al nusra – Abolition Media

On Friday, February 16, 1996, in the community of San Andrés Sacamch’en de los Pobres, the federal government and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) signed the Agreements on Indigenous Rights and Culture, better known as the San Andrés Agreements, one of the first steps toward achieving a just and dignified peace in Chiapas. These agreements acknowledged the discrimination and exclusion that indigenous peoples have historically suffered at the hands of the Mexican government; they established the conditions for overcoming this situation, based on the autonomy of the peoples; and they agreed on a series of constitutional reforms that would need to be implemented through legal and institutional changes in order to make this possible. There are no photographs of this important event because the EZLN, anticipating that the government would only use the event for propaganda, decided to sign in private. The San Andrés Accords were made possible by the unity between the rebel army and the national indigenous movement in its various forms. The rebels soon understood that the organized indigenous sector was the most radical part of the social movement, as their demands went beyond economic issues; unlike other movements, they were fighting for the transformation of the state so that their demands could be met, and they made these demands their own, catapulting them to the national stage. This made it possible, for the first time in the country’s history, for the Mexican state to agree with its indigenous peoples on the structure of the state and the recognition of their collective rights. Unfortunately, as the Zapatistas predicted, the Mexican state soon made it clear that it was not willing to comply with the agreement, a situation that, with some nuances, continues to this day. Much has changed in the 30 years since then. Under the pretext of complying with the San Andrés Accords, two amendments have been made to the country’s Constitution: the first in 2001, by a right-wing president; the second in 2018, by a president who claimed to be left-wing. However, neither amendment has addressed the core demands of indigenous peoples. Some state institutions have also been transformed and others created; many indigenous men and women, including some who participated in the drafting of the Agreements, now hold positions in the three branches of government and the three levels of government, but the agreed-upon changes have not come to fruition. The much-touted new relationship between the state and indigenous peoples remains an aspiration that the country’s political forces have no interest in turning into reality. Proof of this is that key rights, such as territorial and political rights, have been ignored in indigenous reforms, while the dispossession of their lands continues to be regulated in various legal reforms. For example, in the reform that “nationalized” lithium, the rights of indigenous peoples were omitted; a similar attitude was taken in the regulation of the human right to water, in which, as under Salinas, it was established that this right would be recognized in a subsequent law. Something similar is happening in the ongoing electoral reform, which does not even begin to establish mechanisms for indigenous peoples to have their own representatives who respond to their interests and put an end to the current charade. Added to all this is the undermining of peoples’ rights through extractive projects such as mining, fracking, water hoarding, and logging concessions. There has undoubtedly been progress, but these are victories that the people have achieved by fighting against the masters of capital and the state institutions that claim to protect their rights. This is the case with mining and water concessions, which the state has granted on mineral deposits and aquifers located in indigenous territories, where those affected have had to litigate even against the state institutions that have extended them, arguing that it is their obligation to do so. This is also the case with community and municipal governments, whose organized inhabitants have taken control to build their future, or with communities and regions where inhabitants have organized their own security in the face of the state’s failure or inability to provide it. The conditions in which this resistance takes place are not ideal, but they have no other choice if they want to continue to exist as peoples. In this scenario of contradictions, 30 years after their signing, the San Andrés Accords represent a beacon that lights the way for the peoples. It is a path of no return, because to stop fighting or change course is to continue suffering the internal colonialism inherited from the colonial era by the ruling class. And that does not represent a dignified future. Original text by Francisco López Bárcenas published on February 12, 2026. Translation by Schools for Chiapas

Early last month, the forces of the ‘new’ Syrian army flooded across north and east Syria. The troops…