LATE NEWS: Indigenous law approved by Congress unleashes a national debate

Action in Congress on the indigenous rights bill took place after this report was largely prepared. Here we provide a brief update, acknowledging it is limited by our deadline and because the complex terms of the bill require fuller explanation than space allows.

On April 25, the Senate approved a bill on indigenous rights that had been drafted and presented by the Senate Subcommittee for Analysis of Indigenous Initiatives. Then on April 27, the Chamber of Deputies ratified the bill approved by the Senate, with the PAN, the PRI, and the PVEM voting in favor and the PRD and the PT against.

Among positive aspects, the bill expressly prohibits all forms of discrimination; guarantees women’s rights, including participation in local government; and recognizes indigenous autonomy in the areas of culture, education, language and local government. Nonetheless, it differs significantly from the proposal prepared by COCOPA (the congressional Commission for Agreement and Pacification) and presented by President Fox in December 2000.

In a public statement the same day as the lower house vote, the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) expressed its rejection of the new law, saying that it is not consistent with the San Andres Accords signed by the federal government and the EZLN in February 1996 and synthesized in COCOPA’s November 1996 legislative proposal.

The CNI stated, “The law…eliminates substantial parts of the COCOPA initiative, such as: recognition of the communities as entities with legal rights; recognition of indigenous territories; the collective use and benefit of the natural resources found in said territories; and the possibility of the association of indigenous communities and counties.”

A group of researchers and academics from the UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico), the College of Mexico, and the National Institute of Anthropology and History concluded that, due to those omissions, there are no territories nor other geographic spaces nor legal entities within the structure of the Mexican State in which the collective exercise of autonomy is guaranteed. They argue that, while indigenous autonomy is recognized in theory, the bill does not assure the concrete means to put it into practice.

While President Fox expressed his “recognition” of the Senate’s work, insisting that the passage of this law “marks the end of what was the armed conflict,” the president of COCOPA, PRD Congressman Felix Castellanos, asserted that the indigenous law approved by Congress “is stillborn” because it does not consider the needs of the indigenous peoples nor does it respond to their demands. In contrast, PAN Senator Felipe de Jesus Vicencio, also a member of COCOPA, stated that the EZLN should appreciate the conditions in which this constitutional reform was brought to fruition. He added, “While it may not represent the end of the struggle to redress the injustice, it is a step forward toward the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.”

On April 29, the EZLN issued a communiqué in which it declared that the constitutional reform does not respond to the demands of the indigenous peoples of the country, nor to those of the EZLN, the CNI or civil society. It asserted that the reform betrays the San Andres Accords and the COCOPA legislative proposal. Saying that the federal government and the legislators “closed the door on dialogue and peace,” the EZLN ordered Fernando Yañez to suspend his work as its official intermediary with the government.

Chiapas Governor Pablo Salazar commented that the passage of the indigenous rights law promoted by the PRI and the PAN signifies a setback to the peace actions that the federal and state governments and the EZLN had undertaken. Salazar, who was a member of COCOPA when the original COCOPA proposal was drafted, called upon President Fox and the EZLN to sustain their commitment to peace and to rise above the interests and visions of conservative groups who place obstacles in the path of the measures needed to get the peace process back on track.

Perhaps in reaction to the flood of criticism, President Fox modified his public position, stating, “Clearly more thorough work is required on central aspects, such as autonomy and self-determination of indigenous peoples and communities as entities with legal standing and legal rights. We all have a responsibility to work with dedication to achieve the modifications that are necessary in order to deepen the reforms within the parameters of the democratic institutions.” (News from the Presidency, 4/30/01)

The constitutional reforms still must be ratified by a majority of the states before they become law, and it appears that they will face significant opposition from indigenous groups and others who feel that they do not go far enough.

In spite of the advances achieved through President Fox’s measures with regard to Zapatista prisoners and the seven military bases, to the extent that the law that was passed is not faithful to the text of the COCOPA proposal, it would not be complying with one of the three conditions set out by the EZLN in December for renewing peace talks with the federal government. In view of the EZLN’s rejection of the new law, this indicates that the perspectives for renewing the peace process, which had grown increasingly positive in the first months of the year (as described elsewhere in this SIPAZ Report), are now cast into doubt, and the situation once again looks complex and difficult.