:: THE CURRENT SITUATION

Mexico: A year after the 2006 elections

It has been a year, in an over heated social context, since it was predicted that the incoming government of Felipe Calderón would face a series of outbreaks of violence and other destabilizing risks that would affect its ability to govern the country. The demonstrations at the end of 2006 and the massive post-electoral protests reflected a polarized society and a clash between social and government forces.

One year later, it appears that the context has changed; at least that is how the mainstream media has presented it. Although the fundamental causes underlying the social unrest expressed in 2006 have been unresolved, the new government has managed to act as if a state of “democratic normality” has returned.

The government laid out a mano firme (firm hand) strategy, which would use the armed forces in its implementation (see the feature piece in this newsletter). Nonetheless, efforts against organized crime and narco-traffic have up to now not reduced the problem. Not a day goes by without reports of an execution, an ambush, or a shoot-out. Since the beginning of the year, the number of executions has surpassed 1,200.

In the area of economy, the government has advanced in the elaboration of the National Development Plan for 2007-2021, in which social welfare and security are two of its key elements. A re-launching of Plan Puebla Panamá⁽¹⁾ has also been confirmed with a summit held in Campeche, Mexico, between Central American and Latin American Heads of States and Mexican governors. Newly passed laws and those currently being debated, particularly around the issues of labor and taxes, have ignited strong discussion and nonconformity.

Movement in Support of Lopez Obrador: A force to take into account

As has been noted earlier, Mexico faced a political crisis brought on by last year’s electoral process. Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), former presidential candidate for the Revolutionary Democratic Party (together with the Convergencia and the Workers´ Party), after denouncing the fraudulent elections, has tried to politically focus the 15 million persons who voted for him and strengthen the National Democratic Convention (CND) formed in September 2006. The CND designated Lopez Obrador “legitimate president” in light of the allegations of electoral fraud. The group has also proposed that Obrador tour the country’s 2, 500 municipalities. Parallel to this tour has been the creation of a national network of representatives for the “Legitimate Government”. To date, one million representatives have registered with the goal of reaching 5 million by the end of next year.

This process has received little coverage on the part of the mainstream media. In June, the AMLO team denounced a new blow against them when HSBC (Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank Corporation) decided to cancel “for their own reasons” accounts that held the deposits of the “Legitimate Government” supporters.

Although many have spoken of a declining support for López Obrador´s movement because of an apparent inability to draw the large crowds congregated last year, on July 1st, he once again filled the main plaza of Mexico City. The Ample Progressive Front (FAP-integrated by the three parties that supported AMLO in the 2006 elections) took the opportunity to reaffirm AMLO as the “legitimate president” of Mexico.  López Obrador began his speech reinforcing the movement’s persistence: “A year after the electoral fraud, we can proudly and decisively say that the right wing and its allies have been mistaken. We are still here, and moving forward, convinced more than ever of the need to push ahead an alternative project for the nation.”

In the aftermath, the principal issues monopolizing national attention in the last months have been the Social Security and Services Institute Law for State Workers (ISSSTE) (a labor reform targeted at state worker), the subject of mass mobilizations in May, immigration, and issues affecting Mexico’s rural areas. In regards to the tax reforms announced by the new government, AMLO responded: “I appeal to representatives and senators of the Ample Progressive Front to by no means approve the tax reforms proposed. Zero negotiations with those who support policies that go against the people and hand over national sovereignty to foreigners.”

Since last year, the Mexican left has experienced a tension between the particular logic characteristic of social movements and another that continues to respect the institutional political party system. For example, against the determination to reject proposed tax reforms assumed in the CND, the National Council and the PRD governors rejected taking far out positions and decided not to exclude themselves from discussions on the issue within Congress. It is also worth emphasizing that unity among the integrated parties of the FAP has not been maintained in many local elections. These parties have faced internal struggles and readjustments unfavorable for building an articulated opposition.

The “Other Campaign” Marches On

At the end of March, in an event held in San Cristóbal (Chiapas), Vía Campesina and the “Movement of Those Without Land” (Movimiento Sin Tierra)of Brazil joined the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in their call for a “Global Campaign in the Defense of Land and Territory of Indigenous Peoples and Peasant Farmers.” By mid-April, more than 200 organizations and persons from 40 countries expressed their solidarity with the campaign.

The second phase of the Other Campaign, in an initiative promoted by the EZLN since 2005 for the purpose of forming an anti-capitalist front, was put in march through sending three delegations of commanders, including the sub-commander Marcos, to tour the northern part of the country at the beginning of June.

In May, just one year after the violent incident in Atenco, the Frente de Pueblos en Defensa de la Tierra de San Salvador Atenco, part of the Other Campaign, denounced the lack of political will to punish those responsible for the murders, 26 sexual violations and acts of torture. For some analysts, Atenco represented the beginning of the criminalization of social movements, a fact that seemed to be corroborated when a few days later a judge condemned three movement leaders to 67 years in prison on “kidnapping charges”, for having detained several officials for several hours.

From the 21st to the 30th of July, the Second Encounter of Zapatista Peoples with the Peoples of the World was held in 5 of the Zapatista Caracoles with more than 3 thousand participants.

Resurgence of the “option to take-up arms”

Recently, the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR), whose presence has been recognized in Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas, claimed responsibility for 8 explosive charges detonated in the ducts of Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) located in Guanajuato and Querétaro. They stated that the bombings were meant as pressure on Felipe Calderón´s government as a means to demand the release of their two members that disappeared in Oaxaca and have not been seen since May. Consequently, they warned of new attacks until their fellow members are liberated.

A few days later, the Lucio Cabañas Barrientos Revolutionary Movement (an armed group that vindicated the bombings against the head offices of the Electoral Tribunal and the Institutional Revolutionary Party in the Federal District of Mexico City in 2006) demanded that authorities present the disappeared EPR members alive and called for its own militants to be ready for future “military actions”. At the end of July, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the People (FARP, a split of the EPR) warned that they are currently “discussing in order to decide that which no one wants but the tumultuous situation drags us there.” It has been repeatedly pointed out that the closing of channels of communication and negotiation could corner social movements to radicalize their methods of resistance.

Strong doubts in the matter of human rights

In March, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the fundamental freedoms of Indigenous peoples, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, pointed out Mexico as an example of a country with the tendency of criminalizing social protest of Indigenous peoples and using public security forces to repress them.⁽²⁾

In April, the President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH), Florentín Meléndez, visited Mexico. In the reports grass-roots organizations turned in concerning the country’s human rights situation, these groups stressed that the president’s government has shown little signs of elaborating a political position in this matter: “[the president] has not made any public declarations over what will be his political position around this issue.” The CIDH criticized the high incidences of attacks against human rights defenders in Mexico. In Chiapas, the Center for Human Rights Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas registered 20 aggressions just in 2006. In the most recent case, in February of this year, members of the Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action (CIEPAC) received an anonymous note threatening their lives.

In May, in her presentation of their 2007 Report, the president of Amnesty International in charge of Mexico affirmed that the actions of the new government in the defense and promotion of human rights up to now “has been disappointing.” “So far it has not demonstrated the will to elaborate programs that address grave violations in this matter.” She also pointed out that impunity is the phenomenon most rooted “in all the cases of human rights abuses in Mexico, and it is the most important challenge for this government.”⁽³⁾.

Chiapas: between impunity and new conflicts

In April, in an interview from Spain, Luís H. Álvarez, Chairman of the National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI) and former Commissioner for Peace in Chiapas, indicated that to solve the situation of marginalization of Indigenous communities in Mexico does not require a solution to the conflict in Chiapas, a conflict he himself did not recognize. He pointed out that the “EZLN is not a negotiator with Felipe Calderon’s government” now that it neither represents nor is integrated into Indigenous communities⁽⁴⁾.

Even with this perspective, various aspects related to the armed conflict continue to exist and demand present responses. Proof of this was in March, as groups displaced by the military and violence demanded of Governor Juan Sabines solutions to their already old demands: “We lived through forced displacement from our homes, some since 1994. We have suffered from a lack of respect for our human rights as Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, threats, violence, mistreatment of women and children, hunger and death.”⁽⁵⁾.

On the other hand, the Governor, Sabines Guerrero, “announced the creation of a special investigative body for the case of Acteal (…) to find the truth behind the homicides committed on December 22, 1997, an injury felt in all of Chiapas and Mexico, in order to not leave any impunity.” However, to date, this body has not presented any reports on the actions undertaken to fulfill the official announcement.

In regards to the issue of militarization (see also the feature article), various communities continue to solicit the exit of military forces from their lands - for example, Neuvo Poblado 24 de Diciembre (formerly Nuevo Momón)⁽⁶⁾. . In July, the Center of Political Analysis and Social and Economic Research (CAPISE) projected that the issue of military presence in Chiapas would be less prevalent in public opinion now that militarization has become a general phenomenon around the national territory. However, they point out that even though the federal military has withdrawn units and bases, they have also brought in new “elite” forces with significant offensive capabilities, coordinated directly with the 1st Military Unit of Mexico City and not the usual command in the military zones of Chiapas as had been the custom up until 2006.⁽⁷⁾.

Parallel to this, various organizations have denounced the reactivation of paramilitary groups in different municipalities in the northern zone and jungle region of Chiapas. One of the organizations most pointed out has been the Organization for the Defense of the Indigenous and Peasant Farmer Rights (OPDDIC), an organizing body close to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). In a communiqué they sent out in November of 2006, OPDDIC members stated, “We demand the immediate evacuation of the territories that have been occupied by the EZLN support base (...), if this does not happen, those holding titles to these lands will take the necessary measures to recuperate land that legitimately corresponds to them.”

In March, OPDDIC leader, Pedro Chulín Jiménez and at least 25 of its militants were detained by the State General Prosecutor (Fiscalía General) to clarify the alleged aggression and retention of three journalists. Eight of them have been held under house arrest and the organization has appeared to lower its profile.

Generally speaking, in the last months, conflict has increased in the “recuperated lands” taken over by the EZLN support bases after the armed uprising in 1994. The area includes between 500,000 and 700,000 hectares. The agrarian problem in the state of Chiapas is nonetheless much broader.

A model case: Last November 13th, 2006, there was an attack against the community known as Viejo Velasco in the municipality of Ocosingo. According to the testimony of the victims, this act of aggression was perpetrated by community members of Nueva Palestina, as well as, persons dressed in public security police uniforms. The incidence ended with four deaths, 4 disappeared persons, and the forced displacement of over 30 persons.

Since then, authorities have been denounced for not carrying out the necessary investigations to locate the disappeared persons. On July 6th of this year families of the victims and a civil observation commission found human remains and clothing of at least two persons. The clothing indicated that they belonged to the two disappeared persons, for which there could be a total of 6 murdered in the incidence.

In another case, the Junta of Good Government (JBG) of Los Altos, since September of 2006, announced that “because their concerns went unheard and instead they were pursued and imprisoned [by authorities], Zapatista supporters from the community ‘Huitepec Ocotal segunda sección’ [located close to San Cristóbal] has proposed declaring 103 hectares as the Zapatista Community Ecological Reserve. At almost the same time, the official creation of the Huitepec-Alcanfores Nature Reserve, which includes the 103 hectares of the Zapatista ecological reserve, was announced. To reinforce Zapatista control of the zone, the Junta of Good Government called for the installation of civil observation camps.

The Center for Human Rights Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas indicated that the government did not fulfill the recommendations concerning the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Indigenous peoples made by the Special Rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, who in December of 2003 stated: “The creation of new ecological reserves in Indigenous regions should only be done with the previous consultation of affected communities, and the government should respect and support their decisions and the right of Indigenous communities to establish in their territories community-based ecological reserves.”

Another reoccurring issue in local organizing efforts has been around high electricity tariffs. In June, more than two thousand Indigenous and peasant farmers, and adherents to the Other Campaign from municipalities around the border, jungle, and the highlands of Chiapas, marched in the city of Comitán to protest the “repression” that the Federal Commission of Electricity (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) exerts against those who refuse to pay as a form of resistance. They belong to the State Civil Resistance Network Voice of Our Heart (Red Estatal de Resistencia Civil La Voz de Nuestro Corazón).

Oaxaca: new confrontations are a reminder that the social-political conflict in the state continues unresolved

In March, the final report of the International Civil Commission for the Observation of Human Rights (CCIODH) affirmed that security operations implemented in Oaxaca at the end of last year did not have the objective of re-establishing order in the state after the prolonged social conflict began in 2006; instead they “went beyond, seeking to cause social paralysis and immobilization.” In a press conference, they pointed out it is “naïve to think that the conflict is resolved,” and warned that “postponing justice could unleash new violence.”

Simultaneously, the Ombudsman for the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), José Luis Soberanes, recognized that grave human rights violations (torture, arbitrary detentions, legal failures, and the death of at least 20 persons) occurred during the most tense moments of the social conflict, asserting that the conflict “even though unresolved, has a solution that has been put off, and continues to boil with the potential of a more violent social explosion.”

However, the issue has ceased to be front-page news for now. On June 14th, a year after the beginning of the conflict, the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) concluded a massive march without incident. Representatives of Section 22 of the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE), a key actor in the APPO, accused the Secretary of Interior of not responding to their list of demands, already accepted by the previous government, and of avoiding responding to their demands to dismiss Ulises Ruiz.

In the face of this manifestation, Governor Ulises Ruiz assured that the situation in the state is normal, now that protests are a daily part of life and the conflict that erupted in 2006 has been overcome: “Oaxaca with its normal problems, with its daily problems, with its draw-backs and demands, is a state that functions, is a state in peace.”

The federal government also distanced itself from the governor. The Secretary of Interior, Francisco Ramírez Acuña said that mobilizations and demands of the APPO are the exclusive responsibility of Governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. “We have fulfilled our responsibilities in full; it is now Governor Ruiz’s turn to resolve [the conflict] in time so that it does not reignite.” A few days later, the nation’s Supreme Court agreed to investigate possible violations of individual rights in light of the conflict in Oaxaca last year.

On the 16th of July, a week before the commencement of the traditional festival the Guelaguetza, violence erupted once again in Oaxaca: during more than three hours, members and sympathizers of the APPO confronted municipal and state police, leaving at least 40 persons injured on both sides, two seriously, and 60 detained.

As a result of the events, the APPO demanded that the Secretary of Interior reinstall a “table of dialogue” to deter the “new repression campaign” and solve the conflict. While the resignation of the Governor of Oaxaca, Ulises Ruiz, is at the top of demands for the APPO in the negotiating process, the federal government responded that, “it is not in the hands” of the Secretary of Interior. A few days later, a silent march was held with the participation of thousands of Oaxaca’s residents without any incident despite a great police mobilization.

On Monday the 23rd, the first day of regional festivities, the “official Guelaguetza” was held in the middle of a virtual siege. Erangelio Mendoza, Council member of the APPO, asserted “Only with police and transport could they bring people to the Guelaguetza auditorium.” Simultaneously, in the streets of the capital’s center, thousands of people demonstrated once again. Demonstrators denounced the climate of intimidation and the continued repression of the APPO with new illegal detentions. Members of APPO detained two military soldiers during the march, obligating them to walk barefoot before turning them over to the Red Cross. A caravan of teachers that departed from Mexico City to Oaxaca was also intercepted by state police who impeded their arrival to the city.

Even though there was no confrontation on this day, there are fears that violence may spring up again.  It is worth emphasizing that state elections in Oaxaca will be held on August 5th, another event that may provoke new tensions. On the other hand, signs of possible links between the APPO and the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) could be used to justify repressive actions on a larger scale.

Notes:

1. Cooperation proposal that seeks to intergrate the Meso America Region in order to promote its integral development.
2. Article from La Jornada
3. Article from La Jornada
4. Article from La Jornada
5. Article from the end of February
6. Article from La Jornada
7. Article from La Jornada
   

:: FEATURE

Militarization in Mexico: A threat to human rights

“Without the loyalty of the armed forces, the struggle to maintain liberty, democracy, justice, law and order would be erratic and impassable.”
General Guillermo Galvàn Galvàn, Mexican Defense Secretary

Militarization in Latin America: General tendencies

The process of militarization in Mexico can be framed in a historical process that has affected all of Latin America. During the Cold War, militarization was implemented (promoted and supported by the United States and its political, economic, and commercial interests) as a defense against the “danger of communism” associated with the region and the revolutionary guerrilla movements that had emerged at that time. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “war against drugs” and the more recent “war against terrorism” have served as justifications for using armed forces in matters of internal security unrelated to defense against external forces.

Military vehicle in the Community of Zapata,
Municipal of San Manuel, Chiapas.
(Foto: Roberto Stefani - © SIPAZ)

In the last years, various countries, and especially Colombia, have received economic and military support from the United States under the guise of the struggle against narco-traffic. Plan Colombia⁽¹⁾, implemented in 1999, has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars annually with a majority (82%) destined for Colombian military forces. Plan Colombia has been criticized for strengthening indirectly paramilitary groups, provoking violations against human rights, and contributing to aerial crop fumigations that have serious affects on the health of the area’s population and the natural environment. Recently, other projects proposed by Presidents Calderón and Bush to increase aid from the United States to Mexico in the form of military technology and advice (up to 1,000 millions of dollars according to El Universal⁽²⁾), prompting some to talk of a “Plan Mexico.” The ambassador to Colombia in Mexico has affirmed that Mexico is experiencing a “good colombianization” because there is a “very strong response” on the part of the state to combat crime⁽³⁾.

Today, many denounce the implementation of neo-liberal policies that continue to require growing militarization in Latin America. Due to the interest of transnational corporations to control resources (energy resources and increasingly those related to biodiversity), locate cheaper labor forces, and expand markets, the pressure to militarize continues to be felt by Latin American governments. In this way a favorable foreign environment is created for investors, but is dangerous in respect to human rights, and in particular, to indigenous communities and opposition groups.

The New Phase of Militarization in Mexico

The growing mobilization of the army in the fight against narco-traffic (30,000 active soldiers in over a dozen states⁽⁴⁾), announced by President Calderòn at the beginning of his mandate as one of the “star” measures to guarantee security, is already in motion. Despite the fact that the policy was originally initiated in the 90`s by President Zedillo, the increased presence of the military under Calderón in functions of public security is noticeable. Military vehicles and uniforms already form part of the landscape around the country, and it is virtually impossible to drive hours on the road without coming across a military checkpoint.

Military vehicle in the Community of Zapata,
Municipal of San Manuel, Chiapas.
(Foto: Roberto Stefani - © SIPAZ)

Justification by the Federal Government

The magnitude of influence and power of narco-traffickers is one of the most urgent problems facing the country, especially the enormous amount of violence it provokes. More than one thousand persons have been assassinated only in the first 5 months of 2007⁽⁵⁾. Up against a police force largely under orders of narco-traffickers (50% according to specialist reporter Ricardo Ravel), the federal government has opted to use each time more military forces to combat drug-related crime. The federal government also argues that the use of the armed forces is ideal due to the inferior technology and armaments the police forces have which are not adequate against narco-traffickers.

Foto: Soldado mexicano destruyendo un plantío de amapola (Fuente: Indymedia México)

Criticisms: Unconstitutional and ineffective

Criticisms have been launched by diverse fronts: the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) has called for the militaries “removal from the streets and that they fulfill their function (constitutional) to defend national sovereignty, not the persecution of delinquency.”

In addition to its unconstitutionality, other arguments have been presented against the use of the military to combat crime: scarce effectiveness, the exposure of armed forces to corruption that has endemically affected police and the scant preparation of the military to deal with a civilian population, which often leads to abuse of authority and episodes of violence. In the words of the CNDH: “The military is not prepared to carry out public security functions, this has to be the responsibility of the police…there are human rights violations and no respect for the law.”

At the same time, diverse opposition forces interpret the mobilization of the military to be for the purpose of criminalizing and repressing social protest, predicted to increase as a result of popular opposition to structural reforms proposed by the federal government⁽⁶⁾.

The Miguel Agustìn Pro Juàrez Center for Human Rights has summed up the last six months, stating, “Violence continues to grow all over the country, the flow of drugs at the border between the United States and Mexico increases continually and military personnel have committed a series of grave human rights violations⁽⁷⁾.

Homicides and Violations: Paradigmatic cases

In the last months, Mexico has lived through extremely serious cases of violence against civilians on the part of armed forces. The victims are from society’s most vulnerable sectors: the poor, indigenous, and in particular women. According to information corroborated by Amnesty International, in February, a 72 year old Nahua indigenous woman was repeatedly raped, beaten, and tortured by various soldiers in that state of Veracruz, and later died as a consequence of the injuries sustained. In spite of the autopsy’s confirmation of the violations suffered and that her last words were “the military men got on top of me”, the government’s thesis, maintained by President Calderòn and the Ombudsman for the National Commission on Human Rights, Josè Luis Soberanes, is that the elderly woman died of gastric ulcers. Amnesty International has conveyed its fears⁽⁸⁾ that the investigation over the incidence remains in the hands of military authorities, making it difficult to have an impartial judicial proceeding, and because the community of Ernestina, as well as witnesses, may suffer intimidation on the part of the military. Members of the community have demanded the removal of the military from the zone. 

In May, four minors were sexually assaulted by soldiers of the Mexican military in the state of Michoacàn. The four girls all worked in a restaurant whose owner was being investigated by the military for her alleged ties with narco-traffickers. The military men arrived dressed in black and in camouflage. After interrogating the girls, they were tied, beaten, and lifted into a helicopter. During the flight the girls were insulted, assaulted, and threatened with being thrown overboard. In spite of asking, they were denied water to drink: “oh, you are thirsty. Let’s see, why don’t you give me some wet ones so that it’ll go away.” Once they arrived at the holding cell they were sedated. Upon waking up they continued to be interrogated, sexually assaulted, and tortured. Before they were released they were warned that if they denounced what had taken place, their families would pay the consequences. The CNDH has recognized the incidence and has called for the responsible parties to explain.

On the 1st of June, two women and three minors under the age of 8 were killed in the state of Sinaloa. They were traveling in a pick-up truck that received the impact of 24 gunshots fired by soldiers. The official version recounts that soldiers began to fire because the driver of the vehicle did not obey the order to stop. Others claim that the gunshots were fired in the dark and without warning. The president of the State Commission on Human Rights of Sinaloa affirms that “it was homicide…they shot at them before they reached [the check point]⁽⁹⁾. The driver affirmed that once they gathered the injured, three different military convoys held them up. It took 9 hours to get to the hospital, when the trip normally only takes 5 hours. It appears that medical assistance in time could have saved their lives. The military has detained 19 soldiers who will be judged by a military tribunal.

Mexican soldier in a procession
(© portierramaryaire.com)

Military Court: “de facto impunity”

“No one may be tried by private laws or special tribunals. No person or corporate body shall have privileges or enjoy emoluments other than those given in compensation for public services and which are set by law. Military jurisdiction shall be recognized for the trial of crimes against and violation of military discipline, but the military tribunals shall in no case have jurisdiction over persons who do not belong to the army.”

-Article 13 of the Mexican Constitution

Although the Mexican Constitution limits military jurisdiction to crimes related to the violation of military discipline (rebellion, espionage, or desertion⁽¹⁰⁾), in all the above-mentioned cases, the responsible parties will be judged by military tribunals. There is no lack of criticism against this system. In 1998 the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture issued a report on Mexico, in which he affirmed that “military personnel appear to be immune to civil and criminal justice and generally protected by military courts.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH) has also criticized the systematic and absolute use of military tribunals to judge military personnel: “independence and impartiality are clearly compromised (…), producing de facto impunity.” The Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights (CMDPDH) has recently indicated that military jurisdiction has negative results especially in cases of violence against women: they [the women] fear going to the military tribunals, converting themselves into “perfect victims of a dysfunctional system.”⁽¹¹⁾.

Chiapas: Militarization as counter-insurgency strategy

In 1996, SIPAZ pointed out that the government maintains about 60,000 active soldiers in Chiapas, representing a third of the country’s armed forces. Militarization of the region, in the wake of the Zapatista uprising in 1994⁽¹²⁾, has provoked grave human rights violations including executions, torture, sexual violence, forced displacement, robberies and injuries, as well as, the deterioration of indigenous communities which must share their daily lives with armed forces⁽¹³⁾. However, according to government declarations (2006), military presence in Chiapas is due exclusively to the needs Chiapas has as a border state, and not to the conflict with the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN). This is arguable. According to CAPISE⁽¹⁴⁾ “75% of the military occupation in the state of Chiapas is located in Zapatista influenced territory.” In 2006, SIPAZ participated in a verification mission concerning circumstances in Chiapas, coordinated by the Center for Human Rights Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas. It was concluded that that the military presence in that state is not centered on the necessity to secure the border, “instead it is above all a military plan to control indigenous populations and their territory⁽¹⁵⁾", rich in natural resources.

CAPISE documents the reaction of the assembly of communal landholders in Limar, located in the municipality of Tila in the northern region of Chiapas, to the establishment of a military base on their lands:

“Once they [military soldiers] established themselves in our territory, some of the federal military began to search private homes for women (…) they have given some kids marijuana and obligated them to have sexual relations with prostitutes at the Base of Operations. (…) The selling of alcohol does not exist in the community, but since the Base of Operations was installed, it has spread. In the parcels of some landholders, military have entered without permission to cut wood. (…) Shots from fire were heard on the 13th and 17th of May of this year and the 27th of November, and this has scared the kids and the women.”

Image: Cartel of the First Hemispheric Gathering against the militarization, celebrated in Chiapas in May, 2003

One of the most well-know cases of violence that made it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CIDH)⁽¹⁶⁾, took place in 1994. A group of military soldiers detained the sisters, Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez (20, 18, and 16 years respectively) and their mother Delia Pérez de González to interrogate them over their alleged membership with the EZLN. The three sisters were beaten and raped repeatedly while the other soldiers watched.

“I felt a lot of pain, feeling like I was going to die and then I don’t know what happened, when I came to I saw another soldier on top of me and I tried to scream. While they were on top of us they laughed and they said things like: “how delicious the Zapatista women are”, and “good that we took advantage of them.” I remember that my sisters screamed a lot, they didn’t say anything in particular, just screamed, crying out sometimes: “let us go”.

Before they let them go, they threatened to kill them if they denounced what had happened. Consequently, pressure from their own community that suspected misconduct on the part of the sisters, forced them to leave their home and “flee their community out of fear, shame, and humiliation.”⁽¹⁷⁾. The government alleged that the case had been shelved because the sisters refused to appear in front of the military tribunal to present their testimony and submit themselves to a new gynecological exam⁽¹⁸⁾ (the first exams already corroborated the acts of violence). As a result, the Mexican government sustained that there were no human rights violations that it could be charged of. However, the CIDH considered it evident that the Mexican state had responsibility in the incident and called for them to bring those responsible to justice, as well as, compensate the victims. To date, the recommendations of the CIDH have not been fulfilled and the responsible parties are free with impunity.

It is important to recognize that denouncements against grave abuses by the military continue in Chiapas, despite the fact that there is a sense of “normalization” of the military’s presence and that the police continue to be largely occupied with the security of the state.

Public Perception

According to an opinion poll by Parametría⁽¹⁹⁾, 89% of the Mexican population agrees with the use of military in combating narco-traffic, and 45% prefer police forces for securing the safety on public streets. It is worrisome to see these levels of acceptance for policies that have already led to such glaring human rights violations. In Colombia, militarization has already penetrated a broad sector of society, where 75% support a president with ties to paramilitaries; there are 4 million “informants”; and a million “voluntary collaborators” in the fight against narco-traffic⁽²⁰⁾.

Front Page of the magazine Proceso

Conclusion: Militarization, a danger for peace and human rights

The mobilization of the military, in operations unrelated to an exterior threat to national sovereignty, can produce counterproductive results. Paradoxically, in the attempt to establish public security, one can point to a general climate of fear and insecurity caused by the abuses committed by the armed forces. For instance in relation to  the problem of narco-traffic, it is important to keep in mind that it is not only about combating organized crime, while always respecting the individual rights of citizens, but also the conditions of marginalization and the lack of opportunities that provoke the  delinquent behavior that need attention. Another concern is that the mobilization of the military plays a role in the control and repression of social movements. Moreover, establishing military bases in indigenous communities that reject their presence creates tension and makes difficult their co-existence. Finally, military jurisdiction continues to be limited. Common crimes, if the basic principle of equality in front of the law is respected, should be tried through civil legal mechanisms.

Calderón in a military act
(Photo: Presidencia del Gobierno - México)

Notes:

1. Article on Plan Colombia in Wikipedia
2. El Universal, 06/22/2007
3. Article from La Jornada
4. Article from El País
5. Statistics from the National Commission on Human Rights.
6. La militarización de Calderón, published in Engerìa, a newspaper of the Energy Worker’s Front
7. Website of Centro Pro
8. Urgent Action of Amnesty Inernational
9. Article from La Jornada
10. GONZÁLEZ OROPEZA, Manuel. El fuero militar en México: La injusticia en las fuerzas armadas
11. Article from La Jornada
12. See Castro Apreza, Inés. Quitarle el agua al pez: la guerra de baja intensidad en Chiapas (1994-1998).
13. La Ocupación Militar en Chiapas: El Dilema del Prisionero. CAPISE, 2004
14. Center for Political Analysis and Social and Economic Research (CAPISE).
15. Bulletin of Frayba
16. Case in CIDH
17. Case in CIDH
18. Marta Figueroa, lawyer of the victims, points out that it is a common strategy: demanding a new medical exam, knowing that for a women who is a victim of violence, especially those from rural areas, to go through it again terrorizes the women. As a result, their refusal is used to stop the judicial process.
19. Results of an opinion poll done by Parametria
20. RUEDA, Danilo. Militarismo en Colombia. Lecture for the 5th PROPAZ forum. San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, June 8, 2007.

:: SIPAZ ACTIVITIES

March - July 2007

International Presence and Accompaniment

The Situation of Human Rights Defenders

In June, we participated in a meeting with 15 European embassies in Mexico City that addressed the work of human rights activists and other issues related to human rights in Mexico.

CHIAPAS

Zona Norte

In March and the beginning of July, we interviewed different actors in the northern region of Chiapas from various communities and cities: displaced community members, leaders of different political groups, government offices, church members, Zapatista supporters, as well as, peasant farmer(campesino) and grassroots organizations. In July, we also had a chance to visit Choles de Tumbalà, a Zapatista community located near Palenque, and displaced for three months as a result of their violent removal last year. 

Altos

We visited in March the Zapatista Community Ecological Reserve in Huitepec near San Cristobal de Las Casas, located in the same area as the Protected Nature Reserve Huitepec-Los Alcanfores. The nature reserve was created by the state government after the Ecological Reserve was established. Community members of the area have denounced the state nature reserve since they were not consulted in the process of its creation.

On April 7th, we accompanied the relocation of displaced community members belonging to the community organization Las Abejas in the municipality of Pantelhò. We also made a follow-up visit to the community in June due to concerns over gunshots that had been heard during the evenings.

Selva/Cañadas

In July we interviewed various religious, grassroots, and non-governmental organizations in Ocosingo, Chilòn, Bachajòn, and Yajalòn.

Caracoles/Otra Campaña

We were able to visit each of the 5 Caracoles at least once. On June 25th, we attended an event in San Cristòbal de Las Casas marking the tour of various Zapatista commanders in the northern states of Mexico as part of the second phase of “The Other Campaign.”

July 21st to the 30th, we participated as observers in the Second Meeting of Zapatistas with the People of the World that took place in different Zapatista Caracoles.

OAXACA

In April, we visited Oaxaca for a one-week period. During this time we took part in the Third International Forum on the Defense of Human Rights in Oaxaca and interviewed diverse grassroots and non-governmental organizations and government authorities (see the report “Still an Open Conflict: The socio-political situation and human rights violations in Oaxaca” -in spanish-).

GUERRERO

We participated on 5th and 6th  in a civil observation mission (composed of 16 national and international organizations and networks) that attended a community assembly held in Cacahuatepec, concerning the project to construct a hydroelectric dam in La Parota.

In June, we attended the Thirteenth Anniversary of the Center for Human Rights of Monataña Tlachinollan that coincided with the state forum “The Roads of Resistance.” The forum gave 400 persons and 16 grassroots organizations from 40 different communities the opportunity to share forms of resistance in the defense of land and offered a space where they could articulate their struggles. We also visited the municipalities of Ayutala and Xochistlahuaca (Costa Chica, a zone particularly affected by increased militarization).

INFORMATION

We received visits from delegations (including from SIPAZ coalition member, Global Exchange), students and journalists, orientating them on the situation in Chiapas and the work of SIPAZ.

In June, we attended an event organized by SEREPAZ and the Swiss Program of Observation and the Promotion of Peace (PROPAZ) on “Militarization in Mexico and Latin America,” in which over 80 persons participated. The event was meant to foster analysis on the issue of militarization in the region.

We also inaugurated the SIPAZ blog in both Spanish and English (http://www.sipazen.wordpress.com/), where we post frequent and up to date information on the different activities we are involved with.

PROMOTION OF PEACE

EDUCATION FOR PEACE

We participated in the month of March in an inter-faith event reflecting on the current situation in Chiapas. In May we also attended a weeklong event on Christian unity.

We are currently facilitating workshops on transforming conflicts with the organization Economic and Social Development for Indigenous Mexicans (DESMI).

NETWORKING

We participated in monthly meetings with the Peace Network (Red por la Paz), a space for reflection and action, composed of 16 organizations that support peace processes and reconciliation in Chiapas.

In March, we attended a training workshop on visiting detention centers organized by the network All Rights for Everyone (Todos los Derechos para Tod@s) held in Mexico City.

We visited El Cerezo 5 (woman’s sections in San Cristòbal de Las Casas).

In March, we attended the Third Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America (Aba Yala) that took place in Guatemala.

In April we co-organized with the Human Rights Center Fray Bartolome de Las Casas and CMC Holland the forum “Analysis and Strategies of Civil Society in the Face of Current Challenges in Chiapas”, in which community civil organizations and human rights promoters participated.

We participated in the anniversary of SERPAJ, a member of our coalition, celebrated April 12th in Cuernavaca, Morelos.

In June we held meetings with our counterparts, NGOs, networks and solidarity groups in Holland and France.

: :: New Documents on the Website

1. Civil Mission of Observation in La Parota, Guerrero (May 4, 2007).
   1. New Alert in La Parota (May 2007)
   2. San Salvador Atenco, A Year Later: Impunity for Authorities and Criminalization of Protestors (May 9, 2007)
   3. Still an open conflict: The socio-political situation and human rights violations in Oaxaca 2006  (May 2007) - In Spanish

    

    NEW: VISIT OUR BLOG: http://www.sipazen.wordpress.com/