In Mexico, as in the rest of the world, the terrible events of September 11 were deeply shocking. One result was reduced attention for other unresolved conflicts, such as the stalled peace process in Chiapas and the problems of the indigenous people in Mexico.

Indigenous rights law: apple of discord

Peace efforts stalled again last April when the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation), along with other indigenous and popular organizations, denounced as a “betrayal” the constitutional reform on indigenous rights and culture that was approved by the federal Congress. The reform was subsequently ratified by a majority of state legislatures and in mid-August it was put into effect by President Fox.

On September 4, the Commissioner for Peace in Chiapas, Luis H. Alvarez, reiterated the government’s openness to resuming peace talks, “but in no way are we going to remain paralyzed if the EZLN doesn’t want to do so. We will promote social programs and deepen the institutional changes arising from the reform.” Although “the EZLN has every right to disagree with what was approved by the Congress, this does not justify its refusal to open conversations with a government that, no matter how you look at it, has offered concrete evidence of its commitment to peace.”

Although the EZLN did not respond to these comments (its communiqué of April 29 presented a clear position on the matter), other indigenous organizations questioned what the Commissioner said. The National Indigenous Multi-ethnic Assembly for Autonomy (ANIPA) emphasized: “It is not possible to build bridges of dialogue and national conciliation when one of the two parties, in this case the federal government, has not fulfilled its word to bring about the constitutional recognition of our rights as peoples, and instead applauds the pretense, lies and mockery approved in the Congress of the Union.”

A total of 329 constitutional objections to the indigenous law were presented to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN). Indigenous and other civil society organizations continued to express their rejection of the new law. Several lodged complaints against the reform with the International Labor Organization (ILO). The ILO will examine them, as well as the report presented by the Mexican government, and will publish its findings in May of 2002.

Faced with this situation, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) proposed to reopen the discussion about the indigenous reform before the end of December. The PRD doesn’t believe it necessary to await the Supreme Court’s decision (expected by February) in order to begin “the reform of the reform.” At the beginning of October, more than 100 deputies of six political parties signed the Manifesto of San Lazaro, which also proposes reopening the discussion of the indigenous reform. In his tour of Europe, some days later, even President Fox expressed a willingness to reopen the subject.

However, the National Action Party (PAN) expressed its disagreement. In addition, Manuel Bartlett, a leader of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and chairman of the congressional Commission on Constitutional Points, said that “Quite apart from the crazy ideas of President Fox, whom even his own party does not support,” the constitutional reform on indigenous matters “is firm, and there is no possibility whatsoever of reopening the discussion.” He added that related reforms to 40 secondary laws will be ready for approval before December.

The congressional Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA), created to support the peace process, was divided over the subject, reflecting the existing differences among the member parties. At the beginning of December, COCOPA even reached the point of considering the possibility of declaring itself in permanent recess.

Fox’s speeches about the situation in Chiapas

In Madrid, during his October tour of Europe, President Fox said that the Zapatistas “have been quiet and at peace after all that we did to seek pacification in Chiapas.” He also mentioned that “the displaced…have returned to their communities, to their homes, and all is in peace and tranquility.” Finally, he added, in regard to the rest of the “very small guerrilla groups that appear from time to time in Mexico, we want to surround and capture them.”

Later, in Italy, Fox affirmed that in Mexico, “There is a new law of indigenous rights and culture that compared with other countries, with any other, is among the most advanced and avant-garde that exists.” At the end of his tour, he concluded, “Europe is clear; today there is a democratic government in Mexico, that respects human rights, that cares for, loves and respects its indigenous brothers.”

Concern about the human rights situation in Mexico increases

In contrast to Fox’s declarations, on October 19, lawyer and leading human rights defender Digna Ochoa was murdered in Mexico City. On the following day, more than 80 NGOs (non-governmental organizations) demanded an expedited investigation of this murder. Governments, international and multi-lateral organizations, civil society, and churches of the world also expressed their repudiation of the assassination. The government of Fox as well as that of the Federal District of Mexico (whose Attorney General is in charge of the investigation) committed themselves to finding and punishing the guilty.

Shortly afterwards, President Fox freed two peasant-environmentalists from Guerrero, Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel, detained and tortured by the Army in 1999 on trumped up charges. Digna Ochoa had defended both. In fact, leads in the murder investigation point towards the state of Guerrero. Ochoa had been subjected to heavy military surveillance on a visit to Guerrero shortly before her death.

At the end of November, the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Center carried out an evaluation of the Ochoa murder investigation. The report criticized the slow progress, lack of clarity in methodology, “information leaks,” and other irregularities and limitations that threatened the effectiveness of the investigation.

Meanwhile, threats against human rights defenders continued, including one on October 27 that targeted Miguel Sarre, Sergio Aguayo, Edgar Cortez, Juan Antonio Vega and Fernando Ruiz, all members of recognized human rights institutions in Mexico.

On November 15, the Inter-american Human Rights Commission presented an ultimatum to the Fox government, calling for the immediate liberation of General Jose Francisco Gallardo, who was imprisoned eight years ago after he proposed the creation of a human rights ombudsman for the Army.

High tension in Chiapas

In the October 7 elections in Chiapas, despite its strong internal divisions, the PRI maintained a comfortable majority in the state congress, winning 21 of 24 districts (the PRD won two and the PAN one). The PRI also won 72 of 118 mayoral races (the PRD won 19 and PAN 11). Turnout was around 50%. A prohibition established last year against forming party coalitions (like that which led to the 2000 victory of Governor Pablo Salazar) limited the prospects for the PRI’s opponents. The lack of training of the voting booth functionaries and the role of the State Electoral Institute were widely criticized. In fourteen counties, one or another of the political parties filed challenges to the election results, and there have been incidents and demonstrations in several parts of the state.

Conflicts between social and indigenous organizations have multiplied and sharpened, even between those which up until now shared an ideological affinity. For example, the Regional Organization of Coffee Growers of Ocosingo (ORCAO) became involved in a conflict with the EZLN regarding the distribution of 800 hectares of land. Despite efforts to open a dialogue between the organizations without government intervention, the issue still has not been resolved. Throughout Chiapas these conflicts have resulted in injuries, deaths, kidnappings, displacement, burned houses, and growing threats. The causes of these confrontations are complex and have to do with unresolved problems of land tenure, struggles for political hegemony, and strategic differences about relations with the government, particularly regarding the electoral processes.

Another relevant event was the detention on November 6 of Eduardo Montoya Lievano, Chiapas attorney general during the former government. He was charged with criminal association, graft and giving protection to death squads.

Amidst such instability, the return of the displaced families from the civil society organization, Las Abejas (The Bees) took place (See Dilemma of the Displaced in Chiapas: Return without Justice?, in this issue).

There have also been positive signs that point towards a reduction of tensions at some points of conflict. There have been ecumenical prayer services in Chenalho, and in the northern region, adversaries reached agreements—with the presence of the state government—that allowed the reopening of the Catholic churches in El Limar and in Sabanilla.

As a consequence of the attacks in the United States…

A few days after the attacks, which were strongly condemned by the Fox government, the presence of military forces was strengthened in Chiapas, especially on the Guatemala border. The Organization of American States (OAS), of which Mexico is a party, declared that the attacks were an attack against the whole continent and offered its military support in the framework of the Interamerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance.

What occurred in the United States generated a polemic regarding the armed groups in Mexico. The Governor of Chiapas, Pablo Salazar, rejected the idea that the EZLN is a terrorist group, as was indicated in a report of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). He elaborated, “On the contrary, they are social fighters who are searching for a solution to their problems of marginalization, poverty and exclusion.” The Chiapas Peace Commissioner, Luis H. Alvarez, also rejected the characterization of the EZLN as a terrorist group, but said that he did not have enough information to express an opinion about other armed groups.

In a more general way, the federal government’s National Indigenist Institute (INI)expressed its concern that minority groups, including the indigenous, may be “observed” and their rights may be challenged under the pretext of “national security.”

Finally, the global economic slowdown, aggravated by what occurred in the United States, is being strongly felt in Mexico. In some parts of Chiapas, with coffee prices 50% less than last year, the producers simply decided to suspend the harvest. When at the same time possibilities for migration to the United States are shrinking (migration from Mexico is down 50% since September 11), the economic situation is particularly critical for poor peasants and workers.