:: UPDATE
CHIAPAS: Hot spots multiplying in high
tension context
Certainly, Chiapas no longer occupies
the first pages of national newspapers like it did in the
first years after the armed uprising of the Zapatista
Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in 1994. Nevertheless,
when reviewing the other pages of those national or local
periodicals, one cannot help being alarmed to read of the
multiplying hot spots that could lead at any moment to the
escalation of violence. It is even more alarming if we consider
that most of the reasons for this escalating tension correspond
to the structural factors that originally generated the
uprising.
From the Highlands...
The first violent event of recent months
happened last April 10 in the municipality of Zinacantán,
where hundreds of Zapatista supporters participated in a
peaceful march to remember the anniversary of Emiliano Zapata’s
death. After the demonstration, they distributed water to
the communities that had been deprived of this service by
the PRD (Democratic Revolution Party) municipal
authorities. They were ambushed by supporters of the PRD,
resulting in dozens of wounded and 125 displaced families,
who were unable to return to their communities for 15 days
(see separate article in this
same report).
There also exists a conflict with similar
roots in the municipality of Tenejapa. Here disagreements
over property and the use of spring water could also result
in violence, according to inhabitants of one of the affected
communities.
By the end of May, the council of Polhó
(Chenalhó), announced that "the
armed groups that are linked to the PRD government of Zinacantán,
that have previously acted, are allied with at least one
sector of the paramilitaries of Chenalhó. They were
never disarmed, and have not stopped operating, threatening
and maintaining thousands of indigenous zapatistas in exile
since 1997 ".
To the jungle...
The most talked about hot spot in
the jungle is the biosphere reserve of Montes Azules, where
the threats of eviction continue and the relocation of more
than 30 communities is pending. Federal and State institutions
claim that they have privileged lines of dialogue with "the
irregular" settlements. In March, 10 communities located
in Montes Azules and united in the Indigenous Communities
Union of the Chiapas Jungle, refused to engage in a dialogue
with the Federal Department of the Agrarian Reform on their
possible relocation. They say that they will not accept
"more supposed dialogues and negotiations in which
serious commitments and agreements are not reached".
.
Other public declarations sound even
more ambiguous. In April, for example, Jorge Nordhausen
(PAN Party for National Action) of the Environment,
Natural Resources and Fishing Commission of the Federal
Senate proposed to continue the evictions in Montes Azules,
"in order to recover the order and the legality in
the biosphere reserve located in the Lacandon Jungle".
He emphasized that the evictions "do not consist
of arbitrary measures, but in actions founded on the law,
motivated by those invasions that harm the nation’s
natural patrimony ".
In May, the PROFEPA (Federal Office
of Environmental Protection) assured that it had obtained
13 agreements of relocation and five of regularization that
would become effective in June.
In Las Cañadas, strong, mutual
accusations between the organizations of the zone took place
in April. The Council of Good Government, "the
Path of the Future," denied that the Zapatistas
are creating police groups. On the contrary, they announced
that PRI party members and members of the Rural Association
of Collective Interest (Independent ARIC) are the ones
who had been placing checkpoints around Ocosingo during
the last two months, regardless of the Zapatistas.
From the Northern zone to the Coast
At the end of April, the Council of
Good Government, "Seed that is going to produce,"
accused presumed paramilitaries linked to the PRI, of attacking
EZLN family-base supporters of the Tiutzol community in
the municipality of Tila (Northern zone).
The conflicts continue surrounding those
in resistance to making payments to the government for electricity.
There have been reports of blockades (Tapachula) and detention
of employees from the Federal Commission of Electricity,
CFE (Coast, Northern zone). Nevertheless, at the end of
May, the South-Southeastern Division Manager of the CFE
assured that 90 percent of the people in the Coastal Region
already accepted the preferential payment program, "Better
Life" (See March
2004 SIPAZ report). He affirmed that the conflicts
that have occurred are "small outbreaks"
and the CFE will continue to suspend the electricity of
all those who refuse to pay.
COMMUNITY CONFLICTS OR THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG?
Some see these violent outbreaks as
part of inter or intra community problems. During a visit
to Chiapas in April, the secretary of Interior Santiago
Creel said that "Chiapas has stopped being a headache
for the federal government" and that "it
has political stability" regardless of the confrontation
in Zinacantán. He described this confrontation as
an "incident”.
However, others see these facts as indicators
of a situation of a greater magnitude. The Commission
of Support to the Unity and Reconciliation of Communities
(CORECO) affirmed that "what happened on April
10th was not a simple quarrel, nor pure consequence of the
inability of the State and municipal governments to solve
a population’s need. It is not the result of the aggravation
of the conflict due to the existence of two legal frameworks
either. The ambush, the aggression, the violence, the threat,
and the harassment towards the march and the communities
in resistance in Zinacantán, happened, once again,
as an attempt to force the supporting bases of the EZLN
to resign their political affiliation ".
Deputies of the Concord and Pacification
Commission (COCOPA, created by the legislative
branch to help in the dialogue between the EZLN and the
government) affirmed that the events of Zinacantán
reflect the "discarding" of the Chiapas
theme from the federal government’s agenda.
Luis H. Alvarez, commissioner for the
peace in Chiapas in the federal government, said, "the
EZLN has an important responsibility to generate a space
of political negotiation that will allow for the avoidance
of greater conflicts and indigenous bloodshed. It is necessary
that the EZLN admits once and for all that it is necessary
to reopen the dialogue with the governmental authorities
to obtain the basic agreements that permit the peaceful
coexistence with the rest of the nation ".
In June, the Chair of the PRD in the
House of Representatives said that it will ask Luis H. Alvarez
to appear before the commission, considering that he weakened
his ability to do his assignment because during his visits
to Chiapas he delivered sheet metal roofing and other supplies
to the population that has deserted or are against the zapatista
bases. The PRD member Gerald Ulloa, stated that the distribution
of materials by the commissioner made him more an instrument
of the government to undermine the Zapatistas’ bases,
which does not help in the reopening of the dialogue, but
rather it reduces his ability to negotiate.
ESCALATING TENSIONS
Behind these violent events, multiple
factors exist.
Sequels to years of war
To the social, political, and economic
marginalization that existed for the indigenous communities
of Chiapas before 1994, one needs to add the consequences
of a low intensity war carried out in the region in recent
years, whose more visible face is the permanent militarization
of the territory within Chiapas. Another consequence has
been the decomposition of the social web that has created
intra-community and inter-community conflicts. Increasingly,
culture of intolerance and a tendency to settle differences
(ideological, political or religious) with violence predominates.
At the beginning of June, the Human Rights
Center Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas announced that
the situation of more than 12,000 displaced people in Chiapas,
due to the armed conflict, continues to be an unresolved
subject. It indicated that, although some have sought to
negotiate with the Government, none of the cases have resulted
in the granting of land, nor lead to investigations into
those responsible for the displacements.
Days later, Emilio Zebadúa, PRD
federal deputy, stressed that the displaced people of Chiapas
are in a situation of "high vulnerability"
due to the withdrawal of the International Red
Cross Committee (CICR) who benefited this sector. Zebadúa
questioned why the federal government has not fulfilled
the recommendations in favor of the displaced people issued
a year ago by Francis Deng of the United Nations.
Pre-electoral frame
Another factor behind the increase of
the social tension has to do with the October 3rd local
elections in which 118 mayors and 40 deputies will be elected.
The fight for power (candidacies and elections) intensifies
the atmosphere of conflict.
On the federal level, even though the
next federal elections will not be until 2006, the political
agenda is already focused towards them and rife with scandals,
internal fights in the parties, and disqualifications.
Within the National Action Party
(PAN), which is presently in power, there has been
friction between President Fox and his possible successor
within the party, Felipe Calderón, Secretary of Energy.
Calderón announced his candidacy for the Presidency
during the III Summit of State Chiefs and Governmental Heads
of Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union (EU).
President Fox then forced him to resign his current position
so that he could dedicate himself to the political campaign,
thus reflecting the differences between the different `panistas'
families.
Within the framework of the opposition
parties, the case with the most coverage has been the conflicts
between the federal government and the present head of Government
of the Federal District, Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador,
a possible PRD candidate to the presidency.
CONFLICTS IN LEGAL SPACES
“Mordaza” (Gag)
Law
On February 17th reforms to the penal
code that refer to crimes against honor were approved in
Chiapas. These reforms allow sanctions of nine years of
jail and fines up to one thousand days of minimum wage to
be imposed for a crime such as slandering a public official.
Organizations defending human rights, groups of journalists,
and the civil society demonstrated their opposition to these
reforms, arguing that they are contrary to the rights to
freedom of opinion and expression, as well as, to the right
to information. In addition, they emphasized that the reforms
go against legal documents signed by the Mexican government,
like the Universal Declaration of the Human rights and the
American Convention of Human rights. Nevertheless, these
reforms became effective at the end of May 2004.
CEDH
Another situation that caused concern
among human rights organizations in Chiapas, in terms of
resources that public institutions should offer their citizens,
has to do with the controversy that arose between the
National Commission of Human rights (CNDH) and its
state counterpart (CEDH). According to the CNDH,
CEDH failed to enact recommendations issued by the national
body, and this failure allowed municipal police of Comitán,
who had attacked 66 people during an eviction in 2002, to
go unpunished.
In June, the Congress of Chiapas allowed
an accusation for contempt to be presented by the CNDH against
its state body. The local ombudsman, Pedro Raul Lopez Hernandez,
asked the legislators to respect the right of the CEDH to
have a hearing before taking other action on the matter.
Law on DDHH
In April, an initiative at the federal
level to reform the constitution on human rights issues
also generated controversy. The member organizations of
the Liaison Committee between the federal government and
the Office of the High Commissioner of the United Nations
for the Human Rights (ACNUDH), announced that, in spite
of touching on key aspects, the reform moves away from the
letter developed jointly and the spirit of the proposal,
undermining the established dialogue process. (For more
details, view the site of the Human
Rights Center Miguel Augustin Pro Juárez).
The organizations of the Liaison Committee
called into question President Fox’s declarations
(in the sense that nobody can question the government for
not respecting human rights): "important evidence
exists that contradict his affirmations. This evidence can
be found in the Diagnosis of the High Commissioner of United
Nations for the Human Rights (ACNUDH) and in the numerous
complaints received and documented by the National Commission
of Human Rights and international organizations. As well
as, the greater number of violations that remained undeclared
due the lack of confidence created by the ineffectiveness
of both the judicial and non-judicial institutions responsible
for the protection of human rights and confronting these
issues. The situation urgently demands no more speeches
distant from reality but an actual State policy that assures
respect, dependability and protection of human rights ".
At the end of May in its 2004 report,
Amnesty International affirmed that the efforts of President
Vicente Fox’s government to guarantee respect for
human rights have been "insufficient"
to restrain "frequent and generalized violations".
This report declared that the "structural failures"
of the penal justice system continue to be the key cause
of the violations of human rights and impunity. In addition,
it indicated that in indigenous communities, discrimination,
marginalization, and conflicts continue to cause multiple
violations of human rights. The report points out that in
June 2003 AI was invited to Mexico to resume the negotiations
with the EZLN and to reform the "controversial"
2001 legislation on indigenous rights. Also, it mentioned
that there is a great concern about the danger that the
Puebla-Panama Plan represents for the indigenous communities
in southern Mexico, since it threatens to violate the economic,
social, and cultural rights of these communities.
By the end of May, representatives of
civil organizations met with the Secretary of Interior,
Santiago Creel, and obtained a series of agreements to guarantee
the continuity of the dialogue with the government.
SOCIAL PROCESSES and OFFICIAL SPACES
With regards to indigenous communities,
in the middle of May, the thirteenth meeting of the
Indigenous National Congress (CNI) took place in Union
Hidalgo, Oaxaca. Delegates from the Center-Pacific region
decided to ratify the San Andrés Peace Accords as
the "Indigenous Constitution" and to
proceed in a "peaceful rebellion" by
means of exercising autonomy. Juan Chávez, purépecha
of Nurio, emphasized: "there is no need to fall
into continually asking the State for something that it
has already denied to us (the constitutional recognition
of the rights of the Indian communities with the approval
of the initiative of the COCOPA Law). We do not have to
ask the government for permission. That demand was left
behind with the creation of the Caracoles (Snails) in Chiapas
and with the autonomous municipalities like Xochistlahuaca
(Guerrero) and with what is happening in Hidalgo Union (Oaxaca)
and Tlalnepantla (Morelos)".
On May 28th, the summit of Heads of State
and Government of Latin America, the Caribbean and the European
Union with representatives from 58 countries began in Guadalajara,
Jalisco, Mexico. Several "antiglobalization”
social forums took place simultaneously (see separate
article). Unfortunately, in the press very little
of the content of the discussions was rescued due to the
fact that the protest march that culminated several days
of work ended with acts of violence. Several organizations
that were present declared that the intensity of the police
repression surpassed the safety measures that could be established
to defend themselves from the small groups within the march.
45 young Mexicans were detained. Eight
foreigners were deprived of their freedom and finally deported
from the country. Human Rights organizations condemned the
abuses, humiliations and violations to their rights of access
to justice and the protection of their physical integrity
due to what they were put through. One week later, the Mexican
prisoners were formally charged for crimes of rioting, gang
actions, resistance or disobedience, attacks on the communication
lines, injuries, robbery, and damage.
Lastly, in Declaration of Tepeaca (State
of Puebla), the Mexican Gathering for Alternatives of Life
and People was celebrated from June 4-6 in preparation of
the upcoming Mesoamerican social forums in the month of
July, which will take place in El Salvador. Representatives
of 112 social organizations from the whole country met together.
They rejected the neoliberal policies imposed by the President,
as well as their direct consequences. They reiterated their
fight for the autonomy of the indigenous communities and
therefore, for the fulfillment of the San Andrés
Accords. They proposed the creation of an Alternative
Plan of Life for the Mesoamerican Communities based
on the dignity of their people, their culture, and mother
Earth.
:: ZINACANTÁN
ZINACANTÁN: Flowers and gazes accompany
Zapatistas’ Return
The Facts of the Conflict
Last April 10th, Zapatista supporters
from the Highlands of Chiapas suffered an ambush by members
of the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution)
hailing from Zinacantan (Tzotzil municipality from the Highlands,
near San Cristobal de Las Casas).
On this day, the Zapatistas were marching
to commemorate the death of peasant leader Emiliano Zapata,
from whom they took their name and their struggle, for “Land
and Freedom.” During the peaceful rally, in an
act of solidarity, they also took water to Zapatistas from
the community of Jech’vo. This community had been
stripped of water service since December 9th , by order
of Zinacantan PRD, in an effort to force Zapatista cooperation
and participation in the customary cargo system (voluntary
service to the community or municipality).
While returning from this act, “Perredistas”
(members of the PRD Party) blocked the path, and threw sticks
and stones at them. There were some gunshots as well. The
outcome: 35 injured and over 500 displaced for fear of being
attacked again. This conflict represents some of the worst
aggression against Zapatista supporters since the taking
up of arms in 1994.
The Good Government Council of Oventik
(autonomous Zapatista authorities of the region) issued
various communiqués condemning the events, informing
about the wounded and giving a list of those responsible
for the aggressions. They accused the PRD of “having
joined the evil government’s war against the indigenous
peoples”.
The national directorate of the PRD expressed
that the ambush had to do with a problem surrounding the
supply of water and that seeing it as a problem between
Perredistas and Zapatistas was incorrect. Likewise, Secretary
of Governance, Santiago Creel and Pablo Salazar, Governor
of Chiapas, both affirmed that it was “an inter-municipal
conflict” over the issue of water.
Return Without Justice
Weeks later, Zapatista authorities announced
the return of the displaced families in spite of the fact
that those responsible for the assaults still remained at
large. On the 25th of December, they petitioned the national
and international civil society to organize a caravan to
accompany the families’ return and asked that civil
peace camps be established in the communities to avoid future
aggressions.
200 masked Zapatistas from other highland
municipalities joined the caravan as well:
“We’ve come all the way
here in order to accompany or brothers and sisters who have
found themselves displaced since the 10th of April. But
today, we have come to leave our brothers and sisters here,
and it is here where they will stay. Because here is their
home and here are their people and no one has the right
to harass them or run them out of their own community; they
are Zapatistas and will continue being so”
(communiqué read by them at the beginning
and end of the caravan)
The caravan began on the highway, which
is on the way to Tuxtla (capital of Chiapas) and continued
all the way to where the displaced were seeking refuge.
They remained astonished at the edge of the road, staring
at the great number of cars and trucks accompanying the
“masked ones”. There were more than
20 vehicles and 100 people, including the national and international
civil society, the press and human rights groups. Also providing
“accompaniment” were members of the
state government, public security forces, Secret Intelligence
Center and a helicopter.
The first arrival point was the community
of Jech’vo where the tension was palpable. The families
that were to stay there got off the trucks and received
bouquets of white flowers from the civil society. They got
off with their bags and the few belongings that they had
taken with them the morning of the attack. Children looked
around, frightened and curious, without even slightly understanding
the reason behind their ‘stardom’, the reason
why dozens of cameras were all over them, robbing them of
their anonymity so essential to infancy.
In this first community, Zapatista representatives
read a communiqué in the center of the plaza, asking
for respect for their life project:
" We want to say again to non-Zapatista
brothers and sisters, or to those that belong to other political
parties: we the Zapatistas have no wish to fight against
our Indigenous brothers and sisters from the same community
and the same municipality. We don’t bother anyone,
we don’t offend anyone; we the Zapatistas respect
everyone without a distinction of organization, party or
religion. However, we want respect for ourselves and our
fight and resistance. Our fight is not against our poor
brothers and sisters; our fight is the cause called democracy,
liberty and justice for all.”
They also thanked members of the national
and international civil society for their presence. Several
international and national observers stayed in order to
try and deter possible aggressions. For those returning,
this accompaniment by strangers, represents a potential
shield, as what they observe and report will be seen by
the world.
Meanwhile, dozens of police looked on.
In the communities to follow, the tension diminished. In
total, 35 families returned to Jech’vo, 19 to Elambo
Alto, 33 to Elambo Bajo and 15 to the community of Apaz.
What is at play in this conflict?
Also guiding the caravan was “perredista”
municipal president of Zinacantan whom the Zapatistas point
to as responsible for instigating aggressions against them.
He is from Zinacantan with strong political and economic
control in the region. He dominates the truck transportation
going daily to Tuxtla. He and his followers were standing
all day at the crossroads to Tuxtla from where they observed
the caravan going in, coming out and returning to San Cristobal.
The Zapatistas escape his political and
economic control. They have their own autonomous authorities
and their own political project, which breaks with the official
governmental system, but they also have traditional leaders
that have dominated these lands for decades.
The conflict in these Zinacanteco communities
is not solved. The conditions that exist do not guarantee
a return without problems. Zapatistas, however, as well
as other indigenous organizations in the state, know the
meaning of displacement; not being able to work the milpa
(small farm plot), loss of animals and expulsion from their
land. No on wanted a new “Polho,” which
is the autonomous Zapatista rebel municipality situated
in Chenalho (constitutional municipality of the highland
region) populated by approximately 5000 displaced peoples
as a consequence of the heavy conflict unleashed in that
municipality in 1997.
The Highlands are one of the zones where
counterinsurgent strategies that have characterized this
war “of low intensity” for years were
implemented, with the formation of paramilitary groups made
up of indigenous people of the same communities but affiliated
with the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI
is the party that controlled the federal, state and municipal
powers for over 70 years, up until the year 2000). In Acteal,
the escalation of violence ended with the massacre of 45
indigenous people who belonged to the organization Las Abejas,
Civil Association on December, 22nd 1997. It’s fitting
to mention that the president and vice president of Las
Abejas accompanied the return of the Zapatistas in Zinacantan.
They know well the pain of years of expulsion and the taste
of return without justice.
The events in Zinacantan and Acteal have
been compared and caused many to relive the fear and uncertainty
that Acteal generated. There are differences. In order to
understand the facts of Zinacantan, it is necessary to think
about the fact that we find ourselves with a social fabric
that has suffered through 10 years of corrosive and total
war, characterized by the decomposition and polarization
of the communities. Today, conflicts are set off by basic
questions like light payments, water, or the construction
of roads. But this only represents the spark that could
set off the bomb. The essence of the conflict revolves around
the inability to respect differences, the issue of power,
in the difficulty of allowing the people to determine and
decide how to organize their education, government and health
or their production.
A return to some single color uniformity
is out of the question. Diversity plants a challenge everywhere.
Here for the Zapatistas and the rest of the social and political
organizations, it represents the seed that must be cultivated
in order to allow the white flowers of hope to grow, those
that bring back the color of intercultural life.
As of now, those responsible for the
aggressions in Zinacantan have not been detained. The tense
calm has required that campamentistas remain the Zinacantan
communities where the conflict erupted. In those communities,
not only is water scarce, but what little there is not clean
and is generating stomach and skin diseases and sicknesses.
:: FOCUS
Alternative Development or an Alternative
to Development?
“Only when you have cut the
last tree, fished the last fish and contaminated the last
river, will you realize that you can’t eat money”
- Native American saying.
Economic globalization: One market, One
world
The celebration of the 3rd Summit
of the Governments and Heads of State of the European Union,
Latin America and the Caribbean in Guadalajara (Jalisco,
Mexico) May 28th and 29th, 2004 demonstrated very different
visions of the concept of ‘development’.
This “official”
Summit was to follow up on the project of establishing a
“bi-regional strategic association”
initiated between the countries of Latin America, the Caribbean
and the European Union (ALCUE) in Rio de Janeiro in 1999.
This association would, among other things, “stimulate
international economic cooperation in order to promote integrated
and mutually beneficial trade liberalization as a way to
increase prosperity (…)” (The Rio declaration,
1999)
This 3rd Summit centered around two main
objectives:
- “The strengthening of multilateralism“:
support for joint actions between countries on issues
of peace and international security, international financial
structures, external debt, and cooperative development;
- “Social cohesion“: cooperation
on all issues related to poverty; social development policies,
democratic government, the generation of employment, the
distribution of wealth, and migratory flows.
The strategies and objectives for these
bi-regional relations are framed by what has come to be
called “economic globalization.” This
type of globalization implies the promotion of a large network
of commercial exchange relations, that is, one big market.
The establishment of this kind of market requires that the
countries involved change any laws which represent obstacles
to the free circulation of capital, whether financial (money),
productive (raw materials and manual labor), or commercial
(goods such as food, clothing, domestic appliances, and
services).
This mode of global economic organization
has been in practice for decades. In 1949 (after the World
War II and in the middle of the Cold War), Harry Truman,
upon assuming the presidency of the United States of America,
defined as the mission of the “free-world”
(that is, the capitalist world) to end all poverty and to
contribute to the development of “under-developed”
nations. The so-called “era of capitalist development”
was born, giving rise to the distinction between “developed”
and “under-developed” countries and
effectively exporting to all nations the model that today
we know as “Neoliberalism.”
The neoliberal development model
During the 1940s, it was thought that
an economic globalization governed by trade and technology
would end social inequality and poverty. Thus emerged the
category of countries “on the path to development,”
with the implicit assumption that these countries would
eventually catch up to the “First World.”
In reality, according to the World Bank’s own report
on World Development from 1990, the rich have continued
to get richer, while the poor have only gotten poorer.
More recently, a 2002 report by the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
on ‘the Least Advanced Countries’ (LAC)
shows that in these countries, extreme poverty has
doubled in the last 30 years and now affects 307 million
people. The report predicts that, if the current economic
tendencies persist, the number of people that live on less
than one dollar a day in the LAC will pass 420 million by
the year 2015.
Meanwhile, the principle objective of
the neoliberal project consists of eliminating the two main
barriers to achieving a single global market: customs tariffs,
which countries impose on imports of external goods; and
subsidies, with which countries protect their domestic industries
and producers. In this framework, international cooperation
between countries is one more way of ‘helping’
people achieve Western-style development.
Critiques of the neoliberal development
model in Guadalajara.
The neoliberal model of development
has been increasingly called into question because of its
requisite transformation of all forms of existence (not
just in economic terms but also in social, political, and
cultural ones) towards competitive production and commercialization.
However, the critiques of and alternatives to the neoliberal
economic model, in which the distribution of capital and
power stay in the hands of the few, are in themselves very
diverse.
As a response to the ‘official’
Summit in Guadalajara, multiple NGOs and a variety of social
organizations held simultaneous “social forums”
in order to discuss alternatives to the policies of the
European Union in Latin America.
In one social forum, “Linking
Alternatives”, there were present very distinct
postures in critique of neoliberal development. On one hand
were the organizations that question the actual carrying
out of the Free Trade Treaties between Latin American and
European governments. These organizations support a development
respectful of human rights and propose to use the mechanisms
established by the trade treaties themselves, such as, in
the case of the Trade Agreement between the EU and Mexico,
the so-called ‘Democratic clause’ and
‘Social Observation’, as instruments
for civil society to control the human rights violations
caused by these policies.
On the other hand are the social movements
and organizations that consider the politics of the European
Union to be part of a new economic and cultural colonialism
that uses the discourse of democracy and human rights as
a ‘Trojan Horse’ in order to gain legitimacy
in imposing its policies. For these organizations, every
culture should be free to decide its own life project and
to invent ways of combining the fight against poverty with
the protection of the environment based on the experience
of its people.
The declaration from the social forums
in Guadalajara, released jointly by Latin American and European
civil society, rejects the neoliberal policies that in both
continents are generating more inequalities as well as the
privatization of health, education, and culture. The European
Union, the declaration claims, does not represent a real
alternative to United States policies in Latin America.
On the contrary… “it uses foreign aid policies
as an instrument to facilitate the penetration of their
own companies, and (…) the cooperative agreements
in matters of security contribute to the militarization
of the continent.”
In opposition to this strategy, members
of civil society demand:
- The primacy of civil, political, economic, environmental
and cultural rights over trade liberalization
- The promotion of a model of aid based on solidarity
- The commitment of developed countries to designate
at least 0.7% of their GDP to development funds and to
the search for new ways of redistributing income in both
the national and international arena orientated towards
the fight against poverty, support for sustainable development,
and social justice policies, such as social security and
taxes on speculative capital transactions.
- The renegotiation of public external debt
- That all development funds financed by the EU must
be defined through consultation with and the full participation
of the people affected, as stated in Agreement 169 of
the International Labor Organization (ILO).
The diversity of alternatives to the
current economic model range from positions of confidence
that the State can still be an actor in limiting the negative
impacts of neoliberal policies, to “anti-system”
positions which search to construct new proposals that don’t
recognize or rely on the State.
Resistance and the search for alternatives
Indigenous communities have represented
one of the principle movements against the policies of planned
development; their survival outside the mercantile world
is one demonstration of the possibility of a diversity of
realities and cosmovisions that can inhabit the earth.
“A world in which there are
many worlds” was the demand of Chiapan Zapatistas
to redefine the nation-state as a place in which many different
cultures could have their place. Later this demand was converted
into one of the principle slogans of the alter-globalization
movement against a cultural homogeneity driven by current
global capitalism.
The Zapatista Caracoles (literally, “snails”)
and their project of autonomy have put neoliberal projects
in check by establishing territorial control over their
regions and through the reconstruction of communal life
through collective projects and the creation of autonomous
governments.
The Caracoles have also generated transformations
in the field of international aid by deciding for themselves
what type of aid they will accept, including when, how and
for what that aid is directed. The networks of solidarity
that have formed between national and international civil
society and the autonomous Zapatista governments represent
a reversal in the relations of superiority-inferiority (where
the donor decides how and for what funds are used) implicit
in many internationally-funded projects. This new approach
and the conditions imposed by the Zapatistas on any development
projects in their regions has sometimes generated hostility
and discomfort among those who arrive from outside intent
on their own way of working. In any case, this type of collaboration
operates on very different terms then the economic interests
of “globalization,” and responds to the necessities
that the “autonomous” determine for themselves.
This resistance project, along with others,
coexists, although not easily, with governmental projects:
“In our cooperative, we each
give $70 (Mexican pesos). We value our project. If the government
gives you a project, they don’t even ask you what
you want, what you need. They give you money to do the project
that they decide on. You are not going to value it. But
they accustom us to these methods and our own projects are
left to sink.”
(Juanita, Xomé Ixuk – Women’s
Organization ‘Las Margaritas’)
But beyond Chiapas, there exist experiences
and struggles all over the world that look to transform
the way we live together, recognizing themselves as the
bearers of perspectives of the world that differ from that
of the west.
In December 2003, a colloquium on
“América Profunda” (‘Deep America”)
was held in Mexico City where representatives of “indigenous
self-affirmation” movements from the Americas
met with guests from New Zealand and India to talk about
their identity, their struggles, and their hopes.
This project was launched by the Centro
de Encuentros y Díálogos Interculturales (CEDI)
(The Center for Intercultural Meetings and Dialogues) in
Oaxaca, an initiative of Gustavo Esteva to find within so-called
“cultural regeneration” new forms of living
through the reinvention of culture itself. La Universidad
de la Tierra (The University of the Earth) in Oaxaca
encourages the construction of new spheres of community.
This includes reconstituting cultural roots in order to
rediscover local philosophical thought, food sovereignty
(from cultivation to preparation), the art of living, communal
organization, and ways of healing, of learning, and of seeing
space and time; in summary, a unique way of living based
on communality.
Proponents of the neoliberal economy
accuse the people of being the greatest destroyers of the
forests, ignoring the fact that dam construction and industry
imposed by neoliberal projects have actually generated the
greatest environmental changes.
“To transform in accord with
nature is something that contradicts the neoliberal model
(…) because it denies any future for humanity. The
alternatives to this dysfunctional model have been shown
at the World Social Forum, in the Movimiento de los Sin
Tierra, (the Landless Movement in Brazil), through the theology
of ecology, cultural regeneration, and the deification of
nature.”
(Jorge Santiago, DESMI)
Based on these alternatives, the “Manifesto
against the Green Desert and in for Life” was
signed last May in Brazil in which more than 100 Brazilian
entities denounced the socio-environmental disaster caused
in the last 35 years by the planting of monocultures of
eucalyptus and pine that have supplied raw materials for
the iron, steel, and cellulose industries while doing serious
harm to ecosystems and populations. The manifesto affirms
that, contrary to neoliberal thought, “Indigenous
people have demonstrated that they are capable of maintaining
the forests because they have done so for thousands of years.”
In India there is a well-known movement called Chipko, where
women hug trees as a way of protecting the forests from
destruction.
The delegation of Chiapan social organizations
present in Guadalajara released a special declaration requesting
a moratorium on the project Socially Integrated and Sustainable
Development in the Lacandon Jungle, financed by the United
States via an agreement made directly with the Chiapas state
government (the only existing agreement of this nature in
Mexico). The declaration argues that this project does not
comply with Agreement 169 of the International Labour Organisation,
which requires prior consultation with the people to be
affected by any development project.
The region affected by the project is
inside the Chiapas conflict zone, an area visible since
1994. Italian researcher Luca Martinelli, member of the
organization Manitese, has investigated the project. Martinelli
recalls that many civil and social organizations warned
of the risks of the project beforehand, demanding transparency
from the government in the agreement process, as the said
plan “Conditions, traps, and binds the people
and their communities to a dependency on the environmental
services market: that is, to a payment system for access
to the forests, water, carbon drains, and scientific eco-tourism.”
Martinelli notes that one of the project’s
objectives is “to reduce poverty through participatory
and sustainable land development, which, according to the
parties in the agreement, will directly benefit the state
government by enabling a more effective reformulation and
application of social development policies.” Martinelli
points to “the counterinsurgency character of
programs implemented in territories where there is social
and peasant opposition when also present are the interests
of the World Bank, transnational corporations, and social
programs that divide and create conflict between indigenous
peoples.”
Martinelli also questions the method
of measuring poverty reduction by the number of families
with a minimum wage, rather than by the level of self-sufficiency
and food sovereignty that they are able to maintain.
Food sovereignty is not only a method
of survival but also an alternative way of living that doesn’t
make people’s ability to feed themselves dependent
on foreign policy. In this regard, Via Campesina (the largest
global network of peasant and agricultural families) declared
itself against the 2004 Report of the United Nations Organization
for Food and Agriculture (FAO), titled: ‘Biotechnology:
Responding to the needs of the poor?” The FAO maintains
that biotechnology could be a solution for world hunger
and an ever-growing population, and that the only problem
in this schema is that genetically modified crops are not
reaching the poor.
Via Campesina claims that hunger is not
related to technology but rather to social injustice—the
lack of access to food and the control over its distribution
by transnational companies that “want to manipulate
our crops in order to be able to control the food chain
at a global level, forcing us to stop producing food –
even locally – and obligating everyone the world over
to consume their products.”
Developmentalist discourse has distorted
the meaning of the word “Prosperity.”
The word originally comes from the Latin pro spere, which
means “in accordance with hope.” Prosperity
depends on the hopes and desires of every person, not on
what each can consume or produce in order to be registered
on the World Bank graphs that measure “poverty
levels”.
We should all start to rethink “development”:
for what and for whom? What is poverty? What is aid? Who
defines it and who controls it? What can we do today to
change the tomorrow that has already been defined for us?
The most likely will be to recognize the multiplicity of
ways of dreaming and imagining what we hope for in life
and to discover the true poverty of uniformity.
Bibliography:
- Sachs, Wolfgang (coord.), Diccionario del desarrollo,
México, Ed. Galileo y la Universidad Autónoma
de Sinaloa, 2001
- América Profunda. Un ejercicio de reflexión
en la acción, México, Proyecto (2003)
- Arriola,J., y Aguilar, J.V., Globalización
de la Economía, El Salvador, Equipo Maíz,
2001.
- Ribeiro, S., “La FAO declara la guerra a
los campesinos” en www.argenpress.info
(17/06/2004)
- WRZ, “Rotunda manifestación en Brasil
contra el Desierto Verde y a Favor de la Vida”,
en Ambiente y Sociedad, AÑO 5, Nº 163 (16
de junio de 2004) en www.ecoportal.net
:: SIPAZ
ACTIVITIES
April- June 2004
Human Rights Observation
During the last month the Puppet group
“Diversity”, in which SIPAZ participates,
preformed its pieces about the value of diversity and reconciliation
in the municipalities of Tila (Northern Zone) and Las Margaritas
(Frontier Zone) as well as, in some neighborhoods in the
city of San Cristóbal.
In April, we participated in a Human
Rights Observation caravan after violence erupted in Zinacantán
(Altos). We also accompanied those displaced families when
it was safe to returned to their communities. We participated
in meetings to analyze this situation organized by various
groups. We had a meeting with Juan Esponda of the State
Commission of Reconciliation for the divided communities
to discuss Zinacantan and the situation in the in the Northern
Zone.
In May and June, we had meetings with
representatives of the Frontier Zone to get to know more
about the zone and what is happening there.
In June, we went for one week to Montes
Azules and the Lacandona Jungle to interview people and
gather information.
CONTACTS AND INFORMATION
We received visitors and delegations
of students and reporters that came to Chiapas to learn
more about the political situation here as well as the work
of SIPAZ.
We interviewed people in Chiapas, Oaxaca
and Mexico City from communities, social movements, NGO´s
and Government (see also National
Work).
We circulated two urgent actions: one
about the violent situation in Zinacantán and the
other about the assassination of Noel Pavel (a student at
the National Autonomous University of Mexico and an activist
with connections with the Zapatista communities in Chiapas).
(see: www.sipaz.org)
We are participating in follow-up meetings
after the Third Meeting against Neoliberalism held in Huitiupán.
PEACE EDUCATION
We are participating in the Chiapas
Peace Network, a place for action and reflection, that looks
for a way to support the peace process and reconciliation
at an organizational and community level in Chiapas. On
May the 5th, the Peace Network organized a workshop open
to other organizations to redefine our strategies. We also
made a booklet and posters in Spanish and English about
the key events of the 10 years of conflict in Chiapas.
We continue to give workshops in Peace,
Culture and Human Rights to young people of the Community
Development Center in San Cristóbal de Las Casas.
One person from the team is taking a
course in “Conflict transformation” sponsored
by CORECO and the University of the Earth in Chiapas.
In June, we attended a workshop about
“negotiations” given by the Cambridge
Technical Institute of Massachusetts (USA).
In June, we shared with other NGO´s
concerning the workshops on “Conflict Transformation”
SIPAZ has been giving since 1998, seeking shared experiences,
methods and strategies. This meeting took place in Mexico
City.
INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOG
We had a meeting about negotiation and
reconciliation with the participants of the Peace-Building
Exchange Project, religious leaders of Chenalhó and
the Peace Commissions from Nicaragua. They decided to write
a letter to invite other religious groups in Chenalhó
to be part of the project. The letter was sent out in Chenalhó
and in San Cristóbal. We also interviewed religious
leaders from Chenalhó and San Cristóbal de
Las Casas connected to the project.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
WORK
On the 29-30 of April, we participated
in a workshop on “Peace Concepts and Strategies”
in Oaxaca.
We participated in the second Nonviolent
Action workshop organized by Greenpeace, Amnesty International,
Serpaj and "Pensar en voz alta" (Think Outloud)
in Cuernavaca.
One member of the team participated in
meetings about “The peace process in Chiapas and
International Cooperation” in Vienna, Austria.
Those meetings included participation from organizations
that work in or with Chiapas from Mexico, Austria, Belgium,
Germany, France, Italy and Switzerland.
As part of the human rights observation
delegation in Chiapas we also attended the “Network
Alternatives” meeting held during the Third Summit
of the European Union with Latin America and the Caribbean
that took place in Guadalajara (Mexico).
In June, we participated in the meeting
with the core group of the Latin American Network of Peacemakers
in Mexico.
|
