April 30, 2001
Narco News 2001
Zapatistas
Respond to Congress' Betrayal
The
War Doesn't End
Two new communiques and new analysis translated
by Irlandesa...
#1:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Mexico.
April 29, 2001.
To the National and International Press.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The communiqué is off. So the "unholy
trinity" (which, as its name
indicates, is made up of four: Diego, Jackson, Chucho and Bartlett)
have
been up to their old tricks in the Senate? The war in Chiapas
doesn't
matter to them? Of course it matters! That's why they drew up
this
reform. Because that way they ensure that the war doesn't end,
that the
soldiers continue with their dirty dealings in Chiapas, that
the zapatistas
remain clandestine, and that the indigenous continue to be subjected
to
charity and contempt. It can now be seen that it wasn't a problem
of
"details." If that reform deserves any name it's that
of the
"Constitutional Recognition of the Rights and Culture of
Latifundists and
Racists." And how about Fox applauding the legislative mockery?
Of
course, since he sponsored it.
They want to turn the March of Indigenous
Dignity into a defeat, but the
only defeat they're ensuring is that of their future, or don't
they
remember?
Yes, we already know what's coming: a
great media campaign about the
"zapatista intransigence," an increase in military
and police pressure,
reactivation of paramilitary groups, offensives, etcetera. We've
already
seen this film, and the denouement is well-known (ask Señor
Zedillo).
Vale. Salud and know that it's not over
for us.
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.
Mexico, April of 2001.
**************************************************
[#2]
Communiqué from the Clandestine
Revolutionary Indigenous Committee -
General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Mexico.
April 29, 2001.
To the People of Mexico:
To the Peoples and Governments of the World:
Brothers and Sisters:
The EZLN has learned of the constitutional
reform on indigenous rights and
culture which was recently approved by the Congress of the Union.
This is
our position:
First. - The constitutional reform approved
in the Congress of the Union
in no way answers to the demands of the Indian peoples of Mexico,
of the
National Indigenous Congress, of the EZLN, nor of national and
international civil society.
Second. - Said reform betrays the San
Andrés Accords in general, and the
so-called "Cocopa legislative proposal" in particular,
in substantive
points: autonomy and free determination, the Indian peoples as
the
subjects of public right, lands and territories, the use and
enjoyment of
natural resources, the election of municipal authorities and
the right to
regional association, among others.
Third. - The reform only serves to block
the exercise of indigenous
rights, and it represents a serious offense to the Indian peoples,
to
national and international civil society and to public opinion,
since it
disregards the mobilization and the unprecedented consensus which
the
indigenous struggle achieved at that time.
Fourth. - Señor Fox hailed the
current reform, knowing that it is not even
remotely similar to the one he represented as his own. This proves
that
Fox only pretended to embrace the "Cocopa proposal,"
while negotiating a
reform with hard-line groups in Congress which does not recognize
indigenous rights.
Fifth. - With these reforms, federal legislators
and the Fox government
are closing the door on dialogue and peace, since they are preventing
a
resolution of one of the causes which led to the zapatista uprising.
They
give a raison d'être to various armed groups in Mexico,
by invalidating a
process of dialogue and negotiation. They shirk the historic
commitment to
settling a debt which Mexico has been dragging along in its almost
two
hundred years of sovereign and independent life. And it is an
attempt to
divide the national indigenous movement by handing over a federal
legislative obligation to state congresses.
Sixth. - The EZLN formally refuses to
recognize this constitutional reform
on indigenous rights and culture. It does not embrace the spirit
of the
San Andrés Accords. It does not respect the "Cocopa
legislative proposal."
It completely ignores the national and international demand for
the
recognition of indigenous rights and culture. It sabotages the
incipient
process of rapprochement between the federal government and the
EZLN. It
betrays the hopes for a negotiated solution for the war in Chiapas.
And it
reveals the absolute alienation of the political class regarding
popular
demands.
Seventh. - Consequently, the EZLN communicates
the following:
A). - That it has indicated to architect
Fernandez Yáñez Muñoz that he
completely suspend his work as liaison between the EZLN and the
federal
government. There will be no more contact between the Fox government
and
the EZLN.
B). - That the EZLN will not take back
up the path of dialogue with the
federal government until indigenous rights and culture are constitutionally
recognized in accord with the so-called "Cocopa legislative
proposal."
C). - That the zapatistas continue in
resistance and in rebellion.
Eighth. - We are calling on national and
international civil society to
organize, and, with mobilizations in Mexico and in the world,
along with
the EZLN, demand that the Mexican government turn back from the
legislative
mockery, and fulfill the constitutional recognition of indigenous
rights
and culture.
Ninth. - We are making a special call
to the brothers and sisters of the
National Indigenous Congress to organize and to keep up forms
of civil
resistance throughout the national lands.
Democracy!
Liberty!
Justice!
From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.
By the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous
Committee -
General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos.
Mexico, April of 2001.
Analysis
from La Jornada...
La Jornada
April 27, 2001.
Indigenous
Law Proposal Approved By Senate:
One
Step Forward, Two Steps Back
By Sergio Rodríguez Lascano
The constitutional changes regarding indigenous
issues which were approved
by the Senate of the Republic - along with the vote of all the
parties, to
the shame of the PRD - is closer to the Zedillo Law than to the
Cocopa Law
in its fundamental aspects. Once again the political parties
have not been
sensitive to the demands of the indigenous, which are supported
by millions
of non-indigenous Mexicans, to provide them with a legal framework
which
will allow them to achieve a two-fold objective: to participate
as a
subject with legal recognition in the reorganization of the national
State,
and to achieve that through the legal recognition of their own
mechanisms
for regulating their social, political, economic and cultural
life.
In the draft proposed by the Senate -
which the Chamber of Deputies will
most certainly support - there is movement towards a general
definition
concerning the concept of autonomy or concerning indigenous peoples
- where
the consciousness of their identity is incorporated - only to
immediately
cancel it or limit it to the greatest degree when it goes on
to more
concrete definitions. Further on, if we compare the Law proposed
by the
Cocopa with the one Zedillo presented and with the one currently
being
promoted, we can see that it is a Law which, in some instances,
is even
more regressive than the previous President's.
There are four points in the current legislative
proposal which are the
most questionable:
1). - In the original Cocopa text the
indigenous communities are proposed
as "entities of public right." In the Zedillo Law
this was changed, and it
noted "the indigenous communities as subjects of public
interest." The
Senate proposal suggests "such as the recognition of the
communities as
entities of public interest." Between Cocopa and Zedillo,
the Senate chose
the latter. What does this difference imply? In the Cocopa
proposal, the
communities are recognized as subjects of public right, that
is, as part of
the State. In the Zedillo proposal, being backed by the Senate
today, the
Mexican indigenous communities are treated in a similar fashion
to a
Conasupo store, by being considered in the public interest.
All of this
contradicts Paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Senate proposal, which
reads,
literally: "The nation has a multicultural composition,
based originally
in its indigenous peoples." How can they say that and then
recognize those
peoples with a legal status similar to that of a Conasupo store?
2). - In the original Cocopa text, the
following is proposed: "To gain
access collectively to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources
of
their lands and territories, those being understood as the totality
of the
habitat which the indigenous peoples use and occupy, except for
those whose
direct control corresponds to the nation." The Zedillo
proposal said: "To
gain access to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources
of their
lands, respecting the forms, methods and limitations established
for
ownership by this Constitution and the laws." The Senate
proposal says:
"To gain access, with respect for the forms and means of
ownership and
possession of land established in this Constitution and laws
in these
matters, as well as to the rights acquired by third parties or
by members
of the community, to the preferential use and enjoyment of the
natural
resources of those places the communities inhabit and occupy,
except for
those which correspond to strategic areas, in the terms of this
Constitution." Once again there is no doubt that the Zedillo
Law had more
weight than the Cocopa one. The territorial concept, which is
key for
understanding and defining autonomy, has disappeared. In this
way, the
geographical space in which autonomy can be exercised is maximally
limited,
violating the agreement established in San Andrés that
all the problems of
Land Ownership should be discussed in Table 3 on Justice and
Development.
3). - In the original Cocopa text it
says: "The exercise of free
self-determination by the indigenous peoples will be respected
in each of
the arenas and levels in which their autonomy is asserted, being
able to
take in one or more indigenous peoples, according to the individual
and
specific circumstances of each federal state. The indigenous
communities
as entities of public right, and those municipalities which recognize
that
they belong to an indigenous people, will have the power to freely
associate in order to coordinate their actions." The Zedillo
Law stated:
"The communities of the indigenous peoples as entities of
public interest,
and those municipalities with a primarily indigenous population,
will have
the option to freely associate for the purpose of coordinating
their
actions, always respecting the political-administrative divisions
in each
federal state." The Senate proposal says: "The indigenous
communities,
within the municipal arena, will be able to coordinate and to
associate
under the terms, and to the ends, provided by this law."
This even
backpedals from the Zedillo law. The possibility for associating
in
regional terms - beyond the existing municipalities - which is
the
mechanism which represents the only guarantee for the rebuilding
of the
indigenous peoples following more than 500 years of fragmentation
and
marginalization -disappears completely here. The addition to
Article 115
which is being proposed represents an absolute mockery of the
Indian
peoples.
4). - In the Cocopa Law it stated: "In
order to establish the territorial
demarcation of the uninominal districts and the plurinominal
districts, the
location of the indigenous peoples should be taken into account,
in order
to ensure their participation and political representation in
the national
arena." The Zedillo proposal said: "In order to establish
the territorial
demarcation of uninominal electoral districts, the location of
the
indigenous peoples should be taken into account, in order to
ensure their
participation and political representation in the national arena."
In the
Senate proposal, in the provisional third party, it states;
"In order to
establish the territorial demarcation of uninominal districts,
the location
of the indigenous peoples and communities should, when feasible,
be taken
into consideration, in order to foster their political participation."
Once more the Senate proposal backpedals even from Zedillo's.
It is not
only against the Indian peoples - the ones who are the original
foundation
of the Nation - having a specific representation, through their
own
plurinominal constituency - but now "the location of the
indigenous peoples
should be taken into account" only when it is feasible.
When Ernesto Zedillo presented his proposal,
he noted that 85% of the
Cocopa proposal had been incorporated. The problem was that
the remaining
15% contained the heart of the indigenous autonomy program.
Now, with the
Senate proposal, it can be said that it incorporates 80% (5%
less than in
Zedillo's), but the 20% that has been left out is the backbone
of
indigenous autonomy.
The Senate's omission cannot be replaced
with general and abstract
suggestions concerning autonomy or with government welfare proposals
(the
entire Part B of the proposal), whose placement within the body
of the
Constitution is a disgrace. In addition, those proposals were
the
political platform of a system which was defeated on July 2.
It is truly deplorable that once again
the Senate (the same one which
refused to listen to the zapatistas and to the members of the
National
Indigenous Congress), and very probably the Chamber of Deputies,
are
turning their backs on the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The
conviction
that this decision will be closing an historical wound is not
only a
fiction, it is also a joke in very bad taste. If this legislative
proposal
is approved in the Chamber of Deputies, and then in the state
Congresses, a
file will have been closed, but the serious problems of more
than 10
million Mexicans will not be resolved, The struggle for indigenous
rights
and culture will continue to be an unresolved issue and an insult
for the
nation.
The Resistance
Doesn't End Either