by R. Aída Hernández Castillo*

An extraordinary phenomenon is taking place in Mexico: an Indigenous woman representing an Indigenous Governing Council has launched a campaign to run as an independent candidate for the nation’s presidency in the 2018 elections. In a racist and machista country, where electoral parties monopolize the political spaces and social imaginaries, her candidacy is poised to destabilize the practices and discourses of power.

María de Jesús Patricio, known as Marichuy, is a Nahua traditional healer. Since the Zapatista uprising in 1994, she has gained national recognition as a voice for Indigenous women and their peoples and for her denunciations of the violent and destructive effects of capitalist development on nature and Mother Earth. Her voice is a collective one, as is her candidacy, which challenges many of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy—a liberal democracy that speaks of equality while promoting economic policies that deepen inequality, and that calls for the individual, free, and secret vote by way of political parties whose members have blood on their hands. Given the political parties’ corruption and complicity with the violence and impunity that plagues the nation, an important sector of Mexican society is seeking other forms of understanding and exercising power outside the party system.

The concept of dignity has been central to the Zapatista struggle as a political principle for confronting racism and the disqualification of the Indigenous citizenship. This concept encompasses the demand to respect life in all its manifestations, as the basis for confronting multiple forms of violence. Marichuy, inspired by the Zapatista women’s struggle, reminds us that “dignity is helping a new world to be born in the midst of the destruction, pain, and rage of our peoples, those of Mexico de abajo, the underdogs in the countryside and the cities.”  Her voice speaks for the dignity of those excluded from the national project.

An Anticapitalist, Antiracist, and Antipatriarchal Agenda

We are in a historical moment when pragmatism leads political parties to dilute their agendas and programs, when the Right and the pseudo-Lefts are willing to overlook their differences in order to create united fronts in complicity with impunity. In contrast to this “political relativism,” Marichuy speaks to us about an anticapitalist, antiracist, and antipatriarchal agenda. Her reflections arise from her own experience as a poor Indigenous woman who has lived firsthand this intersection of exclusions. In a recent speech to a Zapatista community, she pointed out: “We Indigenous women, in our triple condition as women, Indigenous, and poor, experience the greatest of the oppressions in this system called capitalism: we are exploited and assaulted in our homes, at work, in all spaces of society. The current system subjects us to the crudest exploitation and treats us as mere commodities every day.”

But Marichuy also speaks from a collective experience of plunder and violent dispossession of land and natural resources. Her political agenda arises from Indigenous communities’ experiences, but it is a proposal for all Mexicans who are concerned by what she denounced as “big business’s theft, plunder, and destruction of our Mother Earth, which is accompanied by the domination and control of we women.”

Her speeches not only denounce the violence we women experience, but they also lay claim to our political power by talking about the role played by the mothers of the disappeared “in their tireless struggle to find truth and justice within the debris.” She reminds of the role played by Indigenous and peasant women in defending land and territory, and she called on all women to “organize ourselves, yes, to demand respect for our own rights, but also those of everyone else, because we have the power to push forward this enormous struggle.” As a woman, as a feminist, and as a Mexican citizen, I feel called upon by her message, which gives me hope during these dark times. To recover dignity is to dare to imagine other paths and other possible futures.

The Obstacles of Technological Racism

Political parties are in crisis, and citizens are increasingly looking to independent candidates, a phenomenon that further threatens the establishment parties that benefit from the budgets allocated by the country’s electoral system. As a result, lawmakers have established rules to make it ever more complicated for independent candidates. The electoral law requires that in order to become a presidential candidate, Marichuy must gather by February 1, 2018 a total of 866,593 signatures distributed among at least 17 states that represent a minimum of 1% of the electorate in each state.  However, unlike in the past when written signatures could be collected using a photocopy of the electoral roll, now the collection must be done using a smartphone with two gigabytes of memory—that is, an Android 6 or Iphone 6 or higher. In a country like Mexico marked by profound social inequalities, this requirement effectively excludes entire segments of the population who have neither the technology nor access to the Internet service needed to download the National Electoral Institute’s app and upload the photos of their voting credentials.

In response to protests by the legal team supporting Marichuy, this requirement has been removed in some Indigenous municipalities characterized by extreme poverty. However, this does not resolve the problem in the majority of poor rural and urban areas of the country.  Currently, the campaign has more volunteers ready to gather signatures than it has the necessary equipment.

I dare to talk about technological racism because technology is being used not to build bridges and articulate struggles but to exclude those who have the fewest resources, which in Mexico includes the majority of the Indigenous population. In the context of racialized geographies characterized by the unequal distribution of public spending and violence, many of the municipalities most affected by the violence of the narco-state are also those without the resources to access this type of technology. We are in a race against technology and bureaucracy in a political terrain marked by racism and inequality.

However, the very fact that in Mexico today a movement is gathering around an antiracist, anticapitalist, and antipatriarchal agenda is a very important first step. It is a movement that puts respect for Mother Earth at the center, that opens possibilities to imagine other forms of doing politics and of understanding power, and in which mandar obedeciendo (to lead by obeying the people) and community service are fundamental to exercising authority. This blog is an invitation to support the nomination of María de Jesús Patricio so that the voices that until now have been excluded and silenced in the electoral arena can be heard.

• • •

* Aída Hernández Castillo is a researcher and professor at the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores de Antropología Social in Mexico City.

Note: A previous version of this article was published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada on October 26th, 2017. Translated from Spanish by Edward McCaughan.

by José A. Brandariz, Manuel Maroto, and Cristina Fernández-Bessa*

Spanish conservatives have not ever been interested
in winning over their political contenders,
they are just interested in defeating them.
Guillem Martínez, journalist and writer

The resurgence of the Catalan independentist movement, recently culminated in a successful referendum for independence and its subsequent overturn by the central government of Spain, cannot be disconnected from the austerity period launched by the European Union (EU) in May 2010. A significant number of European countries has witnessed a conservative turn in recent years, featuring the electoral success of right-wing and authoritarian-populist political formations. By contrast, the southern European nations hardest hit by the Great Recession have taken a very different path. In 2015, immediately after the two electoral victories of the left-wing coalition Syriza in Greece, a promising progressive government came into office in Portugal. In Spain, the new left party Podemos gained substantial traction in 2014–15, which led to the electoral success of Podemos-like coalitions in a number of key local administrations—including Madrid and Barcelona—after the municipal elections of May 2015. The Catalan pro-independence movement took center stage especially since 2012, when the newly elected conservative government of Mariano Rajoy started to implement extremely harsh austerity measures. Therefore, the Catalan movement should be regarded, at least in part, as a reaction against the conservative and “austericide” measures promoted by Rajoy’s right-wing Popular Party (PP). This is unsurprising, since Catalonia has been—at different historical conjunctures—a stronghold of anarchist, leftist, and anti-dictatorship political movements.

But this is only one side of the story. For many centuries, Catalonia has cemented a strong national identity. Indeed, Catalonia’s secession from Spain had been set forth at least three times before, the most recent one in October 1934. In all three cases, Catalonia’s independence bid was militarily crushed by Spanish rulers. Yet, despite this long-standing separatist tradition, the current pro-independence uprising would not have taken hold without the salient window of opportunity offered by Rajoy’s autocratic and intolerant political stance. Indeed, while the pro-independence campaign was gradually gaining momentum, the central government rejected any negotiation with Catalan elected officials. In 2006, Rajoy’s PP brought the reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia before the Constitutional Court, which overturned this pivotal amendment in 2010. The first attempt to hold a referendum for self-determination, which took place in November 2014, was boycotted by the Spanish government and led to the criminal prosecution and conviction of the then Catalan president and two top-rank officials. Subsequently, the Spanish government adopted the current hard-line position in early September 2017, with the referendum for independence set to be held on October 1. The consequences of the government’s authoritarian stance are well known: the deployment of 12,000 Spanish police officers throughout Catalonia, the heavy-handed policing of voters and activists on the day of the referendum, the suspension of Catalonia’s self-government prerogatives, and the onset of penal repression against pro-independence leaders.

In order to justify its imposition of direct rule in Catalonia, the Spanish administration has resorted to a highly controversial section of the Spanish Constitution (Article 155), which states that any autonomous community must fulfill its obligations to the Spanish state or risk having its powers taken away. Despite the very feeble constitutional legitimation of this political move, on October 28 Rajoy’s cabinet ousted the Catalan government and around 1,400 Catalan officials, dissolved the Catalan parliament, and called for new regional elections to be held on December 21, 2017.

Even more concerning is the penal dimension of this conundrum. Around 20 Catalan political and civic leaders have been indicted for two quintessentially nineteenth-century political crimes: rebellion and sedition. This indictment threatens Catalan officials with close-to-lifelong prison sentences. Two civic leaders of the pro-independence movement, Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart, have been imprisoned on remand on October 16, following an unambiguously politically motivated decision. In recent days, a significant part of the Catalan government moved to Brussels and does not intend to return to Spain until their right to due process is reinstated and protected. On November 2, the rest of the ousted government, with the only exception of one member who had resigned before a pro-secession parliamentary vote in late October, were sent to prison without bail. Of course, no charges have been pressed against Spanish officials for their disproportionate use of state coercion.

The pro-independence movement has undoubtedly made serious political mistakes—crucial among them, an unrealistic proclamation of independence without the support of a widespread democratic base. From a radical social justice and human rights perspective, though, this is not the most critical point. The eventual scenario in which part of the ousted Catalan cabinet may apply for political asylum in Belgium points to other political aspects of the current conflict, the most significant of which is arguably related to the content and scope of a democratic regime in twenty-first-century Europe. Concretely, these recent events raise the question of why and to what extent a legitimate political claim—which was peacefully and democratically debated in countries such as Scotland and Quebec in the recent past—may be addressed within a European jurisdiction as a law enforcement and criminal justice issue. Two interpretative lenses may provide an answer to this dilemma.

First, the unstated values and long-standing inertias of the Spanish political regime should be taken into account. According to mainstream ratings such as the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators, Spain represents what may be defined a “regular” European democracy. Based on indicators measuring the prevalence of the rule of law, political stability, and political accountability, Spain ranks lower than the major EU nations and Portugal, but higher than other Southern European countries such as Greece and Italy. Yet, this perspective is somewhat distorted. In international assessments on the effectiveness of human rights against penal repression (see www.politicalterrorscale.org; www.humanrightsdata.com), Spain features either the worst or second-worst record of all EU jurisdictions in key areas such as political imprisonment. As a manifestation of a persistent Schmittian political mentality, Spanish hegemonic elites have time and again claimed the existence of “internal enemies” (nowadays located in Catalonia) to legitimate the transformation of political conflicts into penal issues. These authoritarian tendencies have also targeted social movements. For example, in the mid-1990s more than 1,500 anti-military activists were jailed for advocating the abrogation of military conscription. Today, Spanish courts are indicting and convicting hundreds of people for speech crimes allegedly perpetrated via social media. In short, Spain is to a great extent an effective embodiment of what Michel Foucault defined sovereign governmentality—that is, a technology of power that essentially rules through the law, the stipulation of prohibitions, and the enforcement of punishments.

Secondly, the dilemma mentioned earlier may be addressed by taking into account the conservative surge throughout Europe. Spain has been widely considered as an exception within the European political landscape, since it has not witnessed the consolidation of electorally successful far-right political parties. Yet, such conclusion would be misleading, since it fails to understand the meaning of authoritarian politics in Spain. The measures taken by the Spanish government are strikingly inadequate to address the Catalan question, but this is not what is at stake. Spanish power elites do not seek to win this particular political battle; rather, their actions aim to produce enduring deterrent effects that may prevent any type of political challenge in the future. In fact, the Spanish government’s measures may be especially suitable to generate a persistent downgrading of the democratic system, thereby restricting the scope of political discussion and intervention. The Spanish administration has set out to join the conservative turn affecting Europe and several other regions of the world (namely, the United States and several South American countries), articulating it with the neo-authoritarian turn that frequently haunts late-democratization polities. The incarceration of a large number of Catalan political leaders lays bare that the authoritarian brink is closer than ever.

•  •  •

* José A. Brandariz teaches Criminal Law and Criminology at the University of A Coruna, Spain, and is a member of the executive board of the European Society of Criminology. Manuel Maroto Calatayud lives in Madrid and teaches Criminal Law at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Cristina Fernández-Bessa teaches Criminology at the University of Barcelona and is Research Fellow in Socio-Legal and Gender Studies at the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

•  •  •

by Gwyn Kirk*

Military tensions between the United States and North Korea have intensified to alarming levels in recent months. Trump has threatened to “totally destroy” this isolated nation of 25 million people, and to “unleash fire and fury like the world has never seen,” calling Kim Jong Un “Little Rocket Man” and telling Secretary of State Tillerson that he is wasting his time with diplomacy. In response, North Korea plans to continue nuclear tests, including test firing a missile capable of reaching the US mainland.  In contrast to the blistering rhetoric of both President Trump and Kim Jong Un, some US experts are calling for talks and engagement. A “military option” cannot solve the current dangerous standoff with North Korea. Rather, we need to call for diplomacy and support Congressional initiatives like the “No Unconstitutional Strike on North Korea Act” HR.4140 initiated by John Conyers, Thomas Massie, and others, together with Senate bills S.1901 and S.2047.

Many people in the United States know little about North Korea. In April 2017, only 36% of people asked even knew where to find it on a world map. Those who did correctly locate North Korea tended to favor diplomatic and non-military strategies compared with those who did not. More education is needed about North Korea as well as about ways in which people can support diplomacy over military solutions. To meet these goals, organizations such as the American Friends Service Committee, Korea Peace Network, Korea Policy Institute, Peace Action, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, Win Without War, and Women Cross DMZ are organizing a National Week of Action to coincide with President Trump’s visit to Japan and Korea.

National Week of Action, November 6-11
(For more information see: https://www.veteransforpeace.org/take-action/armistice-day/)

Please join us in:

• Educating US communities on the need for diplomacy. Women Cross DMZ has organized informative webinars to counter the misinformation and distortions widely circulated by mainstream media.
• Urging Congressional representatives to support “No Unconstitutional Strike on North Korea Act” initiated by John Conyers, Thomas Massie, and others.
• Organizing a teach-in, visit to your elected representative, a candlelight vigil, or street demonstration to make your support for diplomacy visible in your community.
• Signing onto the People’s Peace Treaty with North Korea.

To better understand the current situation, US-Korean relations need to be placed within a historical context. What follows are some key moments.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, from 1910 to 1945, Korea was annexed and colonized by Japan. Japan’s defeat in August 1945 resulted in liberation, and Koreans had many hopes and visions for their nation’s future. However, the United States and the Soviet Union had their own agendas. They agreed to divide Korea at the 38th parallel: Japanese troops in the south would surrender to US forces, those in the north to the Soviet Union. Later negotiations between Washington and Moscow failed to establish a single Korean government, hence the creation of two separate states in 1948: the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the north.

This division led to the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. The United States commanded a UN coalition force against North Korea. Approximately 4 million people died, including Korean, Chinese, and allied troops, as well as some 2 million Korean civilians. An armistice agreement, signed in July 1953 by the United States and North Korea, created the DMZ as the new border. A peace treaty was supposed to be negotiated within three months. Over 60 years later, this has still not happened. Instead, there has been increased militarization on both sides of the DMZ and economic sanctions against North Korea that the United States initiated in 1950. While each side continues to demonize the other, some significant efforts were made to reduce the tensions, especially the Agreed Framework of 1994 and South Korea’s “sunshine policy” towards the North (1998–2007). The Agreed Framework included North Korea promising to freeze and ultimately dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for the United States providing nuclear power reactors, ending economic sanctions, and normalizing relations. In the end, both sides hindered the process.

US overtures to North Korea came to a grinding halt in 2002, when President George W. Bush declared it a part of an “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union address. In 2003 North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and resumed development of nuclear technology. In 2006 North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, but later agreed to shut down its nuclear facilities in exchange for oil and normalization of the relations with the US and Japan. This effort failed as well. Provocation, hostility, mixed messages, and lack of trust continue to justify the military build-up on all sides.

Today, the United States maintains major military bases in South Korea and conducts regular war drills along the DMZ that date back to 1976. The most recent exercises, in August 2017, involved massing thousands of US and South Korean troops in land, sea, and air operations. In addition, South Korea constructed a new naval base that can accommodate US Aegis destroyers on Jeju Island, and the US has deployed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles in South Korea this year.

For decades, North Korea has considered the United States an enemy nation due to its highly provocative war drills and past failures to honor agreements. This hostility long predates North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. North Korea correctly sees itself as outgunned by US and South Korean forces and vulnerable to attack. This fear is exacerbated by the fact that no peace treaty was signed at the end of the Korean War. Today, North Korea is surrounded by major military and nuclear powers: Russia and China to the north, US/South Korea across the DMZ, and its neighbor, Japan, that is re-militarizing. The Arms Control Association estimates that as of October 2017 the US active nuclear warhead inventory is 4,018, whereas North Korea only has 10. On numerous occasions President Trump has raised his intention to expand the US nuclear arsenal even more. Observing the US invasions of Iraq and Libya and the US military intervention in Afghanistan, North Korea determined to step up its nuclear program as a deterrent to US aggression.

US efforts to stop North Korea’s nuclear weapon’s program have failed. North Korea has offered to talk with US officials many times. But it will not stop its nuclear program as a condition for talks and will only negotiate when the United States changes its “hostile policy” and ends nuclear threats and economic sanctions. The United States does not recognize North Korea as a nuclear power (unlike the case with Israel, India, or Pakistan), and it will only talk if North Korea stops its nuclear tests. As Trump fails to deliver on his domestic agenda, he is becoming more reckless in international affairs. The military option cannot solve the current dangerous standoff with North Korea. What is needed is a relaxing of economic sanctions and an offer to talk about a peace agreement to finally end the Korean War. Please add your voice!

• • •

*Gwyn Kirk is a writer, teacher, and organizer. She is a founder and member of the International Women’s Network Against Militarism. Gwyn is a Steering Committee member of Women Cross DMZ. Her co-authored work includes Greenham Women Everywhere, Women’s Lives, Multicultural Perspectives, a special issue of Social Justice on “Neoliberalism, Militarism, and Armed Conflict,” and the documentary Living along the Fenceline.