By Juan Anzaldo Meneses
Mexico City, 5 February 1997
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: AN HISTORICAL CHALLENGE
On February 4th, 1997, the debate on "Indigenous Rights: An Historical Challenge" was held at the Polyforum Cultural Siquieros in Mexico City. The result of the debate, thanks to the quality of the participants and their presentations, was a success due to the thoroughness of the concepts it dealt with, which managed to clarify the background of national discussion with regards to the constitutional recognition of the rights of the indigenous peoples of Mexico.
In the auditorium, which was filled to capacity, the following persons participated in the debate:
1. Jose Narro Cespedes, federal deputy for the Labor Party (PT), and member of the Commission on Concordance and Pacification of the Congress of the Union (COCOPA).
2. Lic. Juan Guerra Ochoa, federal deputy for the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), and member of the COCOPA.
3. Dr. Eduardo Lopez Betancourt, President of the Consultative Council of the National Lawyers Bar.
4. Lic. Hector Garcia Vazquez, representative of Lic. Jaime Gomez Coronel, President of the National Directive Committee of the National Lawyers Bar.
5. Dr. Emilio Krieger, of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers.
6. Dr. Horacio Labastida, researcher of the Institute for Legal Research at the National Autonomous University (UNAM) and ex-embassador of Mexico to Nicaragua.
7. Mtra. Magdalena Gomez, of the Subdirector's Office of Judicial Affairs for the National Indigenist Institute (INI).
8. Dr. Gilberto Lopez y Rivas, researcher of the Department of Social Anthropology and Ethnology at the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH).
9. Dr. Luis Javier Garrido, professor in the Department of Social and Political Sciences at the UNAM, and instructor at the UNAM's School of Constitutional Law.
10. Dr. Hector Diaz Polanco, researcher of the Department of Social Anthropology and Ethnology at the INAH.
11. Dr. Luis Hernandez Navarro, advisor to the National Coordinating Council of Coffee-Growing Organizations (CNOC), and technical secretary of the Implementation and Verification Commission for the San Andres Accords.
12. Lic. Francisco Lopez Barcenas, Mixteco, lawyer for the Subdirector's Office of Judicial Affairs for the National Indigenist Institute (INI), and member of the Follow-Up Commission of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI).
13. Margarito Ruiz Hernandez, Tojolabal, general coordinator of the Independent Front of Indian Peoples (FIPI) and memebr of the Follow-Up Commission of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI).
There were four people who were invited to take part in this important debate, but did not attend:
1. Dr. Carlos Montemayor, specialist in indigenous languages, particularly Mayan languages, and researcher of armed groups in Mexico.
2. Dr. Ignacio Burgoa Orihuela, legal advisor to President Zedillo, and president-for-life of the National Lawyers Bar, who did not attend with the excuse that he had to give a speech at another location.
3. Dr. Hector Fix Zamudio, legal advisor to President Zedillo, who apparently was in Washington (United States) at the time of the debate.
4. Dr. Jose Luis Soberanes, legal advisor to President Zedillo, director of the Institute for Legal Research at the UNAM, who promised to attend but never showed up.
Himself a product of tendentious information and public pronouncements that recently appeared in national newspapers, the journalist Ricardo Rocha declined, at the last minute, to participate as a moderator in the debate. In his letter of apology, Rocha mentions "the cancellations of invited guests to the event", and even in the journalistic summaries which appeared in the newspapers the following day, "the cancellations of the majority of participants" was mentioned. These statements fall under their own weight, when one compares the list of participants with that of those who did not want to participate in the event.
Present were members of the COCOPA, the legislative commission in charge of facilitating the peace process in Chiapas and author of the constitutional reform initiative regarding Indigenous Rights and Culture which has been accepted by the EZLN, backed by the CNI, and rejected by President Zedillo. There were also representatives in attendance from the National Lawyers Bar, the organization which was consulted by President Zedillo before drafting his own counterproposal for constitutional reforms, which was then rejected by the EZLN.
There were also independent specialists in attendance, as well as analysts and researchers who have accompanied the process of drafting Zapatista proposals. Finally, there were also participants from the National Indigenous Congress, which has working groups dedicated to analysis and consultation with the indigenous peoples and communities in the whole country, regarding the legislative aspects of the San Andres Accords, signed by the EZLN and the Federal Government on February 16, 1996.
With this panorama of participants, and with an auditorium filled to its 400-person capacity, it is important to point out the lack of sensibility on the part of those who called for a boycott of the event, and above all, of those who bet on giving the cold shoulder to the National Indigenous Congress and the Zapatista Front of National Liberation (FZLN), the organizations which convoked and organized the event, during a time in which the Nation demands clarification of the concepts under discussion, a consequence of those who, with public announcements, challenge someone to a debate only to later fail to live up to their word.
President Zedillo and the Federal Government have made very grave statements regarding the proposal for a constitutional reform initiative drafted by the COCOPA. They warn of the possible segregation of the indigenous peoples, of secessionism, of a rupture of national unity, and of "balkanization" if this reform initiative is approved. Their legal advisors have also said that the initiative and the recognition of indigenous autonomy would cause the creation of "little states" within the national State.
These themes made up the agenda under which we convoked the public, thorough, and respectful debate, with the guarantee that it would be conducted with objectivity and preciseness on the part of a personality well-known by all the participants, and who, in turn, would facilitate the greatest diffusion possible of the event in the mass communications media.
Nevertheless, the non-attendance of some of the participants did not stop those who did attend from enriching the national debate and clarifying the concepts which are thrown around regarding indigenous autonomy, the normative systems, the inclusion of collective rights within the bounds of the Constitution, as well as being able to overcome doubts resulting from unfounded fears.
On the part of the National Indigenous Congress, its representatives objectively profiled the indigenous demands contained within the San Andres Accords, and which the COCOPA has elaborated on in its initiative of constitutional reforms. These are backed up by national laws already in existence, as well as by international conventions signed by Mexico regarding indigenous peoples, such as Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), ratified by the Senate of the Republic in 1991. They clarified that these demands are not about secessionism, nor about creating little states within the Mexican State, and neither do they attempt to attack national sovereignty; rather, they are about recognizing the indigenous peoples in Mexico as subjects of public law, permitting their development with their own authorities and their own decisions regarding plans and programs, all of which would configure the first step towards paying off the immense historical debt owed by the Nation to its original inhabitants.
On the part of the lawyers consulted by the Federal Government, represented by the leadership of the National Lawyers Bar, they insisted that it was inconsistent to say that they [the government] now want to apply the law and respect the Constitution, when the violations and non-fulfillment of the Constitution have been carried out by the goverment itself. As an example, they mentioned the unconstitutional sacking of two judges of the National Supreme Court in December of 1994, on the part of the Executive. They expressed their feeling that it is inconceivable that now, under the pretext of valuing the State of Law, the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico is being blocked. Nevertheless, by their judgement, legislation should be passed to regulate the current wording of Article 4 of the Constitution, which already contains sufficient elements for the achievement of this goal. On the other hand, they warned of the possibility that [the COCOPA proposal] could generate problems of human rights violations, such as poligamy and lynchings, points which were later cleared up by other participants as simply a result of ignorance about the San Andres Accords which, along with the COCOPA's proposal, is very clear on the subject of guaranteeing human rights, particularly those of women, and in terms of the impartition of justice for the resolution of internal affairs of the indigenous communities.
For their part, the specialists who have participated in the dialogue and negotiations process between the EZLN and the federal government, and who know very well the form in which the COCOPA's initiative for constitutional reforms was drafted, insisted in valuing the importance of this historical moment through which Mexico is passing. They pointed out the dangerous governmental alternative of opting for a solution by way of force, instead of a peaceful and consensed solution to the most important national problems. They also analyzed the resistance of the governing system to any type of social advance, not only of the indigenous peoples or of zapatismo, but even within the system of political parties and the strategies of economic development, as but one more expression of the presidential authoritarianism which Mexicans have been suffering from for decades. The demanded respect for the separation and autonomy of the Powers of the Union, and further insisted that the President refrain from using "his" majority to influence the decisions of the legislature, and that the work of the COCOPA, a Commission of the Congress of the Union with the participation of members of the Senate as well as of the Chamber of Deputies and all the parties represented therein, be strengthened.
Finally, the deputies and members of the COCOPA who participated in the debate described some passages from the process of dialogue and negotiation, pointing out the repeated lack of fulfillment on the part of the federal government, in particular referring to the offers of President Zedillo, who guaranteed his support of the COCOPA only to later put that organization into crisis by contravening their work of facilitation of the peace process, and by violating the Accords signed by his representatives, in which a textual commitment was made to carry out constitutional reforms which recognize the collective rights of the indigenous peoples, with a series of characteristics and elements which are contained word-for-word in the San Andres Agreements as well as in the constitutional reform initiative presented by the COCOPA, accepted by the EZLN and rejected de facto by President Zedillo. In this sense, they also pointed out the unscrupulous attitude of Zedillo who, after presenting observations regarding the COCOPA's initiative, withdrew them and then asked, at the beginning of December, 1996, for 15 days so as to carry out "some consultations" regarding some of the aspects about which he might have "doubts". What followed, according to the legislators, was that on December 19th the president did not deliver a response resulting from his consultations, nor did he present "observations", as he called them, but rather gave them a full counterproposal, which in effect signifies the discrediting of the work drafted by the legislators. Deputy [Juan] Guerra, in particular, indicated that the current situation is such that it not only places us once again at a point of imminent risk of armed confrontation, but also at the point of cancellation of any efforts for dialogue and peaceful understanding between the society and its government. This implies, said Guerra, a justification for all the armed groups which might exist in the country to close off this and all other avenues of social negotiation.
In conclusion, it is important to point out that in this encounter there were multiple expressions given with regards to the proposals for initiatives on constitutional reforms; however, it was demonstrated that based in a spirit of constructiveness, inclusion, and respect, it is possible to arrive at solid conclusions, and to avoid the squandering of resources in disinformation campaigns at the hands of the public treasury, such as the thousands of publicity "spots" the federal government uses so as to sharpen its image. Even worse are the uncountable expenses caused by the deployment of tens of thousands of soldiers and federal and state judicial police, not only in Chiapas, but throughout a large portion of indigenous regions of the country, which interfere with their productive lives, their security, and even put their lives at risk.
The National Indigenous Congress publicly announced its disposition to carry out any type of effort to debate with all of the important figures of this History, so as to arrive at a just and dignified solution for all of Mexico. The National Lawyers Bar ratified its invitation for the Zapatistas to come directly to Mexico City and carry out a direct dialogue with the government's legal consultants, while the members of the COCOPA made the assurance that they would use all means available to them so that this event might be made a reality.
Following three hours of intense discussion, the hundreds of participants left the Polyforum Cultural Siquieros, with the assurance that they had made very important contributions to the process of national debate regarding the legal and social recognition of indigenous rights.
Juan Anzaldo Meneses
Working Group on Communication of the National Indigenous Congress.