Human Rights Brief
A Legal Resource for the International Human Rights CommunitySummer 1994
Chiapas Delegation Concludes Historical Repression of Indigenous People Must be Addressed
by Sharon Healey*
The victims of the uprising that began on New Year's day in the southern Mexican State of Chiapas are buried, the rebels have retreated into their jungle hideaways, the former governor they kidnapped was released, and thousands of the displaced indigenous people are now returning home. But according to a soon to be published report, compiled by a human rights delegation that visited Chiapas in the wake of the insurrection, the underlying social and economic inequities giving rise to the uprising still persist in this poorest of Mexican states.
The 13-member delegation, organized by Minor Sinclair, director of the Ecumenical Program on Central America and the Caribbean, visited Chiapas from February 4th to February 10th, 1993. The group travelled through towns taken over by the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista Army for National Liberation - EZLN), an armed rebel group of Mayan Indians named after the revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata. Rick Wilson, director of the Washington College of Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic and member of the delegation, described the team as "a very eclectic and diverse group that included Human rights activists, representatives of the Catholic church and members of the media"
Wilson explained that "the initial purpose of the delegation was to show a strong presence in the NGO community, then hold the candle up to Chiapas and attempt to focus on the documentation of human rights abuses (committed by both the Mexican Army and EZLN) and to assist the work of local organizations, including the Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center."
According to Wilson, since the violations of the human rights and humanitarian law were being adequately documented by other human rights organizations, such as Americans Watch, the delegation decided to concentrate their efforts on their second objective: to investigate and analyze the underlying causes which ignited the insurgent action by the EZLN.
After spending a few days meeting with various representatives from the Catholic church and local human rights and governmental organizations in the town of San Crisobal, the delegation divided into two groups and spent the remaining time visiting the smaller municipalities of Las Margaritas, Ososigno and Altammirano that had been taken over during the uprising.
The groups interviewed local civilians, military and government officials as well as internally displaced people, most of whom were indigenous indians who had fled their communities during the fighting. News reports estimate that over 20,000 people, mostly indigenous indians, were displaced by the conflict. Many fled across the border into Guatemala, while others sought refuge in primitive temporary shelters erected by the government. These shelters included individual houses, a stadium and a converted coffee processing plant.
Wilson stated that the population was split in its opinion on the uprising. Many people interviewed by the delegation were sympathetic to the demands of the Zapatistas, which include free democratic elections, self-government, and respect for indian land rights. Some, however, told him that they were afraid to return to their communities because they feared reprisals from the Zapatistas for not joining the rebel movement, though Wilson contended that "all evidence points to the fact that the government had whipped up these fears and there was no evidence that the Zapatistas took reprisals."
The delegation members had the opportunity to see the extent to which the government exerted control over Chiapas' indigenous communities when they witnessed the orchestration of a visit from the governor. Wilson explained that the displaced people were brought from the shelters to the main plaza and positioned around the area where the governor was to speak. "They were handed signs saying 'we want the army,' and 'the army is our friend.' Some couldn't read and were holding the signs upside down," said Wilson.
The delegation found that a lack of real democracy and opportunity for political participation contributed to the frustrations giving rise to the conflict. Since 1929, Mexico has been ruled at the local and national levels by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), described by Wilson as a "velvet fist dictatorship that had penetrated every level of government and strokes the people by giving out little handouts." The delegation concluded that endemic corruption permeated throughout the administration of justice while considerations of justice usually gave way to powerful political and economic issues.
The delegation also reported that the uprising was further fueled by changes in the Mexican constitution effecting the "ejido" laws under Article 27. The ejidos system, communal lands collectively owned by members of the tribal villages, had been resurrected following the Mexican Revolution under Article 27 of the Mexican constitution in the early 1900. Previously, the ejido system of communal landholding had been eroded and absorbed by large land estates. Recent negotiations over the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, though, induced changes in Article 27, which effectively eliminated the protection of ejidos lands, by allowing titles to be transferable and by eliminating restrictions on ownership of land by private corporations.
Chiapas is currently reported to have the highest level of pending petitions for land reform in the country with some claims dating to the 1940s. Squatters are often forcibly removed in violent confrontations with landowners and the police who support them. To complicate matters, the government created a hodge-podge of conflicting titles, often allocating the same land twice or incorporating previously allocated properties into Indian communal lands.
According to Wilson, the manipulation of the concept of the ejido to advance political interests has been "an effective way to control and contain indigenous indians in marginalized spots of land." He described the way in which small groups of indians eke out subsidence existences on barren hillsides.
The Mexican government has responded to the demands put forth by the EZLN and negotiations are continuing, but the delegation's report concludes that if the negotiations do not address the historical human rights demands of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, the fighting will likely resume.
Wilson expects the report to be completed by the end of April. Copies of the report can be obtained from Minor Sinclair at Ecumenical Program on Central America and the Caribbean, 1470 Irvine Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20010; tel: (202) 332-0292.
Sharon Healey will complete her LL.M. in International Legal Studies in August 1994. She is currently a legal intern with the International Human Rights Law Group.
The proper citation for this article in the Human Rights Brief Volume 1, Number 2, beginning at page 4 is: 1 No. 2 Hum. Rts. Brief 4 (1994).
