This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Website hosting by:

Seeking serious structural social change in Guatemala

Henry Monroy is, as many SJC members now know, a former judge from Guatemala now living in Montreal . He was forced to leave Guatemala after getting death threats when he was presiding over the Bishop Gerardi murder trial. He has lately been involved in the efforts to bring some of those responsible for mass murder to justice. We interviewed Henry about these efforts just before press time, when he returned from hearings in Europe .

“I was in Spain , for meetings with different people and organisations about the court case being put forward by the Rigoberta Menchu Foundation. I also went to the Congress for Universal Justice in Madrid . This Congress is based on the concept of universal justice, which came out of the Nuremberg trials following World War II. Later, there was a case in Argentina which used the same concept, and brought a case in Spain because it was not possible to bring a case. As in Guatemala , and Chile . It’s the same situation.

Rigoberta Menchu has brought a case before the Spanish Audiencia Nationale against the military on behalf of the victims of the violence in Guatemala . The main person who was responsible for the massacres, for the genocide, in Guatemala is now the president of the Guatemalan Congress. The military structure still has the real power. After the war, in 1996, after the Peace Accords, the role of the army was to be changed, but the political structure is a very strong one. The system of justice is collapsing. During the war, the military took over judicial activities, including control over personnel in the judicial system, and in government bureaucracy.

This is why Rigoberta Menchu decided to apply to the court in Spain , based on the application of justice in accord with principles of universal justice. This principle was recognized in 1945 at the end the of European war, when the universal principle was declared at Nuremberg . This principle recognized that those who have committed a crime, like a war crime, can be persecuted anywhere, regardless of where the crime took place. This was the principle used to pursue those who were guilty of crimes during Argentina ’s military regime.

Just as it is in Guatemala , it was not possible in Argentina to pursue justice in the national courts. The system in both was too closed.. But after the presentation of the Argentine case, the same principle was used for the Chile case, to try to make Augusto Pinochet face justice.

In 1999, Rigoberta Menchu brought her case, which makes three claims: genocide, state terrorism, and the forced removal of persons. They have shown that in Guatemala , it is not possible for such a case to be brought. The case was refused, although the judge recognized that the case was well documented, that perhaps in Guatemala there was a crime of genocide, and that Spain could make a judgement against responsible person. But the final decision of the judge was that it had not been demonstrated that the case could not go forward in Guatemala . It was a political decision.

Because of this, the Rigoberta Menchu Foundation is launching an appeal to the Supreme Court. Most recently, there have also been efforts before the Congress for Universal Justice, where I have participated, where there have been discussions about the application of law in the context of crimes against humanity. These include genocide, state terror, like that. The general conclusions of the Congress was that the crimes in Guatemala was a case where it is evident that genocide and state terrorism took place.

I was in Spain for a week to participate in the Congress, as the evidence was reviewed. I also travelled to Belgium , and in both places spoke with journalists and parliamentarians, and with different groups that support human rights in Guatemala . But it is evident that although there is a lot of interest in pursuing the case, there is little interest in supporting it at the political level. The same is true here in Canada .

Right now the situation in Guatemala is very serious, because the United Nations mission will be leaving, but they are going to leave intact structures or repression. There has been no real change. The people who were responsible for the violence are still there. So we are trying to show the international community that the situation is still grave. The international community has to recognize that this is not just a problem of economic development. In Guatemala , it is very important that there be a social change. The social structures in Guatemala are very closed, very racist, very elitist. There are many people who can not participate in the social, economic or political activities.

About 65% of people are Indian, descendants of the Maya, who live in insecurity, outside of the obligations of the state towards the people. Yet they are the majority. It is the minority who decides what kind of country, what kind of society, they prefer to live in. The exclusion of the majority dates from the colonial times, and now we have structures that are still the same. They haven=t changed the political system, the system of education, the availability of heath care, or the system of justice. The reform of the judicial system is essential for social peace and the protection of equality.

For me, as a Guatemalan, it is important, not only because I was, myself, a victim of persecution, violence, and intimidation. I was a judge myself, in charge of several cases, but perhaps the most important the case of the murder of Monsignor Juan Gerardi. This case was paradigmatic of justice in Guatemala . Through this case, I have lived the reality of the system of injustice there. I saw the situation of political exclusion.

It is a bad situation for the people, but it is something that the civil society is trying to change. There many people who are working to change things, but it is not easy. It is very hard. There are heroes in Guatemala , many people who work like heroes, but many have been killed. The repression has been very hard. The political system that we have ensures that anyone who does not agree with the government is an enemy. It is not a civilized system. It is not good for life. But I love Guatemala , I want to see it as a prosperous country, with society in harmony - tranquil and, most importantly, with justice. With equal justice for all. 

Working for human rights in West Papua (Irian Jaya)

An Upstream Journal interview with John Rumbiak, human rights activist in West Papua . 

The SJC thanks Jill Heyde of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation and Adam Novak of Alternatives for facilitating Mr. Rumbiak’s visit to the SJC office in March..

My name is John Rumbiak. I am supervising the Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy - the Indonesian acronym is ELSHAM - working as a human rights activist in West Papua .

The main objectives of our work include the de-militarisation of West Papua, the challenge to the international community of the legal and political grounds for the annexation of West Papua to be part of Indonesia , although as a human rights organisation we do not take any political position at all, on what the political status of West Papua is. We encourage the peaceful resolution of the West Papuan case, democratically and justly. Whatever the political status, let the people decide what is best for them.

We don’t support autonomy, whatever the Indonesian government offers. We don’t support independence. We are in the middle, trying to encourage everybody to peacefully resolve the problem. Again, let the people decide what is best for them.

The problem goes back to the history of the West Papuan people. Back in 1969 the United Nations “supervised” a very fraudulent process of a referendum, that they called the “act of free choice”, that basically violated every aspect of international law regarding the right to self-determination of the people. They allowed the Indonesian government, without any control from the United Nations, to hand pick local representatives. 1,026 members out of 800,000 people, in 14 camps. Indoctrinated and intimidated. At the same time, in the communities in general, kidnappings going on, people being killed -terror going on. So when the “act of free choice” took place in August, people were so afraid to have a say for their own political choice, so they finally decided to be part of Indonesia .

Since that time, people have been organising themselves to fight against the occupation by Indonesia . There has been a resistance movement called the Papuan Liberation Movement, the OPM. The problem then, since Jakarta sees the independence movement as a danger to the unity of the country, is the militarism. Certain areas are called military operation areas, which means no access for any observers for those areas, military check points, people very much controlled. This happens especially in the remote areas, in the highlands and other remote areas where there are no telephone lines. Almost nothing. But when people move back and forth they have to report to the military check points. Observers are not allowed to go to those areas; they are closed areas.

Then there is intimidation. Kidnapping, arrest and torture going on, including rape. Since the very beginning of the occupation, these intimidations have been continuing.

And since 1995 I have been involved in monitoring various human rights violations around the operations of the US mining company called Freeport-McMoran Copper and Gold. It’s a New Orleans based mining company, operating in the central highlands of West Papua .

This mining company is considered by the Indonesian government as a “national”, “vital” project. One of the number one taxpayers to the country, employing thousands. This company has a very high security system. The government allows the military to be deployed there, although the company has its own security personnel.

It’s a long story. The security personnel of the company collaborating with the military, to protect the company. And the people, whose land was taken by the company, are still fighting about the occupation of their land, because there was no consultation at all. The company just came in, signing its contract of work with the Indonesian government, in Jakarta , and they came into the indigenous people’s land doing exploration and exploiting the resources. So there has been growing resistance by the local people.

There were two main tribes whose land was taken by the mining company. The Amumgme and Kamoro, the Amumgme living in the mountains, and the Kamoro living in the lowland area. The company is exploiting the minerals in the mountains, and then dumping into the river system, damaging the river system so it affects the people living in the lowlands. So these two tribes are fighting with the company.

The culture of impunity is a big challenge to us in Indonesia . The Indonesian system allows the military to play two functions. They play a major role in guarding the security system of the country, but at the same time they play a major role in the social and political life of the society. So they can become parliament members, assembly members. They can run businesses. They are everywhere. This military system is killing democracy itself. People have no say in their rights.

The second problem is the legal system. When you talk about the rights of indigenous peoples, regarding the lands, forests, they don’t have any rights at all. Generally speaking the state is signing contracts for the people with the investors, and when the people protest they call in the military, because it is the military that is running the country.

The basic thing is, there is no legal system in Indonesia that recognizes the rights of indigenous people. So we need to go to the question of the forests, and the basic law regarding the exploitation of the forests. The deal always is with the central government. The local government, in West Papua, only has to agree with what was decided in Jakarta . So at any time they can come in to your piece of forest and they begin to cut it down.

Back in 1993, when I started looking at this, there were 34 companies operating in an area of 10.8 million hectares of the forest. West Papua covers 40.8 million hectares, so the forest concessions meant deforestation - about 167,700 hectares annually. This forest forms the culture of the people. They go hunting, gardening, it is everything.

In the capital, they say it is select and cut, but what we see is that they cut, and then they select! So you have complete deforestation. And no good reforestation. I have been there, I’ve seen it. And then a government official in a company speedboat goes to evaluate. The reports that come out, well it’s all “no problem”, “no worries”. In fact a lot of problems. With law enforcement, with corrupt government officials.

The forest people have their traditional beliefs. To some of them, the forest is like their mother, so it’s a big problem, ruining the whole life of the community.

So there are a couple of things that should be done. Especially for the Canadian community. When there is a big company operating - like a Canadian company that has been operating as a sub-contractor, even if it is in a small way - there is a responsibility for human rights. I think the company is General Electric Canada. And Lavalin, which got a lot of money from CIDA, did an assessment for a project that caused a lot of problems for indigenous people. There was no consultation with indigenous people, Lavalin just stepped in, obtained funds from CIDA, and did an assessment that allowed the company to cut down the forest of the people.

The people were angry, burned down the camp of a plywood company, and then many were arrested.

If I were Canadian, I would pressure my government her, really to correct themselves and make sure there is no problems for the local people. INCO is another mining company, which is exploring for gold in the central highlands of West Papua .

People in the North have a big responsibility to the people of the South with regard to their economic interventions, especially the Canadian government. I would appeal to the Canadian society to make sure that transnational companies that operate in Indonesia or elsewhere, follow some kind of policy - a code of conduct or whatever - that guarantees that a company has policies regarding human rights, the environment, land rights issues, and that they always consult with the people democratically and fully. Otherwise they can just walk away from the problems.

This cannot happen without pressure from the Canadian society.

For us to improve the situation in West Papua or Indonesia in general, the Canadian government cannot just say that “we support democracy and human rights”. Canada provides an example of a country that guarantees the rights of everybody, but we need action. We don’t need lip service here.

I notice from my own visits with Canadian representatives, they support a lot of projects, like transmigration which causes a lot of problems. And when I talk with them I get nothing concrete. It has to come from Canadians. You have to change CIDA.

We have been living in an authoritarian regime for 32 years. It is corrupt and the country is in crisis. But to move ahead to democracy, the key issue is that justice, an environment in which democracy can really take place, means the military must go back to the barracks. Bring justice to the people bring bringing to justice the perpetrators of human rights violations committed by the military, by all Indonesian security forces, in different parts of Indonesia, to end the culture of impunity.

It is tough to go to the self-determination issue, which is the major source of problems. But if that is too tough, go to the justice issue first. And that will allow things to go further. There are no boundaries when you talk about human rights.

On the march with the Zapatistas

By Phyllis Bailey

Zapata vive! La lucha sigue! Zapata Lives! The Struggle Continues!

This was the rallying cheer of the Zapatista march that began February 24 in the southern state of Chiapas and ended 3000 kilometers later in Mexico City on March 11. The 24 Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) masked commanders, led by the legendary Subcomandante Marcos, were accompanied by busloads of supporters from all over North America and Europe .

At each of the nineteen stops en route, locals turned out in the hundreds and thousands to listen to and cheer the EZLN rebels who first emerged from their jungle hideaway on January 1^st, 1994, with the stirring cry, Ya basta! Enough! The bloodshed that followed claimed 150 lives and drew the world’s attention to the indigenous struggle.

The sixteen day march was regarded by some cynics as a publicity stunt. The goal was to press the Mexican Congress to pass the San Andres Accords, calling for the rights of indigenous Mexicans, marginalized and impoverished since the Spanish Conquest over five hundred years ago.

President Vicente Fox lent support to the march, providing top-level security and strict instructions that the Zapatistas and their caravan be given maximum protection. He had sent the Accords to Congress in December and urged their passage. Marcos did not trust him and persistently turned down his invitations to meet, saying he did not want to be a photo opportunity for Fox.

I joined the caravan on March 6 in Tepoztlán, an exquisite little resort town surrounded by huge fortress-like rock formations. I was to meet three young women from Montreal who had been on the march since the beginning and had promised to arrange transport for me. I thought I would never find them in the crowd and I was right.

Before I left home, I was contacted by Campbell , a young Canadian due in Mexico the day after my arrival. He was also concerned about transport. We promised to look for each other. "I’m easy to spot," he said. "I’m six foot five and blond." In one of those bizarre small-world quirks, it turned out he had gone to school with my son.

I was impressed by my first rally experience. The caravan, with security helicopters buzzing overhead, entered the town’s Zócalo, the main square and central meeting point of every town, city and village in Mexico . I joined in the cheers as the commanders explained their position. The loudest cheers were for Marcos who said he spoke for the people who were "the colour of the earth."

My elation was tempered by the feeling that I would never find my group. I approached people from the dozens of buses parked in town and asked if they had come across three young Canadians. When they said "no," I asked if they had room for me on their bus, to which they also replied, "no."

I considered begging a ride with one of the ambulances accompanying the caravan then decided not to worry. God, or the equivalent, would provide.

The next morning, I arrived at the Zócalo at dawn. I wandered around, looking for the three young women and/or the tall young man. Not even the bus drivers knew when the caravan would leave. "It leaves when Marcos says it leaves," an experienced caravanista told me.

I approached a large table, laden with coffee, juice, fruit, sweet rolls and tamales. A local resident handed me coffee and urged me to help myself to the food. I took a roll and handed her two ten peso coins, about $3.50. She refused to accept my money. I said, "It’s a contribution." She shook her head.

I was very moved by this. I did not yet look as scruffy as the other travel-worn caravan participants but I was a Zapatista supporter and that was good enough for her.

Still in search of my group, I went to the convent where the caravan had camped the night before. As I approached the gate, a man handed me a bottle of water and a roll of toilet paper.

No luck finding my group, so I went back to the Zócalo where I spotted someone I was sure was Campbell . I was so relieved, I flung my arms around him. He had not yet found transport but I had been told by the Italian contingent that in an emergency they would take me to the next stop.

Campbell disappeared and was back within ten minutes. He grabbed my bag and told me he had scored us a ride with James, a photojournalist from California . For the next four days, I fought the revolution from a car, decent restaurants and modest, but comfortable, hotels, much easier than overcrowded buses and concrete campsites.

When I finally found my group, they told me of the difficulties they had experienced along the way. If a bus broke down, all the buses stayed behind while it was repaired. Some locations were cold and some hot. Lots of waiting, bouts with turista, a shortage of showers, but all agreed it had been the experience of a lifetime.

We stopped at Aneniquilco, the birthplace of Emiliano Zapata, the revolutionary hero and inspiration of the Zapatista movement. Marcos laid a wreath at the foot of his statue. Along with the masked Zapatista commanders on the speakers’ platform, there was a distinguished looking elderly man with an impressive white moustache. He was one of Zapata’s sons and supported Marcos in his quest for indigenous rights. I later read that another son rejected Marcos and the Zapatista cause.

The next few days, the caravan followed the Zapata route to Mexico City . The crowds poured in, the cheers rang out. All the rallies began with the Mexican National anthem, Marcos’ affirmation that he considered his people an integral part of the Mexican nation.

Zapatista tee-shirts, face masks, flags and other souvenirs were on sale everywhere. Some journalists commented on the strange juxtaposition of peasant revolution and capitalist initiative. One witty French reporter referred to the commercial enterprise as Marcotráfico.

In a TV interview with Julio Scherer Garcia, the founder of the magazine Proceso, Marcos revealed that a defining moment in his life was when a five-year-old indigenous girl died in his arms because an ordinary pill that would have lowered her fever was not available. "There was no record of her birth or death. It’s as if she never lived."

Marcos denied he was charismatic. "I am just filling a void," he stated.

He seemed to bend over backwards not to appear charismatic, making a point of reading his speeches, possibly to avoid an appearance of flamboyant oratory. But two teen-age girls, like groupies chasing a rock star, once nearly knocked me over to get to the spot where they believed Marcos would appear.

Jorge, a Mexican photojournalist, was one of the few people I met who was negative about Marcos. "He is nothing but a coward and a hypocrite with his mask. He is not real. Look at his eyes. They are hard and cold. Zapata didn’t wear a mask. His eyes were compassionate."

The Mexico City News, an English language daily, designed for American residents and tourists, published a number of scornful articles about Marcos. One referred to him as "Subcomedian Marcos." He was attacked for not being indigenous and for having a sense of humour.

Marcos has been identified as Rafael Sebastien Guillen, a former college professor, and newspapers have published his photograph. Marcos has neither confirmed nor denied this identity but has indicated he will eventually remove his mask.

For the final day of the march, it was rumoured that Marcos would ride a horse into Mexico City ’s giant Zócalo, just as Zapata and Francisco (Pancho) Villa had done years before. In fact, the area was so congested that the Zapatistas entered the Zócalo on the back of a truck and the horse that accompanied them did not participate. An estimated 100,000 people turned out that day.

Considering the crowds and the emotionally charged atmosphere, the march was remarkably well organized and orderly with very few mishaps. Early on, two Italian buses were shot up while being serviced. There appeared to be no intention to harm anyone, since the buses were empty at the time.

Another bus had an accident that crushed a police officer to death. Despite this tragedy, the police I encountered were always friendly, cooperative and willing to provide help and information wherever we went.

Some believe that Marcos cares nothing for the indigenous but is merely using them for his own Marxist revolutionary ends. But Marcos is a public relations genius whose activities receive front page coverage worldwide. Whatever his motivation, a victory for the indigenous of Mexico would be a boost for aboriginals everywhere.

Phyllis Bailey, a native of Montreal, is a sociologist, psychotherapist and educator. Her involvement in the Zapatista Caravan is a follow-up of her participation in an emergency human rights mission to Chiapas in 1997.

Report of the Canada / Central America / Mexico Urgent Action Network on the occasion of the Human Rights Consultations held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 28 February 2001

Prepared and presented by Karen Rothschild on behalf of the Social Justice Committee 

The Urgent Action Network:

The memorandum of the Canada/Mexico/Central America Urgent Action Network is based on a survey of reports of human rights violations received by the Social Justice Committee during the past year. The Network itself is composed of individuals and organizations from across Canada with a shared concern for social justice and a particular interest in Mexico and Central America . It goes without saying that this brief memorandum on the Network’s work is not, and does not aspire to be, an expert analysis of the human rights situation in Mexico . It has, moreover, a regional bias in that it is particularly centred on southern Mexico and on rural Mexico .

Introduction:

In the past several years, particular concern has been expressed by the Committees and Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights regarding very serious violations of the rights of the indigenous peoples of Mexico . The U.N. Special Rapporteurs and Committees have also emphasized the need for the Mexican government to protect the physical and psychological integrity of Mexican human rights defenders and to promote the work of human rights defenders. From the Urgent Action Network’s perspective, it appears that Mexico has not yet been able to respond to these U.N. recommendations. As had been the case in the year 1999-2000, the urgent actions received by the Network during this past year have been largely focussed on violations of the human rights of indigenous peoples and of human rights defenders.

Much has been said and written about the dramatic changes that have taken place in Mexico in the past eight months. There is no doubt that these changes are encouraging and, it might be said, even surprising. Who would have anticipated a year ago that a prominent non-governmental human rights defender would become Mexico ’s Special Ambassador for Human Rights and Democracy? Who could have foretold that twenty-four EZLN leaders would travel to Mexico City to meet with members of the Congress? Who would have expected that two delegations of senators would travel to the Los Loxichas region of Oaxaca to meet with local indigenous people, who overcame their fear of reprisals in order to make known to the senators their suffering at the hands of the Mexican army? In the light of these changes, it might be tempting to assume that the tide has been turned, that there has been - or will be very soon – a human rights revolution in Mexico, and consequently that the work of the Network during the year 2000 is an interesting piece of social history but of no particular relevance for the future.

It is the central thesis of this report that the present spirit of optimism should be tempered with caution and with a continued commitment to the active promotion of human rights. In reflecting on the urgent actions to which the Network has responded during the past year, we shall therefore attempt to ascertain what implications they have for the situation of human rights in Mexico in the Fox sexenio. We shall also remember the gravity of the situation which the Fox administration must confront, in particular the serious problem of militarization (signalled both by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) and the continued occurrence of torture. The latter takes place in a context which has been described by human rights expert Miguel Sarre as an institutional framework that opens clear spaces for violations of the freedom and integrity of the person (that is to say, for the practice of torture). We find it unfortunate that President Fox made the decision to designate a military man, General Macedo de La Concha, as the (civilian) Attorney-General of Mexico . This decision is all the more regrettable because, during his period of office as Military Attorney General, Macedo de La Concha did virtually nothing to end the impunity enjoyed by military personnel who were responsible for very serious human rights violations – including torture. (We note that our sentiments regarding the designation of a military man to this very sensitive post in the civilian justice system are shared the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – although, when expressing her opinion, Mary Robinson did not permit herself to go so far as to mention the name of the military man in question.)

Political Rights:

Reported human violations from the states of Guerrero and Oaxaca remind us that, in a number of parts of Mexico , the democratic transition is not complete and the free exercise of political rights is still not possible. In Guerrero, there were reports of army and police harassment of opposition party political activists and members of independent social organizations, and there was another attempt on the life of a member of the Campesino Organization of the Sierra Sur (an organization which has lost more than thirty of its members since it was founded in 1994). In a rural community in Oaxaca , a young man died in the local jail after having ventured open criticism of the Institutional Revolutionary Party candidate during an election rally. (He had been imprisoned and beaten at the request of the candidate himself.) Also in Oaxaca , in Santiago Xanica, a struggle for local political power has pitted the army, the police, and local members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party against the Committee for the Defence of Traditional Electoral Procedures (usos y costumbres). This latter case is an example of the difficulties experienced by some indigenous communities in Oaxaca when they exercise their ( Oaxaca state) constitutional right to choose their local officials by traditional electoral procedures.

The Rights of Human Rights Defenders:

Last year saw attacks (death threats, breaking and entry, surveillance by unknown persons, tampering with telephone lines, etc.) upon the All Rights for Everyone Human Rights Network and at least five of its member organizations. Four of the affected organizations had been directly working on cases involving human rights abuses committed by the Mexican army. Another organization, Citizens in Support of Human Rights (CADHAC) of Monterrey , Nuevo Leon , has been actively engaged in denouncing prison conditions and in defending the rights of prisoners. The director of the Centre of Frontier Studies and Human Rights Promotion of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, had publicly accused local (federal) Department of Immigration personnel of being involved in the illegal transportation of migrants from the south of Mexico to the United States .

Indigenous Rights and the Situation in Chiapas :

Despite the election of opposition coalition candidate Pablo Salazar Mendiguchia, there appears to have been relatively little real change in the situations that have given rise to the urgent action received from Chiapas during the past several years. In this context, it must be remembered that Governor Salazar faces the determinedly obstructive tactics of the Institutional Revolutionary Party majority in the state Congress. Furthermore, all decisions involving the Mexican army are by definition outside his sphere of competence, as is the release from jail of the majority of imprisoned Zapatista supporters (one of the EZLN’s conditions for the resumption of peace negotiations with the government). It should be noted, however, that the nineteen imprisoned Zapatistas whose cases did fall within the state’s jurisdiction have now been released – following a review of their cases requested by Governor Salazar.

Following the belated, and not always well planned, federal and state police operations and investigations with regard to the paramilitary groups in Chiapas , there continue to be threats (and sometimes violent actions) from these groups. That is to say, civilian Zapatista communities and independent social organizations continue to be terrorized by members of paramilitary organizations. Perhaps even more important, because it represents deliberate federal government policy, is the fact that the massive presence of the army is still largely unmodified. It should, however, be noted that the army has now been withdrawn from Amador Hernandez. (This troop withdrawal reverses the expropriation decree, of questionable constitutionality, through which President Zedillo sought to legalize the installation of a military base on land belonging to an indigenous community.)

Amador Hernandez is one of the four points from which the army has been withdrawn in partial compliance with the EZLN’s three conditions for resumption of the stalled peace negotiations between itself and the federal government. Despite the fact that non-governmental human rights organizations have for years been demanding the complete withdrawal of the army from the indigenous communities of Chiapas , the troops withdrawn from the above four points have not left the state or, in most cases, even the region where they were stationed. Furthermore, there continue to be regular reported complaints regarding the army’s patrolling in and near indigenous communities. In places where military checkpoints have been dismantled, it is common that the soldiers remain posted at the edge of the road, scrutinising rather than actually stopping passers-by.

It should be remembered that the military and paramilitary presence described above have had negative repercussions on the daily life of the communities, particularly affecting the rights of indigenous women. It is they who must cope with contaminated water sources (as a result of deliberate lack of hygiene on the part of military personnel) and with the shortages of food (caused by the difficulties of travel to distant farming fields and to local markets). At times, when there is a sudden flare-up of tension and the men feel obliged to flee into hiding, it is the women alone who try to block the army’s access to their communities.

Women’s Reproductive Rights:

Although they have not been the basis of urgent actions, during the past year we have again received reports of violations of women’s reproductive rights - particularly of the right to informed consent for contraceptive procedures or operations. During a public event in Mexico City , a member of the organization Xi’Nich, referring to the conditions that are sometimes attached to government social programmes such as PROGRESA, complained that indigenous women "are obliged to go for medical consultations, in the course of which, in many cases, surgical methods of birth control are suggested or carried out." (We have learned that one of the reasons why these reports are not sent to us as urgent actions is that the victims are reluctant to give details of their experiences, because they are afraid that there could then be reprisals on the part of health and social service personnel.)

Environmental Rights:

In the year 2000-2001, for the first time, the environment became a major theme in the situations to which the Network responded. Without any doubt, the most dramatic and the most highly-publicized of these situations was that of Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, the Campesinos Ecologistas of the Sierra de Petatlán and Coyuca de Catalán. The civic actions of the Campesino Ecologists were motivated by the urgent need to protect their local forests, and, in so doing, to preserve their homes and their livelihoods. Their non-violent actions led to their illegal arrest, interrogation, and torture by the Mexican army and to their continued incarceration. Despite public acknowledgement by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) of the validity of the two men’s allegations of torture, their appeal against their harsh prison sentence was turned down. They have even been subjected to harassment by prison officials.

In the nearly two years since the arrest of Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera, other members of the Campesinos Ecologistas have been threatened and harassed by the army and by local logging interests. In addition, during the past year, another campesino environmental organization in the state of Guerrero, the Vallecitos de Zaragoza has also been threatened and harassed – in this instance by local loggers. These cases have occurred in a region where it is estimated that over 50% of the ground surface is degraded.

It is encouraging to note that President Fox has requested the Ministry of the Interior to re-examine the case of the imprisoned Campesinos Ecologistas, especially as the executive branch of government, while it obviously cannot and should not try to interfere with the judicial process, does have the power to support a petition for amparo.

It is important to note that at the heart of these cases are unresolved socio-political and environmental problems – the protection of Mexico ’s forests and the promotion of truly sustainable campesino agricultural and forest practices that can provide an at least modest living. The Fox government’s recent announcement that it plans to use the army and police to protect vulnerable forested areas of the country has already given rise to expressions of concern. Spokesmen for the Campesinos Ecologistas have reportedly stated that the use of the army in the protection of the forest would be illegal and that it could be used as the justification for a permanent military presence in the Sierra - a situation that would foster human rights abuses. According to these spokesmen, the government’s approach to the living conditions of rural communities is not what campesinos deserve. In fact, the very presence of the army is "an offence". Furthermore, there has never been sufficient official attention to education, health, public security, and access to the justice system, as well as to improving the efficiency of the existing government institutions responsible for environmental protection.

Another urgent action from the state of Guerrero reflects a fundamental incompatibility between a business model of development and the vision of indigenous campesinos. This is the situation in the community of San Miguel Tecuixiapan. Residents of that community were not consulted prior to the arrival (in the community) of a party of engineers, who had come to survey a large tract of land to be used for a new automobile testing site for General Motors. Although, following acts of nonviolent civil disobedience on the part of residents of San Miguel and neighbouring communities, the state government reluctantly accepted the community authorities’ refusal to sell or be compensated for their land, the government said at the same time that San Miguel would henceforth be excluded from state development programmes. More ominously, the community’s refusal to cede its land has been followed by acts of harassment on the part of the State Judicial Police and, to a lesser extent, the Federal Preventative Police.

It is clear that the above cases involve not only the right to land and livelihood and to a healthy environment, but also fundamental civil and political rights. It is perhaps not without significance that two of the cases involved situations characterised by the presence of transnational companies. (In the Sierra de Petatlan and Coyuca de Catalan, the arrival of the lumber company Boise Idaho exacerbated an already existing environmental problem, which, however, persisted after the company’s departure.)

Environmental and human rights organizations have emphasized the failures of SEMARNAP (the Ministry of the Environment) and PROFEPA (the federal body responsible for environmental law enforcement), pointing out that, if these government entities had fulfilled their responsibilities, the Campesino Ecologists would not have had to resort to civil disobedience in order to protect the region’s forests. A similar failure has occurred in the state of Chihuahua . Indigenous communities in the Sierra de Tarahumara, an area which accounts for approximately twenty-five per cent of Mexico ’s total lumber production, have made repeated but fruitless complaints regarding the excessive and illegal logging which is threatening the region’s ecosystem. The situation has now become so serious that social and environmental organizations are calling for a suspension of further cutting permits pending a complete review of forestry policy in the Sierra de Tarahumara. As in Guerrero, environmental degradation has had direct and indirect repercussions on the basic human rights and the way of life of indigenous campesino communities.

Conclusion:

The three months that have passed since President Fox’s assumption of office have seen some significant positive changes, not the least of which is the President’s announced willingness to support the San Andres Accords on the basis of the COCOPA legislative proposal. There appears to be renewed hope for a resumption of the peace talks, although, from their reported statements, it seems apparent that the Executive and the EZLN have quite different visions of the peace process.

At this moment in Mexican history, a just peace and a new relationship between the Mexican state and the indigenous peoples of Mexico are of paramount importance. Nevertheless, it should also be remembered that, on behalf of those who have suffered very serious human rights violations, the Mexican state has a debt not only to the future, but also to the past. The survivors of human rights violations and the families of deceased victims must at the very least receive the material compensation that can enable them to live in dignity. Furthermore, the justice system must do its part to investigate and to bring before the law those who are responsible for human rights violations in Chiapas and elsewhere. Impunity must be brought to an end.

It cannot be forgotten that the human rights violations described above are taking place in a climate of increasing poverty which has particularly affected rural and indigenous Mexicans, and that in his recent speech on constitutional reform President Fox did not mention economic rights.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Social Justice Committee requests the Canadian government:

·         To enjoin the new Mexican administration to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs who have recently visited Mexico, especially the recommendations regarding the practice of torture and the dangers of militarization. (The latter term may be defined as both the geographical deployment of the army and the encroachment of the military into areas of civilian competence).

·         To follow closely the progress of the technical cooperation agreement signed between the United Nations Commission for Human Rights and the Mexican government - on the basis of the annual reports submitted by the technical cooperation office to the Commission. To give whatever Canadian support is appropriate to the technical cooperation programme, especially in regard to respect for the human rights of members of indigenous communities and to the administration of justice.

·         To continue and strengthen bilateral cooperation between the national human rights commissions in Canada and Mexico, bearing in mind the very serious shortcomings from which the CNDH still appears to suffer. It has no competence in labour and electoral rights, and even more importantly, it continues to lack any means of enforcing its recommendations. (Furthermore, the current CNDH administration has been described by a major Mexican non-governmental human rights organization as being prone to evade its responsibilities – either by misinterpreting its own functions and areas of competence, by trying to persuade complainants to desist from their complaints, or by reaching "friendly agreements" with the authorities without the consent of the victim.)