The San Andres Accords, signed February 16, 1996 by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) and the federal government of Ernesto Zedillo, contain the results of the negotiations between both parties on the theme of Indigenous Rights and Culture. In November of the same year, the parties agreed that the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA)⁽¹⁾ would prepare a legislative proposal in order to integrate the Accords into the Constitution. The understanding was that the parties would either accept the initiative without changes or reject it.

In December 1996 the EZLN accepted this initiative which included proposals to amend constitutional articles 4, 18, 26, 53, 73, 115 and 116. The government, on the other hand, proposed modifications which substantially altered the COCOPA proposal. In January 1997 the EZLN accused the government of having violated the process by presenting a counterproposal and of not fulfilling the conditions set forth by the Zapatistas when in September, 1996 they withdrew from peace talks.⁽²⁾ (These included demilitarization, disarming the paramilitary groups, freeing the Zapatista political prisoners, and fulfilling the San Andres Accords.)

It was not until President Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) was inaugurated in December 2000 that conditions began to improve for a possible renewal of peace talks.

A new president

On December 5, 2000, only days after assuming office, President Fox presented the COCOPA proposal to the Senate. Nevertheless, it was not until the “March for Indigenous Dignity”⁽³⁾ in February-March 2001 in which 24 representatives of the EZLN traveled through a large part of the country that the proposal before Congress commanded broad public attention.

On March 28, 2001, Congress, through the different commissions involved in consideration of the legislation, received the Zapatista delegation and delegates of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and listened to their presentations about the importance of approving the so-called “COCOPA law.”⁽⁴⁾

Support for the COCOPA initiative

One of the strongest arguments in favor of the proposal to convert the San Andres Accords into law is that the former Executive (Zedillo) and the present (Fox) committed themselves to it, and they did so with the help and the encouragement of the representatives of the legislature who made up the first COCOPA. In the words of Deputy Batres Guadarrama of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD): “It is the word of some and of others, a pledged word, which ought to be put into action. It would be absurd that we as the Congress approve a law [the 1995 Dialogue Law] where we call the parties to negotiate and then we don’t recognize the results of that negotiation.” (Congress, March 28, 2001)

Others emphasize that the Accords and the legislative proposal would contribute to the redress of historic injustice suffered by the indigenous peoples; that the Accords seek to establish a new relationship between the Mexican State and the indigenous peoples; that historically speaking there is no evidence that indigenous autonomy would destroy national unity; that in the Constitution collective rights are practically speaking absent, although this is a fundamental concept in the indigenous way of life; and that the San Andres Accords and the COCOPA law are the basic condition for passing from simulation of indigenous rights to their actual recognition.

The Minister of the Interior, Santiago Creel, argued that “we are not talking about making a new Constitution since the one in force has permitted the alternation of political parties and the modernization of the country. But the Constitution must be modernized in order to adapt it to the present reality of Mexico, to overcome contradictions which exist in some of its articles.” (La Jornada, March 27, 2001)

Disagreements with the “COCOPA Law”

Those who oppose the proposal declare that it would lead to the “Balkanization” of the country. That “only” 10% of the population is indigenous and that within this group, few are Zapatistas. Some jurists and politicians hold that the rights of the indigenous are sufficiently protected in the Constitution as it presently exists.

One of the criticisms or warnings which are made about the proposal has to do with its recognition of the so-called “traditions and customs” (usos y costumbres) of the indigenous cultures. The critics hold that not all the traditions and customs can be justified or are appropriate for community living since traditionally they included negative elements such as the treatment of women and intolerance of religious diversity or political pluralism. Hence some argue that recognizing indigenous traditions and customs in the Constitution could bring unacceptable consequences. Such recognition could mean legitimization of or even an increase in discrimination against indigenous women or expulsions of evangelical indigenous by the traditionalist Catholics.

The Center of Fiscal and Legislative Studies (CEFYL) of the Business Coordinating Council, a business trade group, advises that the approval as such of the COCOPA proposal would impede investment in the regions inhabited by indigenous groups. In its analysis, autonomy and its “private laws” (traditions and customs) “would bring as a consequence the creation of small independent states” in Mexico and would leave the indigenous exposed to the temptation to implant “some type of socialism, a cooperativism, a disguised tyranny”, or to apply “taxes which may not be proportional or equitable.” (La Jornada March 28, 2001)

Jose del Val, advisor to the administration’s Office for Indigenous Peoples and Director of the Inter-american Indigenist Institute of the Organization of American States, questions the legal basis of the Accords and the COCOPA proposal. He says it was written and agreed to in a moment in which consensus was simulated and discussions “were not free.” He emphasizes, “Limiting autonomy to only the native peoples raises the question of what the indigenous people want to do with the nature of autonomy. To break the backbone of Mexican federalism?” (La Jornada, March 28, 2001).

The EZLN responds to the criticisms

In her speech before Congress, EZLN Commander Esther observed that “this proposal [the COCOPA law] is accused of Balkanizing the country while it is forgotten that the country is already divided…This proposal is accused of creating Indian reservations, and it is forgotten that we indigenous already live apart…This proposal is accused of promoting a backward legal system, and it is forgotten that the present system only provokes confrontation., punishes the poor and gives impunity to the rich, condemns our color, and converts our language into a crime. This proposal is accused of creating exceptions to existing political practice, and it is forgotten that the present government does not govern; rather it converts its public responsibility into a source of personal enrichment and is considered unpunishable and untouchable as long as it holds power.” (Congress, March 28, 2001)

Responding to the accusation that the COCOPA proposal would result in greater discrimination against indigenous woman, several indigenous groups have recognized that the situation of women is a grave internal problem. Besides emphasizing that this problem is not exclusive to the indigenous, they claim the right to assume the responsibility to combat discrimination of women in their own manner. PRD Deputy Batres Guadarrama pointed out: “The so-called COCOPA law… does not say that all the traditions and customs of the Indian peoples will be recognized. To the contrary, it says that only those which are found to be in harmony with human rights and equality of the genders will be recognized. What they ask to be included in the law is already there.” (Congress, March 28, 2001). Moreover some articles of the proposal reinforce the obligation to respect the “dignity and integrity of women” (article 4 II) and “to guarantee the [political] participation of women in conditions of equality” (article 4 III). Although the topic of religion does not come up as such in the proposal, some articles emphasize the obligation of respecting individual protections and human rights. The representatives of the EZLN and those of the National Indigenous Congress have repeated their intention to work hard to keep discrimination in the indigenous communities from happening or from getting worse.

Is this a legal debate or a political battle?

The war of terminology on the topic of indigenous rights which has been unleashed in recent weeks is a legitimate exercise of debate, although it can also function as a delaying tactic on the part of those who oppose the proposal. In general there is no clarity or consensus among experts of jurisprudence, intellectuals and politicians on the legal understanding of the terminology, much less on the possible practical consequences.

Manuel Camacho Solis, the first Peace Commissioner for peace talks with the EZLN, insists that the fundamental problem is political and not the technical legal terminology. He warns Congress that it will have to decide between an indigenous law with imperfections or a perfect law from the legal point of view, but without popular backing. He underscores the “necessity of thinking about this law with a vision equivalent to those who promoted the great Mexican laws that changed the destiny of the country. They were more the fruit of a political vision and of the backing of a popular political struggle than of the talent of the experts in jurisprudence.” (La Jornada, March 28, 2001)

Peace…

Mexico is living in a period of much social and political dynamism. And there is no doubt that more of the same lies ahead. Some important results are visible in the fact that the representatives of the EZLN and the CNI have managed to join together so many distinct voices in favor of approving the COCOPA law. They have united political parties, social organizations, communications media, sectors of civil society, and even the President and broad sectors of the Mexican people.

Meanwhile, there are various views on how to understand the opposition to the initiative. Some say it can be understood in terms of economic interests, fear, racism, disinformation, the manipulation of information. Others simply insist on the merit of the concerns that have been raised, such as Balkanization, individual rights, etc. Others underscore more the importance of discussing the legislative proposal with much precision and permitting the different players to give their opinion on the matter. Whatever it may be, the most conservative voices seem to have been confronted with a counterpart that because of its increasing legitimacy and size, and through its peaceful and persevering struggles, has been converted into a counterpart that can no longer be disregarded.

To recognize indigenous rights and culture according to the COCOPA proposal and no other is to directly promote the peace process and to take a significant step toward confronting centuries of marginalization, poverty and injustice, a sad reality which millions of indigenous Mexicans live each day.

The San Andres Accords

The San Andres Accords were presented to Congress in the form of the COCOPA proposal for constitutional reform. This legislation must be revised by sub-committees of the Congress before being approved by both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. It must subsequently be approved by a majority of the 31 state legislatures. At that point, it would serve as the basis for subsequent implementing legislation and official regulations.

The Accords begin with the recognition of the pluricultural nature of the Mexican nation and of the legal rights of the indigenous peoples as such.⁽⁵⁾ On the county level, they imply the recognition of the indigenous communities as entities with legal standing and rights (as distinct from individual rights).

The indigenous rights⁽⁶⁾ that are recognized have their foundation in the right of self-determination of the peoples, which expresses itself in autonomy, broadly conceived. From the exercise of that autonomy are derived the rights:

• to determine their internal forms of organization and living together;
• to apply their own norms in the regulation and resolution of their internal conflicts;
• to strengthen their public participation and forms of representation;
• to have collective access to the use and benefit of the natural resources of their lands and territories;
• to preserve and enrich their languages and cultures;
• to acquire, operate and administer their own means of communication;
• to participate and be taken into account in development plans and programs according to their needs and cultural particularities;
• to freely establish formal associations of communities and counties in order to coordinate their actions;
• to define their own electoral procedures and forms of internal government at the county and community level.⁽⁷⁾

The Accords also establish the obligation of the Mexican State in the areas of national, state and county government to promote the equitable and sustainable development of the indigenous peoples, bilingual and intercultural education (through programs designed by region in consultation with the indigenous peoples), and the combat of every form of discrimination. It is also the obligation of the State to guarantee full access of the indigenous peoples to the jurisdiction of the State, taking into account their juridical and cultural practices, and assisting them at all times through interpreters and advocates who know their languages and cultures. On the county level, it is the obligation of the State to transfer resources, administrative responsibilities, and powers to the indigenous counties and communities.

Footnotes

• 1. Made up of representatives of the political parties represented in the national Congress. Responsible for assisting with the dialogue between the government and the EZLN. Established in 1995. (Return)
• 2. For more detail regarding the peace process during the period 1997-99, see “Peace process, War process…” (Return)
• 3. See “SIPAZ Report on the Zapatista Caravan to Mexico City,” at www.sipaz.org (Return)
• 4. Working Meeting of the Joint Committees for Constitutional Issues and Indigenous Affairs, Chamber of Deputies of the H. Congress of the Union, with delegates of the EZLN and the CNI, March 28, 2001. The complete text of the meeting (Return)
• 5. Definition of indigenous peoples: “…descendents of the inhabitants of the country during the period of the conquest or colonization and the establishment of the actual state borders and which, whatever their juridical status, preserve their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, in whole or in part.” (Return)
• 6. Synthesis produced on the basis of a document of SERAPAZ (Peace Services and Consulting). (Return)
• 7. For more detail, see the website of SIPAZ or CIEPAC  (Return)