:: UPDATE

MEXICO/CHIAPAS: REPORTS ON THE GOVERNMENTS

Chiapas presently finds itself in a pre-election context given that on October 3, 118 municipal mayors and 40 state deputies will be elected. In spite of the profusion of posters, slogans and promotional events, the national framework partially diminishes the relevance of these local power groups and their election process. It appears, rather, that what is anticipated to be at stake are the next federal elections in 2006. With this date in mind, two statements can be utilized as a sort of political barometer: the Government Report presented by President Fox in September, and a series of communiqués from Sub-Commander Marcos published in August, which represent the first reports from the Juntas of Good Government since they began one year ago.

TURBULENCE SURROUNDING THE PRESIDENTIAL REPORT

On September 1, President Fox presented his fourth Government Report on September 1, President Fox presented his fourth Government Report to the Congress of the Union. The place where it was presented was surrounded by police and military, with metallic fences measuring more than three meters high. Outside the building, contained by police, thousands of campesinos, electrical workers, and union members protested. Within the Chamber of Deputies, expressions of discontent also predominated. The ceremony was interrupted twenty-three times by the protests of legislators from all political parties (Save the National Action Party, PAN, the President’s party). Deputies from the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD, the main leftist party) demonstrated their lack of respect for the President by turning their backs to him.

Aside from these events, the item most focused on by the press was the truce that Vicente Fox requested in order to bring about joint agreements: “The political change is showing significant deficiencies. One of the most evident is that communication between the Legislative and Executive Powers has not been as fluid as the times demand. (…) It is the responsibility of all members of the political class to prevent society from becoming disillusioned with democracy, from thinking that the struggle that lasted for so many years was in vain.”

However, others read his message “never again shall an authority be above the law” as a direct allusion to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the present Chief of Government of the Federal District. A member of the PRD, Lopez Obrador is popularly thought to be the eventual candidate for the presidency of the Republic. A request to strip the leader of his governmental immunity is being processed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. It is hoped that he will be tried for his alleged responsibility for the crimes of abuse of authority and non-compliance with a judicial mandate that ordered the interruption of construction projects on two roadways, which could impede his candidacy. This situation has generated a great deal of popular indignation, as seen in a protest by hundreds of thousands of Mexicans in Mexico City on August 29. Many PRD deputies also protested the attempt to strip Lopez Obrador of his immunity during the fourth Presidential Report.

The lack of a minimum level of political agreement with Congressional opposition has certainly made the structural reforms proposed by the President impossible. But with the early start of the succession period, other disputes have also surfaced within his own party and Cabinet. Alfonso Durazo Montaño, ex-presidential press secretary, resigned from his post, denouncing: “If there isn’t legality, equality, democracy, and impartial presidential arbitration, the 2006 elections could become a repeat of the old and harmful rounds of distrust regarding the election results. And if the elections are not resolved at the ballot box, they will be resolved in the streets.” This provoked a scandal that ended with Martha Sahagun abandoning her efforts to succeed her husband in the presidency.

In all aspects of internal politics, and in those of a more international character (relations with the U.S. and Cuba, in particular), the contradictions make it clear that the highest levels of Mexican politics (specifically the executive and legislative branches) are at an impasse.

Among many people a sense of disillusionment and distrust of the political class predominates, as was noted by the high levels of electoral abstention in 2003. The apparent macro-economic stability is not reflected in either the levels of the poverty or unemployment, nor in those basic questions that worry most Mexicans (for example, the issue of security). Nor can the profound social and political crisis behind the multiplicity of protest marches in Mexico City be hidden.

TAKING STOCK OF THE COUNCILS OF GOOD GOVERNMENT AFTER ONE YEAR OF FUNCTIONING

In an extensive series of communiqués entitled “To Read a Video”, Subcomandante Marcos presented the first progress report for the Councils of Good Government that would be completed by the Councils around the middle of September.

Although the communiqués received little attention in the mass media, they are worth reviewing and are more relevant in the electoral context just described. In fact, in the first section of communiqués, Marcos describes the current political landscape in these terms: “Passing quickly over these main images of “national life” (...) provokes a sensation of chaos, anachronism and injustice. The current calendar says we’re halfway through the year 2004, but the programming at times seems to be halfway through the 19th century, and at times halfway through the year 2006.” The communiqué questions the corruption and anti-democracy of the political parties, the tendency of the political parties to move toward the right, the role of the mass media and the dysfunctional nature of the justice system.

The second part is more of a self-critique of the functioning of the Councils of Good Government. It refuses to describe the wait that some visitors have been subjected to as an “error,” explaining, “it must be understood that we are in a movement of rebellion and resistance. If we add to this many generations of victims of deception and betrayal, it can be understood that there is some natural distrust (...). What some see as bureaucratic tendencies in the Councils of Good Government and the autonomous councils are, in reality, a product of the dynamics of persistence and persecution.”

Marcos also does not recognize the rotation of the committees in the Caracoles as erroneous. He explains: “We know well that this method makes the completion of some projects more difficult, but, on the other hand, we have a school of government that, in the long term, will offer a new way of doing politics. Besides, this “error” has allowed us to combat the corruption that can be present in authority. (...) It will take time, I know. But for those like the Zapatistas who make plans for decades, a few years is not a long time.” Also, attention is being paid to the issue of representation (“the other ‘error’ that is not one”), and subsequently, the turning down of invitations or requests to support other movements.

In the end, Marcos recognizes two main failures: the lack of participation by women, and the relationship between the Zapatista political military structure and the autonomous governments.

With respect to women, he writes: “If, in the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committees, the percentage of female participation is between 33 and 40 percent, the autonomous councils and the Councils of Good government are at, on average, less than one percent. (...) In spite of the fact that the Zapatistas women have had and do have a fundamental role in the resistance, in regard to their rights, it continues to be just a declaration on paper in some cases. It is true that inter-familial violence has decreased, but this is due more to the limits on alcohol consumption than on a new culture with regards to family and gender.”

With respect to the relationship between the political-military structure and the autonomous governments, Marcos completely recognizes the limitations: “Originally, the idea we had was that the EZLN should accompany and support the people in the construction of their autonomy. However, the accompaniment has changed directions at times and become more orders than advice, more an obstacle than support (...) The fact that the EZLN is a political-military organization, as well as clandestine, continues to corrupt the processes that should and must be democratic.”

In the third part, he comments that “Old Antonio” once explained to him that indigenous people walk bent over “because they carry on their shoulders their hearts and the hearts of everyone.” He adds that, “To the two shoulders that human beings normally have in common, the Zapatistas have added a third: that of “civil society.” He gives thanks for the support that has moved them forward towards a cause, “that continues to be large: the construction of a world where many worlds fit, that is to say, a world that carries the heart of everyone.”

He stressed that this year, “people and organizations from at least 43 countries, including (...) Mexico,” visited the “Caracoles.” The Caracoles also reported income of almost twelve and a half million pesos and expenditures nearing ten million, explaining that the money was divided between the five Caracoles and the reasons for those divisions. However, the details that the Councils of Good Government themselves will give out clarify that none of these funds were used for personal gains.

The fourth part refers to what Marcos calls the “four fallacies” – arguments that have been used by groups who are opposed to the autonomous processes of the Zapatistas. The first fallacy refers to the fact that said processes can disintegrate or “balkanize” the country. Marcos emphasized that that has not been the case, even though the country is “in effect, disintegrating, but not for indigenous autonomy, but for an actual internal war, for the merciless destruction of its foundations: the sovereignty over natural resources, social politics and the national economy. (...) In short, the federal government has given up its functions, and the national state is unsteady due to the attacks from above, not from those below.”

Faced with this situation, he proposes “...refounding the nation. With a new social pact, new Constitution, new political class and new way of doing politics. In short, what is missing is a program of struggle, created from below, based in the real national agenda, not in the agenda the politicians and the media promote.”

The second line of questioning is whether the construction of Zapatista autonomy risks creating a state within another state. Marcos responds by saying: “The Councils of Good Government were born to attend to everyone: Zapatistas and non-Zapatistas, even anti-Zapatistas.” He goes on to affirm: “To respect is to recognize, and the Councils of Good Government recognize the existence and jurisdiction of the state government and the official municipalities, and in the majority of cases, the official municipal authorities and the state government recognize the existence and jurisdiction of the Councils of Good Government. In the same way that the Councils of Good Government recognize the existence and legitimacy of other organizations, they are giving respect and they in turn demand respect for their own forms of organizing.”

In contrast to past periods and in contrast to what he wrote about the Commissioner for Peace of the federal government, Luis H. Alvarez, Marcos recognizes, “Knowing that the intentions of Zapatismo are not just local, but also federal, the government of Chiapas chose not to be part of the problem but to try to be part of the solution.”

The third risk that the critics of autonomy pointed out was the possibility that conflicts would proliferate. Marcos explains that, on the contrary, conflicts have been diminishing and solutions have been sought that go beyond simple punishments. They also recognize jurisdictions such that state justice can be put into effect. He notes, however: “In the cases that have been presented thus far, the justice of the government of Chiapas has been remarkable in its lack of speed and inefficiency. It seems that the Chiapas judicial system is only expedient when it attempts to penalize the political enemies of the state government.”

The fourth “fallacy,” according to Marcos, refers to the administration of justice. He clarifies: “The good government does not seek to grant impunity to those who sympathize with it, nor is it designed to penalize those who have different ideas and approaches. The laws that govern the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Rebellion not only refrain from contradicting elements of justice that govern the federal and state justice system, but also, in many cases, complement them.”

He adds: “Collective rights (...) not only do not contradict individual rights, but rather allow that the latter reaches everyone, not just a few.” And he convincingly concludes this fourth communiqué by saying: “In Zapatista territory we are not planning the destruction of the Mexican nation. On the contrary, it is here that the possibility of its reconstruction is born.”

The fifth part presents a number of internal agreements including the conservation of forests and agreements against drug trafficking and the trafficking of undocumented immigrants. It is worth highlighting in this section, that, although it is not believed that electoral options constitute the path towards constructing democracy, the Zapatistas will not oppose the electoral day processes on October 3rd in Zapatista territories.

In the sixth part, Marcos introduces “six advances” assuring that living conditions in Zapatista communities, “even though still far from ideal, are better than in the communities that receive federal ‘support.’” These early advances have taken place in the areas of health, education, diet, land, housing, and the forms of self government.

:: FOCUS

In the Land of Oblivion: Displaced by the Conflict in Chiapas

This place that you mention in your dreams, continues on, where it always has been. But the rain still hasn’t arrived to wash the ashes and the clotted blood from what was the threshhold of your house. Antonio M. Flórez The Displaced of Paradise

The Invisible People in the Conflict in Chiapas

Two facts obligate us to return our gaze and thoughts to one of the gravest consequences of the armed conflict in Chiapas: displaced persons. The first fact is the end of humanitarian assistance from the International Red Cross Committee (CICR) for displaced persons from the municipality of Chenalho. The second fact is the proposal born in the Congress of the Federation to carry out a constitutional reform that would introduce the concept, and as such, recognize the figure of the internally displaced person (until now nonexistent in Mexico).

The Concept and Causes of Internally Displaced People

The United Nations considers ‘internally displaced people’ to be “people or groups of people who have seen themselves forced or obligated to escape or flee from their homes or from their places of habitual residence, in particular as a result, or to avoid the effects, of an armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, human rights violations or natural disasters or disasters provoked by humans, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized national border.”

Those who find themselves in this situation remain at a high level of vulnerability and without protection, given the familial, identity, and territorial uprooting that provokes the abandonment of their homes. These consequences worsen even further when the victims of displacement are indigenous peoples, campesinos or other groups that have a special connection with the earth, since, in addition to being their only means of survival, the earth represents the center of community cultural life. And it is precisely these groups who make up the majority of displaced peoples.

Large gaps exist within the judicial world, both at the national and international level in relation to human rights violations that occur against those in a situation of internal displacement. Because displaced persons have resulted from internal conflicts, there have been many obstacles at the international level to legislating on this issue, and the principles of nonintervention with respect to state sovereignty have prevailed. This has permitted impunity and a continued lack of protection for displaced populations given that, in many cases the sovereign State is in part, the origin, or the cause of the displacements.

Facing this lack of protection for displaced peoples, Francis Deng (Special Representative to the Secretary General of the United Nations for Internally Displaced People since 1992) created Governing Principals Applying to Internally Displaced Peoples: Guidelines for protection, humanitarian assistance and the return of internally displaced peoples to their homes or places of origin.

Forced Displacement in Chiapas

According to the report put together by Mr. Francis Deng, the first and principal cause of forced displacement in Mexico is the conflict in Chiapas. The causes of this conflict are given as:

• The armed confrontation between the Mexican Army and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, begun in 1994.
• The counter-guerrilla operations by the Mexican Army in 1995.
• The massacre in Acteal perpetrated by paramilitaries in 1997.

For the Fray Bartolome de Las Casas Human Rights Center (CDHFBLC), forced displacement is a tool of repression used by the state, and can be seen as forming part of a counterinsurgency action strategy and a tactic for territorial control and forced evictions linked with political, economic, cultural, local, regional, and international interests.

The Municipality of Chenalho (Highlands Zone) and the Northern Zone of Chiapas are the regions that have suffered most from the counterinsurgency strategy, which has provoked thousands of displacements and obligated people to abandon their places of origin to save themselves from what appears to be uncontrollably rising violence. We plan to focus on these two zones, without any intention of minimizing the situation of displaced peoples from other regions of the conflict. In both zones, there were instances of displacement of PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) supporters, but in smaller numbers and for a much shorter period of time.

In Chenalho, the paramilitarization intended to counteract the growing number of Zapatista support bases in the communities consisted of the arming and military training of indigenous peoples from those same communities who held connections to the PRI, putting them in charge of harassing, threatening and killing their own neighbors.
The violence climaxed in the municipality with the massacre at Acteal (a community of Chenalho) where forty-five members of ‘Las Abejas’ (The Bees) were assassinated. This non-violent organization was threatened and harassed for refusing to collaborate with the counterinsurgency activities.

Following the tragedy, the displacement of Abejas and Zapatistas worsened in all of those communities in which members of these groups lived alongside PRI supporters due to the groups’ fears of further paramilitary attacks. The majority of the Abejas took refuge in X’oyep and Acteal, while the Zapatista support bases fled to Polho, an autonomous municipality.

According to the CDHFBLC, in 1998, the number of displaced persons in Chenalho reached the 10,000 mark, 80% of whom were EZLN supporters, and the remaining 20% of whom were Abejas.

According to the data collected and systematized by the Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action (CIEPAC), a group in the Northern Zone was also formed that has been accused of being paramilitary in nature – ‘Development, Peace, and Justice’ – and that this group was subsequently placed in charge of carrying out violent actions against those who organized in defense of their rights and belonged to the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) or supported the EZLN. In the affected communities, the number of displaced persons in October 1998 reached 5,383 people.

These displaced persons lost their homes, their lands, their animals, and also suffered from a lack of basic services such as potable water, energy, health, and education, as well as situations of overcrowding. Their main problem was the lack of lands to cultivate and as such, the scarcity of basic foodstuffs such as corn and beans. To all of these material deficiencies we must add the psycho-social effects (traumas, depression, fear, sadness, physical maladies) that these living conditions provoke, as well as the continued suffering from ongoing threats, harassment and lack of safety.

Present Situation of the Displaced

Utilizing the latest census data from CDHFBLC (updated August 10, 2004), there are approximately 12,000 displaced people in the conflict zone, 3,618 of whom are in the Northern Zone, and 6,332 of whom are in the Highlands (Chenalho).

The invisibility to which displaced persons are condemned has provoked the delay and difficulty in repairing the damage and injustice that the displacement represents in their lives.

Towards the beginning of 2001, the first State Conference for Persons Displaced by War was held, at which representatives from the Northern, Jungle, Border, Highlands, and Central Zones agreed upon the following demands:

• Fulfillment of the San Andres-ASA Accords (as a means of addressing the roots of the conflict, given that this continues to be one of the EZLN’s conditions for resuming dialogue)
• The creation of conditions for the return or relocation of the displaced peoples to secure lands (a demand to the state and federal governments)
• Payment of losses (indemnity and reparation of damages)
• Punishment of paramilitaries, and actions by the governments to ensure that justice is carried out

Although the intention at this first meeting was to articulate the struggle of all peoples displaced by the conflict, the participants opted for different strategies.

The Zapatista support bases rejected participation in, and negotiation of, the demands for justice and reparations for damages by the government, maintaining instead their policy of resistance and autonomy, as well as treating the San Andres Accords as laws-in-fact.

On the other hand, the Abejas decided to carry on independently with government negotiations. In July 2001, they began returning to their communities of origin and receiving indemnity for the victims of the massacre; however, their demands for justice and security have yet to be resolved.

Two other processes were also established. One of these processes consisted of a dialogue between the government (through the Secretary of Indigenous Peoples, SEPI, and the Secretary of Governance), the displaced persons, and the CDHFBLC (accompanying the process at the request of the displaced participants). Two thousand four hundred and fifty-one displaced persons from different conflict zones participated as representatives in this dialogue; this included fourteen groups, ten of which are still forcibly displaced; with four others participating as displaced-returned peoples. In the three years since its initiation, the participants have encountered many difficulties in making advances towards their three demands of Land, Justice, and Damage Reparations. Presently, a government proposal has been achieved in which each displaced family represented in the dialogue receives $30,000 in order to purchase and regularize titles for land and $20,000 in cash for production-related projects. The CDHFBLC considers this offer a “partial response,” given that the government is not offering sufficient funds to obtain secure, good quality lands of adequate size in order to ensure a dignified life. The dialogue demands for justice and integral damage reparations remain unresolved; these include punishment of those responsible for forming, training and arming paramilitaries, as well of those paramilitary participants who are guilty of murder, disappearances and displacements; payment for material and moral damages; and recognition on the part of the state of the situation of forced displacement and the state’s responsibility to those displaced because of this situation.

In the Northern Zone, the “JoInixtie Dialogue” was established in the Municipality of Tila. The State Commission for Reconciliation of Divided Communities held direct negotiations with a sector of the displaced people of the region. The return or relocation of the displaced participants was agreed upon, but no results were reached in the areas of justice and damage reparations. Because of the unresolved demands, the CDHFBLC continues to count the displaced participants in the JoInixtie Dialogue within the numbers of its displaced persons in its census.

Humanitarian Aid to the Displaced in Chiapas

While it is necessary to attend to the root causes of the armed conflict in order to create an integral response to the demands of the displaced, situations of displacement require assistance and protection from the moment at which the situations arise. The greatest humanitarian crisis occurred following the Acteal massacre in the X’oyep and Polho camps.

According to the ‘Guiding Principles,’ the State is primarily responsible for aid in a displacement situation. However, given the fact that the government was a party to the conflict in Chiapas, it led the Zapatista resistance to the government to a position of rejection of any and all political, economic, or aid projects coming from said government, humanitarian aid from the International Red Cross (CICR), NGOs, and national and international civil society was indispensable.

Food aid from the CICR began to arrive in August 1998 and was administered in Polho until December 2003. The termination of this aid was first announced in 2001, and a periodic and gradual decrease in food aid received by each family was agreed upon in conjunction with the autonomous authorities of Polho.

The exit of the CICR from Polho has been much criticized for leaving the displaced population unprotected and at risk of famine.

Oscar Torres (of the San Cristobal CICR Office) points out that the decision to leave took into account knowing with certainty that the people of Polho had the potential to maintain themselves independently, and that the ‘emergency situation’ that had initially permitted the development of their mission no longer exists. Additionally, he explains that community agriculture and production-related pro-jects were reinforced before the definitive exit of CICR from the community so that the population would have instruments of self-sustainability at its disposal.

It is important to keep in mind that the CICR operates under a mandate from the international community to protect the life and dignity of the victims of war and internal violence and to offer them assistance based on the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Law.For the Head of the CICR Sub-delegation in San Cristobal, Adolfo Beteta, there are no longer any emergency situations in the state of Chiapas that were caused by armed conflict. Beteta recognizes that there is ‘an unfinished peace process’ and a ‘relative peace’ as such, but that the present problems in communities do not have as their sole origin the dispute between the EZLN and the Government. In this sense the CICR believes that a dangerous possibility exists of producing dependence on humanitarian assistance in the communities. The CICR will maintain a minimal structure that would allow it to resume its aid work should an emergency situation arise.

The vision of the CICR regarding the conflict is different from the analysis of other NGOs present in Chiapas, as well as those who continue living in the region of low-intensity warfare, also known as an integral war designed to wear down resistance.

The Polho Autonomous Council is requesting support from civil society for a food project for the displaced people and also asserts that the displaced continue to lack access to their lands and means of producing their own food.
(www .nodo50.org/pchiapas/chiapas/documentos/polho/polho/htm).

The nature of the conflict in Chiapas breaks from the ‘conventional warfare’ scheme. It does not fit comfortably into the context of the regulated wars of the Geneva Accords, from which the parameters of action of the CICR were born. The CICR does not have sole responsibility for the situation of those displaced by the conflict, nor does it have the necessary mandate to function effectively within the present context.

Judicial Recognition: Necessary but Insufficient

There are no specific norms in Mexico relating to the subject of displaced persons, and for this reason a constitutional reform proposal was presented this year. This proposal introduces the concept of internal displacement; makes the state responsible for the protection, security and restitution of the rights of the displaced; and requires that laws be developed that delineate this responsibility. This would be the first step towards establishing budgeted funds that would permit the development and instigation of public policies that would be required in order to handle the situations of displacement.

This proposal responds in part to the 2002 recommendations developed by Francis Deng for the Federal Government after having visited the country and seeing firsthand the situation of the internally displaced persons:

• Attack the root causes of the internal displacements: “the best remedy for the crisis of internal displacement would be the achievement of peace and national reconciliation that, at the same time, would depend on attacking the root causes of the conflict, which involve political, economic, and social grievances.”
• Build Collaboration in order to bring about the return of peoples to their places of origin.
• Ensure the establishment of public policies by the government (that are based on prior consultation with the displaced persons).
• Collection of data
• Cooperation with the international community

These recommendations submitted by Francis Deng have not been carried out by the Mexican government, nor have they been taken up for consideration.

The legislation, in the opinion of the CDHFBLC, should avoid the perpetuation or institutionalization of internally displaced peoples, and should be framed within a broader policy oriented towards the true resolution of the causes that generated the conflict.

While it is important to recognize the existence of people who have been internally displaced by the conflict in Chiapas, the lack of national legislation does not exempt the government from its responsibility to comply with the ‘Guiding Principles.” Although they are not obligatory in nature for states, the ‘Guiding Principles’ are based on international human rights norms that Mexico has ratified. From an international perspective, respect for the sovereignty of states should take place alongside the reinforcement of democracy, rather than alongside impunity and a lack of protection for those deprived of a secure and dignified place to live. The consultation with displaced persons, NGOs and social organizations would be necessary in order to establish political tools directed at resolving the structural causes of displacement in Chiapas, even more so since recognition of autonomy is one of the principal roots of the conflict. The political disposition to resolve the question of displacement will tell us a great deal about the will to establish a path towards peace.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- ZEBADÙA GONZÀLEZ, Emilio (coord..), Desplazados internos en México, Grupo Parlamentario PRD-Congreso de Diputados, México, 2004.

- HIDALGO, O y CASTRO, G., Población desplazada en Chiapas, CIEPAC-Consejería de Proyectos, México, 1999.

- CDHFBLC, Acteal: entre el Duelo y la Lucha, CDHFBLC, México, 1998.

- CDHFBLC, Caminando hacia el amanecer. Informe especial sobre desplazados de guerra en Chiapas, México, 2002.

- CDHFBLC, Informe Ejecutivo sobre la situación de desplazados internos en Chiapas, 9 de agosto del 2004.

Web Sites Consulted:

- Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja

- Comité de Información de las Naciones Unidas

:: ARTICLE

POSTCARDS FROM QUITO: THE CONTEXT OF THE FIRST SOCIAL FORUM OF THE AMERICAS

“It is not that the conflict that exists in Chiapas has been resolved, or that it has lost its importance. It is that peace will not be built solely on the basis of national efforts when its causes are increasingly more global and allude to the urgency of a profound change in the dominant economic and political system.”
(Samuel Ruiz Garcia, bishop emeritus of San Cristobal de Las Casas, Chiapas, “A new hour of grace”, January 25, 2004)

It is difficult to write about any Social Forum, and, in this sense, the first Social Forum of the Americas (FSA) that took place in Quito, Ecuador this past July 25-30 is no exception. From the day prior to and beginning with the registration, one might ask if the participants believed in the theory of chaos. Around 10,000 participants from 44 countries, primarily from the American continent, came together on this occasion.

Osvaldo León, director of the Latin American Information Agency (ALAI) explains: “This first FSA joins in the trend that came from the World Social Forum (FSM) to articulate the diversity of social sectors and forces that speak in opposition to neoliberal policies, and with this diversity, bring together alternative proposals with a sense of humanity. The FSM was created at the end of January 2001 in a celebrated event in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre as an antithesis to the Global Economic Forum (FEM) that annually occurs in Davos, Switzerland between the financial and political leaders of rich countries.” In addition to the World Social Forums, regional and thematic Forums have also been organized.

In Quito, each participant will have had a different experience. In fact, participation in the FSA must have been a nightmare for the indecisive, as there were hundreds of different events, including conferences, panels, tables of dialogue, testimonials, and meetings – many of which will occured simultaneously.

Under the central idea that “another world is possible,” the range of themes embraced was very broad: free trade agreements, militarization, human rights, foreign debt, sustainable development, food security, etc. Not all had a gloomy analysis of reality so black as to discourage activists. Some experiences of resistance to neoliberalism and its military corollary at the national, regional and global level were, in contrast, like rays of light: the more well known processes (such as Mexican neo-Zapatismo, the landless in Brazil, or Argentinean protestors) and others not so well known (such as the indigenous movements of Bolivia and Ecuador). It is not said in vain of Latin America that it is the “continent of hope.”

The FSA could be compared to a large buffet of current leftist thought, a rainbow that runs from the most orthodox (the two-step strategy: first, take power, and then, change the world) to the most anti-systemic in the line of the anarchist tradition. After several days, the dynamic began to shift towards making one think of the processes of consensus-building in the indigenous communities of Chiapas: all had the possibility of giving their point of view, which can be repetitive, but at the same time, that participation continues to be important in order to arrive at real agreements – not only in the sense of recognizing problems, but also directed towards developing concrete actions.

In fact, in a July article titled “The World Social Forum in the Crossroads,” Immanuel Wallerstein, departmental professor-researcher at Yale University in the United States, placed the main challenge of the process at this same level: “That which will determine the capacity of the open space to serve the objective of transforming the world in a more democratic and egalitarian sense, is the manner in which the FSM can develop mechanisms to reconcile an open space with a real and concrete political activity.”

It is in this way that this “other possible world” will be built, that differing opinions and criticisms will be expressed in these forums, in particular by their limited practical effects beyond the scope and diversity of these same encounters. Not all of these criticisms come from outside, but also from within. Immanuel Wallerstein in the aforementioned article summarizes the majority of criticisms in these terms: “The criticisms (…) are multiple: the FSM says that another world is possible; it should be said that socialism is the objective. The FSM is an open forum; therefore, it is not pure chatter. It does not involve action; therefore, it is inherently ineffective. It accepts money from non-governmental foundations and organizations; therefore, it has sold out. It is not permitted to participate in political parties; by which it excludes key groups. It does not permit groups involved in violence to participate; but violence is legitimate for oppressed groups that have no other alternative. All the initial assertions regarding the FSM are correct. But the inferences, presented after the semicolons, are rejected by the FSM.”

It was largely in the Lacandon jungle in Chiapas in 1996 that this global movement of resistance originated, which today is expressed in the motto of the World Social Forum: “Another world is possible.” Neo-Zapatismo also suggests some ways in which to go about transcending the discussions that occur within these Forums from this invitation to utopian construction: “a world in which all other worlds fit,” a theme that highlights the Mexican group “Youth in Alternative Resistance” (see the full report “Five dreams of Zapatismo, five dreams for the resistance”)

A Chilean theologian asked in one of the spaces: “I would like to know if everyone who wants to change the world is prepared to change themselves?” This question recalls one of Gandhi’s phrases. “We have to be the change that we want to see in the world.” The search for congruence in the construction of real change continues to be a challenge within and without the social Forums, each one of which we believe is necessary.

José Astudillo, vice-president of SIPAZ, of Ecuador, also recounted after the Forum: “To pass from charity to solidarity, from paternalism to mutual responsibility, to transform unjust relations between the haves and the have-nots, was a very important reflection. Many organizations from the United States and Europe are questioning the manner of cooperation of international bodies. “The help,” “the relief work,” in the majority of cases are conditions designed to further exploit poor countries. Cooperation should be a tool in defense of Life, there are no benefactors or beneficiaries but an alliance.” When participating in the dream of constructing “another possible world,” all of us are in the same boat.

For more information, consult:

- http://alainet.org

- www.forosocialamericas.org

:: SIPAZ ACTIVITIES

July-September, 2004

ACCOMPANIMENT

In August we participated in an observation caravan in the Montes Azules Biosphere (Jungle region).

Also in August, we attended the first anniversary party of the Caracoles in Oventik.

In September we went to northern Zone to visit and interview leaders in the region.

We followed up on the prevailing situation in the municipality of Zinacantan after the violence in April through interviews with organizations that work in the area and a visit to some of the affected communities.

We met with Juan Esponda from the state Commission for Reconciliation of divided communities to discuss the situation in the Highlands, Northern and Jungle regions.

CONTACTS AND INFORMATION

We received visits, delegations, students and journalists (mostly from the United States and Europe) and informed them of the situation in Chiapas and the work of SIPAZ.

We organized a delegation with the North American organization Global Exchange that came to Chiapas for one week in August.

We interviewed specific people from the State Commission of Human Rights and wrote an Urgent Action about this case (see: http://www.sipaz.org/aauu/au0408_eng.htm)

We interviewed several top leaders in Oaxaca, Guerrero and Mexico City in order to exchange information regarding the prevailing situation in these regions, as well as, in a general sense, on the national level.

In August, we attended the colloquium "Chiapas Ten Years After," which was designed to analyze the transformations that have occurred in the state since the neo-Zapatista armed uprising.

In September, we participated in a series of conferences that took place in the framework of the inauguration of the "Immanuel Wallerstein Center of Studies, Information and Documentation at the University of la Tierra/Ciepas and the Indigenous Center of Integral Training (CIDECI).

EDUCATION FOR PEACE

We continue to participate in the Network for Peace, a space of action and reflection that seeks to support peace processes at the organizational and community levels in Chiapas.

We continue to hold workshops on the Culture of Peace and Human Rights with the youth of the Center of Community Development (CEDECO) of San Cristobal de Las Casas.

In August, a puppet troupe named "Diversity" presented shows on the value of diversity and reconciliation in various communities along the border zone.

INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE

We held meetings and interviews with religious leaders from Chenalho and San Cristobal de Las Casas.

We attended the 10th Latin American Congress "Religion and Ethnicity" on religious pluralism and social transformations held in San Cristobal de Las Casas on July 5-19.

In August, we facilitated a workshop on Conflict Transformation with a delegation of pastors from the United Church of Christ of Wisconsin at INESIN (Institute of Social and Intercultural Studies) in San Cristobal de Las Casas.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL WORK

At the beginning of July, we presented our work in Chiapas at an international meeting of Forces for Non-Violent Peace in the city of Cuernavaca, Morelos.

In July we attended the Mesoamerican Forums that took place in El Salvador, including the 5th Mesoamerican Forum against the Plan Puebla Panama and for the Self-determination of Peoples, the 3rd Mesoamerican Forum against Repression, the 4th Week of Biological and Cultural Diversity, and the First Mesoamerican Meeting for Women in resistance for a dignified life.

At the end of July, we participated in the 2nd Continental Summit of the Indigenous Peoples and Nationalities of Abya Yala (Latin America) and the Social Forum of the Americas in Quito, Ecuador. We participated as presenters in a panel on "Threats to Peace in Latin America".

We participated in the 1^st National Forum of Autonomy "Many hands and a heart to fight," convened by the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and organized by the Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca "Ricardo Flores Magon" (CIPO-RFM) held on the 21st and 22nd of August 2004 in Oaxaca.