Translation from Original Document by SAIIC, The South &
Mesoamerican Indian Information Center, Gia N. Grant and G.
Delgado-P.
WE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF MEXICO asnwering to the reply
of the government (represented by the Commissioner of Peace
and Reconciliation, Manuel Camacho Soliz) to the General
Command of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN),
DECLARE the following:
1. Although the government expressed willingness to reply to
some of the social and economic demands put forth by the
EZLN, we deeply worry, that the matters which relate to
central political points, one does not observe real
intentions to provide solutions affecting previous
fundamental changes of relations between Indigenous peoples
and nation-state. In particular, one notices that the
government is reluctant to modify the neoliberal economic
model which has been precisely the cause of conflicts in
Chiapas; nor is it evident that the government desires to
enter into a process of political, constitutional and legal
changes by which to inaugurate a new nation in which Indians
occupy the place they deserve as a Peoples and as Mexicans.
2. In respect to the demands of the EZLN, regarding
democracy and a "truly free and democratic [Presidential]
election in [August] of 1994, the reply of the government is
reduced to summoning an extraordinary period of Congress of
the Union sessions, without clearly committing in favor of
change by which the responsible organs of the electoral
process are effectively autonomous and independent of the
government and it's party. We believe that this is an
essential compromise in order to guarantee the democratic
life of the nation. We, the Indigenous Peoples, consider
that without autonomous and independent organs there cannot
be free elections, nor democracy, nor can large problems
which affect so many Indians, as well as non-Indians, be
resolved.
The democracy inaugurated in Mexico should have a plural and
plural- ethnic content, of which Indigenous Peoples are a
part. It should break away from an ethnocentric conception
of democracy, which has excluded Indigenous Peoples.
Likewise it should break away from the party monopoly of
citizen representation, in order to give way to the
participation of all forms of social and political
organization, including Indigenous peoples.
3. Regarding EZLN demands of autonomy for Indigenous
Peoples, which manifests the aspirations of all Indigenous
Peoples of Mexico, these have been expressed in the
following terms: "New pact between the members of the
FEderation which finishes [eliminates?]with centralism and
grants regions, Indigenous communities and self-governing
municipalities with political, economic and cultural
autonomy", we believe the following:
First. That the government's reply tries to deny the
["Peoples"] community character of Indigenous Mexicans.
Instead, the government looks to substitute it for
"communities", ignoring its own proposal that recognizes
"indigenous communities" included in constitutional article
4. The government's interpretation of the demand for
autonomy fragments and reduces the contents of regional
autonomy, which as been proposed by Indigenous Peoples,
exchanging it for a meaning which is merely local or
"communal". They want to keep us [Indigenous peoples]
divided and submissive, preventing us from organizing
ourselves regionally and nationally. The EZLN speaks of
autonomy at all levels (including regional), while the
government attempts to enclose us and limit us to "the
community".
Second. In the government's response, one sees the
prejudices that exist about "the customs, uses and
traditions" of the Indians, which taken out of context,
assume that these "customs, uses and traditions", can be
violating to human rights and to the public order.
Third. While the EZLN, interpreting the opinion of the
Indians of Mexico, demand autonomy, which would imply
profound revisions of the judicial-political regime of
Mexico, the reply of the government reduces it to propose a
regulatory law of constitutional articles 4 and 27. That is
to say, the government has not understood anything
significant from the Indigenous rebellions in Chiapas, nor
about the solidarity which has awakened, nor the demands for
autonomy from Indigenous peoples of the nation. The
government's response implies that nothing will change in
the Constitution to make regional autonomy possible. We
affirm that the current edition of Constitutional Article 4
is unacceptable, because it does not contain the necessary
elements of judicial framework for the autonomous regime
demanded by the EZLN, and by all of us Indians. We Insist.
It is not a matter of "regulating" Constitutional article 4,
reformed by Salinas, and the corresponding ammendment to
article 27, but rather to create a new Constitutional
foundation which includes newly reforming number 4, and
other articles of the same fundamental law, in order to make
way for the autonomy which we aspire towards. If it is about
regulating by legal means, this legal regulation should be a
Law or Statute of Autonomy for Indigenous Peoples of mexico,
subject to reform of the current Constitution.
Fourth. We warn that the Indigenous Peoples of Mexico will
not recognize any measurement or modification
(constitutional or legal) that does not take into account
our opinion and is put in practice without our full
participation. We do not want new reforms that ignore
Indigenous peoples nor excluding advise, that only serve to
give "legality" to the authoritarian will of governments.
Fifth. We reject the pretension of the government that is
observed in the entire government's reply document, in which
the protagonist of the necessary changes is the same
government and its organisms. We oppose once again the
following governmental institutions: INI, SEDESO, SEP, SARH,
as well as "commissions" of whatever kind (including what is
actually led by Ms.Beatriz Paredes), be in charge of
"resolving" our problems, without our participation and with
the goals of mediating us, dividing us, [or implementing]
political clientelism. This experience demonstrates to us,
until now, that these entities of the government only want
to avoid that any changes are made in the country.
4. The request of the EZLN, to revise the Free Trade
Agreement, is just to avoid that it becomes a death sentence
for Indigenous Peoples. But it is our opinion that the
SECOFI, as the government proposes it, cannot be who carries
on a reliable evaluation of NAFTA's impact on Indigenous
Peoples. SECOFI was a key piece in defining this agreement;
therefore, this organism cannot be just and objective. We
propose that there be an independent commission, with the
participation of Indigenous peoples, who carry on the
revision of NAFTA.
5. In what is referred to as the land question and
Constitutional Article 27, the EZLN demands: "The Salinista
reforms of Constitutional article 27 should be annulled and
the Right to land should be based upon our Carta Magna".
And added that: "the land is for the Indigenous and peasants
who work it". Nevertheless, the response of the government
aims to keep intact the Salinista reform, conserving article
27, such as it is. To this, in place [instead of] of
responding to the demands of nullifying article 27, the
government proposes to only regulate it.
This is to say that it should reform article 27, nullifying
[eliminating] the Salinista counter-reform in order to
provide solutions to the problems of all rural workers. With
their proposal, the government aims to divide and oppose
Indigenous peasants against non-Indigenous peasants [or
landless peasants]. We reject this maneuver. We reject as
well the government's claim to limit the solutions to the
agrarian problems in Chiapas. There is a need to look for
proposed solutions for the entire country.
It is not only a matter of eliminating the Salinista
counter-reform and return to the Zapatista [land] spirit. It
requires to answer to the new conditions and challenges from
the countryside. There is the need to advance towards a new
Constitutional article 27 that considers the problem of
territory, of sustainable development, of control and
adequate use of the environment (all within the framework of
autonomy), and other important questions for Indigenous and
non-Indigenous peoples of the country.
We reject all current forms of latifundismo [large
landholdings and ranches] in Mexico. But this is not to say
that we are against legitimate productive activities; what
we are against is that which produces negative social
effects. We are not against agricultural labor or cattle
ranching, but rather against activities undertaken to
monopolize land [ownership], and environmental destruction
which until now has been allowed and encouraged by the
current government. We believe that there is a need to
revise the current constitutional article 27 in order to
hinder that this Constitutional law further encourages
latifundismo--now under formal legality--yet it is
illegitimate and against the most sacred ideals of the
Mexican nation.
Signed: (Seventy seven Indigenous organizations) Gathered at
The National Electoral Meeting of Indigenous Peoples, Museo
de la Ciudad de Mexico, March 4-6, 1994.