:: SUMMARY

The situation on the ground in Chiapas remained tense and often violent in recent months. Meanwhile political developments both within and outside the region diminished hopes that significant progress toward peace would be achieved before President Zedillo¹s term ends in December.

During a January trip to Europe, President Zedillo made a series of startlingly frank statements disparaging the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation), discounting its importance in the resolution of the problems in Chiapas, and somewhat ominously asserting that the military offensive he unleashed in February 1995 "succeeded in getting them to sit down to talk."

On December 30, the Vatican announced the transfer of Coadjutor Bishop Raul Vera from San Cristobal de Las Casas to Saltillo in northern Mexico. Bishop Samuel Ruiz submitted his resignation in November, but it has not yet been accepted by the Vatican, and no successor has been named. The transfer of Bishop Vera, who had been in line to succeed Bishop Ruiz, and the resultant uncertainty raised fears about the effect on peace prospects and on the security of thousands of church workers, religious and lay, who have felt somewhat protected by the extensive influence of the diocese under Bishop Ruiz.

The claim of the Papal Nuncio that the decision was based on "purely ecclesiastical reasons" stretched credulity. It is true that for years the pastoral practice in the diocese has been cause for concern within some circles in the Vatican and that Bishop Vera gave every indication of continuing the existing pastoral plan. At the same time, the decision to remove Vera was highly unusual. It appears likely that it also rested on the Vatican¹s interest in improving relations with the Mexican government, for whom Bishop Ruiz has long been considered a political obstacle.

Meanwhile, several communities experienced outbreaks of violence between pro-government and pro-Zapatista groups. In the county of Chilon, 52 families were displaced from their homes by a paramilitary group. The constant military pressure on the indigenous communities was augmented by the arrival of hundreds of members of a new security force, the Federal Preventive Police (part of the Interior Ministry).

Criminal cases related to the 1997 Acteal massacre continued to wind their way through the judicial process. Two state government officials were sentenced to six years each for their roles, one of the accused intellectual authors of the crime was sentenced to 35 years, while 24 Indians who had previously been sentenced to 35 years had their sentences revoked, pending further review. In December, 2000 members of the Bees, the group that was the target of the massacre, staged a pilgrimage in the county of Chenalho, offering symbols of peace at military bases and checkpoints.

National elections are scheduled for July 2 while elections for governor of Chiapas will take place August 20. Regardless of their outcome, the elections represent an element of uncertainty and instability, especially in the explosive context of Chiapas.

With the opposition split between the center-right PAN (National Action Party) and the center-left opposition coalition led by the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution), the ruling PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) is well placed to win the presidential elections. In Chiapas, the opposition has united behind the candidacy of PRI dissident, Senator Pablo Salazar. He would appear to have a strong chance of winning, but some analysts question whether such an opposition victory would be allowed to stand. The challenging electoral conditions in Chiapas underscore the importance of a strong election observation effort.

In an increasingly polarized and tense situation, where the space for negotiation has nearly disappeared, opting for a military solution remains a possibility. The government may decide to take advantage of the interregnum (between the July elections and the transfer of power in December) in order to launch a well-targeted offensive in Chiapas. On the other side, the EZLN, faced with the prolonged stalemate in the peace process, may elect to take up arms once again. While neither option appears reasonable or probable, neither can they be discounted.

The government¹s campaign against international observers continued. During the first five weeks of the year, 60 foreigners received citations accusing them of violating Mexican law.

In a broad swipe at non-governmental organizations, President Zedillo asserted, "We do not need the self-nominated representatives of civil society, now called non-governmental organizations, to speak in the name of the poor of the developing countries."

Meanwhile the drumbeat of international criticism of Mexico's human rights record continued. During her November visit to Mexico, Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed various concerns, including the excessive militarization in Chiapas. At the conclusion of her February visit to Mexico, the President of the UN Working Group on Indian Peoples, Erika Irene Daes, called on the Mexican government to comply with the San Andres Accords which it signed four years ago. Also in February, UN Special Rapporteur for Extra-Judicial Executions, Asma Jahangir, presented a report on her July 1999 visit. Among her conclusions: in Mexico, federal and local governments, the army, paramilitary groups, and armed opposition groups execute innocent people throughout the country, especially in Chiapas and Guerrero; in cases such as the killings in Acteal and El Bosque (Chiapas), all the intellectual and material authors have not been captured; human rights defenders receive little protection and work in a climate of violence.

On the economic front, in November representatives of Mexico and the European Union signed a far-reaching trade agreement. While the agreement must still be ratified by the Mexican Senate and the individual EU members, it represents a major step for the free trade policy of the Zedillo administration. Not much concrete information has been presented about its possible impact on Mexican workers and peasants nor has it benefited from significant public debate. The treaty includes a clause requiring respect for human rights and democracy. However it does not include a clear mechanism for evaluating compliance.

Recommended Actions

1. Urge the Zedillo administration to:
   • order a substantial reduction of the Army presence in the conflict areas in Chiapas and insure that the Army respects the rights and freedoms of citizens as an authentic and concrete sign of a will to dialogue;
   • recognize and respect the efforts of national and international human rights workers and international observers whose work offers substantial support to the peace process.
2. Urge Chiapas Governor Roberto Albores Guillén to:
   • cease operations in already highly conflictive areas that harass indigenous communities and opposition organizations.
3. Urge the Mexican Senate to:
   • approve the COCOPA legislative proposal on Indigenous Rights and Culture,
     placing the interests of peace above partisan politics.
4. Circulate information, such as this Report, on the situation in Chiapas.

Please write:

Lic. Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León
Presidente de la República
Palacio Nacional
06067 México, DF - México
Fax: (int-52) (5) 271 1764 / 515 4783

Roberto Albores Guillén
Gobernador de Chiapas
Palacio de Gobierno
Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, México
Fax: (int-52) (961) 20917

El Senado de la República
Paseo de la Reforma # 10
06030 México, DF - México
Fax. (int-52) (5) 130 2292

Please send copies of letters to the Senate to:
Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación
Paseo de la Reforma # 10, piso 17
06030 México, DF - México
Fax: (int-52) (5) 140 3288

::UPDATE

CHIAPAS: Tense Beginning of the New Century in Chiapas

On December 30, the Vatican announced the transfer of Coadjutor Bishop Raul Vera from San Cristobal de Las Casas to Saltillo in northern Mexico. Having reached the mandatory retirement age, Bishop Samuel Ruiz submitted his resignation in November. However, it has not yet been accepted by the Vatican, and no successor has been named. The transfer of Bishop Vera, who had been in line to succeed Bishop Ruiz, and the resultant uncertainty about the future of the diocese raised fears about the effect on peace prospects and on the security of thousands of church workers, religious and lay, who have felt somewhat protected by the extensive influence of the diocese under Bishop Ruiz. (See “Bishop Raul Vera transferred to Saltillo ,” in this issue.)

Increased tensions in the region

The last two weeks of 1999 were characterized by a notable lack of festive sentiment in the communities of Chiapas. State government representatives led others to believe that the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) was preparing an attack, thereby justifying the arrival of hundreds of Federal Preventive Police (part of the Interior Ministry) in Chiapas. The State Attorney General, Eduardo Montoya Lievano, reported that security and vigilance in the area of EZLN influence were also being reinforced by patrols of the BOMs (Bases de Operaciones Mixtas/Mixed Operations Bases; a collaborative structure involving various security forces).

Although both the federal Interior Ministry and the EZLN denied that there was any reason for a state of alert in Chiapas, Lievano insisted that “it is better to prevent than to lament.” He added, “Diverse business sectors urged the indefinite extension of the preventive vigilance,” referring to “Programa Milenio.” The various opposition political parties described this program as a new instrument of militarization in Chiapas.

Violence in the indigenous communities

On December 2, a confrontation between PRI (ruling party) supporters and Zapatista supporters in Petalcingo in the northern county of Tila left 15 wounded. The dispute originated in a disagreement about whether the community should resist payment of the electricity bill. During the second week of December, there was another confrontation, leaving five people hurt and one gravely wounded.

On January 5, PRI members detained 29 Zapatista supporters in the community of Tzanembolom in the county of Chenalho. They demanded that the authorities take into custody three Indians for crimes committed before the 1997 Acteal massacre. On January 18 it was revealed that arrest warrants had been issued for two of the detainees who were accused of having killed two PRI supporters in the period leading up to the massacre. The other detainees were then released.

At about the same time, in response to the expulsion of 52 families from their homes in the county of Chilon and the jailing of three people, the State Attorney General appointed a special investigator to look into those actions and to try to avoid new outbreaks of violence. The violence in Chilon was apparently perpetrated by a new paramilitary group that is operating between the Lacandon Jungle and the northern region of Chiapas.

On February 2, a group of peasants affiliated with the center-left opposition PRD were accused of ambushing a PRI group who were on their way to reclaim land reportedly occupied by PRD supporters in Tierra Colorada in the county of Suchiapa. The attack left two PRI supporters dead and seven seriously wounded.

Reaction in the communities

Amid the tense situation in the state, there were various kinds of protest action. On December 28, 2000 members of the Bees, the group whose members were massacred in Acteal, undertook a pilgrimage in the county of Chenalho, offering symbols of peace at military bases and checkpoints. About 5000 Indians from the highlands of Chiapas observed the New Year by celebrating the sixth anniversary of the Zapatista uprising in the Aguascalientes of Oventic. The EZLN command did not attend because of security concerns.

Meanwhile, after five months, the peaceful protest against the army presence continues in the community of Amador Hernandez. (See SIPAZ Report, November 1999, Vol. 4, No. 4). As reported in La Jornada, on January 5 the “Zapatista air force attacked the federal army camp...with paper airplanes.” The airplanes carried messages to the troops, such as: "Soldiers, we know that poverty has made you sell your lives and souls. I also am poor, as are millions. But you are worse off, for defending our exploiter...”

Acteal

In the first week of December, two ex-state government officials were sentenced to six years in prison for having protected the paramilitary group that carried out the Acteal massacre. Roberto Arcos Jimenez, an ex-Public Ministry agent, was convicted of not having acted against the civilians who were arming themselves in the area. The ex-first officer of the Public Security Police, Absalon Gordillo Diaz, was convicted of carrying firearms restricted to the use of the Army.

A few days later, a federal judge revoked on procedural grounds the 35-year prison sentences of 24 of the indigenous, including the ex-county mayor of Chenalho, who had been convicted for their involvement in the Acteal case. They remain in jail awaiting further review of their cases.

On February 7, one of the accused intellectual authors of the massacre, Antonio Vasquez Secum, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for murder and assault. According to official investigators, Vasquez Secum, who is indigenous, was the PRI leader in the community of Quextic (near Acteal) and the father of Agustin Vasquez Secum. The death of the younger Vasquez the last in a series of tit-for-tat killings in Chenalho that pitted Zapatista supporters against government supporters, was the spark that led to the Acteal massacre.

The governor

At year’s end, politics in the region were heated up by the possible removal of the interim governor of Chiapas, Roberto Albores Guillen. He was challenged, both by the state Congress and at the federal level because of his open - including material - support for presidential candidate Francisco Labastida during the PRI primary campaign. However, Albores was able to mobilize the support of the main transportation companies and other powerful economic groups of Chiapas, and he withstood the challenge.

The role of national and international non-governmental organizations

In the first five weeks of 2000, more than 60 foreigners who visited Chiapas were given citations ordering them to appear before the National Institute of Migration (INM). The citations imputed acts that violated Mexican law but did not specify the offenses. The foreigners who attended their appointments were submitted to more than five hours of interrogations that included questions about their religious affiliation and others regarding military intelligence matters. At the end of the interrogations, the INM refused to give them a copy of their declarations, thus impeding their ability to mount a legal defense.

During a January visit to Chiapas, the president of the official National Human Rights Commission, Jose Luis Soberanes, called for the revision of Article 33 of the Constitution, which gives the federal executive the unilateral power to expel foreigners. With respect to Mexican non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Soberanes observed that “we have a large number of NGOs that ought to be extremely valuable” in defending fundamental human rights. He was critical with respect to international organizations, and he observed, “Often, because of a lack of accurate information, they make recommendations or offer points of view that do not correspond to the reality. [We have] to give the information, the necessary data, that will enable their recommendations, suggestions, or points of view to reflect the reality.”

In December, Pope John Paul II declared that human rights do not have borders and thus international intervention is necessary in countries where crimes against humanity are committed. While the Pope praised non-governmental humanitarian organizations and religious groups that promote peace, President Zedillo, in the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland (January 24), stated, “We do not need the self-nominated representatives of civil society, now called NGOs, to speak in the name of the poor in the developing countries.”

The president and Chiapas

President Zedillo went further in his commentaries about Chiapas. At the end of January in an interview during his European trip, he declared that the Zapatistas do not have even “a gram of good faith,” and that whether or not the Zapatistas decide to renew negotiations “is a very minor part of the solution” of the conflict in Chiapas. He noted that in February 1995 he threatened the EZLN “with repression and that succeeded in getting them to sit down to talk.” The important thing, he insisted, is not a dialogue with “the gentlemen of the EZLN,” but rather to resolve the problem of development and poverty in the region. He added that what matters for him is to have worked to overcome the conditions of backwardness in the region “and the other [referring to the EZLN] is a historical perspective; it will be an incident.”

Gilberto Lopez y Rivas, PRD congressman and member of COCOPA (the congressional peace commission), stated that the declarations of President Zedillo in Europe reveal clearly that the negative response to the dialogue in Chiapas does not come from the armed group, but from the government itself, and they signify the “burial” of any attempt to re-establish ties with the Zapatistas.

More on the international scene

Representatives of the UN who visited Mexico, including Chiapas, issued statements that contrasted with the official comments. In November, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson expressed her concern for what she regarded as the excessive militarization in Chiapas. (See “UN disturbed by human rights situation in Mexico,” in this issue.) As a counterpoint, and shortly after she left Mexico, the federal government dispatched more troops to the state, according to the denunciations of several local opposition legislators. The President of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, Erika Irene Daes, visited Mexico in January-February. At the conclusion of her visit, she called on the government to comply with the San Andres Accords (which were signed in 1996 but have not been implemented.) On February 2, Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial Executions, presented a report on her July 1999 visit. Among her conclusions: the federal and local governments, the Army, paramilitary groups, and armed opposition groups carry out executions of innocent persons throughout the country, especially in Chiapas and Guerrero; in the cases of the killings at Acteal and El Bosque (Chiapas), all of those responsible have not been captured; human rights defenders in the country have little protection and work in a climate of violence.

Economic news

On November 24, 1999, representatives of the Mexican government and the European Union, which comprises 15 countries and more than 360 million consumers, signed a trade agreement. In 1999 Mexico signed trade agreements with several countries. Not much concrete information has been presented about their possible impact on Mexican workers and peasants. Nor has there been much consultation with civil society groups or opposition legislators. In the communications media, the implementation of the trade agreement with the European Union is presented as the best solution for many economic problems in Mexico. In addition, it is presented as a fact, while the reality is that the Mexican Senate as well as the parliaments of the various European countries still must ratify the agreement. The treaty includes a clause requiring respect for human rights and democracy. However it does not include a clear mechanism for evaluating compliance.

DON RAUL

Bishop Raul Vera transferred to Saltillo

From the time of his arrival in Chiapas as Coadjutor Bishop in August 1995 till the surprising announcement of his removal, which will prevent him from succeeding Samuel Ruiz as Bishop of the Diocese of San Cristobal de Las Casas, Raul Vera has maintained an attitude of obedience toward the Holy See.

On December 30, Papal Nuncio Justo Mullor announced the nomination of Raul Vera to the Diocese of Saltillo in northern Mexico, underlining that the decision was made for "purely ecclesiastical reasons." The fact that Bishop Vera is leaving San Cristobal "will in no way lessen the commitment of the church on behalf of social peace and of the spiritual and human advancement of all who make up the population of Chiapas," he added.

In a joint declaration made on the same day, Bishops Ruiz and Vera emphasized the positive aspects of the official pronouncement: “...we see clearly that there is support for the pastoral work: that the collaboration of the Coadjutor [Bishop Vera] in the diocese is praised; that the resignation of Bishop Ruiz has not yet been accepted; that there is no doubt that the next bishop will direct the process of the diocese in support of indigenous culture and of the poor. We strongly encourage our faithful and all of the pastoral workers of our diocese to not diverge from this interpretation, affirmed in the official announcement, and that attentively obeying the will of the Holy Father, we not cease to continue our ecclesiastical process, now underway, in our tireless work, rooted in our faith, for justice, human rights, and respect for human dignity."

For some sectors of society, the removal of Bishop Vera is a serious blow to the peace process. For Bishop Vera himself, "Peace in Chiapas is the peace of the country, because the system that has produced this poverty, these abuses of justice, and the antidemocratic order with which the indigenous peoples in Chiapas have been treated, has developed into a system that is nation-wide."

In a pastoral letter before the announcement of the removal of Bishop Vera, Bishop Ruiz had pointed out the existence of “ forces whose interests are not those of the church” who he said were working to insure the removal of Bishop Vera. He also declared that " In the event that there is a lack of continuity in the diocesan process, we fear that this would thwart the peace process and would be yet another blow to the communities, to the lay leaders who serve them, and to the diocesan pastoral workers, putting their very lives in danger."

Church groups in the indigenous communities, although reacting with sorrow and frustration, declared that they were nonetheless disposed to accompany the new bishop, whoever the person may be who is named by Pope John Paul II. They place their trust in the strength of the work of the church at the community level: the Diocese of San Cristobal de Las Casas estimates that it has the largest number of indigenous deacons in the world (around 400), and about 8,000 catechists.

However, the news in February that the Papal Nuncio, Justo Mullor, was transferred to the Vatican was another cause of concern. He has been viewed as a moderate and sensitive voice who was not a leading force in the removal of Bishop Vera. Hence his departure from Mexico could be interpreted as part of a plan to assure that in Mexico, the progressive wing of the Catholic Church will not be an obstacle to the “modernization” plans of the Mexican government.

Bishop Ruiz submitted his resignation when he turned 75 last November. However the Vatican has not yet accepted it, and no successor has been named.

MARY ROBINSON

UN disturbed by human rights situation in Mexico

During her November 1999 visit to Mexico, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson observed, “There is still a ways to go in order to leave behind impunity, the problems with the impartition of justice, the exclusion of the indigenous groups, the activity of the paramilitary groups, and the attacks against human rights.” She also mentioned that the increasing militarization of the functions of public security in the country, as well as the impossibility of judging military personnel in civil tribunals when they are accused of violating the human rights of civilians, contribute to the aggravation of the climate of impunity.

In preparation for her visit, more than 100 Mexican NGOs came together for the first time to elaborate a series of legal, administrative and political proposals to deliver to the High Commissioner. In addition to that consensus, the NGOs succeeded in meeting with various government officials, including the Interior Minister , the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the federal Attorney General, and the Attorney General for Military Justice.

Before leaving Mexico, the High Commissioner and the Foreign Relations Minister, Rosario Green, signed a Letter of Intent on Technical Cooperation for the Promotion of Human Rights. A few days after Robinson’s departure, the Mexican Army renewed its air and land patrols in indigenous communities in Chiapas.

The new president of the official National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), Jose Luis Soberanes, stated that, while he shares the opinion of the High Commissioner regarding the persistence of impunity in Mexico, the situation “is not so serious.” In spite of such declarations by government officials that tended to minimize the situation, the multiplication of visits by representatives of the UN and the high profile of Mary Robinson’s visit are profoundly significant in the international arena.

:: FEATURE

“WE WILL NO LONGER BE SILENT”

Human Rights Promoters and Defenders in the Indigenous Communities of Chiapas*

[*Due to the lack of security in the conflict areas where the human rights promoters/defenders work, their names have been changed in this article.]

In the indigenous communities of Chiapas, being a human rights promoter is more of a service than a distinction. The grave situation of human rights violations in this region and the apparent incapacity on the part of the government to respond make this service an urgent challenge. The concept of human rights as well as the work of those who are called "Human Rights Promoters/Defenders" is relatively new in the communities. As Rodrigo (promoter in the Ocosingo region) says, "When I began I didn't understand anything about Mexican law or individual guarantees. The change that I see from our forefathers is that they fought for the right to land, but not for other rights like freedom of movement, women's rights, the right to life or to liberty. In our communities, when we began, the elders were frightened, then excited, and they said: 'How good it is that human rights exist."

Sergio (a human rights promoter from the Ocosingo region) adds,

"Our parents didn't know how to read nor write. They walked around with their eyes closed. They listened to their bosses, the landowners, the rich people. Those people showed them how to work so the boss could eat. They worked like dogs. There was a lot of suffering. Now there is a big change. We already know how to speak Spanish more or less, and we have land where we can eat and live. However, the government doesn't allow us the freedom to try to acquire even one more piece of land for our children. But now we know the Agrarian Reform Law and we can defend ourselves."

Being indigenous and living in zones of conflict, these promoters and defenders encounter many obstacles to the development of their work. Racism, harassment and threats are an integral part of their daily lives.

Coming to "open our eyes"

It is estimated that there are approximately 500 promoters and defenders of human rights in Chiapas today. On average, they have less than a third grade education. While promoters work on educating and informing people, defenders focus their efforts on legal aspects: systematizing information on human rights violations in the zones where they work, registering denunciations, looking for evidence, verifying reports, being present during legal proceedings or visiting prisoners.

Ricardo (a promoter from the northern region) gives us an example:

"When [UN High Commissioner for Human Rights] Mary Robinson came [see article in this report], we did an investigation about the region. We only had 20 days to do it and it was during the coffee harvest, so we only did some visits. We couldn't visit everyone. We found many cases of violations on the part of government authorities and the army. There were nine cases of human rights violations which we presented."

After the Indigenous Congress of 1974, a greater articulation of the struggle of indigenous peoples was developed with respect to their demands, particularly the right to land. This generated a repressive reaction on the part of the government which tried to silence their voice. The Catholic Church, attentive to their demands, focused its social work on human rights education and defense of human rights.

For example, in Ocosingo where there is the greatest presence of the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) and of the Mexican Army, the Center "Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada" was created that today has 32 promoters working with them. They began first with a course on education about individual guarantees late in 1995, a topic which they continue to work on even today; and now they are asking for a course on criminal law.

At the same time, some evangelical churches started similar work in response to the phenomenon of the religious expulsions. Since July 1996, evangelical pastors and approximately 1,600 community representatives have been working on the topics of nonviolence, tolerance, and reconciliation. These intermediaries are not called human rights promoters or defenders. Lic. Esdras Alonso Gonzalez, a lawyer and evangelical leader of 'Visión Aguila 2000, A.C.' ("Eagle Vision 2000") indicated that, since the 1970s, they have been using the concept of human rights. However for them, this work is not a special task or job like it is in other communities. Other social aspects and the organization of economic projects are of equal importance for them. For legal work "Visión Aguila 2000" relies on three lawyers who handle the cases that they receive via the intermediaries.

The distrust and disadvantages of the indigenous peoples with respect to the Mexican judicial system (due to language and a lack of knowledge about their rights) explains the necessity of promoting human rights training. Lic. Esdras states, "The law? It doesn't work in practice. They don't apply it. The government? They don't help us. Indeed, you can translate legal and formal documents into indigenous languages, but this won't change the situation when the authorities do not uphold the different laws."

The promoters and defenders receive their training from human rights centers made up mainly of mestizos (persons of mixed Indian/Spanish descent). Not all the centers have a religious base. For example, the "defenders of indigenous community rights" trained by the attorney Miguel A. De los Santos (a member of the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights) began their work near the end of 1998. Today seventeen defenders cover four regions: la Selva (the jungle), los Altos (the highlands), la zona Norte (the northern region), and la Costa (the coast).

For the time being there are very few women human rights promoters or defenders. One defender explains it this way "It is hard for them, and they don't speak much Spanish." The possibilities for women's political participation in the zones of conflict is truncated by family or community pressures combined with the little experience they have (or are permitted to have) and by maternity, which gives them other priorities.

Encounters between two cultures

Like all other community responsibilities, the promoters are elected by the community. The community also supports them with economic resources so that they can do their work. To be a promoter or defender of human rights also implies a way of life, as one of them expresses: "We have to be examples of what we teach, to show respect for human rights."

One critique that is sometimes heard about the work of defenders and promoters of human rights of the indigenous is that it is too focused on the bad things that come from 'outside' when there are also problems within the communities themselves. Rodrigo responds, "As human rights promoters, the work is with the people from outside. We can also work with our people. For example, when the county official tries to resolve a problem we can help him or her to see what type of problem it is and what would be the best punishment. We only do this if the authority invites us to. ..We are not only trying to educate about human rights but also to recover a part of our tradition, our customs. It doesn't mean leaving them behind and 'now we’re only concerned with individual guarantees.'" For the internal problems there are other community leaders and as a last resort the community assembly has the final word.

About the supposed clash between indigenous community values and the "new" individual guarantees, Sergio observes that "there is no clash because if we unite all the individual rights, a single voice comes out. That is where we have strength."

Difficulties, harassment and threats

Experiences with the judicial officials are not always positive. In some cases racism against indigenous defenders is obvious. The legitimacy of these defenders is questioned: "They wouldn't let us enter the San Cristobal jail for visits. They accuse us of being 'wesachero', unprofessional. That is like saying we are fake lawyers."

Another way racism is manifested is by trying to minimize their demands. "In 1996 [in the northern region] we lost [due to the conflict] 3,400 cattle and 75 horses. We couldn't find a solution with the governor. We filed a claim, but he said that he couldn't do anything because more than one year has passed. But we see in the law that a claim can be made after more than one year. Miguel Angel [de los Santos] said that all the claims of all the communities should be taken to the National Human Rights Commission to ask for compensation. We are still working on that. Instead the government offers us projects with 20 chickens and 20 pigs. That is very little. A cow costs 5,000 pesos."

Regarding the treatment they receive from military personnel at the road blocks, one of the defenders states:

"The soldiers do not always want to listen. They make jokes and ask many questions, especially about the tape recorder. They looked through my backpack. They asked me, 'Why do you have this? What do you use it for?' and the whole story. They told me that I didn't have the right to have one. I answered that I did because it is the work of civil society. ‘I have the right to tape you, because you do not have the right to take it away from me.’ They gave it back to me."
(Eduardo, promoter in the northern region)

In the northern region the defenders are also harassed by the paramilitary group Peace and Justice (Paz y Justicia) and they receive open threats from this group (see “The Northern Region: A Powder Keg of Violence,” SIPAZ Report, Vol IV No.4). Eduardo told us, "Those in Peace and Justice say that they took out an arrest warrant against me because I assaulted a boy and that they are going to send the state police. But I didn't do anything bad. They are only doing this because I am defending the people...A compañero of ours disappeared three years ago. The people in Peace and Justice, when they have been drinking, they say that he is already dead. One of the people from Peace and Justice threatened me if I continued working on the case...They threatened that they would kill me. I had to make a complaint before the Public Ministry. The district attorney did not take our claim into account. He never came to investigate."

Facing difficulties

Human rights promoters and defenders are not always well regarded by the legal authorities, but they have learned that it does not help to get angry and it is better to give the authorities a good example. Or, as Manuel (a promoter in the Cañadas) shared with us, "One time they didn't want to let us in. I spoke up and asked 'Why are you running me out when my rights are listed on the door and it says that I have the right to be here?' But in the end we left. We have to work slowly, and not get mad." With respect to the road blocks and harassment by the soldiers, Rodrigo commented, "We don't argue because they are going to threaten us further."

Due to the nature of their work, the defenders are at the front line in this covert war that lacerates Chiapas.

"Our work is dangerous because we know that the government is going to follow us. The government wants us to remain ignorant and under its power. Therefore our work requires great effort."
(Marcelino, promoter in the Ocosingo region)

Since their work is so demanding in terms of time and dedication, and given the context of a low intensity war, occasionally the promoters express their fatigue and depression.

"Sometimes when I see the government intimidation I feel sad. Our work takes a hard hit if we are incarcerated. Sometimes I feel down but I know that my work is very important. Many times our communities encourage us: 'Bear up so you can continue our struggle.' Also the meetings [with the other promoters] help. We see the necessity of being more united. ‘Nobody is going to be afraid and we are going to protect our idea and our mind. We are going to continue with the work like we began it, taking each other's hands and lifting ourselves up."
(Rodrigo)

In spite everything, they repeat,

" We don't accept it anymore. And we are no longer afraid. Now we say things to their faces. When I go through a road block near here I take out the Constitution. I show them the parts that prove that all the questions they ask me, and the fact that they stop us like this in the road, is against the Constitution."
(Eduardo)

In their comments, the defenders show that they are familiar with the different treaties and international bodies, even referring to them simply by their initials.

"The Constitution existed before, but I didn't know it. When my father worked on a ranch he didn't know about the Constitution, about the OAS [Organization of American States], about the UN [United Nations], or about the ILO [International Labor Organization]. We were very innocent. After the movement of 1994, I started to open my eyes."
(Marcelino)

Human rights and reconciliation?

A paradox with respect to human rights is that in Chiapas, the concept has been linked to one side in the conflict (to the Zapatistas or to members of the center-left opposition PRD), thus aggravating the already high polarization that is prevalent in the communities. In the zones of conflict the question is often asked: "Are you 'Human Rights'?" and depending on the response, the reception will be very different. However we believe that human rights work has a lot of potential with respect to bringing people together and achieving reconciliation in the communities. Ricardo shares an example with us: "In one community in Yajalon there are two human rights defenders who are members of the PRD. A person who supports the PRI [ruling party] was detained and accused of stealing cattle. They took him to the Public Ministry. The brothers of the detained person went to see one of the defenders of the PRD. The defender called Mr. de los Santos. He said, ‘You go see him there. If he hasn’t treated you badly, you can give him a hand.' The PRI person had never hurt anyone, so they decided to defend him. They went to Yajalon and got him freed."

Conclusion

The existence of indigenous Promoters/Defenders of Human Rights is symptomatic of a critical situation and of a system of justice that is not working, as reports from the UN, the OAS, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., have corroborated. But it is also a positive indication that the people are organizing, that they are conscious and informed about the situation they are living, and that they are assuming their responsibilities to take greater control.

Even if the Promoters/Defenders of Human Rights have to face difficulties and threats of every kind, they are characterized by their determination and perseverance. As one of them expressed, "Now I know what my rights are. Because we learned them these last few years. And we open our mouths. We are no longer silent." (Eduardo)

The human rights situation is so grave not only in Chiapas but in all of Mexico that it requires that all civil society become promoters and defenders of human rights. This work has focused only on civil rights and individual guarantees, but it is equally necessary to promote and defend political, social and economic rights, particularly in the framework of international trade agreements that have a significant impact on the rights of the majority of the population.

:: ANALYSIS

CHIAPAS: Delicate transition period in Chiapas

Uncertainty is the best word to characterize the current moment in Chiapas. This pre-electoral period the entire country is experiencing has a special cast to it in this state, due to the opposition alliance consolidating there to contest the state governor’s election. Simultaneously, the imminent departure of both bishops from the San Cristobal de Las Casas Diocese is generating tension about the future, not just of the diocese, but of the whole peace process it has pushed along since the Zapatista uprising.

Though the conflict at the UNAM (the National Autonomous University of Mexico, in Mexico City), has gripped national attention in recent months, some analysts believe that the violence with which the federal government ended the student occupation of the school and the negotiations with strikers could be a sign that a similar deployment will occur in Chiapas. Some have also noted worrisome parallels between the Mexico City process and the one which, in February of 1995, interrupted the incipient dialogue with the EZLN and began an era of persecution of its leadership and the militarization of the conflict zone.

Now that national, including presidential, elections (July 2) and the governor’s election in Chiapas (August 20) are drawing near, the political world is revolving increasingly around the electoral dynamic. Recent primary elections within the PRI at the national and state levels showed, on the one hand, the efficacy of the ruling party in controlling the electoral apparatus; on the other hand, according to some analysts, the inflated turnout figures cannot mask an apathy among the citizenry toward a process regarded with little credibility, in which everyone knows the results ahead of time.

According to independent analysts, in the race for governor of Chiapas, the opposition alliance led by Senator Pablo Salazar Mediguchia (ex-member of the PRI, evangelical, and formerly an outstanding member of the congressional peace commission, COCOPA) is likely to keep growing up to the August elections. In recent months it has received increasing support from social organizations in the state, and it now includes all opposition parties. This opposition proposal has real possibilities to unseat the PRI from the state governorship.

However, there is no shortage of pessimistic opinions either, as people point out that the minimal conditions do not exist, neither in Chiapas nor at the national level, that would favor honoring the results of the election should Salazar win. In Chiapas, the 1996 electoral reforms have done little to alter the tradition of fraud that has characterized the Mexican electoral system. Moreover, even if Salazar were inaugurated, he would have to govern until at least 2001 with a state Congress and the majority of county councils controlled by the PRI, as well as the instability factor represented by the presence of the army, paramilitary groups, and organized economic power-holders.

Meanwhile, Salazar continues to canvass the state and to marshall increasing support from organized popular sectors, to the concern of some corporations and traditional economic power groups which in the past year and during the November crisis closed ranks around interim governor Roberto Albores. One still undefined but certainly significant factor will be the position the EZLN takes regarding the opposition alliance: whether, as has been its position in the past, it will encourage a boycott of the electoral process, which it considers to be without guarantees; or whether it will endorse Salazar.

In any case, the development of the electoral campaign in Chiapas should be followed closely. A substantial presence of national and international observers would be helpful in order to guarantee respect for the popular will and to minimize possible irregularities.

Parallel with this uncertain electoral moment is the impending power vacuum in the San Cristobal diocese. It is difficult to accept the Vatican's argument that the removal of Coadjutor Bishop Raul Vera--natural and rightful successor to Samuel Ruiz--was “for purely ecclesiastical reasons.” If the Vatican, represented by the conservative figure of Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, was seeking continuity of the work of Ruiz, it could simply have confirmed Vera as successor, given the strong identification he has with the current pastoral plan of the diocese. The reality is that for years now the pastoral policy established by the diocese, with a strong emphasis on social advocacy, organization, and indigenous empowerment, has been a cause for worry for the Vatican. But it is difficult to understand this concern apart from another: the importance the Vatican places on continuing to develop its diplomatic relations with a Mexican government that has seen the diocese as a source of political problems.

Analysts feel it is likely that the new bishop--whose appointment is expected soon--will tend to lower the social and political profile of the diocese, its work denouncing the condition of human rights and militarization in Chiapas, and its commitment to the peace process and the rights of indigenous peoples. If so, the new bishop will have to confront a Church rooted solidly in the indigenous communities, with a social fabric articulated in a network of more than 400 indigenous deacons and 8000 indigenous catechists, and organized programmatically around the policies established by the recently completed Third Diocesan Synod, which highlighted these factors in its mission.

However, in view of the fact that the diocese is an important reference point for the Catholic population and even for Evangelical sectors, as well as for the NGO's and grassroots organizations struggling for change in Chiapas, its weakening could be a blow to these actors. Already they are struggling against exhaustion as a result of the counterinsurgency strategy employed by the federal government and its local operator, the state governor, since the beginning of the conflict.

Samuel Ruiz's retirement and diminished role in Chiapas is another cause for worry about the future of the peace process, since his leadership has been fundamental in stopping violence, seeking routes for dialogue and negotiation, and avoiding a military solution to the conflict. On a stage increasingly polarized and tense, where the space for negotiation has practically disappeared, the risk is that military logic will finally be imposed over political process--whether because the government decides to take advantage of the transition period to strike a decisive blow, or because the EZLN, in view of the prolonged stagnation of the process, decides to take up weapons once again. Although neither of these options seems reasonable nor probable, their possibility cannot be discounted.

As always, the vigilance of the international community will be crucial throughout this delicate period. The Mexican government's actions regarding the human rights situation should be followed closely, in order to monitor government compliance with the important recommendations issued by the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and by other experts from that organization who visited Mexico during the last year and who have made critical statements regarding the human rights situation in Chiapas and other states.

:: TEAM ACTIVITIES

November 1999 - February 2000

Between November 1999 and February 2000, team activities included the following:

Visits and Contacts

• Several visits to the northern region (communities in the county of Tila) to speak with peasants, recently returned internal refugees, representatives of various churches and social organizations, leaders of Development Peace and Justice, and local authorities.
• Visits to the Chiapas highlands to meet with Evangelical and Catholic church leaders.
• Attendance at the anniversary of the founding of the Bees in Tzajalchen and at the anniversary of the Acteal massacre of which they were victims.
• Visit to the Palenque jungle to attend the ceremony in which the indigenous peasant organization Xi Nich received a human rights prize from the government of France.
• Organization of the itinerary and accompaniment of an international delegation of religious leaders from five countries to Mexico City, San Cristobal and the Chiapas highlands.
• Organization of the itinerary and accompaniment of Rev. Paul Rutgers, Presbyterian Church leader from the US, who visited Chiapas to deliver the statement “Choose Life,” issued by SIPAZ in recognition of the work of Bishop Samuel Ruiz and in support of the Diocese of San Cristobal de Las Casas and signed by nearly 300 religious leaders from 27 countries.
• Visits to Mexico City for meetings with non-governmental organizations, diplomats, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), religious leaders, and political candidates.
• Organization of the program, accompaniment, and/or interviews with diplomats from the governments of Great Britain, Germany and the US in their visits to Chiapas.

Information

• Production and distribution of an Urgent Action regarding the threats and harassment of the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Center in Mexico City.
• A tour of Germany by one member of the SIPAZ team in which she was awarded the Weimar Human Rights Prize for her accompaniment work in Latin America, including Chiapas.

Education

• Meetings with non-governmental organizations in Chiapas to assist with their planning of several series of workshops on Conflict Transformation; follow-up work with them.
• Initiation of a series of Conflict Transformation workshops with educators in the Casa de la ciencia in San Cristobal.
• Participation in the First Conference of Mental Health Promoters in Chiapas.

Miscellaneous

• Meeting of the SIPAZ Steering Committee in Chiapas; visits/meetings in the northern region, the highlands and Mexico City.