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

Increased tensions in the region

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

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

Violence in the indigenous communities

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

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

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

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

Reaction in the communities

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

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

Acteal

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

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

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

The governor

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

The role of national and international non-governmental organizations

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

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

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

The president and Chiapas

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

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

More on the international scene

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

Economic news

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

… … … … … …

Don Raúl

Bishop Raul Vera transferred to Saltillo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

… … … … … …

Mary Robinson

UN disturbed by human rights situation in Mexico

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

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

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

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