:: SUMMARY

On September 6th (at the time of this writing) the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) rejected the complaints filed by indigenous municipalities against the constitutional reform on indigenous matters. Thus, the reform remained valid.
The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) had previously rejected the reform package, along with the legislatures of the Mexican states with the highest concentrations of indigenous population, as well as their main organizations, considering it is a reduction of the San Andres Accords.

More than 300 complaints (called “controversias constitucionales”) were filed before the SCJN, an unusual and historic event, since a constitutional reform bill never had been the subject of such comprehensive debate.

In recent months, many civil society organizations believed that the SCJN had a prime opportunity to contribute to the peace process in Chiapas, since fulfillment of the San Andres Accords is a condition demanded by the EZLN for resuming dialogue.

Thus, the SCJN’s decision is a pivotal one. With the reform law now officially declared legal, the verdict could be read by some as the exhaustion of all peaceful, political means for resolving the conflict. Of course, the international community, in the form of the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights (CIDH) or the United Nations (UN), may offer further recourse. However, resolutions made by international organizations have no power of coercion at the internal level.

During July 5-7, 2002, the National Encounter for Peace with Justice and Dignity took place in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas. More than 1000 delegates took part, indigenous and non-indigenous, from 285 organizations, 23 Mexican states and 13 countries.

The “Encuentro” provided an opportunity to reinforce the link between civil society and indigenous movements. The main goal was to reactivate civil initiatives with respect to the conflict in Chiapas. Ultimately, other topics under discussion went well beyond this main objective, illustrating the national -and even international-dimensions of what is at stake in Chiapas.
The first topic addressed at the Encuentro focused on the armed conflict in Mexico and the peace process. A second theme spotlighted democracy and the rights of the indigenous peoples. A third focused on alternative economic development for indigenous communities and peoples. All three aimed at building alternatives for civil, national and international participation toward peace with justice and dignity.

Another catalyzing event for civil society was the conflict in San Salvador Atenco, where communal landholders (“ejidatarios”) rejected the expropriation of their lands for construction of a new international airport in the state of Mexico. This struggle, which received broad support, forced the government to cancel the project in August.

Opposition to the Puebla-Panama Plan was another rallying point in recent months. In Veracruz, Chiapas, Guatemala and Nicaragua, social and indigenous organizations based in the mesoamerican region have come together to reiterate their categorical rejection of this megaproject. In answer to critics, President Fox and the ex-coordinator of the Plan, Florencio Salazar, hinted that nothing will be done without consent of the region's inhabitants.

Meanwhile, in Chiapas, Zapatista communities denounced a significant increase in military and paramilitary activities in the conflict zone. They also spoke out against the formation of a new group accused of paramilitary activities, the Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Campesino Rights (OPDIC). In August, a wave of violence in autonomous municipalities of the Jungle zone roiled the state.

On July 31, authorities from the autonomous municipality of Ricardo Flores Magon (Ocosingo) leveled charges of aggression against the OPDIC in La Culebra town, where seven people were wounded in an altercation. On August 7, the Zapatista Jose Lopez Santis was assassinated in the autonomous municipality of 17th of November (Altamirano). On August 19, in Crucero Quexil, autonomous municipality of San Manuel, where the Zapatistas maintain a check point to intercept contraband of alcohol and woods, a confrontation resulted in nine wounded. On August 25, at Amaytik village (Ocosingo), two Zapatistas who served as authorities from the autonomous municipality of Ricardo Flores Magon, were also assassinated. That same day, another Zapatista was killed in the autonomous municipality of Olga Isabel (Chilon). This killing was attributed to an armed group called "Los Aguilares". In almost all the cases, the Zapatistas blame armed groups close to the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

As this report went to print, civil observation brigades were investigating those incidents. Several state NGOs denounced that these and other violent attacks against Zapatista Autonomous municipalities have similar patterns.

Another concern is the evident deterioration of the social relationships between the Zapatistas and other indigenous organizations, particularly in “Las Caniadas” (Jungle region), with an increase in accusations and violent conflicts between these groups.

Land disputes continue to contribute to the tension, too. Governor Pablo Salazar estimates that 80% of the social and political conflicts in Chiapas are linked to agrarian causes. "Hot spots" exist in various regions of the state, particularly in Las Caniadas. To this is added the threat of expulsion of settled communities from the Biosphere of Montes Azules.

For their part, federal authorities acknowledge some 5000 agrarian conflicts currently existing in Mexico. The massacre in Agua Fria (Oaxaca) in June, which caused 26 dead and 42 wounded for agrarian conflicts, led to the creation of an interministerial office dedicated to defining a national conflict prevention strategy and finding resolutions to potential agrarian conflicts.

In spite of advances, Mexico continues to be a focus of concern for national and international human rights organizations. The outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, the Representative of the UN Secretary General for Internally Displaced, Francis Deng, and the President of the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights (OAS), Juan Mendez, all visited Mexico during the last trimester. Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights and the International Civil Commission for Human Rights Observation did the same, agreeing that indigenous peoples are the main victims of frequent human rights violations in Mexico.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. Write to President Fox expressing:
   1. your concern because the constitutional reform on indigenous rights has turned into an obstacle against resuming the peace process and moving toward a solution to the conflict in Chiapas;
   2. the hope of the international community that the Mexican State, through its Executive, Legislative and Judicial Powers, will revise the approved reform to make it congruent with the commitments assumed in San Andres and before the ILO by ratifying Convention 169;
   3. your concern because the increase of military activity in Chiapas does not help to ease the strain and only increases the political and social conflict in the state.
2. Urge the ILO to ask the Mexican State that internal legislation concerning the indigenous peoples be congruent with Convention 169.
3. Urge the state government to immediately investigate, in an impartial and fair manner, the recent killings in Chiapas and bring the guilty to justice.
4. Spread information –such as that contained in this report- about the situation in Chiapas and Mexico.

Please write to:

Lic. Vicente Fox
Presidente de la República
Residencia Oficial de los Pinos
11850 México, D.F., México
Fax: (+52) 55 55 22 41 17
http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/?P=17

Dr. Juan Somavia
Director General
Organización Internacional del Trabajo
4, route des Morillons
CH-1211, Geneva 22, Suiza
Fax: (00-41) 22 917 90 10
cabinet@ilo.org

Lic. Pablo Salazar Mendiguchía
Gobernador del Estado de Chiapas
Palacio de Gobierno, 1er piso
Fax: (+52)-961-61-20917
salazarp@prodigy.net.mx
http://www.pablosalazar.org.mx

:: UPDATE

CRUCIAL TIMES FOR THE CONFLICT IN CHIAPAS

On September 6th (at the time of this writing) the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) rejected the complaints filed by indigenous municipalities against the constitutional reform on indigenous matters. Thus, the reform remained valid.

Background
In February 1996, initial negotiations between the federal government and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) culminated with the signing of the San Andres Accords on Indigenous Culture and Rights. At the end of that year, the legislative Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA) drafted a proposal for constitutional reform based on those accords.

After many vicissitudes, the draft was presented to Congress in December 2000 by the new president, Vicente Fox. In April 2001, Congress approved a reform package quite different from the original proposal. The package was rejected by the EZLN, along with the legislatures of the Mexican states with the highest concentrations of indigenous population, as well as their main organizations, considering it is a reduction of the San Andres Accords. Nevertheless, the process continued on course, and by gaining a majority of votes in the state legislatures, the reform finally was passed in August of 2001.

Since then, more than 300 complaints (called controversias constitucionales) were filed before the SCJN, an unusual and historic event, since a constitutional reform bill had never been the subject of such comprehensive debate.

In August, the Court was analyzing whether or not it had the right to judge constitutional reforms. In recent months, many civil and social organizations had emphasized the responsibility and opportunity the SCJN had for demanding respect to the San Andres Accords, as a means of contributing to the peace process in Chiapas. Essentially, fulfillment of the Accords is among the conditions put forth by the EZLN for resuming peace talks. Other analysts believed the SCJN ruling -on this so politically sensitive issue- would reflect the efective division of powers in the Mexican democracy.

The SCJN judgment means a pivotal event in the history of the conflict. Since the reform bill has been declared valid, adaptation of secondary laws to the reform text should now begin. As the reform forwards the definition of autonomy to the state legislatures, it will be difficult for the different indigenous peoples in the country to articulate a coordinated strategy to face the reform. It is unlikely that the debate over the content of the law will be reopened, despite the will of a minority in Congress.

What is certain is that all actors in the conflict will need to redefine their strategies. It is still possible to turn to international organizations such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights (CIDH) or the United Nations (UN) to weigh in. However, resolutions made by international organizations have no power of coercion at the internal level.

On the other hand, as we have highlighted in previous reports, the danger of such a ruling could be the perception that all legal and peaceful means to resolve the conflict have been exhausted. Anyway, the possibility of resuming peace talks in Chiapas remains distant. While the EZLN continues to demand for compliance with the three conditions stated in 2000, the release of five Zapatista prisoners held in Tabasco and Queretaro has not been achieved yet, in spite of COCOPA's efforts.

A difficult relationship

While the SCJN resolution was expected, other facts illustrated the gap between the State and the indigenous peoples, reflecting the lack of trust and communication difficulties between the parties.

The federal government wants to transform the National Indigenous Institute (INI), so that the design, direction, and supervision of all policies relative to the indigenous peoples remain their own responsibility. In this regard, during July the INI intended to consult with the 62 indigenous peoples of Mexico about what kind of relationship they wanted with the State, through the INI.

The consultation, titled "Indigenous Peoples, Public Policy and Institutional Reform", was rejected by the main indigenous organizations. In the declaration of Waut, the National Indigenous Congress (that unites many of them) confirmed: "We will not accept a single legal and institutional reform while the three conditions for resuming the dialogue remain unfulfilled."

Even the canonization of the Indian Juan Diego -during the Pope's visit to Mexico in August- was a matter of debate. Several indigenous organizations refused the invitation to attend the canonization ceremony, arguing: "Those who push the canonization of Juan Diego are not indigenous. They are the same people who have systematically been opposed to the movement and the struggle for legitimate rights for the [indigenous] communities."

Another intense confrontation occurred this summer between the federal government and the communal landholders (“ejidatarios”) of San Salvador Atenco, who rejected the expropriation of their lands for the construction of a new international airport in the State of Mexico. The campesino’s struggle –supported by 12 neighboring communities and other sectors of civil society- finally persuaded the government to give up the project.

For some analysts, this conflict can be seen as a foreshadowing about what could happen with the Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP) (1). In recent months, popular opposition has grown faster than the Plan itself. In Veracruz, Chiapas, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, social and indigenous organizations based in the mesoamerican region have united to voice their categorical rejection of the megaproject because it is considered functional to the strategic interests of the USA; and because the affected peoples have not been consulted, in spite of the strong social and environmental impacts it will have on them.

Various religious and academic people have joined the critics, to the point that President Fox and the outcoming coordinator of PPP, Florencio Salazar, have said that nothing will be done without the consent of the region’s inhabitants. Perhaps these statements contain, more than a sincere respect for popular will, a dose of realism: Atenco showed that imposing projects without the consent of the affected people can have steep social and political costs.

The National Encounter for Peace that took place in July in Chiapas (see Feature article); the Pope’s exhortation to recognize the rights of the Mexican indigenous peoples, and the victory at Atenco have lifted spirits: organized civil society is increasingly confident in its capacity to defend the people’s demands.

A grave escalation of violence in Chiapas

In Chiapas, meanwhile, denounces by the autonomous Zapatista municipalities have multiplied about increasingly visible military activities in the conflict zone, including army flyovers, patrols and harassment of the communities.

At the same time, Zapatista communities, the Network of Human Rights Community Defenders and the civil organization The Bees, denounced the persistence of paramilitary presence, including the possible formation of new groups. The autonomous municipality of Ricardo Flores Magon, for example, allege that a newly armed group has been organized in Ocosingo. The group, known as the Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Campesino Rights (OPDIC), is led by the local PRI- congressman, Pedro Chulin, who also has been appointed leader of another organization accused of being a paramilitary band, known as Revolutionary Indigenous Anti-Zapatista Movement.

In July and August, a worrying escalation of violence in autonomous municipalities of the Jungle zone reached a climax. On July 31, authorities from the autonomous municipality of Ricardo Flores Magon denounced an aggression by OPDIC in the ejido La Culebra, resulting in seven wounded. On August 7, the Zapatista Jose Lopez Santiz was assassinated in the autonomous municipality of 17th of November (Altamirano). On August 19, in Crucero Quexil (autonomous municipality of San Manuel), where the Zapatistas maintain a check point to avoid traffic of alcohol, stolen cars and woods, a confrontation resulted in nine more wounded. On August 25, at Amaytik village (Ocosingo), two Zapatistas who served as autonomous authorities of Ricardo Flores Magon, were also assassinated. That same day, another Zapatista was killed in the autonomous municipality of Olga Isabel (Chilon). This assassination was attributed to an armed band known as "Los Aguilares". In almost all the cases, the Zapatistas blame armed groups close to the PRI.
As this report went to print, civil observation brigades were investigating those incidents. Several state NGOs denounced that these and other violent attacks against Zapatista Autonomous municipalities have similar patterns.

Another concern is the evident deterioration of social relations between the Zapatistas and other indigenous organizations, particularly in Las Caniadas (in the Jungle region). A frequent exchange of accusations occurs between autonomous authorities and the leaders of ORCAO (2), (2), ARIC-Independiente (3), FOS (4), et al. Versions over who is responsible for violent acts consistently contradict each other.

Even before this recent escalation of violence, many organizations criticized the state government for not acting more forcefully. For his part, Governor Salazar, in comments made to the International Civil Commission for Human Rights Observation (CCIODH), argued that his strategy has had two stages: first, to push for reconciliation policies between communities; secondly, to fight impunity.

In the interview, the governor also indicated his actions to dismantle repressive state apparatus -with a former justice attorney and 25 police commissioners in prison-, as well as ongoing prosecutions of ex-mayors, the imprisonment of former high-ranking civil servants, and arrest warrants issued against more than 20 percent of the former governor's cabinet for acts of corruption. On September 13, the state police arrested 22 members and leaders of the major paramilitary organization, Desarrollo Paz y Justicia, in the Northern region.

Land continues to be the cause of permanent tension. Pablo Salazar estimates that 80 percent of the social and political problems in Chiapas are linked to agrarian disputes. "Hot spots" exist in various regions of the state, mainly in the Jungle; many of them resulting in death, injury and abductions. Add to this the eviction threats against communities settled within the Biosphere of Montes Azules and latent violence in the Chimalapas area (on the border with Oaxaca).

For its part, federal authorities admit that some 5000 agrarian conflicts exist in Mexico. They estimate that 362 of them carry the risk of exploding, and that they primarily involve indigenous peoples. The massacre in Agua Fria (Oaxaca) in June (resulting in 26 deaths and 42 injured) was one more cry for attention. It resulted in a joint effort among the Government secretary and the secretaries of National Defense, Environment and Natural Resources, Agrarian Reform and Social Development, to define -in collaboration with state governments- an inter-institutional prevention and solution strategy to face potential conflicts rooted in the possession of land.

Despite its efforts, Mexico criticized on human rights

In mid-June, the first application of the recently approved law of "informative transparency" provided public access to documents of the "Dirty War in Mexico". (70's and 80's). At the archives opening ceremony, Fox assured that the Government is on a search for truth and a way to apply the law appropriately, but there won’t be place for revenge or offense. Meanwhile, human rights NGOs have criticized the special prosecutor office created to investigate this period, since it can neither try institutions nor determine if their actions were part of a state policy.

A positive sign from the federal government was the creation of two new agencies to look after human rights affairs, in the Government Secretariat (ministry of Interior) and in the Federal Attorney General’s Office –perhaps as a result of the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and human rights NGOs, which demand a State policy on this field.
Despite these advances, the federal government continues to receive criticism from both national and international organizations. In August the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Centre issued a report on torture during the first semester of 2002, which documents the torture of 35 people by police and military agents, including three minors and two indigenous women raped by the military.

Mexico also continues to be a focus of concern for international human rights organizations. The outgoing UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, the Representative of the UN Secretary General for the Internally Displaced, Francis Deng, and the President of the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights (from the OAS), Juan Mendez, each visited Mexico during the last trimester. The last two also visited Chiapas.

In June, Amnesty International presented its 2001 annual report, in which it pointed out abuses and injustices in Mexico. Its chief representative for Mexico also visited Chiapas.

or its part, the International Federation for Human Rights issued its report about the observation mission on indigenous peoples, realized at the end of 2001. The report considers the constitutional reform insufficient "in relation to the content and spirit of the San Andres Accords and the layouts of the ILO Convention 169", and therefore it "does not contribute to the pacification objective". Also the CCIODH visited Mexico and traveled to Chiapas to report on its mission realized at the beginning of 2002. The report confirms that little has changed with the new governments regarding the plight of the indigenous peoples as the principal victims of human rights violations.

(1) An intersectorial and transnational megaproject for economic development that will cover the south-southeast of Mexico and all of Central America. (Return)
(2) Regional Coffeegrowers Organization of Ocosingo, which gathers various campesino organizations. (Return)
(3) Association of Collective Rural Interest, an indigenous organization of Las Caniadas of the Lacondon Jungle. (Return)
(4) Jungle Organizations Front, close to the PRI party. (Return)

:: FEATURE

NATIONAL ENCOUNTER FOR PEACE: Civil society recharges its batteries for Chiapas

The National Encounter for Peace with Justice and Dignity convened July 5-7 in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas. More than 1,000 people, including indigenous and non-indigenous, and representing 285 organizations, 23 states of the Republic and 13 countries, participated in the three-day event.

As its main objective, the Encounter sought to revive the articulation of civil society’s initiatives regarding the conflict in Chiapas, with emphasis on defending the San Andres Accords on indigenous rights and culture.

Toward this goal, work focused on three major themes:

1. the course of the armed conflict in Mexico, its consequences, and the peace process;
2. democracy and indigenous peoples’ rights; and
3. alternative economic development for indigenous communities, municipalities and peoples. The three were aimed at the building of alternatives for national and international civil participation toward peace with justice and dignity.

Time and reasons for the meeting

The initiative arose from a series of meetings held in Mexico City to create a new effort for peace. The call for the Encounter came from Samuel Ruiz, bishop emeritus of San Cristobal de las Casas. Other important personalities followed, including members of the ex-National Mediation Commission (CONAI), intellectuals, and representatives of various civil organizations and diverse social sectors.

One reason for convening the Encounter was because, according to Miguel Alvarez -from Services and Consulting for Peace (SERAPAZ)-, "in the short term, chances for the resumption of the dialogue are not clear. (...) the possibility of renewing national attention about the situation in Chiapas ought to come from civil society, due to [the fact that] the vision of the current situation is reduced to disputes between communities". (Hoy, 7/4/02).

Felipe Toussaint, from the Commission of Support for Unity and Community Reconciliation (CORECO), considered that after the grand initiatives of 1994-96, the popular mobilization in favor of a peaceful solution to the conflict in Chiapas was significantly reduced. The massacre at Acteal generated an important reaction, but it declined after the attacks to several autonomous municipalities in 1998. The elections of 2000 contributed to the dispersion and division of a civil society that, nevertheless, demonstrated a great capacity for mobilization during the Zapatista march to Mexico City at the beginning of 2001.

However, the retreat and prolonged silence of the Zapatista commanders, after the approval of an indigenous reform substantially different from the San Andres Accords, led the situation to an impasse; and it continues even after the resolution of the Supreme Court (SCJN) concerning the complaints filed against the indigenous law (see Update). On this crucial conjuncture, Toussaint said, "it was important that civil society said: We are here, present, and we want to continue working for a peaceful solution, as an actor that must be taken into account in the peace process”.

Gonzalo Ituarte, former member of CONAI, noted that "Vicente Fox’s Administration at this time has no clarity about the conflict, the peace process, the indigenous problem or their long-standing causes... Today the availability of a new effort-willingness is not visible in Chiapas, and there is only polarization and destruction of the social fabric. The peace that Fox speaks of in his trips abroad seems to be only the silence of arms, and he has not understood that the conflict is still in force: the army continues its maneuvers, the EZLN continues to be armed, the declaration of war is valid and the problem of the paramilitaries remains. Meanwhile, as long as those who are responsible politically, economically or militarily for this are not punished, it will be difficult to be confident that minimal conditions for a peaceful dialogue exist." (La Jornada, 7/11/02).

Absences, silences and disputes

Organizers of the Encounter sent a letter to the EZLN, informing its leaders about the event and requesting their support, so that their civil bases would participate. The letter explained the organizers' will not to pressure the EZLN to modify its current strategy. In any case, the EZLN did not spoke in favor or against the Encounter, although participation of its sympathizers and Zapatista support bases at the meeting was evident.

As Toussaint suggested, "Perhaps it is important to the EZLN to see the results of the Encounter, [to see] how many people will succeed in coming together and to see if civil society will continue moving or not. Because since the beginning, when they stopped 'sounding the rifles,' as they say, and searched for a political, dialogical solution, their desire has been to rely on civil society."

The federal and state governments seemed to view the Encounter in good faith, in principle. Santiago Creel, secretary of the Government (minister of Interior), declared "I hope that the reflections in San Cristobal de las Casas will be something that contributes to enrich the reflection and debate on an issue that requires to be studied, that demands a permanent consideration." (Diario de Chiapas, 7/5/02). For his part, the secretary of the Government of Chiapas, Emilio Zebadua, said that the Encounter "surely will shed light on what [the participants] consider necessary for the EZLN to break the silence and give a small sign that permits a glimpse of an opportunity to return to the negotiation table." (Expreso, 11/7/02).

Nevertheless, the tension increased in the days preceding the opening. In a press conference, event organizers feared that the state government would try “to capitalize on the efforts of civil society as if it were carrying out a joint project with them or as if the event would support their initiatives about the Chiapas question”. Taking steps, the organizers made it clear that they would not allow the state government to press them with the intention to put pressure on the Zapatistas through the Encounter.

Although some government officials participated actively or as observers, a few days after the Encounter, Governor Salazar questioned: "Are they so gullible, so naive, so foolish that they believe it is possible to build a process of reconciliation in Chiapas aside or against the government, or isolating the government?" (...) "There were proposals of peace with the language of war, proposals of reconciliation but excluding the government." (Expreso, 7/11/02).

Toussaint reasoned: "Pablo Salazar forgets that these organizations -that in some way helped him become governor- have decided to act with a healthy autonomy regarding the government, in order to maintain an ability to come together and dialogue with those actors who are in opposition to the government. (...) The peace process is everyone's responsibility, and each one has his or her function in it. As civil society we have our role, and we do not need to wait for the government to tell us what to do."

Achievements, challenges and questions

In countable terms, the Encounter was an undisputed success. Historian Andres Aubry described the Encounter as a brick for the construction of peace: the attendance of more than 1000 people from everywhere demonstrated that civil society is not passive. "The people responded to this event," he said. "They came from everywhere and in good numbers ... [The Encounter] shows that called upon, civil society will respond when there is an emergency." (Expreso, 7/10/02).

According to Toussaint, while the defense of the San Andres Accords was reaffirmed, the Encounter sparked a great interest and effort at moving toward a major articulation with other themes, such as economics (i.e. the struggle against the Puebla-Panama Plan and the Free Trade Area of the Americas) and other sectorial initiatives.

The participants agreed to deliver the conclusions of the Encounter to the ministers of the SCJN on July 14, and to hold a second Encounter in six months, possibly in the state of Guerrero, to reaffirm the national character of the process.

Far beyond the immediate enthusiasm and evident success of the gathering, questions remain over the future of the initiative, mostly concerning its possible impact on the political actors and the follow up on the approved motions. Much will depend on the ability of the organizations to articulate joint strategies for implementing their committments, especially now that the SCJN has already made its ruling.

Main agreements

Results of the three major areas of work focused in 11 points:

• To orient all civil struggles so as to create conditions for peace, respect for human rights and the building of democracy.
• To defend the San Andres Accords, calling for the fulfillment of the three remaining conditions of the EZLN.
• To strengthen civil observation and participation in the struggle against militarization and paramilitarization, and for the release of political prisoners, and for decent conditions for the return of those displaced by the conflict.
• To involve women and men equally in all processes and projects in the struggle for the construction of peace.
• To broadcast the grave situation of war and conflicts at a national level, as well as the need for a true and lasting peace.
• To support the indigenous peoples’ processes of autonomy and resistance.
• To stimulate the unity and participation of civil society for the construction of peace and democracy.
• To promote political practices based on “to govern obeying” [a zapatista definition of democratic government] and respectful of cultural diversity.
• To encourage Mexican civil society’s participation in the processes of continental and international struggle against neoliberal globalization projects, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
• To reinforce the struggle against privatization, to defend the labor rights contained in Article 123 of the Constitution and to recover the original spirit of Article 27.
• To develop economic alternatives that favor autonomy, and biological and cultural diversity.

For more information on the Encuentro visit:
http://www.derechoshumanos.laneta.org/especiales/Encuentro.htm (Spanish)

:: APENDIX

The Supreme Court Denies Indigenous Peoples’ Appeals to Constitutional Reforms

“We have struggled a great deal, yet advanced little. We have knocked on many doors, at the state, federal and even international level, but we’ve received little attention. Why don’t the authorities pay attention to us? Our peoples ask us, “Why do we come to the city if they never listen to us? When will they listen? Is it necessary that the EZLN take up its arms once again for them to hear us?”
(Indigenous leaders gathered in Mexico City, 9/12/02)

On September 6, one year after having received them, the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) rejected the challenges that various indigenous municipalities filed against the constitutional reform on indigenous rights. (See Update in the SIPAZ Report)

The Court based its decision on article 105 of the Constitution, which establishes the Court’s jurisdiction regarding constitutional reforms. The article, they said, does not allow the SCJN –Mexico’s highest judicial authority– to strike down a Constitutional reform made by the “Reformer Organism” (made up of federal and states legislatures).

The Reactions

Indigenous groups from Chiapas voiced deep disappointment with the ruling. In a joint statement, they said, “Once again we’ve been excluded. We’re nothing to them…not one of the three branches (of government) is listening to us or understanding our struggle. They’ve shut the door for peace with justice and dignity. The Mexican government is only thinking about international interests and the Puebla-Panama Plan.”

Since September 6, indigenous organizations have been carrying out peaceful protests both locally and nationally. They have included marches, blockades and meetings, which have been mostly ignored by the mass media. In all of them indigenous peoples stressed their decision to refuse the reform and to exercise their autonomy in facts.

The major meetings were the “National Encounter of Indian Peoples” in Chilpancingo (Guerrero) on September 12 to 13, and the “National Forum for the Protection of Traditional Medicine” in Atlapulco (state of Mexico) on September 14 to 16. In the first meeting, 200 representatives from 36 organizations called on indigenous peoples to articulate joint strategies to exercise their autonomy and called on civil society to unite its efforts to build a pluralistic and democratic nation. In the second one, some 500 delegates from 29 native peoples adopted the First Declaration of M’enhuani, which called for the strengthening of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and affirmed the San Andres Accords as the only acceptable law on indigenous rights.

A day of national and international protest was set for October 12 as well. Several organizations within the CNI also announced that they will continue their legal struggle to impede the application of the reform in their territories. They will also appeal to the International Labor Organization (ILO) and to the Inter-American system.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) has kept silent -“eloquently silent”, according to Felipe Arizmendi, bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas. “They responded through their silence; for them, this is a form of response. They thought that from the moment in which the proposals they made were not accepted and the promises that the government made [were not fulfilled], they feel that dialogue is useless.”

Strong criticisms of the SCJN’s decision came from non-governmental organizations, human-rights centers and intellectuals. In a joint statement, they said that the decision “exhausted all legal means” and that peace was farther off, since the indigenous last appeal had been denied. They called the ruling a “jeer” that brought back “the discrimination, racism and old colonial attitudes” to which Mexico’s native peoples have always been submitted. The communiqué concludes affirming that “no longer does anyone have the moral authority to judge the path that the peoples freely choose to obtain their just goals of autonomy and dignity.”

The Mexican Episcopal Conference issued a communiqué in which it called Mexican society to a “National Dialogue” – with the contribution of the international community– to bring to pass the words of the Pope in his recent visit to Mexico: “Mexico needs its indigenous peoples, and its indigenous peoples need Mexico.” The bishops said, “as a Church, we want to strengthen our commitment to the indigenous (peoples). It is not possible to continue living in a Mexico divided by racism and discrimination; the Indian peoples deserve for their cultures, their vision and their autonomy to be recognized.”

Within the Protestant sector, the leader of the Presbyterian church, Rev. Abner López, called on Congress to have the sensitivity to revise the constitutional reforms with respect to indigenous rights, otherwise it will be practically impossible to continue peace talks between the EZLN and the federal government. He also criticized Mexican President Vicente Fox, calling his concern for indigenous peoples “one of appearance only.”

Chiapas’ state government held that the court’s ruling “cannot be seen as the end of the road, but rather as the beginning of a new stage in which new peace initiatives ought to arise.” It said that the federal Congress ought to evaluate the possibility of additional reforms, since “no effort is excessive in such times, not if it expresses the unshakeable will to respond to the indigenous peoples and sow peace.” The government likewise affirmed that its willingness for dialogue and negotiation “remained unchanged.”

Within the political arena, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) categorically rejected the ruling. Members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) gave different opinions, from those who requested a “reform of the reform” to those who said the matter deserves no further consideration. The majority of the National Action Party (PAN) supported the SCJN’s ruling. The reactions from legislators who sit on the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA) reflected the lack of consensus among their respective parties.

The Fox administration –through Interior Secretary Santiago Creel and the Peace Commissioner for Chiapas, Luis H. Alvarez– showed complete respect for the ruling, maintaining at the same time “permanently open the channels for a respectful dialogue with the legislative branch and with other social and political actors toward the recognition of indigenous rights within the national legal framework.” The administration also reiterated its “unchangeable” willingness to reopen its talks with the EZLN.

Analysis

The ruling of the SCJN lessens the hopes for the renewal of the peace process in Chiapas and for achieving the rights of Mexico’s indigenous peoples. After feeling abandoned by the Executive and betrayed by Congress, indigenous peoples hoped that the Judicial would do justice to them by invalidating a reform which lacks the support of those it was meant to benefit, and which very legality has been questioned due to its irregular approval process.

It’s notable that the Court waited more than a year to give a ruling that did not even refer to the content or the approval process of the reform in question. Nevertheless, this long-awaited decision came at a time of great political conflict in Chiapas –immediately after an escalation of violence that claimed the lives of several Zapatista civilian leaders.

The ruling, rather than helping to defuse the situation, will probably contribute to the environment of polarization in Chiapas –and in other states of the country-, reaffirming some people’s conviction that legal means for demanding their rights have been exhausted.
The ruling also sets a worrying precedent for the future of democratic institutions in Mexico: if the highest body of the Judicial does not consider itself authorized to watch over the legality of constitutional reforms, then what institution is?

The Mexican State is also sending a troubling signal to the world regarding its willingness to honor the committments made in the San Andres Accords, and by ratifying Convention 169 of the ILO. The SCJN has lost this opportunity to recognize the rights and demands of indigenous peoples, contribute to strengthen the democratic system and help Mexico fulfill its international committments.

We hope that, in spite of this bleak panorama, the different sides within this conflict -that goes far beyond Chiapas, confronting once again the Mexican State with its indigenous peoples- will renew their efforts and seek in good faith and with responsibility the ways to overcome this critical situation.

Any solution, to be sustainable, must put before all other economic or political interests, indigenus peoples’ rights to exercise their own forms of social, economic and political organization, as well as to preserve their territories and the natural resources within them. These rights are the safeguard of their present existence and their hope for a better future

:: SIPAZ ACTIVITIES

June-August 2002

Accompaniment

• The SIPAZ team made visits to various communities in the municipalities of Tila and Sabanilla, both in the Northern region of Chiapas. Since the changes in the federal and state governments, the situation has quieted, but distrust persists among some groups. SIPAZ has relationships with various political and religious actors to promote opportunities for dialogue, mutual respect and distension. In El Limar, groups confronted in the past gave us testimony of their hopes and fears after the reopening of the local temple. We spoke with displaced people and Zapatista bases of support in different communities. We interviewed local authorities in Tila and Sabanilla and government civil servants in Yajalon, who also serve the municipalities of Tila and Sabanilla.
• At the request of the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Centre, SIPAZ regularly visits the NGO's lawyer in Palenque. After the assassination of Digna Ochoa in October 2001, various human rights defenders received threats.

Contacts and information

• SIPAZ held meetings in Mexico City with consultants, NGOs and embassies.
• In San Cristobal the team received various delegations, journalists and other international visitors to acquaint them on the situation in Chiapas and the work of SIPAZ.
• Also team members participated in the National Encounter for Peace with Justice and Dignity, which was held July 5-7 in San Cristobal de las Casas.

Inter-religious dialogue

• We had meetings with religious actors from San Cristobal de las Casas and the municipality of Chenalho, and with the Plural Ecumenical Group.
• The Peacebuilding Exchange Project continues to develop among religious leaders from Chenalho and the Nicaraguan Peace Commissions. In the last months, the delegates who went to Nicaragua in September 2001 (Presbiterians and Abejas from Chenalho, an evangelical missionary, a catholic nun and SIPAZ) visited 10 communities in Chenalho to present and discuss the project in public assemblies. We shared our Nicaragua experiences and listened to testimony from the communities. Approximately 700 men, women and children of various Christian denominations and political trends took part in these meetings.
• SIPAZ attended a meeting of the Diocesan Commission of Women (CODIMUJ) of the Catholic Church to present the same project.
• SIPAZ also participated in the Forum on the Right to Freedom of Worship, a national event, organized in Chiapas by the state government’s secretary of Religious Affairs.
• The team attended a conference on Christianity and Islam organized by the United Mission for Chiapas of the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico.
• SIPAZ continues taking part in the preparation of ecumenical prayers for peace in San Cristobal de las Casas.

Peace Education

• SIPAZ co-facilitated a series of workshops on conflict transformation for students of the Centres of Community Development (CEDECOS) in San Cristobal de las Casas and Las Margaritas. The majority of the participants were primarily indigenous young people, who receive professional training in the CEDECOs.
• The team facilitated training sessions on conflict transformation for members of Melel Xojobal, a local NGO. These workshops were requested to strengthen their work with street children who suffer from many forms of violence.
• SIPAZ continues to take part in the Network for Peace, a space for exchanging on action and reflection that seeks to support peace and reconciliation processes at the community and organizational levels in Chiapas.

International

• -SIPAZ attended the 7th International Congress of Peacemakers, organized by the Regional Network of Justice and Peace (Mexico, Central America, Colombia and the Caribbean). El Salvador, August 8-10.