“Frankly, the issue of Chiapas has completely disappeared from the European agenda; Europe is clear: today there is a democratic government in Mexico which respects human rights, which takes care of, which loves and respects its indigenous brothers.”
— Vicente Fox (La Jornada, October 22, 2001, p.14)

Today, almost eight years after the Zapatista uprising in January of 1994 and almost a year after the electoral unseating of the old PRI regime, the plight of those displaced by the armed conflict in Chiapas has yet to be resolved, despite this statement by President Fox, and despite the election promises of Pablo Salazar, the new governor of Chiapas. While the first displacements occurred during the military portion of the uprising in early January 1994, the majority of those currently living as displaced persons were forced from their homes between 1995 and 1998 as a result of the paramilitary activity which was the most criticized element of the Zedillo government’s counterinsurgency program. In its well-documented census of persons forced to leave their homes as a result of the armed struggle in Chiapas, the Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center shows well over 12,000 displaced in five different zones and ten counties in Chiapas as of August 2001.

Since fleeing from their homes, they have survived the intervening years in very reduced circumstances. Most were forced to leave their belongings behind with their houses, and many had their houses burned and their animals stolen when they fled. While a few have been able to work their lands with the accompaniment of human rights observers, most have had no access to their lands and livelihood; in some cases their plots have been taken over or stolen outright. Many have lost relationships as a result of leaving their homes and all have been wrenched from their communities. All live without a sense of security, and many continue to be threatened.

The Returns of Las Abejas

By August of this year conditions in the encampments of displaced families belonging to the civil society group Las Abejas (The Bees) in Chenalho had deteriorated to such an extent that they were no longer bearable. Especially in X’oyep the people did not have adequate access to potable water or firewood. While this had been a growing problem for some time, they now learned thatg the International Red Cross was cutting their food allotments as well.

When we asked Ernesto Herrera, head of the Chiapas office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the cutbacks, he emphasized that the mission of the ICRC is to offer emergency humanitarian aid to displaced victims of armed conflict. In the case of Chenalho, they had been giving 100% food support to the displaced families in the region since they entered the area following the massacre in Acteal in December of 1997. In an evaluation of the situation of the displaced families in Chenalho which the ICRC carried out in March and April of this year, they realized that some families receiving aid now had access to their own food crops or income from harvesting their coffee. Based on this assessment, they decided to cut some of the food aid and to replace it with agricultural aid programs which encourage families to regain self-sufficiency.

Whatever the rationale for the cuts, for many of the displaced Abejas this was the final straw. They felt that they had no alternative but to return to their communities, even though appropriate conditions for return did not yet exist; that is, they had not received reparations for the losses they had sustained, nor had the paramilitaries who forced them to flee been disarmed or brought to justice. Especially given the prospect of lack of food, they had to act quickly in order to return in time to plant their crops. So, beginning on August 28, and continuing September 30, October 11, and October 22, 1,336 Abejas returned to several different communities.

Given the unresolved tension in the communities, Las Abejas were very concerned about their safety as they planned the returns. On August 24, before the first return took place, they successfully negotiated an agreement with county authorities and high level state government officials which they hoped would ensure the rights and security of the returnees as well as defining their community responsibilities following their return. In contrast to the former state government, Pablo Salazar´s government facilitated these negotiations and state government officials were present in each of the returns. Las Abejas also asked national and international human rights organizations in Chiapas to provide accompaniment for each return, and an ongoing observation presence was established in several of the returnee communities.

Reaction to the Returns

As might be expected, response to these returns was greatly varied. The returnees themselves ran the gamut of emotional reactions — excitement at finally returning to homes and lives they had left behind years before; sorrow at leaving those who had taken them in and supported them throughout the difficult years of their displacement; and, of course, fear of returning to communities where the groups of armed men who had forced them to leave are at liberty and still in possession of their weapons. Perhaps the greatest preoccupation centered around Los Chorros where paramilitary groups remain intact after forcibly rebuffing federal government operatives who entered the town to disarm them late last year. In fact, at least a dozen of the families scheduled to make the return to Los Chorros from X’oyep changed their minds due to rumors of possible paramilitary reprisals. On November 21, in a move which served to heighten tensions, a federal judge decreed that six of the 87 prisoners held in the Acteal massacre were innocent and released them from prison. Of the four freed men who live in Los Chorros, two are identified as paramilitary leaders.

Within the wider circle of displaced communities, other groups were interested in how Las Abejas had organized the returns and what kind of support they received with an eye toward the possibility of utilizing these experiences in future returns to their own communities. Also of interest was whether the returnees would be able to reclaim their lands. For any unable to maintain access to their land, as would be the case for most of the displaced families in the northern region, for example, this is a critical issue.

In addition, there was concern as to how the government might use the returns to its own advantage. Because the government position is that Las Abejas are returning to their communities voluntarily, some displaced communities fear that the government may claim that the problems of the displaced have been resolved and that others can now safely return home as well. For example, the EZLN insists that their displaced will remain in resistance until appropriate conditions for return have been established (i.e., reparations for the displaced and disarming and bringing paramilitaries to justice).

What might this mean for Polho, the Zapatista autonomous community adjacent to Acteal where many of the displaced Abejas have been living? If their neighbors are in fact able to return safely to their communities, the displaced Zapatistas in Polho may fear losing the support of public opinion and international organizations.

Also, since Las Abejas had engaged in negotiations with the government to provide safeguards for the returns, there is concern among all of the displaced that the government will now try to claim a political victory for having “resolved” their problems.

By calling these “forced returns,” Las Abejas attempt to underscore the fact that the requisite conditions for a just and safe return still have not been established. Nevertheless, public perception of the plight of the displaced, as indicated by local press coverage, seems to have shifted toward the view that these issues have been resolved. It remains to be seen just how much of an impact this will have in terms of waning support for victims of the conflict in Chiapas from national and international organizations.

Beyond Chenalho

In January of this year, the Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center organized a meeting attended by approximately one hundred displaced people from all over Chiapas. Out of this gathering was formed a negotiation commission, consisting of twenty persons representing sixteen communities, which was charged with taking the following four demands to the state government:

1. that those who drove them from their homes be brought to justice;
2. that reparations be paid for the losses they had suffered;
3. that they be given new land or that the legal status of their own lands be regularized; and
4. that the San Andres Accords be officially recognized.

The new commission met in April and again in May with Pablo Salazar and the government agencies involved in the issues to be negotiated. While the governor seems eager to resolve the problems of the displaced, there is an obvious gap between his vision of such a resolution and that of the displaced people themselves. The official position is that there is now neither money nor land available for reparations. What the government has offered is humanitarian aid and the services of the government commission for reconciliation, which would treat the problem as a series of isolated intracommunity incidents in which the slate can be wiped clean and agreements reached between the disputing parties. This approach is unacceptable to people who have been driven from their homes as a direct result of the armed conflict here, because it fails to address a key element of the problem: the continued impunity of the paramilitary groups in their communities.

Despite these differences, the meetings produced agreement on three topics of discussion: justice, land and development. Negotiations are scheduled to begin in December, pending the outcome of a government analysis of the situation of the displaced and their communities of origin. So far, the government has offered no concrete proposals, and the negotiation commission for the displaced has expressed some doubt as to whether the government intends to enter into meaningful negotiations. However, at this point, they still hope that they will see some positive results in December. If at that time they feel progress is not being made, they will have to decide whether to continue the negotiation process or whether other forms of action may be more effective.

Moving On

In the meantime, life goes on for those who have returned to their communities. While there are still fears and uneasiness, as of yet there have been no reports of any serious incidents. Las Abejas have created a committee to handle land disputes and other complaints which the returnees may have. For the most part, however, it seems that people are getting down to the business of reestablishing their lives. An important part of this process is rebuilding relationships within the communities which were ruptured with the displacements.

A moving report from one of the observer teams describes an informal meeting between a member of an armed group in the community of Puebla and a leader of Las Abejas in that community. After some general discussion, and after reading and discussing some Bible passages together, the man identified as a paramilitary asked the pardon of the Abeja for his part in the displacements. This is a single incident, and “pardon” on an individual level does not begin to address the unresolved issues of justice. Nevertheless it indicates that much as there exist real possibilities for renewed conflict or even new atrocities in these forced returns, the fact that people are once again living in direct relationship with each other means that there may also be possibilities for rebuilding and renewal within these communities.

Whether the returns were for better or worse is now only an academic debate — the people could no longer endure the conditions under which they were living, and they had to make a change. What remains clear is that the problems of other displaced persons in the state have not been resolved with these returns. As their negotiation commission is making clear, adequate conditions for return do not yet exist for displaced people in other areas any more than they did for Las Abejas. Until the underlying causes of the displacements are addressed, the problems of those thousands still displaced will remain unresolved.