To explain and understand what is currently happening in Chiapas, we have to clarify and define two basic concepts: peace and pacification. These concepts are sometimes used as synonyms and are confusing, or they can be used to trick us if we do not clearly understand their meanings. Given the historical structural violence and the violent acts that have occurred in different parts of the state, I think it is fair to say that peace does not exist in Chiapas. We should ask ourselves then: “what is peace and what is pacification?”

In societies where there is a sector or sectors that are excluded from the rights of the rest of society, and where a minority benefits, the excluded sectors rebel in various ways against that established order or against those that oppress and exclude them.  The state ten tries to recuperate its legitimacy through force and repressive means, subjecting these sectors and trying to push them back to the status quo. Then the state assumes a discourse of “democracy”, the re-establishment of the established order and the recuperation of the “rule of law”.

According to the Larousse dictionary, “peace” is a “state or circumstance of not having war in a country, or of not being at war with others.” Another definition is “a state of calm and harmony between the members of a community.” If we take into account this concept that is quite limited, we could say that in Chiapas, peace is being sought and that the government works toward it. However, the concept of social peace in a wider sense is to understand and end the underlying roots of injustice, marginalization, lack of liberties, anti-democracy, underdevelopment, unemployment, etc.  These problems should be solved with respect and regardless of religion, color or social group, towards a society where all have an opinion and can think and have a dignified space in the social structure.

The Larousse dictionary says that “pacification” is “the act of pacifying” and to pacify means “to re-establish peace (in a place) between people that were at war or in discord.” In a wider sense, the concept of pacification is a momentary solution to the problems and does not get at the causes that have generated disputes, for example between the state and the groups and/or organizations that have risen up against it.

So what is happening in Chiapas is a pacification process, where the federal government is the architect of these initiatives; and the local government is the operator and conductor, carrying them out through three main channels:

1. First, through a series of reconciliatory workshops and meetings promoted by SEDESOL of Chiapas, where a limited number of participants from civil groups, some state and regional government officials, and representatives from ten campesino organizations that work in coordination with the state government meet – but have nothing to reconcile. These events have been carried out principally in San Cristobal de las Casas. Here, supposedly the government officials and organizations seek to reconcile differences, a methodology of resolution of conflicts is taught like a recipe, and participants agree to reproduce these workshops in their own work zones.

2.- The second channel is the Commission of Reconciliation for Communities in Conflict, that is based principally in seeking the signing of peace accords and non-aggression pacts with organizations that have been in conflict and have caused confrontations in various zones, but those agreements are based on the signing of non-aggression accords between confronted parties. As a consequence, they propitiate impunity for those responsible for violence in the past in various parts of the state, as is the case, for example, with the paramilitaries such as Peace and Justice, the Chinchulines, and the Union of Indigenous, Agricultural and Forestry Communities (UCIAF), that split off from the paramilitary group of Peace and Justice. In other cases it has been with organizations like “Las Abejas” (that have been victims of paramilitary acts in Chenalho) who have paid the political cost because some NGOs have withdrawn support due to the way that Las Abejas have negotiated with the government, and the government has not complied with the offers they have made.  Currently, Las Abejas are in the process of withdrawing from their relationship with the government. On other occasions, this channel has sought agreements between different political parties where there are disputes over the municipal presidency. This is the case in Zinacantan, where violence broke out in spite of such agreements, and we know the results. Another expression of these accords has been in San Juan Chamula, between evangelicals and traditional Catholics, where they signed non-aggression agreements and violence broke out nonetheless – because the agreements are not getting to the root of the disputes.

3.- The third channel is through Forums and International Meetings for Peace, that have been carried out in Tuxtla Gutierrez, which international personalities attend, principally from Central America, such as Rigoberta Menchu from Guatemala, Facundo Guardado from El Salvador, etc. Other personalities that were contacted such as Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Samuel Ruiz the Emeritus bishop of San Cristobal and Jose Saramago among others, have refused to participate. In these events, we are left with an impression of conformism, desperation, and that what the government offers the opposition social movements is the best we can hope for, and must be accepted, because it is an opportunity.

These three channels have the objective of concluding in a great event where all the above personalities would attend and to create a Mediation Commission that would play the role of pressuring the EZLN in an attempt to oblige it to dialogue with the federal government. Just such a process was being conducted by Lindavista College in Mexico City, that withdrew from the role because the process did not have the desired effect; but also because it is not the correct path to seek peace and therefore has caved in from its own weight.

Through all these means, the government seeks a process of pacification in Chiapas, where the causes that gave rise to the armed conflict are still not receiving attention. Furthermore, it is proposed to take Chiapas to a level similar to Central America, where negotiations were carried out between armed organizations and the government, agreements were signed and the government never complied – the region was pacified for the benefit of the local oligarchy, free trade agreements were signed and corporative globalization is triumphing; while the people continue their struggle in resistance.  They want to do the same thing in Chiapas: take away the obstacles that impede corporate globalization, that in this case are the indigenous, organized civil resistance, and the struggle of the poorest people and the EZLN to construct a different society.  Then the government can establish the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas in indigenous territories without problems, offering the people crumbs in exchange for the land.

A real democratic government that seeks peace should form new democratic participatory structures from the communities to social organization and the diverse sectors of society; where all participate with proposals, planning, execution and evaluation of what the people want, with the opportunity to reject what they do not want. When have we been asked if we want the Plan Puebla Panama and the Free Trade Area of the Americas? Do the people of Chiapas agree that the state government should continue to pay the first six months of salary to the workers in foreign maquiladoras located in the state, benefiting only the foreign owners? Do the ecological organizations agree with the eco-tourism park that was recently inaugurated in Sumidero Canyon? We can pose many such questions that the government doesn’t ask the society of Chiapas, with whom it should consult because it was that same society that voted for the current government.

Pretending that he is governing well, Pablo Salazar is moving the key pieces in the national political chess game with sights on the presidential race of 2006; sending in as candidates plurinominal deputies for the PRD and to the national political scene as an advance, the ex-Secretary General of the Government, Emilio Zebadua and the coordinator of Assessors, Cesar Chavez. The question is – why them? Well, during his tenure in the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), Emilio Zebadua managed to articulate some relations with the diverse national political parties and principally with the PRD, PRI and PAN, with whom he can form strategic alliances outside and inside the Congress, and Salazar hopes these connections could benefit his possible presidential candidacy. Cesar Chavez, militant of the PRD and current coordinator of advisors for the Chiapas government, because he can play the role of unifier of the different political currents in the interior of the PRD.  The political dispute is just there, where the possible candidates that are preparing for the 2006 presidential race are Rosario Robles, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and in search of a wide alliance, Pablo Salazar Mendiguchia, who is supported by the New Left current, headed by Jesus Ortega. This explains the political break in the relations between Pablo Salazar and Rosario Robles.

Pablo Salazar forgets that during his government, the social organizations opposed to  him have re-expressed themselves, including the Block of Independent Organizations of Chiapas (BOICH), the Coordinator of Independent Democratic Organizations (CODICH) among others that call for liberty of 93 political prisoners, productive projects, a solution to the demands for land, an end to the repression, etc. He forgets that some of those who voted for him have backed off and turned around to reactivate civil resistance and fortify their social bases and that new social actors that continue the search for solutions for their demands have sprung up, and that Procampo, COESCAFE and Oportunidades do not do enough to solve the serious demands of the people.

He forgets that paramilitarization, militarization, the threat of evictions from Montes Azules, the confrontations in San Juan Chamula, the repression of communities of the Casa del Pueblo in Carranza, the confrontations between transportation workers in La Independencia, the more than 30 children dead in the hospital of Comitan, the repression in Puerto Madero,  the polarization with the teachers of Section 7 of the National Teachers Union and the state government, the confrontations and shootings in Zinacantan and Chamula, the constant violent assaults on the southern border highway and between Puerto Cate – San Andres, the counterinsurgency coordinated between the state government and the federal government against the EZLN, among many other things, all point to the fact that there is a social decomposition and polarization of social forces in Chiapas.  All of these events also affect the governor’s image, and his hopes to ascend the stairs of presidential power. And he forgets that he is not the same Pablo Salazar that won the state elections two years ago.

Nonetheless, I believe that this polarization of forces leads us to understand that something new is arising. There us a clash between the old governing forms that impose themselves in the face of a process of change and democratization that is beginning to take on more and more strength from the indigenous and campesino communities, opposed to the system of corporate globalization, but that is being restructured with relation to the search for a solution to their necessities. Resistance grows, gains structure, goes forward and seeks to make a reality from their utopia of constructing a better world that would also be a worldwide utopia.

While the government does not see nor believe in the path of these people, it will be putting distance between itself and the interests of the people it professes to represent. It now responds with militarization and paramilitarization, the introduction of more police to the communities and continuance of the tactics of putting military encampments in the countryside, hiding them behind hills, so that from there they can carry out operatives and intermittent roadblocks at crossroads and highways, as is currently happening in Chiapas.

Furthermore, the government of the state has opted to remove the Sectorial Police from the paramilitarized communities and locate them in the municipal seats where they are coordinating their actions with municipal authorities.  They have placed police right in the communities in the conflict zone, as has been the case in Mitziton, Zetelton, and Tres Cruces in the Highlands region, Peña Limonar, San Geronimo Tulija, Las Cienegas and Las Margaritas in Ocosingo.

Recently in the Highlands region, where there are 17 Sectorial Police stations in 14 municipalities that make up the Tzotzil zone, and stage of recent violent political actions, the Sectorial Police have been patrolling the territory of the Autonomous Municipalities, principally at night. In other regions with a Zapatista presence, we can note and hear the complaints lodged about the growth in patrols, intermittent and permanent roadblocks, fly-overs and military harassment in territory of the Autonomous Municipalities, where paramilitaries such as Peace and Justice and “Los Aguilares” return again to harass the support bases.

All this is not so far removed from the impact of the military invasion of the US in Iraq, because in order to guarantee the security of the US, the Mexican government has sealed the northern border of Mexico that joins the US, where 10,000 Mexican soldiers are placed along the 3,200 kilometers that Mexico shares with the United States. Along the southern border of Mexico, Operation Sentinel is under way, which is coordinated by four US Marines from Puerto Madero, which has increased militarization.  As for this program of the sealing of the southern border, where Chiapas shares 652.4 kilometers of border with Guatemala, 3,000 Mexican soldiers have arrived and are distributed all along the state geography for the entire length of the border. To maintain coordination with them, police corps have been reactivated, such as the Federal Highway Police, the National Institute of Migration, the Customs Police, the State Highway Patrol, among other; that have carried out a series of illegal actions, such as that of the National Institute of Migration that makes rounds of inns and hotels in San Cristobal “searching” for Iraqis, “terrorists” or “transgressors” of the law in a ploy to keep on the good side of the US government.  They also make detailed inspections of passengers and vehicles on various state highways, with the resulting bother and anger of the passengers for violations of their most elemental human rights, while the true delinquents circulate with impunity. The clearest example of the relationship between the police corps and military with respect to the trafficking of undocumented individuals, occurred on April 11, when a 3 ton truck had an accident near the ejido of New Canaan in the municipality of Ocosingo, in the highway from the southern border, with 36 undocumented Central Americans aboard. But if along this highway there are 12 permanent roadblocks of the Army and the Marines – how could they cross so many blocks without being detained? The only explanation is in the complicity of those who make a business from this trafficking, and the police-military corps. This is how the Mexican government submits its dues in this war, protecting its borders to safeguard US security and not by condemning the genocide in Iraq from the presidency of the Security Council of the United Nations.

I close this bulletin, uniting my voice to all those of the world that exclaim:

Stop the war in Iraq! Condemn and punish George W. Bush for war crimes against humanity! No further military invasions in the world!  Respect for self-determination of the people! No to militarism and nuclear arms proliferation, from wherever they come! The true threat to the world is the United States that has distributed 250,000 soldiers throughout the planet! Yes to Peace, No to Death! Another world is possible!

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