In Mexico, as you can imagine, reactions were quite varied. There was heavy disillusionment with the PRI, the ruling party, and many would have sympathized with the frustration over the NAFTA and the corresponding stripping of land reform from the Mexican Constitution. Though many had been disillusioned with ideas of Mexican democracy in 1968, with the student massacre, and 1988, with the glaringly rigged election, violence was not overwhelmingly popular. So feelings were decidedly mixed on the EZLN's methods, though many sympathized with their frustrations and some of their goals. Unsurprisingly, this would have to do a lot with social class. A very adept media campaign by the Zapatistas brought attention and pressure on the Mexican state, restraining their actions.

When talking about the global response to the Zapatistas, it is interesting to note that the response of governments was less important than the response of individuals. Before the wave of democratic socialism that would sweep Latin America in coming years, the only country in the region with any reason to respond positively to the Zapatistas was Cuba, despite the very different nature of their two visions of socialism. However, the decentralized, communitarian nature of the Zapatistas struck a chord with the budding anti-neoliberal/anti-globalization movement and inspired activists from Seattle to Buenos Aires. Of course, the influence of the EZLN in 1994 was not so great as now, after they have had two decades of propagandizing. From the start, the Zapatistas have been very aware of the power of the internet for organizing their public image. Che Guevara had his diaries, Subcomandante Marcos has a blog.

Sorry for my brevity here, but it's late and I just spent a great deal of time writing about the Zapatistas in this thread. Let me know if you have any more specific questions.

You may also want to keep track of what happens in this thread, posted only a few hours before yours.