:: ANALYSE

CHIAPAS: A Time of Reflection and New Challenges

10 Years After the Armed Uprising

As ten years have passed since the armed Zapatista uprising in Chiapas on January 1, 1994, the present moment offers itself to initial reflections. In Mexico, regardless of one's political affiliations or level of involvement in politics, the year 1994 constitutes a watershed.

In January, the magazine "Proceso" published a special issue entitled: “1994-2004: The Great Hope…The Great Frustration." In the issue, the sociologist Bernard Duterme, sums up much of the spectrum of existing views on the Zapatistas, when he writes: “Neither euphoric nor definitive, the picture is tinged. On the one hand, (…) they are catalysts of the democraticization of Chiapas and Mexico, engineers of the fall of the party that had monopolized power since the 1920s [Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI], the driving force behind the creation of a national - and possibly Latin American - indigenous movement, affirmative, massive and democratic, pioneers of a new international plurality, known today as “altermundialista.” (...) On the other hand, (...) the results of a decade of more or less ongoing conflict and negotiations between the rebels and the government have only pleased the EZLN's detractors. Beyond its social significance in Chiapas, the movement - whether undermined from without or within - appears threatened at the very least. Its arrival on the Mexican political scene, constantly delayed, ended up capsized. The movement's intergalactic connection with "altermundialista" convergences - ambivalent yesterday, evanescent today - did not fulfill its promise."

When Samuel Ruiz García, Bishop Emeritus of San Cristobal de las Casas, presented his pastoral letter, entitled "A New Hour of Grace,” he pointed out : “despite the fact that the conflict has not been resolved in its causes, the effort to build "la Paz con Justicia y Dignidad" (Peace with Justice and Dignity) - to which numerous and diverse actors have contributed - is a common inheritance belonging to the entire nation, one that has contributed advances, achievements and a new consciousness. Although not the only factor, the uprising of the EZLN and its subsequent political evolution fostered the consciousness and organization of many of the Indigenous Peopless of Mexico; the movement led to the emergence of a new national consciousness about the rights and significance of the indigenous population; it stimulated the growth and participation of civil society; it challenged political society to seek new paths; it led to some of the small advances in State reform; it shed light on the need to transform our institutions and social and economic relations; it revealed the grave deficiencies of the Mexican political system and the long road to be traveled for the nation to achieve an honorable democracy; it demanded a responsible answer (still forthcoming) from the State as to its part in causing the conflict; it questioned the churches about their historical role in the search for justice; it brought the topic of the world's Indigenous Peopless to the international arena and it denounced the neoliberal system and its consequences."

A New Zapatista Challenge: The Good Government Councils (Juntas de Buen Gobierno)

As Miguel Alvarez from Serapaz (Servicio y Asesoría para la Paz) points out: “The indigenous counter-reform was not the closing of a chapter, but rather part of a book in progress. The proposal of the JBG (the Good Government Councils) is part of its second volume.” For more than 6 months, EZLN support bases have been focusing their energy on strengthening the 35 existing autonomous municipalities by way of the Good Government Councils, a new step on the regional level (see SIPAZ Newsletter, vol. 8 no. 3).

The JBGs face numerous challenge to their successful functioning. The first has to do with the existent plurality in the territories that they attempt to cover. In many areas, part of the population (the majority or minority, depending on the case) opposes the project of Zapatista autonomy. For example, tensions arose in Altamirano in December when various social organizations agreed to carry out mobilizations against the local JBG. At present, the conflict has been diminished, thanks to intervention by the state government.

Another point of tension is the topic of public utilities (water, electricity and public works). The Zapatistas who act in resistance to government demands sometimes generate friction with the the population that pays for these services. Two particularly tense situations in the past few months occurred in Zinacantán (where militants from the Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or PRD, cut the water supply to Zapatista support bases) and in San Juan Cancúc (where members of PRI threatened to expell indigenous EZLN sympathizers who had refused to cooperate to receive services). Some peoples believe that such divisions within communities are a key element of the new counter-insurgency strategy.

Autonomies in the National Geography

After the approval of the constitutional reform on indigenous rights in 2001, both the EZLN and the Congreso Nacional Indígena (National Indigenous Congress), or CNI - which represents the majority of indigenous Mexico - opted to pursue autonomy as the path for future actions.

Recent events in Morelos, which unfolded when citizens of Tlanepantla declared an autonomous municipality in January, serve as an important example about the future of autonomy. On January 14, the state government sent police to the municipality to ensure that the constitutional mayor could assume his post. They ousted the Autonomous Municipal Council, which led to a confrontation resulting in one death and hundreds of peoples displaced at least until March. The governor of Morelos justified the intervention by claiming that the police had encountered a "guerrilla-type training camp" and that they “have intelligence that the group opposed to the municipal government was heavily armed."

Regarding such incidents, Secretary of the Interior, Santiago Creel, stated that responsibilities need to be defined "with clarity and precision," but that the State "will not permit anyone to establish new forms of government out of their own will, solely to please a group opposed to the constitutional authority." The Asociación Jalisciense de Apoyo a Grupos Indígenas (Jalisco Association of Support to Indigenous Groups) warns that such declarations: "sound like threats, and endanger projects like the Zapatistas' Good Government Councils."

Anders Kompass, representative of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights in Mexico, declared in the UN report on human rights in Mexico that if post-electoral problems are not resolved through peaceful measures, "there is a great risk that they will result in violence."

Indigenous Rights in Mexico: Persistent Delays

The United Nations formally presented its report on human rights in Mexico on December 8, 2003. President Fox accepted 32 of the report's recommendations and admitted that much remains to be done before personal guarantees of human rights become a full reality in the nation.

With regards to indigenous rights, the report states: "Even if there have been some advances in the area, there are also serious delays that have not been given sufficient political attention. (…) The human rights violations against indigenous Mexicans are generally the result of a high level of conflict, particularly in rural areas, which is fundamentally related to agrarian issues and disputes over local and regional political power. We have been informed repeatedly of conflicts in indigenous communities, including violent acts and interventions by public authorities, which frequently constitute human rights violations. According to reports we received, many of these violations remain unpunished, aggravating the conflict and increasing the level of violence.”

Persistent Militarization

Despite protests demanding the pull-out of the Army from indigenous communities, such as those in Emiliano Zapata (in the Norte region) in January, the military presence in Chiapas remains the highest in the nation after Mexico City, where national military command headquarters are located. Some consequences of militarization are becoming increasingly noticeable and called into question; these include alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution and the breakdown of social fabric.

According to its recently published report "Military Occupation in Chiapas: The Prisoner's Dilemma," the Center for Political Analysis and Social and Economic Investigations,(CAPISE), located 91 permanent military installations in the conflict zone. The report states that: “the presence of the Army means a suspension of guarantees that burdens indigenous communities with a social cost, which has been and continues to be, very high." CAPISE reports that "the military operations have been irregular, or in other words, war-like activities that are not intended to reach decisions, but rather to harrass and wear down the adversary, and can be seen either as isolated and individual acts or as part of a previously established defensive plan, in combination with or independent of regular operations. These operations have been based on the creation of paramiltary groups, which have had a strong impact on the situation and have forced the displacement of thousands of poor peoples. See: www.capise.org

In March, the Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolomé de las Casas (Fray Bartolomé de las Casas Human Rights Center), or CDHFBLC, reported that since the end of last year paramilitary groups have carried out covert attacks, threats, and killings in the municipalities of San Andrés and San Juan de la Libertad (El Bosque). The activity of a paramilitary group known as Máscara Roja (Red Mask) - the group accused of being responsible for the massacre at Acteal - has been reported and documented in the same region.

Montes Azules: Constant Hot Spot

CDHFBLC announced that 23 houses were burned down in the community of Nuevo San Rafael in the Montes Azules biosphere reserve on Thursday, January 22nd. The act occurred when dozens of Marine corps members, police, and functionaries of the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (Attorney General for Environmental Protection), or Profepa, arrived in Nuevo San Rafael in what CDHFBLC calls, "disproportionate" numbers. The human rights center reported that Profepa kept the community "incommunicado" and violated the right to “freedom of movement in the Montes Azules region.” In its defense, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (SRA), stated that the families in the community decided to abandon it "voluntarily." However, others believe that the SRA had knowingly divided the population. Some families returned to the municipality of Sabanilla, where they had previously lived, while other community members decided to stay in Montes Azules.

After these acts, the nearby Zapatista settlement of Nuevo San Isidro, which was founded almost two years ago, declared: "They will only remove us from these lands when we are dead, because we will not accept the government's bribes." Speaking about this same region, the president of the organization Maderas del Pueblo del Sureste (The Peoples's Woods of the Southeast), warned: "if the tensions continue and the government intends to carry out an eviction there, what they will get will be a confrontation - a massacre - because they will be facing the EZLN."

In the beginning of February, five NGOs called for the federal and state government to "stop their isolated operatives" in Montes Azules, "until all of the involved parties have been clearly consulted regarding this process." They confirmed that the incident in San Rafael occurred when the government "wound up returning one group of refugees to El Calvario, the same community from which they had been displaced by the paramilitary group Paz y Justicia (Peace and Justice)."

The group of NGOs also stated that, with the recent agreement between the European Union (which will give 15 million euros) and the government of Chiapas (which will give another 16 million) to benefit the 155,000 inhabitants of the 16 micro-regions of the Lacondan Jungle, “the circle of international interests (...) has closed, and has divided up” the region between the European Union and the United States. Despite the European Union's stated desire to foster dialogue between indigenous communities and the government, the project is being undertaken in what remains one of the most problematic regions in Chiapas.

Re-opening the Case of the Massacre at Acteal

On December 22, 2003, on the sixth anniversary of the massacre at Acteal - during which 45 indigenous members of the organization Las Abejas were killed - leaders from the main evangelical churches in Mexico called for the case against those being held responsible to be re-opened. Arguing that the majority of the 74 indigenous prisoners (many of whom are evangelical Christians) are innocent, the church leaders claim they have sufficient evidence to free them.

In February, Las Abejas launched a "campaign against impunity" to counter what they fear is the federal government “preparing the way for the liberation of those guilty of massacre." They denounced the re-opening of the case as a “strategy designed to cover up the masterminds of the genocide that took place Acteal.” The group also pointed out that the conflict in Chenalhó is not religious and mentioned that they see the liberation in January of seven members of the paramilitary group Paz y Justicia as a dangerous precedent.

In March, a group that includes representatives from the offices of the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR), the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH), and the evangelical community initiated talks regarding the case. Abner López Pérez, an evangelical pastor and director of the Biblical Society of Mexico issued a “brotherly call” to Las Abejas to participate in the talks. Adoniram Gaxiola, another evangelical pastor demanded that “those responsible for the planning and execution of the acts receive just punishment, (...) there will only be justice for those killed at Acteal when the truly guilty are identified.”

The Bishop of San Cristóbal, Felipe Arizmendi, asserted that “if those currently imprisoned are innocent, which would need to be proven, it would be necessary then to find those truly responsible. I hope that the case is handled delicately because if those set free are in fact justly incarcerated, the case could lead to a serious loss of confidence in the judicial system."

Electricity, A New Point of Tension

In December, the governor of Chiapas, Pablo Salazar, announced that more than 500 chiapanecos facing various fines and penalties due to conflicts with the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) - a result of the movement to protest unfair taxes by refusing to pay for light - will be pardoned, since federal authorities have withdrawn their accusations.

At the beginning of the new year, the CFE implemented the new "Vida Mejor" ("Better Life") tax, which was designed to bring an end to the resistance movement and to stabilize the situation. However, conflicts between the CFE and hundreds of communities in the state have increased rather than diminished.

In February, the Frente de Resistencia Jurídica y Civil Chiapaneca (Frejuch) announced that there are still three thousand trials for protection pending, 2,500 demands currently before the Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor (Profeco), and at least 7,000 complaints lodged with the National Human Rights Commission.

On March 12, the superintendent of the CFE claimed that “ninety-eight thousand agreements have been reached out of the three hundred thousand claims” that it is trying to settle, and that “the population that refused to pay debts owed to the CFE is now participating enthusiastically in resolving the problem." Groups working in opposition to the CFE state that in fact at least 78 municipalities are rejecting the tariffs that local authorities have imposed. Some municipalities in the Altos and Norte regions use administrative processing costs (such as school enrollment and military service fees) to offset the payments. In Cancúc, the program has served to threaten by expulsion bases of Zapatista support. Emilio Zebadúa, ex-Secretary of the Interior, recognized that "the 'Vida Mejor' tax has not resolved the problems that it was supposed to when it was presented."

:: FOCUS

The San Andrés Accords speak Bats’i K’op⁽¹⁾

⁽¹⁾ Bats’i k’op literally means “the true word,” and is also the indigenous word for their language.

The Journey of the San Andrés Accords

© Foto CDHFBC

The dialogues initiated between the EZLN and the federal government at San Andrés Sacamch’en de los Pobres in 1995 were an attempt to resolve the structural, social, political and cultural causes based in the unequal position of indigenous communities in Mexico that had provoked the armed Zapatista uprising of 1994.

The creation of this public space for dialogue represented an effort to establish a new social pact for the nation, based on the recognition of not only individual rights, but also the following collective rights for indigenous communities:

• Politics: to create autonomous government and their own election processes;
• Legal: to exercise their own normative internal systems to impart justice and make decisions about internal conflicts;
• Social: to determine their own forms of social organization;
• Economic: to enjoy their own natural resources, and to make decisions about the communities' needs and how to meet them;
• Cultural: to protect and preserve indigenous cultures.

Six committees were established to carry out the process of negotiation:

1. Indigenous Rights and Cultures;
2. Democracy and Justice;
3. Well-being and Development;
4. Conciliation in Chiapas;
5. Womens' Rights; and
6. The Ceasing of Hostilities.

On February 16, 1996 the committee on Indigenous Rights and Culture came to an agreement. The group deliniated its points of consensus in a document now known as the Acuerdos de San Andrés (San Andrés Accords), or the ASA.

The Accords consist of three main sections:

1. Joint pronouncement: a political document outlining a new national project based on the following principles:
   • Self-determination and autonomy: the right of Indigenous Peoples to make decisions must be respected;
   • Participation: Indigenous Peoples are active subjects in the design, planning, and execution of the projects that they decide to undertake;
   • Pluralism: the diversity among Indigenous Peoples must be respected;
   • Integrality: the government should try to resolve problems comprehensively, rather than in parts;
   • Sustainability: the projects and programs undertaken should not harm the environment or the communities' natural resources.
2. Joint Proposals: a legal document establishing the changes that should be made to existing laws in order for this new national project to take shape, up to and including constitutional reform.
3. Commitments for Chiapas: a local document establishing the actions that should be undertaken in the state of Chiapas to enable the fulfillment of the Accords.

On September 3, 1996, the EZLN decided to withdraw from the second negotiating committee, citing the federal government's lack of commitment to making progress in the dialogue and its continued use of war tactics during the peace process.

The Comisión de Concordia y Pacificación (Commission for Peace and Reconciliation), or COCOPA, made up of legislators from different political parties, was created in March 1995 to aid in the dialogue process. The commission drafted and presented a constitutional reform proposal to the involved parties, which contained the principal points of consensus established in the San Andrés Accords. This proposal is referred to as the “COCOPA Law” and sought to facilitate a return to negotiations. The understanding was that the parties would either accept the initiative in its entirety, without amendment, or reject it. In December 1996, the EZLN accepted the initiative, while the government imposed modifications that changed the proposal substantially.

Since then, the San Andrés Accords (ASA) became the symbol of the national indigenous movement and of a large sector of civil society that valued the proposal as much for its content as for the plurality from which it was born. The diverse representation of Mexican society in the San Andrés discussions remains an important factor in their lasting significance.

Vicente Fox, leader of the Partido de Acción Nacional (National Action Party), was elected President in 2000 with the promise to renew the peace process. After more than 70 years of a federal government controlled by the Partido de la Revolución Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party), the election of Fox raised new hopes for change.

The EZLN established three conditions on which it would accpet a return to the negotiations: the abandonment of seven military bases, the release of Zapatista political prisoners, and compliance with the ASA through the approval of the COCOPA Law. These demands revived the importance of the ASA, by making them a path along which the construction of peace with dignity and justice could be achieved.

To publicize their demands, the EZLN organized the March of the Color of the Earth or the March for Indigenous Dignity, which passed through various states to arrive in Mexico City on March 11, 2001. Zapatista commanders addressed the Congress to explain the necessity of approving the COCOPA Laws.

In April, the Congress approved a constitutional reform on Indigenous Rights and Culture, which did not include the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized in the COCOPA Law - the reform does not recognize indigenous autonomy on a federal level but rather remands the issue to the state legislatures; it does not recognize collective land ownership, or the right of Indigenous Peoples to collectively use and enjoy natural resources; it negated fundamental collective rights established under Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, (ILO) (regarding the rights of Indigenous Peopless and Tribes in independent nations), which Mexico signed in 1991.

The reform was rejected by the EZLN, the CNI, intellectual leaders, and large sectors of national and international civil society. 324 constitutional challenges were brought before the highest national court in response, which declared that it was not qualified to pass judgement on this act of the legislative branch. The EZLN and the CNI declared that the San Andrés Accords would be treated as valid law in their territories, continuing with the construction of autonomous projects as an act of civil disobedience against the constitutional reform, which has been called a "treason against Indigenous Peoples."

The San Andrés Accords Blossom in Indigenous Languages

Eight years after the signing of the San Andrés Accords, the now historic document is re-emerging with an indigenous voice, thanks to a collective and intercultural project carried out by the Centro Estatal de Lenguas, Arte y Literatura Indígena (State Center for Language, Art, and Literature), or CELALI, in Chiapas.

CELALI was created in 1997 to work towards the realization of the "Compromises for Chiapas" in the San Andrés Accords, with a focus on creating concrete changes in educational and cultural policy. The center supports the development of indigenous languages in Chiapas, working from the recognition of the cultural autonomy of Indigenous Peoples.

With the combined effort of a team of advisers, translators, and social researchers, CELALI has created bilingual editions of the San Andrés Accords in the ten indigenous languages spoken in Chiapas: Zoque, Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Ch’ol, Lacandón, Jacalteco, Q’anjob’al, Chuj and Mam (the last four of which are Guatemalan indigenous languages spoken by refugees in Chiapas).

These books will serve as what historian and anthropologist Andrés Aubry calls working materials for indigenous communities. During the past year, translators received workshops on the context in which the Accords were created. In this stage, the advisers played a fundamental role, as many were ex-members of the Comisión Nacional para la Intermediación (National Mediation Commission), the group responsible for mediating the talks.

The translators then visited indigenous communities to discuss ideas and visions with peoples who spoke each language. They then worked with Popular Reading Committees and held two plenaries with delegates from the communities in San Cristóbal de las Casas.

One of the biggest challenges has been the project of creating new words in the indigenous languages to name political and legal concepts, which had never been created thanks to the stagnation of these languages under colonization. Through a collective process, words were created to express concepts including autonomy, right to difference, multiculturalism, arenas of national debate, self-determination, new social pact, Indigenous Peopless, recognition, state reform, normative internal systems, sustainability, natural resources, territory, and uses and customs. These words were the most controversial in communities and created major difficulties in translating. The bilingual editions include a special glossary section with extended explanations as to their meanings and references to the text of the Accords where the concepts appear.

This experience reveals that legal and political language that forms a part of the indigenous movement still remains "colonized" in its discourse, by concepts that come from Spanish and conceptual constructs that come from outside the indigenous world view. For example, Xuno López, a member of CELALI, tells how the first version of the translation was discounted because it used the traditional indigenous term ajvalil for "government", which literally means "God or owner."

Since the translation work has involved finding new words to break traditions such as these, Samuel Ruiz, Bishop Emeritus of San Cristóbal de Las Casas, considers the project a "liberation of the indigenous languages from words that determine one set type of relationship."

Not everyone views the recreation of indigenous languages as a positive step; some question the need to change Spanish words that have long been incorporated into daily indigenous use and remain wary of the standardization of indigenous languages that the translations may provoke. Still, many supporters view the translations as a new path, a gift for humanity, and an empowering tool with which indigenous cultures can engage in the creation of new words.

Doubt also remains about the impact that the works can have in a state with such high levels of illiteracy as Chiapas. With respect to this factor, Andrés Aubry relates how during the community consultations on the translations, illiterate community members argued for their right to participate, saying "We may not know how to read or write, but we do know how to think."

Now that the editions have been released, the next step is underway: the process of taking the texts back to indigenous communities to receive judgement on whether the translations are actually accurate and fulfill their intended purpose.

Marcos Girón, a member of the project's coordination staff, told us that when he presented the finished document to a campesino organization, the members of the organization expressed surprise that the Accords “say good things.” Until they heard the contents in full, they had thought that the Accords were only relevant to the "haraganes” (a demeaning term for the Zapatistas) who had engaged in armed struggle.

This incident showed us how many communities and peoples are unaware of the content of the San Andrés Accords, seeing them as only relevant to indigenous or Zapatista communites, rather than understanding them as a political inheretance belonging to all Mexicans.

The San Andrés Accords: A Door Opening on to Multiculturalism

The project of translation indicates the blossoming of the ASA, proving that "they are not merely a 'historical event' but rather a living program," which will now be established more firmly as part of the strategy of ‘autonomous reconstruction’ that indigenous communities are using. (Magdalena Gómez, La Jornada. February 17, 2003).

The San Andrés Accords and their recent translation into the indigenous languages of Chiapas constitute a step towards the construction of a peace that brings the end to the oppression Indigenous Peoples in Mexico have suffered for centuries.

The indigenous appropriation of a text with as much significance as the ASA is more than a simple linguistic change - it represents the emancipation of indigenous languages in the political sphere, and further, the beginning of a true multiculturalism, in which contact between different cultures is based in dialogue and mutual recognition, with equality, participation, integration, autonomy and reciprocity presiding over social interactions.

During the presentation of the bilingual editions of the San Andrés Accords in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, on February 16th, Andrés Aubry called it a day of celebration for the new nation that the document envisions: “We are building peace. Without compliance with the ASA, there can not be peace. The document belongs to us all, not to the EZLN or the government. The nation depends on the realization of its promise. It is not possible to dissociate the ASA from the peace process.”

This experience shows that multiculturalism can be a door opening on to a peace with justice and dignity, based in the recognition of and respect for the "other." The fight for the dignity of indigenous cultures continues to be a “weapon that does not shoot bullets, but rather words and thoughts" (Andrés Aubry).

:: ARTICLE

FOURTH ENCOUNTER ON EXPERIENCES IN PEACE AND RECONCILIATION:

"United, Seeking to Construct a House in Which We All Fit."

“Let's join hands and work together on a single fight. Let's prepare ourselves and create more experiences that will help us to construct a future for our children. Let's seek peace (…) it will take time, but we wil not let go.”
(A participant at the closing of the Encounter)

From January 30 to February 1, 2004, the Network for Peace in Chiapas (of which SIPAZ is a member organization) held the Fourth Encounter on Experiences in Peace and Reconciliation. Around 120 participants from 30 municipalities in Chiapas attended. The purpose of the conference was to create a space for "dialogue and reflection on the state of war in which we live, which affects our lives and organizations, as well as our work in the search for peace."

“War can seem invisible”...

A panel made up of members of various organizaitons and from diverse regions of the state was created to analyze our current reality.

One of the panel members expressed: “There is a war that can seem invisible, but that we still feel. We see it in the government's programs - its plans to undermine the force of the peoples and to instill fear. War desires to dominate the reason of Indigenous Peopless and the word of their brothers and sisters in struggle. On the other side, there is resistance to government plans and neoliberal politics. (…) The government has not complied with the San Andrés Accords because it does not want to recognize our rights. It is not in their interest to do so, because they want to continue using and abusing our resources. It is important to know that with the law on our side or not, we can organize ourselves, valuing ourselves as indigenous and campesino, creating a positive consciousness and recognizing our own rights".

After this presentation, the meeting broke into small groups to deepen the process of reflection. These groups highlighted the many fronts on which the war persists:

1994-2004, War Process, Peace Process: Recovering advances and lessons learned

After reviewing the most significant visible incidents, the participants worked in groups to bring to light what civil society has accomplished in these past 10 years of conflict. The following synopsis of civilian contributions to peace was presented:

“Peace is like a seed. We must have patience and nurture it to see it grow…"

Participants worked in groups again to analyze the positions of various social and political figures in Chiapas, seeking to locate what they want, what they do, and who is affected by their actions or inaction.

The final journal summarizes: “Everyone says that they want peace, but each one looks to create peace through different means. We must put ourselves in one another's shoes to understand each other's thoughts and why we are each doing what we do. Not to decide if we are correct or misguided, but rather to understand each other better and in this way help each other to clearly define our actions. The government, for example, thinks that because there is no longer outright war the problem is over and believes that its projects are helping to create peace. We find ourselves in a world with many groups. But for example, we cannot speak of the church as just one group - there are different churches and each contains various groups. (…) This process does not involve telling others involved what to do. They have their own ideas. We must instead see what remains for us to do."

Following this part of the conference, participants reflected on the question: What do we understand peace to mean? Some ideas included:

• “Living without fear, in happiness. Life is what brings us respect.”
• "To work as if from one heart."
• “Everything for the benefit of all. The absence of armies and domination."
• “To live a dignified life: in our homes, our work, our health, and our education. Having land where we can work and everyone can have enough bread to eat. When nobody suffers."
• “To live in harmony with myself, my brothers and sisters, and nature. Peace is profound, getting rid of bitterness, overcoming hate and resentment."
• “Not only the absence of conflicts, but reconciliation in the community. Creating accords with which to live in peace. And respecting the rights of everyone, respecting the freedom of expression."

In a press bulletin, some themes of the encounter were reiterated with an eye towards the future: “As peoples and communities we continue to work on building peace, love and justice, we seek reconcilation and dialogue and the defense of our lands, we seek the liberation of our peoples so that we will no longer live in oppression, and we continue to strengthen our projects for living (...) We are no longer waiting for the government to change our situation; we have to create the changes ourselves, from our base, from within," which will require a great deal of patience, as we nurture the seeds of peace and unity…

For more information, visit: http://www.laneta.apc.org/coreco/Boletfinal.htm

:: SIPAZ'S ACTIVITIES

December 2003 - March 2004

ACCOMPANIMENT

During the past months, the puppetry group "Diversidad" (Diversity) staged events about the value of diversity and reconciliation before an Assembly of women artisans from the Altos region and in various neighborhoods in the city of San Cristóbal de Las Casas. We finished a new work about the use of water and the protection of the environment, which will complement the four other pieces that we have already created about community division, reconciliation, the rights of women, and the rights of children. This piece will be presented during the Third Chiapas Encounter Against Neoliberalism to be held in Huitiupán on March 19 - 21, 2004.

In January, we went as observers twice to Emiliano Zapata, a community in the Norte region where the majority of the population participated in protests to demand the removal of the military base installed in the community.

At the end of March, the team visited the Norte region (the municipalities of Tila, Sabanilla y Yajalón) to interview various regional figures and to prepare for a puppetry tour of the region.

INTER-RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

During the event “Interchange and Training Among Religious Leaders from Chenalhó and the Nicaraguan Peace Delegations,” we led three training workshops on negotiation and mediation with religious leaders from the municipality of Chenalhó. We also held meetings with religious figures from this municipality and from San Cristóbal de Las Casas relating to the same process.

In December, we met with the Executive Secretary of the Franco-American Episcopal Committee during its visit to Chiapas.

In January, we attended the press conference during which Bishop Emeritus of San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Samuel Ruiz , presented his pastoral letter, “A New Hour of Grace."

We were also present at two events staged by the Inter-religious Council of Chiapas: choral performances from different churches and denominations (in December), and an ecumenical speech (during the week of Christian diversity).

EDUCATION FOR PEACE

In conjunction with the Network for Peace in Chiapas, we participated in the organization and hosting of the Fourth Encounter on Experiences in Peace and Reconciliation, held in San Cristóbal de Las Casas at the end of January. 120 participants from 30 municipalities in the state took part in the conference. (see: http://www.laneta.apc.org/coreco/Boletfinal.htm ).

At the beginning of March, we participated in the "Workshop to Create a National Peace Referendum," held in Mexico City.

In March, we worked with the Community Reconciliation Commission (CORECO), to put on a workshop entitled "Community Division and Neoliberal Plans," during the Third Chiapas Encounter Against Neoliberalism in Huitiupán.

CONTACTS AND INFORMATION:

We hosted visitors, delegations, students, and journalists (primarily from the US, Germany, Belgium, and Norway) who came to learn about the situation in Chiapas and the work of SIPAZ.

In December, we met with the German Ambassador to Mexico, Dr. Eberhard Kölsch, and attended the State of the State address by the Governor of Chiapas, Pablo Salazar Mendiguchía.

We met with various peoples working in Chiapas and Mexico at the level of the community, the social movement, NGOs, and the government. We visited Mexico City three times, and went to Oventik in December and February to meet with its Good Government Council.

We presented reflections on the past 10 years of armed conflict at meetings of the Diocese Conference of Women and the Independent Women's Movement in February.

INTERNATIONAL

A member of our team gave presentations in Spain at the Universidad de Deusto de Bilbao (in Basque Country), the Universitat de Lleida (in Catalonia), and the Universitat de Valencia (in the Autonomous Valencian Community) in December.
In March, we participated in a national discussion about the role of civil society in the prevention of armed conflict, part of a global discussion that will culminate in an international conference to be held at the United Nations in 2004. We also met with those organizing this process in the US and Canada.