----------
From: John Clancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:17:05 -0700
MEXICO SOLIDARITY NETWORK WEEKLY NEWS SUMMARY -APRIL 22-30, 2001
Contents:
1. Congress passes indigenous rights law excluding key elements
of San Andr�s Accords
2. EZLN responds, breaks off dialogue with Fox government
3. PRD holds sixth party congress in Zacatecas
4. Briefs
1. CONGRESS PASSES NEW "INDIGENOUS LAW" EXCLUDING KEY ELEMENTS
OF SAN ANDRES ACCORDS
The long-awaited congressional approval of a series of constitutional
reforms on indigenous rights and culture, ostensibly designed to
implement the San Andr�s Accords signed in 1996 between the Zapatista
National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the Mexican government, finally
came this week.
The so-called "indigenous law" passed unanimously in the Senate on
April 25, and by a 386-60 vote in the Chamber of Deputies on April 28.
The bill passed by Congress, however, is a mutilation of the original
"COCOPA initiative" drafted in 1996 by the Commission on Concordance
and Pacification, and introduced by President Fox to the Senate in
December 2000.
Approval of the COCOPA proposal has been a key demand of the EZLN since
1996, as the only legitimate way to implement the San Andr�s Accords
and resume a process of dialogue and negotiation with the federal
government. The "indigenous law" passed by Congress this week includes
serious and debilitating changes to that proposal, changes which were
made in committee and then brought out for quick votes in both houses
of Congress without consulting the Zapatistas.
The new constitutional reforms alter or entirely exclude key elements
of both the COCOPA proposal and the San Andr�s Accords. They exclude
the specific elaborations of indigenous rights with respect to autonomy
and free determination proposed for Articles 115 and 116 of the
Constitution. The paragraphs of the COCOPA proposal referring to
recognition of indigenous communities as entities of public law, the
right to freely associate in autonomous indigenous municipalities, the
right to decide the forms and practices for popular election
of indigenous authorities and political representatives, and
the obligatory redrawing of electoral districts to ensure
greater representation for indigenous peoples and communities in
state legislatures, were all reduced in the new legislation to
the following: "The indigenous communities, within the
municipal structure, may coordinate themselves and associate
themselves according to the terms and for the effects provided by
the [prevailing] law."
Rather than recognize indigenous autonomy and its forms in the federal
constitution, as required by the San Andr�s Accords and as expressed in
the COCOPA proposal, the "indigenous law" passed by Congress remits the
authority to determine the forms for recognizing indigenous autonomy to
local states (thus effectively nullifying the forms of autonomy which
might be required for an indigenous people whose territory crosses
state borders, for example, as is often the case in southern Mexico.)
The new reforms omit the right of the indigenous peoples to
the collective use and enjoyment of the natural resources found
on their lands and territories, "except under the terms
[already] established by this Constitution."
In effect, the reforms more closely resemble the "counterproposal" on
indigenous rights and culture introduced to the Senate in 1998 by then-
President Zedillo, in an attempt to counter the COCOPA proposal and
nullify the San Andr�s Accords, than they do to the COCOPA proposal
itself.
Many analysts are already describing the passage of the new indigenous
rights legislation as a counterreform detrimental to indigenous rights,
rather than as a step forward.
Perhaps most surprising about the bill's passage in Congress was that
its approval in the Senate came by unanimous vote among all four
parties (PRI, PAN, PRD, PVEM), even though the PRD - a backer of the
original COCOPA proposal - was well aware of the changes made to the
original bill, given that its parliamentary coordinator, Jes�s Ortega,
was one of the participants on the commission which drafted the new
reforms.
The PRD's explanation for its vote in favor was that the PRI and PAN
had already decided to mutilate the indigenous law on their own, and
that only by voting in favor could the center-left party take advantage
of the "advances" in the legislation while continuing to work to better
the reforms in the future. Its lone votes in opposition would have
been useless, in any case: out of 109 senators, the PRD only has
twelve.
The PRD's bench in the Chamber of Deputies considered that a weak
excuse, however, and all 52 PRD deputies, together with the three PT
deputies and five PRI deputies from Oaxaca, voted against the reform
bill when it was placed unchanged before the full Chamber for a vote on
April 28. 386 other deputies, including all the legislators of the PAN
and PVEM (Green) parties, voted in favor of the reforms.
Initial reactions to the passage of the reforms were divided, although
the response from Mexico's national indigenous movement was nearly
unanimous in rejection of the measure.
PRD deputy H�ctor S�nchez L�pez, president of the Indigenous Affairs
Commission in the Chamber, went so far as to call the reform bill "an
ultimatum for war." S�nchez's declarations were echoed by former PRI
deputy Enrique Ku Herrera, now the leader of the Mexican Indigenous
Council, who had called the Senate's actions a "provocation for war"
and asked the Chamber of Deputies to vote down the proposed reforms.
Chiapas governor Pablo Salazar Mendiguch�a declared simply that "a law
which does not respond to the demands of the indigenous groups is not
going to resolve the problem of peace in Chiapas." He later added that
"the form in which the law was approved demonstrates that the structure
of power which unnecessarily prolonged the conflict for seven years
still possesses operating capabilities."
The National Indigenous Congress (CNI), the National Plural Indigenous
Assembly for Autonomy (ANIPA), the Yaquis of Sonora, the Guerrero
Council "500 Years of Resistance," the Bishop of the Tarahumaras in
Chihuahua, and even President Fox's own representative for indigenous
affairs, X�chitl G�lvez, also spoke out in strong terms against the
reforms, and the CNI announced it would be carrying out a series of
national mobilizations to "resist" the imposition of what it considered
a constitutional counterreform on indigenous rights.
Meanwhile the PAN, President Fox, most PRI leaders, and certain PRD
senators spoke in glowing terms of the "indigenous law," as did
representatives of the Catholic Church in Mexico, including the Bishop
of San Crist�bal de las Casas, Felipe Arizmendi.
Fox declared triumphantly on April 28 that the passage of the reforms
"marks the end of what was the armed conflict" in Chiapas, later adding
that the reforms signify "a great step forward toward peace."
The five PRI deputies who voted against the measure, all from Oaxaca,
did so with the simple argument that "what good is it to approve a law
which the EZLN is not going to accept?"
A response to their question was later provided by PAN deputy Fernando
P�rez Noriega, a member of the COCOPA, who suggested that if the EZLN
does not accept the legislation and refuses to begin a dialogue with
the Fox government, then the COCOPA should officially declare the
dialogue broken and thereby "leave the Law for Dialogue, Reconciliation
and a Just Peace in Chiapas null and void" - an action which would
likely result in arrest warrants being reissued against the EZLN
leadership and a military offensive being launched against the rebel
communities.
The constitutional reforms on "indigenous rights and culture" approved
by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies will now be sent to the 33
state legislatures for approval. Although some sectors are calling on
President Fox to veto the legislation, he will legally have no say over
it until after at least seventeen states approve the reforms.
2. EZLN DENOUNCES "BETRAYAL" OF ACCORDS, TERMINATES CONTACT WITH FOX
GOVERNMENT
Following congressional approval of an "indigenous rights" law which is
far removed from the original Cocopa proposal supported by the
Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and introduced to the Senate
in December 2000 by President Fox, the Zapatistas responded on April 29
with a scathing letter and communiqu� denouncing the changes made to
the legislation, and affirmed that the constitutional reforms approved
on April 25 in the Senate, and April 28 in the Chamber of Deputies,
represent a "mockery" of the San Andr�s Accords and the
legitimate aspirations of the indigenous peoples of Mexico.
The Zapatistas had included congressional approval of the
Cocopa initiative - drafted by legislators in 1996 after
consultation with both the EZLN and the federal government as a way
to implement part of the San Andr�s Accords on Indigenous Rights and
Culture - as one of the rebels' preconditions for beginning a formal
dialogue with the government of Vicente Fox.
Following a five-week trip to Mexico City by rebel commanders
in February and March to lobby in support of the initiative,
the Zapatistas had exhibited a rare degree of optimism that the measure
would in fact be approved, their other pre-conditions for talks would
be honored, and that dialogue would soon begin and peace would be
signed.
That optimism evaporated as Congress passed a set of constitutional
reforms on indigenous rights and culture drafted by senators of the
PRI, PRD, and PAN parties. The reforms simply excluded or altered most
of the key elements of the Cocopa proposal, in effect carrying out a
unilateral re-negotiation of the 1996 San Andr�s agreements.
Contrary to earlier declarations of party leaders and the Cocopa, the
EZLN was not consulted before the final proposal was introduced to
either house of Congress for a vote.
The response of the Zapatistas was grim, as they refused to accept the
legislation as a legitimate implementation of the San Andr�s Accords,
and they severed the incipient contact the rebels had maintained with
the government for the last five weeks.
In a letter to the national and international press, rebel spokesperson
Subcomandante Marcos declared that the name of the "indigenous rights"
bill would be better off as "Constitutional Recognition of the Rights
and Culture of the Landowners and Racists."
"We know what is coming," added Marcos. "A media campaign against
'Zapatista intransigence,' an increase in military pressure,
reactivation of the paramilitary groups, offensive, etc. We've seen
this film, and we know how it ends (just ask Mr. Zedillo)."
An attached communiqu� drafted by the EZLN leadership announced the
official rebel position:
"The constitutional reform approved by Congress does not respond at all
to the demands of the Indian peoples of Mexico, of the National
Indigenous Congress, of the EZLN, or of the national and international
civil society which mobilized in recent weeks.
"This reform betrays the San Andr�s Accords generally, and
in particular betrays the 'Cocopa initiative' in its
fundamental points: autonomy and free determination, the Indian peoples
as subjects of public law, land and territory, use of
natural resources, election of municipal authorities, and right
of regional association, among others�.
"With this reform, the federal legislators and the Fox government close
the door to dialogue and peace, as they avoid resolving one of the
causes which led to the Zapatista uprising; they give reason to the
diverse armed groups in Mexico by invalidating a process of dialogue
and negotiation; they avoid their historic obligation to settle an
account which Mexico has carried in its nearly two hundred years of
independent and sovereign life; and they attempt to fragment the
national indigenous movement by ceding to state legislatures
an obligation of the federal Congress.
"The EZLN formally disavows this constitutional reform on indigenous
rights and culture. It does not contain the spirit of the San Andr�s
Accords, it does not respect the 'Cocopa initiative,' it completely
ignores the national and international demand for recognition of
indigenous rights and culture, it sabotages the incipient process of
rapprochement between the EZLN and the federal government, it betrays
the hopes for a negotiated solution to the war in Chiapas, and
it reveals the total divorce between the politicians and
popular demands.
"In consequence, the EZLN communicates the following: (a) that it has
told the architect Fernando Ya�ez Mu�oz to completely suspend his work
as contact between the EZLN and the Federal Executive. There will be
no more contact between the Fox government and the EZLN. (b) That the
EZLN will not resume the path of dialogue with the federal government
until indigenous rights and culture are constitutionally recognized in
accordance with the 'Cocopa initiative.' (c) That the Zapatistas
continue in resistance and rebellion�."
The EZLN position has been solidly backed by the National Indigenous
Congress, which called the legislators who voted in favor of the
reforms "traitors" and warned that unless the legislation is vetoed by
President Fox, the reforms could lead to the resurgence of armed
struggle in Chiapas.
Following publication of the EZLN communiqu�, President Fox seemed to
alter his position with respect to the indigenous rights bill, and
declarations from the president's office became contradictory. Earlier
in the week he had lauded the work of the Senate and the Chamber of
Deputies, announced that guerrilla warfare in Mexico had come to an
end, and that the passage of the reforms marked the beginning of a new
era of peace and prosperity.
Presidential spokesperson Martha Sahag�n read a declaration to the
press on April 30 - shortly after the Zapatistas' response to the
congressional actions had been made public - expressing Fox's opinion
that "the approval of the law for the indigenous peoples by the
Congress of the Union represents a great step forward, it is good for
Mexico, it is good for the indigenous peoples and it is the beginning
of a new history."
"This government," continues the statement, "celebrates [the approval
of the bill] and recognizes the Congress for having made this law its
own. Now all that is left is to advance toward the definitive peace
accords."
Just a few hours later, however, Fox instructed X�chitl
G�lvez, director of the executive's Indigenous Affairs Office, to read
a statement to the press in which the Fox administration
sharply criticized the indigenous rights bill, saying it lacked a
number of key elements (specifically regarding autonomy,
free determination, the indigenous peoples and communities as subjects
of public law, the use of natural resources, and the issue of land and
territory). G�lvez also said changes could still be made to the
reforms, but only through means of dialogue, tolerance, and with
respect for the governing institutions.
G�lvez was the only member of the Fox cabinet who had
previously criticized the indigenous rights bill prior to the
EZLN's rejection of it. She later took her personal opposition to
the reforms even further, holding live radio debates with
senators Manuel Bartlett (PRI) and Diego Fern�ndez de Cevallos (PAN),
two of the authors of the legislation, and challenged Bartlett to admit
he was wrong and to "correct" the legislation if she could collect one
million indigenous signatures opposed to the Senate's mutilation of the
COCOPA bill and the San Andr�s Accords.
Official government peace commissioner Luis H. Alvarez, meanwhile,
issued a statement on May 1 asking the EZLN to "reflect" on its
decision to suspend contacts with the federal government and to
recognize that while the indigenous reforms approved by Congress were
"lacking in some key areas," they also contained "important advances."
Alvarez also claimed it was "undeniable" that the Fox administration
had "complied with each and every one" of the three pre-conditions for
dialogue required by the EZLN for a resumption of formal negotiations.
>From the Zapatista standpoint, however, such an affirmation is
certainly "deniable," as two of those conditions remain unfulfilled:
the Cocopa initiative for constitutional reforms on Indigenous Rights
and Culture, in accordance with the San Andr�s Accords, has not been
approved; and ten Zapatista political prisoners have yet to be
released.
3. PRD SEEKS REFORM IN SIXTH PARTY CONGRESS
The Sixth National Congress of the Party of the Democratic Revolution
(PRD) was held this week in Zacatecas in an attempt to rebuild a
political party which, in three years, went from being the nation's
second-largest party, with a strong chance of building on its local
victories in 1997 and winning the presidency in 2000, to falling to a
distant third place nationally and on the verge of attaining "minor
party" status.
The party's political divisions were evident from the opening moment of
the Congress on April 24, in which the "Cardenista-Rosarista" sector -
made up of followers the party's founder and only presidential
candidate, Cuauht�moc C�rdenas, and former Mexico City mayor Rosario
Robles - faced off against the "chuchos" (followers of Senator Jes�s
Ortega and party Secretary General Jes�s Zambrano) and the "amalios"
(followers of current party president Amalia Garc�a).
While the Cardenistas have always been the strongest sector among party
militants and have run the Mexico City government since 1997, the party
itself has been under the control of the "amalios" and "chuchos" for
the last several years, with Amalia Garc�a holding the post of party
president and Jes�s Zambrano holding the number two position as
Secretary General. Their followers also occupy most of the top party
posts, and they share a vision of "modernizing" and "moderating"
the historically left-wing identity of the PRD while attempting
to separate the party from the tutelage of Cuauht�moc C�rdenas.
While ideologically similar, however, the "amalios" and "chuchos" (also
known as the "New Left" current) have feuded ever since Garc�a won the
party presidency in an internal election which Jes�s Ortega bitterly
wanted to win. Many party militants accuse both currents of caring
more about personal political ambitions within the party than about
making the PRD a realistic political option in the country, and tend to
blame Garc�a, Ortega, and Zambrano for the nosedive taken by the
party in national political preferences since 1998.
Although they went into the Congress confident of a joint
"70% majority" between New Left and the followers of Amalia
Garc�a, both Garc�a and Jes�s Ortega were booed during their
opening statements to the party delegates, and were
interrupted repeatedly by shouts of "Rosario!" "Rosario!" by supporters
of Rosario Robles, who effortlessly consolidated her new status as the
party's most popular politician.
The purpose of the Congress was to heal the deep divisions between the
party's three major currents, and to make profound structural reforms
within the organization with an eye on rebuilding its national strength
before the 2003 mid-term elections.
All major reform proposals, however - including guaranteed
equal distribution of political posts and candidacies by gender,
the possibilities of creating strategic alliances with the
Fox government, a change in the party's colors and logos, and
the creation of a National Political Council within the party -
were voted down by the delegates.
Nevertheless, the party did define its principles and
political program, and ended the Congress without suffering a
complete split in its ranks, although a "unity pact" drafted on the
first day by Amalia Garc�a received null support from the
other currents.
The most divisive issue of the Congress, discussed on the second day,
was the posture of the party with respect to the PAN government of
Vicente Fox Quesada. The Cardenista-Rosarista current, together with
supporters of current Mexico City mayor Andr�s Manuel L�pez Obrador,
maintained a position that the PAN and the Fox government should be
identified as the PRD's principal ideological and political
adversaries; whereas the "chuchos" and "amalios" united around a
position of respect for the Fox administration, supporting a posture of
"constructive opposition" and the possibility of creating a "transition
pact" between the Fox government and the PRD.
By a narrow vote of 546 to 528, the Cardenista-Rosarista delegates
eventually carried the debate, and the assembly approved a political
stance by which the PRD leadership was expressly forbidden from
"establishing a long-term pact or alliance between the PRD and the PAN
government led by Vicente Fox, and much less with local governments run
by the former PRI regime." However, the delegates did approve an
amendment to the measure allowing for the possibility of short-
term "circumstantial political agreements" with the Fox government.
The remaining 100 points of the party's political platform
were approved on April 25 without serious debate or
opposition, including the identification of the PRD as "a left
political opposition" to neoliberalism and the Fox administration, and
as a party which struggles for social equality and a reduction
of poverty. In political terms, the delegates also voted to continue a
policy of forming alliances with other social forces and civil or
popular movements in favor of "public policies and legislative
initiatives to favor the majority of the population and resist the
conservative and neoliberal logic."
In terms of economic policy, the congress delegates approved a policy
of seeking "a profound economic and social reform whose key will be the
redistribution of wealth to combat inequality and poverty."
On the third day of the Congress, independents Pablo G�mez and Juan
Guerra urged the delegates to vote in favor of a major structural
reform to end the disputes between party currents and create a new
national leadership structure with a "national political council" made
up of party personalities and former governors. But the proposal was
rejected by Amalia Garc�a and eventually withdrawn.
However, the delegates did vote by a large margin in favor of a general
reform package which requires militants to incorporate themselves into
local base committees, and established new rules for the election of
party leaders at three different levels on one date every three years.
Nevertheless, particular elements of that package were left up for
discussion on the following day, and controversial specifics were
eventually rejected, including the guarantee of 50%
female representation among candidacies (a proposal supported by
both Rosario Robles and Amalia Garc�a).
Delegates also approved a new set of principles which, much like the
party's previous declarations of principles over the last twelve years,
read like a set of "commandments of good intentions." According to the
new document, the party stands for justice and equality, democracy,
sustainable development, national sovereignty, international
cooperation and world peace.
The principles also define the party as a bulwark against racism,
religious fundamentalism, xenophobia, discrimination based on beliefs
or sexual preference, discrimination against women and indigenous
people, and globalization.
The PRD Congress ended on Saturday, April 28, leaving much of its
anticipated "restructuring" and redefinition for the future.
Jes�s Ortega, of the "chuchos," and Raymundo C�rdenas, of
the "amalios," also took the time during the party congress to announce
their candidacies for the party presidency in internal elections
scheduled for March 2002. Rosario Robles is widely considered the
frontrunner in that race, although she has yet to officially announce
her candidacy, saying it is more important now to focus on party unity
and concentrate on PRD victories in local and state elections later
this year in Zacatecas and Michoac�n.
After the Congress was over, the "chuchos" of the New Left current
distributed a document to the press which they considered a
"preliminary balance" of the Congress. The document only seemed to
confirm the criticisms toward the "chuchos" and "amalios," however, in
that it did not address any of the substantive issues debated at the
party congress. Rather, it was a report on the correlation of forces
within the party, claiming that: (a) New Left in fact maintains the
support of a majority of party militants; (b) the Congress was
sabotaged by Rosario Robles and her followers; (c) the other
political currents present at the Congress were reduced in number
compared to an increase in delegates for New Left; and (d)
Cuauht�moc C�rdenas was tricked into believing New Left wanted him
to retire, and arrived at the Congress with a "certain degree
of belligerence" determined to "fight windmills." According to
the document, the "chuchos" are democratic and a majority
tendency, while all other currents - except the "amalios," with whom
the "chuchos" maintain an alliance - are undemocratic, "backwards," and
"intolerant." So much for party unity.
4. BRIEFS
- Sergio Oliva L�pez, one of the few remaining Zapatista political
prisoners in the state of Chiapas, was released from jail on April 23.
His liberation came as the result of a successful legal appeal to his
sentence, rather than as the result of a federal or state pardon. Four
other Zapatistas remain imprisoned in Chiapas, and six others are in
jail in the states of Quer�taro and Tabasco. The Zapatista Army
considers their release a necessary precondition for peace talks to
resume with the federal government of Vicente Fox.
- Treasury Secretary Francisco Gil D�az announced this week that if his
fiscal reform package - which includes application of a 15% transaction
tax on food, medicines, books, and educational expenses - is approved,
it will lead to the immediate reduction of banking interest rates to
three or four percent, and therefore to economic growth levels
approaching seven percent before the end of the year. Interest rates
in Mexico have recently hovered around fifteen percent, and GDP growth
for the rest of the year is currently estimated at less than
three percent.
- A World Bank report on global development indicators released this
week shows the Mexican minimum wage to have fallen 43% in real terms
over the last twenty years, while the size of the national external
debt grew to US$167 billion in 1999. Service on the debt alone
represents 25% of national export income. Exports themselves,
meanwhile, represented 63% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product in
1999 - an indicator of the opening of Mexico's economy over the last
three decades, as exports in 1970 only accounted for 1% of GDP. The
report also indicates that military spending in Mexico rose from 3.7%
to 6.2% of the federal budget in the five-year period between 1992 and
1997.
______________________________________________________________
SOURCES: La Jornada, Milenio, El Universal, El Financiero,
Reforma, Proceso.
This report is a product of the Mexico Solidarity Network.
Redistribution is authorized and encouraged provided that the
source is cited. Comments: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This and previous news updates are archived at:
http://www.mexicosolidarity.org " JC
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
