Six years after their signing, the San Andres Accords have yet to be implemented, and as a result the possibility of resuming the peace process between the EZLN and the federal government remains on hold. For over a year, the EZLN has remained silent in protest against approval of the constitutional reform on indigenous rights. The law was also rejected by the congresses of those states with the largest indigenous population in the country and by the main indigenous organizations as well.

“It’s not a sin to be indigenous”
(Words in a poster displayed by indigenous demonstrators in front of the Supreme Court building)

When Vicente Fox assumed the presidency, the EZLN demanded three conditions for returning to the negotiating table: withdrawal of the Army from seven military positions, liberation of all zapatista prisoners, and fulfillment of the San Andres Accords through approval of the law proposed by the COCOPA(1). With the closing of the seven military bases in the first months of 2001, the first condition is considered to have been fulfilled, although militarization persists in Chiapas.

As for the zapatista prisoners, in March and April the COCOPA implemented proceedings with the federal executive branch as well as the state governments of Queretaro and Tabasco in order to obtain the freedom of the eight zapatistas who remain in prison ⁽²⁾, and it announced their imminent release. Three of them were released in Chiapas in May 23. Nevertheless, Miguel Angel de los Santos, lawyer for the zapatista prisoners, has reported the existence of 17 new zapatista prisoners who have been incarcerated during the current administration.

Regarding the most controversial point, i.e., the indigenous reform, three processes still pending could possibly alter the political scenario. First, the ruling of the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) is being awaited with regard to the more than 300 constitutional complaintsfiled against the indigenous law. Hearings of the cases have already begun and it is anticipated that they will all take place between May 6 and June 15. Expectations concerning the outcome are running high inasmuch as the highest judicial body now faces the decision to legitimate the approved reform or listen to the indigenous people and reject it. The expected ruling will be decisive with regard to the redefining of strategies by those involved in the conflict, since for many it could signify the failure of legal and peaceful avenues.

Secondly, in the middle of February, 168 members of Parliament presented the COCOPA law in the federal congress again, “in order to correct the mistake of having approved … a reform that does not respond to the demands of the indigenous people.” Nevertheless, it is virtually impossible for the initiative to be successful given the current composition of the legislature, which cannot change until 2003.

Finally, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has yet to make its pronouncement concerning the claims presented by labor unions and social organizations against the Mexican state arguying that the indigenous reform violates Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples and Tribes. In March, the ILO admitted the claims, and although a resolution against the reform would not have any coercive power, it would mean a moral sanction and would question its legitimacy even further.

Two opposite approaches

Meanwhile, the conflict continues to be caught between two approaches that seem to be increasingly polarized: the “pragmatism” of the federal government, which appears to be counting on making up for the absence of accords with economic programs and secondary laws; and the “principles” of the EZLN which continues its radical resistance to any partial solution.

On the Executive level, at the beginning of March, Xochitl Galvez, head of the President’s Office for Attention to Indigenous Peoples, announced that Fox will press for approval of indigenous legislation more in line with the COCOPA law. Nevertheless, shortly afterwards the Official Plan for Indigenous People’s Development was presented, which seems to leave aside key aspects of that law.

In February, the federal Peace Commissioner for Chiapas, Luis H. Alvarez, announced that government programs “will be the key to resolving the conflict”. However, implementing this is seen as problematic in Chiapas. In April, Porfirio Encino, state Secretary for Indigenous Peoples, asked the EZLN to permit social organizations in their zone of influence to take advantage of government programs: “We guarantee that there is no counterinsurgency policy behind this effort, it is simply that we cannot deny assistance to those who need it and ask for it.”

The zapatistas continue to turn their backs on these initiatives, relying on the building of autonomy through direct action from the bases of the communities, and harshly criticizing those who choose to accept “charity from the government”.

In recent months a particularly critical zone has been the Integral Biosphere of Montes Azules (in the Jungle region), where there have been increasing rumors of the imminent expulsion of the indigenous communities settled in the protected region. In this case the contradictory approaches appear to be between the federal government and the government of Chiapas. In May, Chiapas governor Pablo Salazar accused Jose Campillo, Federal Attorney for the Protection of the Environment, of promoting the violent eviction of the communities and warned that his government would neither carry out nor permit this action.

Another source of confrontation and distrust between the government and popular organizations continues to be the Plan Puebla-Panama, presented by President Fox as the main proposal for the development of southern Mexico and Central America. In spite of the fact that this plan will have serious social, labor and environmental impacts on the peasants and indigenous people who inhabit the region, they were not consulted regarding its formulation. Consequently, the popular organizations of the mesoamerican region have repeatedly expressed their rejection of the project.

Our daily intolerance

The increasing weakness of the logic of dialogue continues to strengthen the logic of confrontation, and the government of Chiapas, beyond its attempts to counteract such logic, cannot escape it. The state lives in a climate of social and political as well as religious intolerance ⁽³⁾.

At the end of April, Porfirio Encino recognized the existence of inter-community conflicts in at least 40 villages in the counties of Ocosingo, Altamirano and Las Margaritas. Members of the PRI clash with members of the PRD or zapatistas, but also zapatista supporters clash with organizations allied in the past with the EZLN, but which are now closer to the state government. There are various causes for these conflicts (see also SIPAZ Report, February 2002): relations with both federal and state governments, their programs and subsidies; disputes over land or for political control; ideological and religious differences. These conflicts continue to exact ever higher costs in displaced people, injuries, kidnappings and even deaths.

In the Northern region, tension increased in February after the arrest of Diego Vasquez, leader of the alleged paramilitary organization, Development, Peace and Justice. The Network of Community Human Rights Defenders has repeatedly denounced attacks and threats against its members, and the State Human Rights Commission (CEDH) issued recommendations granting security measures to the threatened leaders.

Conflicts over land and political hegemony occur particularly in the Jungle region. There, the counties of Ocosingo and Altamirano have been the scene of ongoing confrontations between zapatistas and PRI supporters, between zapatistas and ORCAO ⁽⁴⁾, or between official county authorities and authorities of the autonomous zapatista counties. In some of the Highlands counties (Zinacantan, Oxchuc), confrontations have occurred inside the county councils when the majority party has not allowed the minority into the council.

On the other hand, a theme that continues to unite diverse organizations beyond their ideological differences is the organized civil resistance against the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), particularly in the Mountain, Coast, Northern and Highlands regions. Civil organizations are protesting against the high cost of service and demand a preferential rate given that Chiapas is the main producer of electrical energy for the country and is the state with the highest index of poverty.

In this adverse social and political climate, Pablo Salazar’s government persists in its efforts to ease tensions. In recent months, it has succeeded in initiating negotiations in some of the highly conflictive regions (the counties of Tila and Sabanilla). It has also achieved the signing of peace accords in which high state government officials, diverse social organizations (from The Bees to Development, Peace and Justice), different churches and even zapatista supporters have participated.

Nonetheless, these accords have been criticized by those who maintain that they are merely temporary situational arrangements, and thus the conflicts will reappear because they do not offer long term structural solutions. And for this, profound reforms such as those set down in the unfulfilled San Andres Accords would be required.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special UN Rapporteur for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, concurred with this analysis after a visit to Chiapas. Despite diverse efforts to achieve reconciliation at the local level, he stated that if the problems raised by the rejection of the approved constitutional reform by the EZLN and the majority of the indigenous movement are not resolved, “there will be no definitive social peace” in the communities.

On the other hand, the polarization that is experienced in Chiapas has strained the relationships between the governor and social organizations, particularly human rights organizations. From the CEDH (whose president holds the governor responsible for the attacks he has suffered), to the Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center, the Network of Community Human Rights Defenders and the North American organization Global Exchange, all have denounced the responsibility of state authorities in human rights violations in Chiapas.

The poorest among the poors

At the end of April, the catholic Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM) held a meeting in the neighboring state of Oaxaca, entitled “Indigenous Emergency”. In this meeting, the Mexican Episcopal Conference presented a report in which the figures show that the challenges go far beyond legislation: 96% of indigenous Mexican people inhabit counties of high and very high marginalization and they suffer an increasing deterioration in their living conditions.

In May, Rodolfo Stavenhagen asserted that Mexico systematically violates the rights of indigenous people and declared that the living conditions indicators of indigenous peoples show a grave lack of economic, cultural and social rights. Referring to the Declaration of Indigenous Rights being discussed at the UN, he maintained that many governments resist this edict because they consider it very dangerous to recognize indigenous’ right to self determination, because it could lead indigenous peoples to make their own decisions regarding their lands and the exploitation of their resources.

The fact is that all of Latin America is currently in a critical situation. Adjustment programs imposed by the multilateral institutions lead to more recession and economic exclusion of ever wider sectors of the population. An atmosphere of social discontent and dissatisfaction predominates, harboring situations of latent violence.

The Summit of Monterrey that took place in March revived the polemic concerning the predominant neoliberalism and alternative development models. The catholic Episcopal Commission of Social Pastoral described the free market as a “blind machine” that institutionalizes inequality and exclusion. Similar opinions were expressed by protestant organizations such as the Latin American Council of Churches (CLAI) and the World Council of Churches.

The problems of the President

The search for balance among the three branches of power continues to be marked by conflicts between the Fox team and the legislature. The Executive agenda has no support in Congress. The opposition parties have severely criticized Fox for his foreign policy which they consider subordinate to the United States. Fox has so far been unable to create alliances that would permit him to make progress on his principal initiatives, such as fiscal reform and private investment in the petroleum and electricity sectors. Also the SCJN has issued rulings unfavorable to the President’s interests, such as the recent one against private investment in the electricity industry.

Regarding human rights issues, the Fox administration has also been unable to temper domestic criticism concerning human rights, in spite of intense diplomatic efforts to improve its international image. In April, the Special UN Rapporteur for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, maintained in his report that corruption affects between 50% and 70% of the federal judges in Mexico. According to Cumaraswamy, “Impunity and corruption do not seem to have lost any strength in Mexico”, and most judicial civil servants at the local level continue to be subordinated to state executive powers. The main Mexican judiciary bodies have disavowed this report.

In its 2001 annual report, the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Center reported that torture and police violence are recurrent in the Fox government and that 48% of the cases of repression occurred in the marginalized regions of Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero. Coincidentally, on April 5, the official National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) presented the first National Diagnostic on Torture in which it maintained that torture continues to be a daily practice during the process of detention.

Six months after the assassination of the human rights defender Digna Ochoa, the investigation has made no significant advances and the hypotheses range “from the possibility of suicide toward that of a crime of the State,” according to the Attorney General of Justice of Mexico City. Meanwhile, another human rights lawyer, Barbara Zamora, received threats in March, and in April the policemen assigned to protect her colleague, Leonel Rivero, were assaulted by unknown persons.

In March, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organization against Torture (OMCT), declared that the situation of human rights defenders in Mexico is “extremely difficult” and that repression against them is manifested in “a manner much more subtle than in other countries.”

In this somber overall state, at the end of April Mexico signed an agreement with the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights to initiate the second phase of the Program of Technical Cooperation. This stage includes the opening of a permanent office of this UN body in Mexico and the realization of a diagnostic evaluation of the human rights situation in the country that will provide the basis for the formulation of a national human rights program.

Footnotes:

• (1) The Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA) was created in 1995 to assist with the peace process and is made up of legislators of the four parties represented in Congress. In 1996 COCOPA drafted a legal initiative which would integrate the San Andres Accords into the Constitution. (Return)
• (2) Those prisoners in violation of Chiapas law were freed in 2001 at the request of the governor and the State Attorney General. (Return)
• (3) In the counties of San Juan Chamula and Las Margaritas assaults by traditional Catholics against Evangelicals have recently been recorded. (Return)
• (4) Ocosingo’s Regional Coffee Growers Organization, which groups various peasant organizations. (Return)