From international, state and local levels, the current model of commerce and privatization is being rejected. Even delinquents now pursue the hunger for capital, as public opinion and federal and state authorities begin to discuss the possibilities of privatizing the country’s jails.  Through this privatization, countries can profit inside their home countries, paying miserable salaries, without social benefits. This is the ideal workforce for profit: guilty prisoners with no future. Tomorrow they will continue to try to modify the laws, to punish lesser crimes with longer and stronger sentences. Hundreds of innocent indigenous, campesinos and poor, could enrich private initiatives looking for opportunities to “invest”. In the US there are already privatized jails where the guilty have to pay for their stay. But for now let us look at three focuses of mobilization, rejection and search for alternatives.

Rejection of the EU-Mexico Free Trade Agreement

From November 27 to 29 in Mexico City, civil and social organizations of Mexico and the European Union met within the framework of the Global Agreement for Economic Association, Political Consultation and Commercial Cooperation, called more simply for us, the EU-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (FTA). These groups produced a  Declaration directed toward civil society, governments, parliaments, congresses and the communication media.  Members of social, civil, union, campesino, indigenous, woman’s, environmental and cooperative organizations participated: from micro, small and medium businesses, student and human rights organizations from Mexico and European Union countries such as: from Spain: Acción Sur – Las Segovias; from Italy: Centro Nuevo Modello di Sviluppo, Central General del Trabajo y Manitese; from Germany: Ecumenical Office; from Holland: Transnational Institute (TNI), Tecno Social and students from the University of Leiden; from Finland: Center of Organization, Cooperation and Development Services and students from the University of Helsinki; from England: Oxfam; from Belgium: National Center of Cooperation for Development (CIFCA), World March of Women, Network of Consultation on Sustainable Development, VOK, Woman’s Group, Justice and Peace Commission, and the General Federation of Workers; from Colombia: International Federation of Human Rights; from Mexico: Bowdsin College Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, Cambios S.C. de R. L., Youth Environmental Network of Yucatan, Citizen Cause, APN, Human Rights Commission of Tepeyac, Study Center and Workshop, National Association of Transformation Industries, Labor Legal Council, Center of Labor Information and Union Action, Permanent Action for Peace, Independent Center of Agricultural Workers and Campesinos (CIOAC), Cultural Collective of the Martyrs of ’68, Ecologist Collective of Jalisco, Free Trade, Mexican Action Network against Free Trade, Citizen Accounting, DECA’s Puebla team, Integral and Self-sufficient Development, Authentic Worker’s Front  (FAT), Democratic Campesino Front from Chihuahua, Woman’s Education Group, Institute of Studies on the Democratic Revolution, the Mexican League for the Defense of Human Rights, Citizen’s Movement for Democracy (MCD), Human Rights Center Miguel Agustín PRO, Action Network on Insecticides and Alternatives in Mexico (RAPAM), Assessment Services for Peace (SERAPAZ), Fisherman’s Union, Service Union for Mexico City, CIAM, Mexican Electrician Union, students from the Autonomous University of Mexico and the Anahuac University, Union of Colors Uper,  UPREZ, Human Rights Committee of the Costa Chica of Guerrero.

These participants declared that the “agreements between Mexico and the European Union were signed without the participation or consultation with any social or civil organizations of Mexico or Europe, in spite of the fact for more than four years, we have worked on the elaboration and presentation of concrete proposals. After one year of the Global Agreement, the governments still have not allowed for the real participation of these organizations.” The same neoliberal cancer is repeated: with the absence of participative or formal democracy, supposedly democratic governments are making decisions behind the collective backs of the civil society and only in the interests of large transnational capital. That’s how it was with NAFTA and now with the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). For these reasons the participants added that “In addition, the European Union has expressed that it will give its political and financial support to Fox’s PPP, without having consulted with any of the groups that have expressed their opposition. Likewise, in the first declaration made by the Joint Committee between Mexico and the European Union on October 2, 2001, they again rejected the proposals that we have made to the governments for mechanisms of consultation and participation of civil society to be an integral part of the Global Agreement.”

Free trade agreements are not what they say they are. They are not agreements, but an overturning of the Southern country's sovereignty. They do not deal with free trade if the Northern countries continue to protect their markets, subsidizing their products and closing borders to value-added products coming from the South. In this way, the Global Agreement of the EU-Mexico FTA reproduce the same scheme of unequal exchange as NAFTA and does not consider the great asymmetries between the levels of economic and social development of the parties involved. “The Global Agreement has all the ingredients so that in our country the loss of national sovereignty is accentuated, because in its present form it will generate instability of economic growth, financial and exchange vulnerability, the sharpening of regional, sector and productive inequalities, the concentration of wealth and income, the deterioration of the environment and of the conditions of life and work of the people, and will aggravate nutritional dependency and gender inequality.” The diagnosis adds: “We are worried that the Global Agreement reinforces and deepens the base to extend the processes of privatization of water, health services, education, energy and other basic services, affecting the human rights (economic, social, cultural, civil and political) of the people of Mexico and Europe. The model of commercial interchange and indiscriminate opening to investments reproduces the failed model of the MAI  (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), causing a progressive lowering of labor and environmental standards in our countries. This process of economic globalization works against the subsistence that in the European Union has been the basis of the concept of democracy.”

The Global Agreement of the FTA contains a Democratic Clause without mechanisms to make it effective. The European Union will not negotiate nor will it sign commercial agreements with anti-democratic governments. But what government has the legitimacy to qualify another as anti-democratic? Let us not forget that in the FTA, a Joint Council was formed for members of the executive powers of both parts and prohibits representative democratic groups from having any influence in the agreement. Thus, in the case of Mexico, the Congress and the Senate will not have any say in the modification, completion, blocking or renegotiation of the agreement.  This violates the Mexican Constitution and separates “free trade” even more completely from democratic processes. In this way, independently of the political environment between the participants, of the party struggles for a new project, the Joint Committee breaks with this relation and gives autonomy to the interests of great transnational capital. Thus “The Agreement was negotiated not only without the participation of the people, but it also avoided the Impact Evaluation on Sustainability that the European Union should carry out in its agreements with other countries.” The diagnostic adds, “for everything here stated, it is clear to us that contrary to what the officials of the European Union have affirmed, the Global Agreement between Mexico and the European Union cannot be a model for the agreements that are to be negotiated by the EU with Mercosur and Chile. For this reason, we invite civil and social organizations to join with our cause, faced with the upcoming Summit of Chiefs of State of Latin America and of the European Union, that will take place in Madrid in May of 2002, to propose, among other things, the following:

            1) The governments should propitiate and promote wide ranging consultations regarding the possible impact of the Global Agreement on the productive sectors and the populations, in Mexico and in Europe, as well as propose joint alternatives to implement a model of development that fosters equity and equality of ethnic group and of genders, based on democratic participation.

            2) Effective steps should be taken to promote social dialogue as we have proposed repeated times, and that the governments guarantee that the evaluations and monitoring carried out by independent organisms are taken into account.

            3) We ask that the governments of Mexico and the European Union, upon intensifying commercial relations and investments, make a public accounting of the adherence to and promotion of indivisible and universal human rights and that are compiled in international agreements as, for example the International Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

            4) We demand, based on the experience with North American Free Trade Agreement, that our proposals regarding the modification of the Global Agreement are taken into account to avoid the loss of employment, the deterioration of the environment on both sides of the Atlantic, and the deformation of cultural diversity that distinguishes our peoples.

Also, the participants called to all “social and civil organizations to amplify our platform, with hopes to reinforce the relation between Mexican and European social and civil organizations, in the understanding that this call to participate and our own manner of expressing ourselves through networks, has come forth and will continue in a democratic manner.” And they demanded that “our civil and political rights not be violated by governmental measures of coercion, under the pretext of the fight against terrorism and the tendency to disqualify and even criminalize the actions of civil society. Our governors and legislators should assume that the women and men of our societies are interested and disposed to open a true dialogue that would guarantee that the agreements between our countries fortify economic, political, social and cultural development of our people. We hope to obtain a positive response to this opportunity that is being presented: that we all convert ourselves into active participants in our futures and not in beings that are excluded from the workings of politics and from the economic benefits of the same.”

The effects of the imposition of this economic model are not felt only in the South. In Belgium, recently, thousands of people suffered great repression for opposing globalization during the Summit of the European Union that will circulate, as of January, one currency – the euro. The US is green with envy as it dreams that its historic heroes would circulate on the dollar throughout the entire American continent as the only currency. It has already achieved this in El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, and Ecuador and soon it could be Argentina.

REJECTION OF BIOPIRACY

On the same November 29 that the aforementioned declaration was made public, as an expression of the struggle and resistance of the indigenous peoples and society, another declaration was affirmed in San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas: “If the country is blessed with biodiversity, it is because of the indigenous people.” These are the opening words: “Indigenous and non-indigenous brothers and sisters, organizations present, researchers that accompany us, yesterday’s adversaries but today, hopefully, once again brothers, information and formation media: The definitive cancellation of the bioprospecting project called “Pharmaceutical investigation and sustainable use of the ethno-botanical knowledge and biodiversity in the Maya region of the Highlands of Chiapas,” headed by the varied institutes and agencies of the government of the USA known as the ICBG Maya Consortium, is the result of a struggle carried out by many and varied actors, in which the Council of Organizations of Traditional Indigenous Doctors and Midwives of Chiapas (COMPITCH), was only one element. Without general consensus and great coordination, the ICBG Maya would not only not have been cancelled, but it would be already packing up the mushroom extracts and plants to take them out of our territories, such as has already occurred in other parts of the country.”

“It is due to the mobilization unleashed by diverse organizations and media, some of which we only know by name, that the project first was declared in moratorium and now, after having been inactive for a year, was definitively canceled. As far as we are concerned, the study, the strength of our words in other contexts, the addition of elements of information and contrast, and more than anything, the constant memory of our past, gave us in COMPITCH the necessary elements of clarity that reinforced our resistance and its implicit proposal: to reject the lucrative appropriation that this model of development based in the system of patents offers, but above all to entreat all who are implicated, all those that in one way or another benefit or could benefit from our knowledge and the use of our plants, so that they are, in the end, the ones that decide through what system they should be used. Because we do not exclude anybody, except those that would exclude, nor do we think that our way is the only way, but it is A way – others believed that it would be worthwhile to fight along with us, and in this way others later joined and this struggle turned into a collective struggle, to such a point that it was so big and included so many people and organizations that were opposed (not to the biotechnological proposals of the project itself, but to the principles and conditions under which the project wished to take advantage of our plants and our ancestral knowledge of them) that those responsible for the project had to cancel it.”

“Nonetheless, we do want to clarify that we did not win, nor did we aspire to win out over anybody. The definitive cancellation of the project of bioprospecting ICBG Maya is good – and bad. Good, because it detained the fracturing of community values, because it detained the blunder of unequal utilization based on profit and the exclusion that today dominate the world, because it demonstrated that the ignorance of letters and the necessity of our people do not signify a lack of clarity in what we want and – above all, in what we do not want, and because our ancient strategy of defending and preserving for everyone what rightfully belongs to everyone still works, even in these times. But it was also bad. Bad because a part of the everything that we are, thought and worked against us – and in this way we also were against them, the two sides confronting each other, both being part of the same body. Legs cannot walk when each wants to go in a different direction, because they will trip, fall and in the end bring down the entire body, or at least detain it – not advancing or if advancing, arriving late and the body now with cramps and wounds arrives only to need to recuperate, and not useful to anyone. For this reason, we did not come here to celebrate the defeat of the people or institutions associated with ICBG Maya.

The leader of the project, Dr. Brent Berlin, errs when he says that the cancellation will be celebrated as a major victory. We do celebrate, yes, the fact that we will not continue to fall; the fact that, in the end, the confrontation has been detained and has achieved that what is ours remains ours, and belongs to all of us. But we do not celebrate that, halfway there, that cancellation detain us, that is, without access to new technologies of resource development. We also do not celebrate that those who think they have been beaten and their words do not matter, refuse, in consequence, to participate in a process of prepositional and democratic reconciliation.  These people opt instead to regroup awaiting a slip-up or a political opportunity that would allow them to repeat the process and cause us to have to protest and struggle again.”

“If we have to ask for forgiveness then we will. It does not hurt us nor diminish us. In all controversy we are all open to mistakes, including offending others with more frequency and more gravity than we do when there are no quarrels. We always seek to err and harm as little as possible. Thus, today, formally and publicly, we ask for forgiveness to all those gathered here to whom, with or without provocation we have hurt personally or financially.  And if we have to do something more so that the body that we are walk happy of heart again and in harmony, tell us what to do, and we will do it. We would even step aside, if it meant that all would walk together and nobody would step on others. We also wish to publicly recognize here the brave determination of the Technical Consulting Board of the College of the Southern Border, for having shown no support for the U.S. ICBG proposal, headed by Dr. Brent Berlin, to train indigenous specialists on ethical norms and bioprospecting.  Under the direction of Mr. Berlin, that training would have ended an imminent inter-community confrontation and in a growing escalation of hate and division between our people, all in all, in additional problems for us.”

“Finally, the General Director of Ecosur, Dr. Pablo Liedo Fernández, calls to all social and indigenous organizations and to government and investigative organisms to promote a rational discussion on the theme, with the goal of defining the legal framework for the best use and management of the natural resources of our country. Therefore, COMPITCH declares that it accepts this proposal and with that purpose, it asks all present to propose a date and a place to continue preparing, together with other efforts, first – the terms of a platform to be convoked with the most plural and wide-ranging participation possible, with the goal of clearly defining the legality and viability of the results of the discussion that comes out of such wide-ranging participation. That is all. We will celebrate when we all walk in peace and with justice regarding the things and thoughts that are property of all, beyond the paths that each individual proposes.

Thank you for permitting us to speak.” (To understand the antecedents of this biopiracy project, please consult http://www.ciepac.org and the chapter on “Biodiversity”)

REJECTION OF THE PRIVATIZATION OF EDUCATION

At the same time, there is another new struggle rising up.  The teachers in Chiapas proclaimed that “a fall in the national income can be expected, due to the government's erroneous economic policies of making Mexico's productive apparatus dependent on the US market. Even the goal announced by Fox of investing 8% of the GNP is insufficient to support the infrastructure that would permit an appropriate education for the people of Mexico.   It is also not sufficient to permit the current national educational system to  contribute to the construction of a national economy that is less vulnerable to the US. In the same way, it is insulting that the Congress of the Union has not even agreed to authorize the investment of that 8% of the GNP in the educational sector, but nonetheless it has authorized the salary increase of the one who boasts the title of President of the Republic; according to official documents Fox’s gross salary is $232,431.20, 98% more than Zedillo earned in his last year in office ($117,013.20), at a time when Mexican workers have not even earned a 10% salary increase.  Furthermore, according to the project of Budgeted Expenses for 2002 filed November 12, 2001 with the Congress of the Union, the Armed Forces are destined to received 31,223,900,000 pesos – that is to say 2.21% of the budget, at the same time that education is scheduled to receive only a 0.4% increase.”

Globalization of the neoliberal economy is not exempt from the teacher's analysis. The teachers in Chiapas affirmed that the these problems are “aggravated by the evident deterioration of the popular economy due to the cascade of job loss and adjustments in maquiladoras and industries oriented toward exportation to the US, as well as by adjustments and loss of jobs in the tourism sector after the decrease in international tourism as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks, along with the sealing of the northern border that impedes even more the passage of immigrants in search of work and the return of others to our country, to avoid the recruitment into the US Army.” In this way, the Chiapanecan teachers “along with other sectors of the National Syndicate of Educational Workers  (SNTE)” decided to take to the streets on December 3, 2001, in defense of public education, and thousands of teachers blockaded the principal streets of the capital of Chiapas demanding:

1. An increase to the budget for Chiapas, so that the government pay its debt to the Chiapanecan people for all the wealth they have given to the nation and with such have generated conditions to fortify the budget toward social spending, including on education.
2. That the government assign 12% of the GNP toward educational spending that would mean more scholarships, more and better school breakfasts in the different levels of primary and preschool, as well as availability in secondary school in marginal zones, construction, maintenance and equipping of classrooms, equipping of school labs in secondary schools, construction of housing in marginal zones for secondary schools, free uniforms for all students, free text books for ownership (not borrowed) for secondary schools.
3. Dynamic retirement and appropriate attention to retired teachers, for – although the Daily laws of the nation published on June 1, 2001 a presidential disposition appeared that speaks of raises corresponding to the inflation rate, there has still not been a modification of article 57, paragraph 3 and article 64 of the Social Security law, that impede access to this right. 
4. That the right to three years of preschool education be guaranteed by constitution.
5. That the 64 municipalities of the state of Chiapas be rezoned, to recognize the existence of a higher cost of living in them.
6. The satisfaction of the aforementioned proposals, considered to be within the fundamental demand of the non-privatization of education in Mexico, are minimal conditions for the educative services to be able to develop conditions for the appropriate and popular attention to developing the educational quality toward learning and childhood and adolescent development.
7. We demand that the Congress of the Union finally defend the public that has elected it, passing laws in benefit of education in service of that same public.

Nobody escapes the effects of globalization, but all seem to escape the supposed benefit of the development so often promised. The sin of society is to want to participate, to be listened to, that their needs be attended to in all sectors. That there not be any exclusions. That there be democracy. And this is what an intrinsically antidemocratic cannot sustain. For this reason, the cure for this sickness is that we continue participating, having an opinion, proposing, raising our voices and demanding justice and democracy for all.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168