forces have the best weather conditions for
a military attack.
	The presidential blow which sets you aside, misters legislators,
added to the conditions of hunger during the so-called 'dry season'
imposed upon the Indian peoples of Chiapas, presupposes we will be
obliged to accept the posturings of Mister Zedillo which regress the
compliance with the agreements which his delegation signed almost a year
ago.  The government intends to use the COCOPA as an aid for the war.
	Misters legislators, apparently you assume that your position will
untie the dialogue and make a re-initiation of the peace process
possible.  You are wrong. You will not un-tie the dialogue, you place it
on the outer limits of rupture.
	You should not forget that the COCOPA is the only entity which can
declare the dialogue ruptured.  It is to be expected that after it has
been obliged to accept the negative answer from the government, Mister
Zedillo would hope the COCOPA give him the legality with which to
justify the military attack.  That is why he needs a declaration of the
RUPTURE OF THE DIALOGUE.
	Rupture, in other words, war.  The eternal threat with which the
government delegation believed would supplant its mediocrity and lack of
intelligence and creativity.
	The rupture, and the war, the fear that obliges the mediation to
stutter and step aside.
	The rupture, and the war, the threat to double-over or buy-out (oh
well, they failed here) the consciences of the advisors and guests of
the EZLN.
	The rupture, and the war.  We do not fear them, we imagined them
since the government began giving samples of its feigned solutions and
creating problems, we prepared for it, we are ready.
	Given the last signals (among which is your letter), we are not
surprised.
	Maybe the Secretary of the Interior Ministry will try to make us
look like the excuse needed by the Northamerican government to 'provoke
a crisis in Mexico'.
	But Chuayffet and the gringos are wrong if they believe that we
will lend ourselves for that game or that we will allow them to
appropriate the little national sovereignty left to us Mexicans by
Salinas and Zedillo.  If it is necessary we will fight, but not for the
benefit of foreigners.
	We, the indigenous and mestizos of the EZLN, want to be a part of
Mexico, a free, sovereign and independent nation. The actual Mexico is
not this, but we will transform it, we will not fragment it.
	At any rate, this is another matter.  Let us return to your letter
and the crisis of the dialogue.
	This is a summary of the situation, misters legislators;
--A Constitutional reform was agreed to. It was not carried out.
--It was agreed the COCOPA would write it.  It was not carried out.
--It was agreed the COCOPA's proposal would be accepted. It was not
carried out.
--It was agreed the COCOPA would not accept counterproposals, but only
positions in regards to its document.  This was not carried out.

	The EZLN is not the party out of compliance in each of these
cases.
	While the noncompliance proliferates, the federal army advances
its positions.
(In El Corozo there is a new deployment of 100 federal troops who
dedicate themselves to drunkenness and raping indigenous women of the
PRI; another unit takes position in 'Luis Espinoza'), special units are=

deployed to 'hunt down' Zapatista leadership (in all the ravines they
ask for Marcos, how many weapons he has, how many bullets, how many
people are with him, where he is camped out), they close the strategic
and tactical fences even more (the community of La Realidad, where we
usually meet with you, is practically under siege and each day watched
by large columns of artillery vehicles and special assault troops),
evictions are invented in order to provoke armed skirmishes  (Palenque,
Chiapas, is the most current example), the white guards enjoy impunity
and the support of the police ( the community of 'Paraiso' in Sabanilla,=

lives through military occupation)  the indigenous are persecuted and
assassinated (in the north, always the north of Chiapas), the advisors
of the EZLN who believed that peace with justice and dignity are
possible are harassed and jailed, and some of you have spoken only to
demand that the CONAI cease to exist.
	Only a few days ago, two indigenous leaders of the peaceful
organization called Xi Nich, Francisco Gonzalez Gutierrez and Ramon
Parcero Martinez, and two Jesuit priests, Gonzalo Rosas Morales and
Jeronimo Alberto Hernandez Lopez (the last having been an advisor of the
EZLN in the peace process), were detained and tortured after the
criminal police under the equally criminal Ruiz Ferro destroyed
indigenous homes in Chiapas.  The eviction operation provoked a
crossfire among the police themselves.  The results; dead and wounded
among the armed forces of the state.  The names of those responsible for
this confrontation and its body count? Response; the ranchers Manuel
Huerta and the brothers Raul and Javier Padilla Beltran.  But the
associate of Raul Salinas de Gortari could not publicly acknowledge that
his police force served the ranchers so he invented an attack, and the
Federal Army and the Interior Ministry gave the names of the 'guilty'.
	Do you believe that we will remain passive before this? Do you
believe we will remain quiet?
	On Point number 2 of your letter you say that the 'COCOPA has as a
legal mandate the facilitation of the peace process'.  Here I have made
a tight outline of the political and military climate we are living
under, very far from your offices at 'El Caballito'.
	In spite of the silence in the national mass media, in spite of
the hurried and contradictory declarations of the presidential
spokesperson, in spite of the electoral campaigns, in spite of the
popularity polls, in spite of those who believe it is repetitive,
tiring, boring, empty and useless, we repeat our warning that the war
has become inevitable, in spite of all this, peace retreats further from
these Mexican lands.  So let us ask you, misters legislators, what are
you doing to resolve all this?
	You say you are looking for alternative solutions 'among which is
the reconstruction of the direct mediation between the parts' (point 7
of your letter). This attempt to destroy the National Commission of
Intermediation, an old government obsession which you now echo, is this
one of the characteristics of 'neutrality' of the COCOPA?
Does it have to do with the detention in Palenque of two priests
of the diocese of San Cristobal? Is it necessary to burn homes of poor
indigenous people, to provoke confrontations,( to kill amongst
policemen,) to 'plant' pistols on pacifist priests and repeat like
parrots the lie that 'no one is above the law', is all this necessary to=

destroy the mediation?  All this to accompany COCOPA's request to
reconstruct a 'direct mediation between the Parts'?
	The government says once again it wants a dialogue.  What do we
have to talk about? Who or what guarantees that this sad story of deceit
for the indigenous Mexicans will not repeat itself again and again? What
will be agreed to today that will be ignored tomorrow? Are we supposed
to risk everything so that everything can remain the same?  Will we
allow a new betrayal? Will the government try to deceive Mexico and the
world once again by simulating a dialogue and a political solution?
	No, the government does not want a dialogue. It desperately seeks
the reasons and the arguments which will allow it a major use of force.
	Let them, let them begin the war again, let them prove that time
will defeat us, let them try assassination, let them repeat their deceit
and lies, let them distribute all the money they want amongst the mass
media which serve only to close mouths and smooth over the surface, let
them lie with their social programs which only enrich the gang of
thieves of Ruiz Ferro, Eraclio Zapada and their accompanying gang of
hoods, let them ignore, let them forget, let them murder.
	Come on ahead, we are here. We will not be deceived, we will not
surrender, we will fight and we will die if it is necessary so that
there can be democracy, liberty and justice for the Indian peoples and
for all Mexicans.
Misters Legislators;
	The government bet is clear, but if you believe that misery and
military pressure will make us surrender you are wrong.
	If you believe that our 'low popularity in public opinion' worries
us and obliges us to accept whatever in order not to lose the press, you
are wrong.
	If you believe that the fear of death and destruction will oblige
us to a sterile and lie-filled dialogue, you are wrong.
	We have no political future to take care of, no popularity index
to maintain, no poll percentage to improve, no political post to win, no
rotten political system to salvage.
	We have nothing, just dignity.
	Someone had to say enough was enough, someone had to have honor,
someone had to be able to keep his word, someone had to be responsible.
	We, please understand this, have absolutely nothing to lose, so we
repeat to you, to the government, to the political parties, to Mexico,
to the world: !YA BASTA! (ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!); and we reiterate our
honor, our word, and our responsibility.
	We will not dialogue with the federal government as long as the
minimal conditions which make the peace process a serious, just and
dignified process do not exist.
	Vale. Health to you and may the nightmare which follows, serve, as
they all do, to give birth to tomorrow.
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast,
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico. March of 1997
Translated by : Cecilia Rodriguez