Some analysts report that the Mexican government policy is directed in two opposing strategies. While on one hand the government affirms its will to peacefully negotiate in the Dialogue of San Andres Larrainzar (the site of the talks), on the other it maintains and increases military activity in Chiapas.

There has been a notable increase in political violence that is not limited to the state of Chiapas but extends throughout Mexico. The Center for Information and Monitoring of Human Rights (CIMDH) reported that in 1995 the following politically-motivated incidents occurred: 166 homicides, 155 disappearances, 1356 wounds or injuries, 238 attacks, attempts or intimidations against social activists or agrarian or union leaders, 478 violent evictions in land disputes, 59 physical attacks against journalists, 2,977 imprisonments, 1118 arrest warrants issued, 378 hunger strikes and 14,378 labor dismissals.

A. Military presence and harassment in the conflict zone

In spite of positive advances in the dialogue process of San Andres, the government maintains some 60,000 soldiers in Chiapas which represents 34% of the federal army The Mexican military is the second largest in Latin America with 175,000 personnel in 39 military zones and, in addition, the expense for the army has reached second place in government spending. (Proceso, January 1, 1996). Combat vehicles and weapons have arrived from the United States, France, Belgium and Great Britain.

” The peace process that is being built through the San Andres dialogue is based on strengthening and involving all the actors, and we are betting on that. But the space for political negotiation is still fragile because the logic of war predominates and has not been eliminated. Rather it has increased through the tactics of low intensity warfare which aims at dividing and debilitating indigenous communities and civil society in general.”
(Miguel Alvarez member of CONAI, the National Mediation Commission)

Reinforcing this perspective, numerous indigenous communities of the municipalities of Ocosingo, Altamirano and Las Margaritas — militarized since the offensive of the federal army in February, 1995 — continue to denounce the increase of military pressure in the communities, the arbitrary incursions in their territories, and the harassment and intimidation of the civil population as expressions of low intensity warfare.

” The soldiers arrive very aggressively, in attack-like positions, zigzagging, moving towards the hills, and searching the mountains like they are looking for something. The soldiers questioned the children about where Subcommander Marcos was, if we are Zapatistas and if Marcos lived in this community. They also asked about the priest and catechist. They told the women and children they would return later since they had enjoyed being in this place. The soldiers caused great panic among the people because they have never come here before, much less with a violent attitude. Before leaving, they were filming the people and their houses”.
(Peasants’ testimony from a community invaded by the federal army in January, 1996)

The military pressure notably increased between December and January of this year during the celebration of the second anniversary of the Zapatista uprising. Particularly in the four “meeting centers between civil society and Zapatism” built by the communities of Oventic, La Garrucha, Morelia and La Realidad, the indigenous condemned provocations, the mobilization of heavily-armed soldiers, aerial and land incursions, and intrusion of the federal army in the peaceful, cultural and festive activities that took place. These accusations were confirmed by numerous national and international observers who participated in the festivities.

Likewise, during the final plenary of the San Andres Dialogue when the parties signed the first agreements on Indigenous Rights and Culture, the EZLN delegates charged that the omnipresence of the Mexican army hindered the process of democratic consultation that the Zapatista leadership carried out in the communities before approving the documents.

B. Threats and intimidations against religious, activists and internationals.

It is not only the communities in the conflict zone that are direct victims of the military harassment. International visitors that come to Chiapas on solidarity missions, human rights defenders in diverse parts of Mexico, and activists of various organizations have suffered various types of threats and intimidation that were denounced by human rights bodies such as the Fray Bartolome de las Casas Center, CONPAZ (a coalition of Chiapas non-governmental peace and humanitarian assistance organizations), and the Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez Human Rights Center (of Mexico City). Five priests of the San Cristobal diocese have been expelled or denied re- entry (two from the United States, one each from Canada, Argentina and Spain). Between December and January, more than twenty international visitors were intimidated and pressured by Immigration officials to leave the country.

In the presence of Public Security and Immigration agents that were taking photos and filming international visitors in the Cathedral during the 36th anniversary celebration of his episcopal consecration, the Bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas, Samuel Ruiz, stated:

“I am greatly pained that they are treating you in this way and that in response to you simply attending a religious ceremony they have acted like you were attending a political event. This grieves me as a Mexican and I ask for your forgiveness.”

In addition Chiapas human rights groups have protested the militarization of checkpoints or immigration posts where the movement of international visitors in the conflict zone is impeded.

C. Barracks culture and violence against women.

Another alarming aspect of the militarization of the region is a sharp increase in violence against women. PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party) deputies, in a document presented to the Mexican President, charged that in two years they have heard of more than fifty cases of rape in the conflict zone. The victims have mainly been indigenous. They have also included nurses who worked in the communities, a Mexican nun, and a North American citizen linked with the EZLN in the US. Moreover it is believed that many incidents of rape are not reported due to fear of retaliation.
The presence of the military has brought other forms of sexual, social and cultural violence that could be called ‘barracks culture’. The communities that have endured military occupation for over a year confront a series of problems that has seriously distorted their daily life and cultural habits: prostitution, alcoholism, sexual illnesses, drug addiction, hunger, deterioration of the environment, etc.

As one priest declared:

” This type of violence is less visible but its harm in the indigenous communities is much more profound, more lasting, and in many cases, irreversible.”

D. Increase in impunity of paramilitary groups

The Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center reported in their document “El otro cerco”: “The presence of ‘white guards’ in Chiapas is not a novelty. Civilian armed and trained groups have existed for some time. Nevertheless in recent months their action has been more public and obvious”. It is known that these paramilitary groups associated with powerful ranchers are responsible for acts of violence against Indians who peacefully occupy lands as well as for incidents of rape mentioned above.

These groups intervene in both agrarian and political conflicts when the authority of the local political bosses — generally identified with the ruling party (PRI) — is resisted by peasant organizations and by sympathizers of the EZLN or the PRD (principal opposition party).

The situation in the north of Chiapas is particularly severe. According a charges made by the Civic Front of Tila, the repression has become institutionalized because members of the known paramilitary group (ironically called “Peace and Justice”) are now members of the Tila town council and an individual with obvious connections with that group was elected to the state legislature.