And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:43:26 -0600 (CST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chiapas95-english) >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: En;Details of Global Exchange vs. INM Encounter,Jan.10 > >This message is forwarded to you as a service of Zapatistas Online. > > >Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:19:49 -0600 >To: chiapas95 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: En;Global Exchange, New Year's Tour vs. the INM, Jan. 9 > >SUMMARY OF GLOBAL EXCHANGE'S NEW YEAR'S 1999 REALITY TOUR > >In October 1998, the San Francisco-based NGO Global Exchange announced the >New Year's 1999 'Reality Tour,' to Chiapas, Mexico. 'Reality Tours' are >delegations coordinated by Global Exchange which bring people from the >United States and other countries to locations of poverty or social >conflict in order to facilitate a better understanding of those situations. > Global Exchange has previously carried out numerous delegations to >Chiapas, including a New Year's delegation last year. > >On October 20, the day after the announcement was made public, the Chiapas >daily Cuarto Poder re-printed a story from Washington's The Sun regarding >the delegation, accompanied with a backside headline. The article referred >to Global Exchange as a "Travel Agency" and stated that trips to visit with >internal conflict refugees in Acteal or neighboring Polho' as well as the >opportunity to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Zapatista uprising >were offered as a "tourist attraction." > >ACTEAL > >Two months later, on December 22, 1998, thousands of Mexicans and >internationals commemorated the first anniversary of the Acteal Massacre. >In order to arrive in Acteal for the event, many visitors had to pass army >and immigration checkpoints on the road from San Cristo'bal de las Casas to >the highlands community. En route to the commemoration and the Mass held >by Bishop Samuel Ruiz on that Tuesday, at least 12 foreign nationals had >their visas confiscated and were cited by immigration authorities to appear >in the offices of the INM. > >The Fray Barto'lome de las Casas Human Rights Center released a press >bulletin on December 23 to condemn actions on the previous day including >fly-overs by an army helicopter as well as the appearance of military >vehicles on the road that passes next to Acteal. In addition, the center >denounced the actions of the immigration authorities in citing foreigners >for attending the Mass, stating that those acts "show that the government >continues in its campaign against persons from the international solidarity >community because it considers them to be inconvenient witnesses." > >THREATS FROM THE INM > >In response to this press bulletin, the head of the National Immigration >Institute (INM), Alejandro Carrillo Castro, accused the Fray Barto'lome >Human Rigths Center of provoking the government by declaring that >immigration checks on forgeigners in Chiapas are a violation of their human >rights. In the same statement - given on December 28, the day that the New >Year's delegation arrived in Chiapas - Carrillo Castro declared that >"revolutionary tourism" of the type offered by Global Exchange would not be >tolerated. > >The Interior Ministry official also stated that facing the efforts of >groups like Global Exchange to carry out "revolutionary tourism," the >government would apply the law in order to enforce Article 33 of the >Mexican constitution. Article 33 gives the President of the Republic the >power to expel any foreigner that he or she considers "inconvenient" >without a prior hearing for "meddling in the internal politics of the >country." > >NAMES LEAKED TO THE PRESS > >On December 30, Cuarto Poder printed that "sources close to the INM" >announced that participants in the Global Exchange New Year's delegation >would be cited to appear before immigration authorities in order to explain >their activities in Chiapas. In addition, the article listed the names and >supposed nationalities of the delegation members. > >This latter information was available only to Global Exchange staff and the >delegation members and was never made public in any way. Global Exchange >has concluded that the list was obtained by intercepting a fax transmission >that included the names of the participants and their places of birth. In >the article the names are listed in the same order as on the fax sheet, and >several people are incorrectly listed as citizens of the country in which >they were born, rather than their present nationalities. > >The same day that delegation participants saw their names in print, false >reports surfaced that they had been cited by immigration authorities. >According to the evening's television coverage as well as newspaper >coverage the following day, 14 participants in Global Exchange's New Year's >delegation received citations from the INM on the December 30. > >OVENTIC > >It was not until two days later however, that the delegation actually >interacted with immigration authorities. On Friday, January 1, 1999, three >members of the delegation were cited by immigration officials while >returning from the community of Oventic, located in the highlands of >Chiapas. After being detained for an hour earlier in the day at the same >military and immigration checkpoint, located in San Andre's Larrainzar, the >group was stopped again in the afternoon on the way back. > >During that exchange, INM official Carlos Guille'n Mende announced that >three members of the delegation would be given citations, and then >proceeded to request that the delegation coordinator, Ernesto Ledesma, pick >out which delegation members would be cited. Ledesma, a Mexican citizen, >refused, and eventually Guille'n Mende issued the citations to three female >members of the group. Anna Brown and Michelle Mangini of the United >States, and Yuki Sato of Japan, had their visas confiscated and were given >summons to appear at the local INM offices in San Cristo'bal de las Casas >the following Monday, January 4, at noon. > >INM INTERROGATION > >The morning of the 4th, Anna Brown left the country. Before receiving the >citation, Brown had scheduled to leave for the United States that day, and >decided not to change her plans. Yuki Sato and Michelle Mangini did >present themselves as scheduled at the INM offices. Sato and Mangini >appeared for their citations accompanied by two lawyers from the Fray >Barto'lome Human Rights Center, delegation coordinator Ernesto Ledesma, a >translator of confidence, and 8 other members of the delegation who decided >to attend the event as an act of solidarity. > >Over a 7-hour period, Sato and Mangini were subject to separate >interrogations by local immigration chief Marco Rodri'guez Ca'rdenas. >Mangini invoked her right under Article 20, Fraction II of the Mexican >Constitution and refused to answer all questions. Rodri'guez Ca'rdenas went >through a series of 18 prepared questions anyway, a process slowed down by >the translation. After nearly two hours, Mangini was allowed to retire to >the lobby, after refusing to sign the final document prepared by the >authorities. > >Yuki Sato followed, and was provided with a Japanese-Spanish translator >during her questioning. Sato, in Mexico on an official passport and an >employee of the Japanese government working in Mexico City, chose to answer >questions about her job but refused to answer the majority of those >regarding her presence in Chiapas. After three-and-half hours she was >finished. > >LEGAL ISSUES > >During the interrogations, Jose' Montero Solano, one of the lawyers from the >Human Rights Center representing Sato and Mangini, maintained that the >citations violate the Mexican Constitution and General Population Law. >Montero argued that they violate the Constitution because they infringe >upon civil rights such as freedom of movement and Article 154 of General >Population Law because they do not specify the motivation for which the >individuals were cited. Montero also argued that the citations violate >Article 151 of the General Population Law because a military authority >rather than an immigration authority ordered the revision of immigration >status. > >Although Sato was additionally queried about her work in Mexico City, both >she and Mangini were asked the same questions regarding their presence in >Chiapas. The questions attempted to link Sato and Mangini with activities >that the Mexican Government has argued are illegal. Among the questions >were included: "Could you explain the activities you carried out in the >community of Oventic, Chiapas on the First of January, 1999?", "Did you >collaborate in the elaboration of the press release of January 2, 1999, >disseminated by Global Exchange in various information media?" and "Do you >consider the Mexican Government to be carrying out a xenophobia campaign in >Chiapas?" > >After allowing Sato and Mangini to leave the INM offices while their legal >representatives stayed behind awaiting a decision, the INM authorities >insisted that the two return to the office to receive the results in >person. Sato and Mangini returned to find that their visas remained >confiscated and that they had been cited to appear before the immigration >service once again, this time in the offices in Mexico City. > >AFTERMATH > >Both Sato and Mangini were cited to appear at the Main Offices of the INM >two days later, on the afternoon of January 6. On Tuesday, January 5, >along with eight other members of the delegation, Mangini left Chiapas and >returned to the United States. Despite press reports that 8 members of the >Global Exchange delegation were met at the airport by INM officials and >were officially "invited" to leave the country, none of the members of the >delegation had problems with immigration on their way out of Mexico. > >The same day, the INM issued a press bulletin announcing that Anna Brown >would not be allowed to return to Mexico as a result of failing to appear >at immigration in San Cristo'bal the day before. The INM also accused >Global Exchange of "fomenting violations of Mexican Law," stating that the >organization had instructed Sato and Mangini to give false information >about their presence and activities in Chiapas. > >On Wednesday, January 6, Yuki Sato appeared at the INM offices in Mexico >City. A representative of the Japanese Embassy was scheduled to accompany >her for that appointment and help to arrange a diplomatic resolution >regarding Sato's immigration status. > >According to INM statements published on Thursday, Sato complied with the >requirements of the INM and established that her presence in Mexico was >legal and would therefore be allowed to remain in the country. In addition >to remarking on Sato's case, the immigration service announced that Anna >Brown and Michelle Mangini would not be allowed to return to Mexico for two >years, as a result of failing to comply with the INM summons-Brown for >failing to appear on January 4, and Mangini for failing to appear for her >second summons on January 6. > >NEW THREATS > >On Friday, January 8, newspapers again published remarks regarding the >delegation. The Sub-secretary on Population and Immigration Affairs, >Fernando Soli's Ca'mara, charged Global Exchange with encouraging the >violation of Mexican law in coordinating reality tours in which the >participants come to Mexico on tourist visas. In addition, the Interior >Ministry official stated that the government had "detected links" between >Global Exchange and the Fray Barto'lome Human Rights Center, emphasizing >that the latter group is connected with the Diocese of San Cristo'bal de las >Casas. > >Soli's Ca'mara stated that the actions against Brown and Mangini do not >constitute a move to a more hard-line immigration policy, and characterized >as "risky" and "inconvenient" charges by some organizations (i.e. Global >Exchange) that the actions of the immigration service are illegal. >Regarding these latter remarks it is important to remember that Article 33 >states that the President of the Republic has to the power to expel >"inconvenient" foreigners. > >Finally, Soli's Ca'mara emphasized that the "expulsion" of Sato and Mangini >was legitimate because they were required by immigration authorities to >explain the activities they were carrying out in Chiapas and failed to do >so. He contrasted the two cases with that of Yuki Sato, stating that after >appearing for both of her citations, Sato received no sanction. > > > > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list send a message containing the words >unsubscribe chiapas95 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Previous messages >are available from http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html >or gopher://eco.utexas.edu. > <<<<=-=-=FREE LEONARD PELTIER=-=-=>>>> If you think you are too small to make a difference; try sleeping in a closed room with a mosquito.... African Proverb <<<<=-=http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ =-=>>>> IF it says: "PASS THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW...." Please Check it before you send it at: http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blhoax.htm
