AUT: English Chiapas Al Dia 138 I

[CIEPAC <ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ENGLISH VERSION OF "CHIAPAS AL DIA" BULLETIN No. 138
CIEPAC
CHIAPAS, MEXICO
(December 12, 1998)


HUMAN RIGHTS ANNIVERSARY AND INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE
INDIAN PEOPLES

Last December 10, we celebrated one more Anniversary of the Human Rights
Declaration, and it was also the International Day of the Indian Peoples.
The celebration in Chiapas took place in the midst of many contradictions
between the governmental statements and the current situation in the state.
 Many of us asked ourselves:  why does the federal government not want to
recognize the Rights of the Indian Peoples?  Why does it not want to
recognize Table 1 of the San Andres Accords which it already signed with
the EZLN?  Why did it fail to keep its word and refuse to accept the
proposal for a Law on Indigenous Rights and Culture drawn up by the COCOPA?
 Let us reflect on these questions, focusing on the results of the San
Andres Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture (Table 1), Convention 169
on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the International Labor Organization
(ILO) and the Project of the American Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples of the Organization of American States (OAS), approved
on January 26, 1997.  With these reflections, we join the information
campaign for the National Consultation.

The joint communique of January 22, 1998, of the National Intermediation
Commission (CONAI), which Bishop Samuel Ruiz presided over), and the
Commission of Concordance and Peace (COCOPA), made up of Federal and State
Senators and Deputies from the PRI, PAN, PRD and PT parties, says:  "The
realization of the San Andres Accords in matters of indigenous rights and
culture, is the central point of the crisis in which the dialogue currently
finds itself.  Its renewal basically depends on their being carried out;
thus, legislative reforms in indigenous matters should take first place in
the strategy for reactivating it." For the CONAI and the COCOPA, the
legislative proposal on Indigenous Rights and Culture of Table 1 of the San
Andres dialogue, made by the legislators in November, 1996, as a petition
to the Parties (the EZLN and the Federal Government), is the document which
they were both supposed to present to the Congress of the Union.  However,
the National Action Party (PAN), the Ecology Green Party of Mexico (PVEM)
and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), together with the
Executive), changed their minds concerning the proposal which they had
drawn up, resulting in their being accused of negotiating with the federal
government.  And, in addition, the PAN presented its own legislative proposal.

President Zedillo argued that he had 27 observations concerning the
COCOPA's legislative proposal on indigenous rights.  Later, he reduced the
number to 4, as a gesture of "good will", when, in fact, they were the same
observations.  In response to the EZLN's refusal to accept modifications to
the original proposal, in March of 1998, the President sent his own
proposal to the Congress of the Union, knowing full well that this
unilateral action would definitively break off the dialogue, because the
EZLN would not accept it, nor would the CONAI, nor would some of the
political parties in the COCOPA, nor would many sectors of civil society.
Thus, the EZLN's other condition for renewing dialogue was automatically
discarded:  "that the federal government make a serious proposal for Table
II, Democracy and Justice".

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) stated on March 1:  "By
deciding to present to the H. Congress of the Union its proposal for an
indigenous law - drawn up together with the COCOPA -  the federal Executive
is failing to carry out the San Andres Accords in two senses:  one, because
the Accords note that they should be presented to the bodies of national
debate in a joint manner;  and the other, because the Executive's proposal
does not recognize the documents signed by its representatives in San
Andres, it is based on the conception that the federal Executive has of the
indigenous problem, and not on the program for a new relationship between
the Indian peoples and the Mexican nation, as and how it was agreed at the
dialogue table.  These accords received the support of national and
international civil society, of the chambers of the deputies and the
senators, of the National Intermediation Commission and of the COCOPA.
With its 'new' strategy, the Department of Government makes a mockery of
everyone (?) The unilateral action of presenting an indigenous law project
- whose approval was already agreed to by the legislators affiliated with
Sen~or Zedillo - without the consensus of the counterpart - the EZLN and
the Indian peoples - does not mean that the dialogue process was opened up.
 On the contrary, if it continues forward, it will collapse definitively.
With this action, confidence and credibility are destroyed:  it is not
possible to dialogue and to negotiate in order to reach accords if there is
no confidence that the parties are going to carry them out".

In the public communique issued by the CONAI on March 17, 1998, it stated
that "the Presidential proposal departs from what was agreed to in San
Andres, and it affects the commitments assumed by the Mexican Government as
a signatory of Convention 169 of the ILO", because:

	1)  It reduces the exercise of the Indian peoples' rights to the
communities.  It recognizes that "the indigenous peoples have the right to
free will", but it reduces "the concrete expression of them to the autonomy
of the indigenous communities".  This violates the San Andres Accords which
establish "national legislation should recognize the indigenous peoples as
the subjects of the rights of free determination and autonomy."  It also
violates the ILO Convention which attributes these rights to indigenous
peoples as subjects.
	2)   It speaks of how the Constitution "grants" rights to the indigenous
peoples, instead of simply recognizing them, as was agreed to at San
Andres.  The new relationship between the State and indigenous peoples
agreed to at San Andres starts with the recognition of the pre-existence of
these peoples and with the recognition of their rights in the Constitution;
 on the other hand, the Federal Executive refers to the granting of these
rights, instead of recognizing them, as if it would be an act of the State
which would create those rights.
	3)   It does not recognize the jurisdictional rights of the Indian
peoples.  The President only recognizes - which introduces a discretionary
factor - that "the procedures, judgments and decisions" - of these peoples
- "will be recognized", which violates the San Andres Accords, which
explicitly establishes "as a right, full access to justice (?) that the
positive Mexican law recognizes the authorities, standards and procedures
for the resolution of internal conflicts (?) and, through simple
procedures, their judgments and decisions will be recognized by the
jurisdictional authorities of the State".
	4)   It does not recognize the right of the Indian peoples to their
territory.  It omits the reference to the use and enjoyment of natural
resources in reference to their lands and territories, which is explicit in
the COCOPA and the San Andres Accords texts.  These establish that the
Federal Government "should make effective those rights and guarantees which
belong to them - such as - right to environment:  the use and enjoyment of
the territory in accordance with Article 13.2 of the ILO Convention".
	5)   It omits the mechanism established by the San Andres Accords and
Convention 169 for determining how a municipality, community, auxiliary
body of a local council and related bodies, shall be defined as indigenous.
 The presidential text speaks only of predominately indigenous
municipalities, and it omits the definitive criteria included in the COCOPA
text, which violates the San Andres Accords and the ILO Convention, which
establish that "the consciousness of their indigenous identity should be
considered as the fundamental criterion for determining the groups to whom
the regulations" contained in these accords "should be applied".  (There
are two conceptions of the scope of association of municipalities:  the
unilateral proposal restricts it to what is already in place through
Articles 9 and 115 of the Constitution, it proposes an apparent
constitutional reform and, in the case of predominately indigenous
municipalities, it tries to restrict it.  The San Andres Accords consider
it as a measure for rebuilding the indigenous peoples).
	6)   It does not recognize, as does the COCOPA text, and as agreed at San
Andres, the indigenous communities "as entities of public law".  The
presidential proposal only considers the communities as part of the
municipal structure;  their association is restricted to economic and
social aspects, a right which is already constitutionally established, not
to the political nor the legal aspects.  However, the San Andres Accords
(5,2 and II, 4) envision, in the free association of the communities, a
means of rebuilding the indigenous peoples as "entities of public law".
	7)   It does not recognize the right of the Indian peoples to define "the
procedures for the election of their officials".  The presidential text
establishes:  "in municipalities with a primarily indigenous population,
local legislation" - will be that which - "will establish the rules and
methods for assuring the participation of the indigenous communities in the
integration of the local councils (?)"  The COCOPA says "that in the
municipalities, communities, auxiliary bodies of the local councils and
related bodies (?) the right of their residents will be recognized to
define, in accordance with the political practices of each of their
traditions, the procedures for the election of their officials or
representatives".  This omission violates what was agreed to at San Andres,
which recognizes the right of the peoples "to freely designate their
representatives, at a community level, as well as municipal government
bodies, and their officials, as indigenous peoples, in accordance with the
institutions and traditions of each people".

There are other elements in the Executive's proposal which do not
correspond with the letter or the spirit of the San Andres Accords, of the
COCOPA's proposal and of Convention 169 of the ILO:

	8)   Communications:  It promotes a constitutional reform which does not
alter current legislation:  The Executive proposes that the indigenous
communities can "Acquire, operate and administer their own communications
media, under the terms established by laws in the matter" (Article 4, VII).
 The San Andres Accords state (III, 8) that "it is indispensable to provide
these 'peoples' with their own means of communication".  For which it
proposes "the drawing up of a new communications law which allows the
indigenous peoples to acquire, operate and administer their own methods of
communication".  Convention 169 affirms that "Measures should be adopted in
order to guarantee members of interested 'peoples' the possibility of
acquiring an education at all levels, on at least an equal footing with the
rest of the national community" (Article 26).
	9)   Education:  the right to determine indigenous educational programs is
only conceded to the Federal Executive.  "The Federal executive, in
'consultation' with the indigenous communities , will define and develop
educational programs with regional content?" (Article 4, VII).  The COCOPA
proposes, in the place of "Federal executive", "The federal, state and
municipal educational officials?"  The San Andres Accords explains (3,5):
"The state should respect the educational work of the indigenous peoples
within their own cultural space?";  it should allocate resources for the
"educational and cultural activities which the indigenous communities and
peoples determine" and allow the peoples and communities to determine their
own educational programs, without mentioning their relationship with the
federal authorities.  The COCOPA's proposal grants this right to the
"federal, state and municipal authorities, in consultation with the
indigenous peoples".  Convention 169 states that "The relevant authority
should assure the training of members of these peoples and their
participation in the formulation and execution of educational programs,
with a view to the progressive transfer of the responsibility for the
carrying out of these programs to these peoples, when there is space (?)
In addition, the governments should recognize the right of those peoples to
create their own institutions and educational means, as long as such
institutions meet the minimal norms established by the competent authority
in consultation with those peoples.  They should be provided with
appropriate resources for such an end" (Article 27).

	10)   Development Programs:  They do not propose a new relationship
between the state and the indigenous peoples.  The President proposes that
equality of opportunity be promoted, so that the indigenous peoples,
'through their own efforts', will have equal access to the distribution of
the national wealth".  This is a step backwards from Article 26 of the
Constitution, which currently prevails.  Convention 169 states that
"measures should be adopted, with the participation and cooperation of the
interested peoples, which are designed to overcome the difficulties which
said peoples experience in facing new living and working conditions"
(Article 5);  "to establish measures for the full development of the
institutions and initiatives of those peoples, and, in appropriate cases,
to provide the resources necessary for that end" (Article 6);  and, lastly,
"the right to decide their own priorities concerning the development
process, insofar as this affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and
spiritual wellbeing and the lands which they occupy or utilize in any
manner, and to control, insofar as possible, their own economic, social and
cultural development (?) to participate in the formulation, application and
evaluation of the plans and programs of national and regional development
which can affect them directly." (Article 7).

One year ago, in November of 1997, the Mexican government presented more
than 30 observations to the "Project of the American Declaration Concerning
the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples" of the OAS:

	11)   OAS:  "Reaffirming that the armed forces in indigenous areas should
restrict their activities to the carrying out of their duties, and they
should not be the cause of abuses or violations of the rights of the
indigenous peoples".  The Mexican government proposes:  "To reaffirm that
the armed forces in the indigenous towns and communities should guarantee
and preserve order (?)".
	12)   OAS:   "Recognizing the preeminence and applicability of the States
and the peoples (?)".  The Mexican government proposes:  "eliminate the
word 'peoples' (in this case, indigenous) (?) because the Declarations of
international bodies are adopted by the States".
	13)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to special guarantees
against discrimination (?)".  The Mexican government:  "(?) it is
incompatible with Article 4 of the Constitution, because it can be
interpreted to discriminate against the indigenous communities".
	14)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to restitution in
regards to the complete ownership of said patrimony from which they were
dislocated, or (?) to indemnification on a basis not less than the
standards of international law".  The Mexican government:  eliminate this
paragraph and add:  "They may participate in the administration and care of
the monuments and archeological and ceremonial sites, which are State
property and located on the lands of the indigenous peoples (?) In cases of
indemnification, this should be considered under domestic laws".
	 15)   OAS:   (concerning radio and television transmissions)  The Mexican
government proposes to add at the end:  "in accordance with the legal
regulations of each State".
	16)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples will have the right to:  a) define
and apply their own educational programs, institutions and facilities;  b)
to prepare and apply their own teaching plans, programs, curricula and
materials;  and c) to educate, train and accredit their teachers and
administrators (?)'.  The Mexican government:  "The States will guarantee
the indigenous peoples the right to participate (?)".
17)   OAS:   "When sacred burial grounds and relics have been appropriated
by state institutions, they should be returned".  Mexican government:
"When (?) they are the property of the State, the indigenous peoples will
be able to participate in the administration and care of same".
18)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to conserve, restore
and protect their environment, and the productive capacity of their lands,
territories and resources".  The Mexican government adds:  "with full
respect for the forms, methods and limitations established for ownership by
the Constitution and the laws of the State".  OAS:  "the indigenous peoples
will have the right to assistance from their States for the purpose of
protecting the environment, and they will be able to receive assistance
from international bodies".  The Mexican government adds:  "with strict
adherence to domestic legal codes".
19)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to freely determine
their political status and to freely promote their economic, social,
spiritual and cultural development, and, consequently, they have the right
to autonomy or to self-government relative to, among other things, culture,
religion, education, information, means of communication, health, housing,
employment, social wellbeing, economic activities, administration of lands
and resources, environment and the entry of non-members; as well as in
determining the resources and methods for financing these autonomous
functions".  The Mexican government:  "It is considered inappropriate (?)
The concepts of 'autonomy' and 'self-government' are contrary to
constitutional precepts (?)".
20)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and to
strengthen their legal systems (?)".  The Mexican government:  "(?) the
term legal or judicial systems will be substituted by the expression norms,
uses and customs".
21)   OAS:   "National incorporation of the indigenous legal and
organizational systems".  The Mexican government proposes the title:
"Participation of the indigenous peoples in government departments".  OAS:
 "The relevant institutions of each State which serve the indigenous
peoples, will be designed in consultation, and with the participation of,
the interested peoples in order to strengthen identity, culture,
traditions, organizations and values (?)".  The Mexican government:  "(?)
will promote the participation (?)".
22)   OAS:   (concerning "territories")  The Mexican government:  "the
indiscriminate use of the word 'territory' (?) as a space in which some
kind of authority is exercised (?) substitute the concept of 'territories'
for that of lands (?)  The assignment of 'inalienability',
'indispensability' and 'non-appropriability' to the lands of the indigenous
peoples is contrary to the constitutional code (?)".  They suggest:  "(?)
always and when it does not contravene what is stipulated by legislation
(?) respecting the established forms, methods and limitations (?)  The
interested peoples should participate, whenever possible, in the benefits
derived from such activities, or should receive indemnification (?) Unless
exceptional, justified circumstances of public interest make it necessary,
the States cannot move or relocate the indigenous peoples without free
consent (?)  The indigenous peoples have the right to restitution for their
lands, respecting the forms of ownership established in the legislation of
the States, as well as for the natural resources which they have owned (?)".
23)   OAS:   "The indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment
of the rights and guarantees recognized by international and national labor
legislation, and to special measures, in order to correct, to make amends
for and to prevent ,the discrimination to which they have been historically
subjected".  The Mexican government corrects:  "The rights and guarantees
recognized by national and international labor legislation which have been
recognized by each State".
24)   OAS:   "The States recognize the right of the indigenous peoples to
democratically decide the values, objectives, priorities and strategies
which will prevail and guide their development, even when same are
different from those adopted by the national State or by other segments of
society (?) right (?) to obtain measures adequate for their own development
(?) as distinct societies (?) to national development and international
cooperation".  The Mexican government:  "(?) will guide their development,
always and when they do not contravene those established by the national
state.  The States will establish in their budgets the resources necessary
for the development of the indigenous peoples;  any additional resources
should be channeled through the corresponding state bodies".
25)   OAS:   "Except in exceptional circumstances, justified in the public
interest, the States will take the necessary measures for decisions
regarding all plans, programs or projects which affect the rights or the
living conditions of the indigenous peoples, will not be made without the
consent and free and informed participation of said peoples, and whose
preferences will be recognized in that regard, and there will be no
provisions which could result in negative effects for said peoples".  The
Mexican government:  "(?)  which affect the rights or living conditions of
the indigenous peoples exclusively, will not be made without consultation
and informed opinion (?)".
26)   OAS:   "(?)   the right to restitution and indemnification,  on a
basis no less than that of the standards of international law (?)".  The
Mexican government:   "(?) in conformity with the legislation of each State
(?)".
27)   OAS:   "(?) right (?) which the States will honor and respect said
Treaties, Acts, conventions and constructive agreements (?)".  Mexican
government:  "(?) implicit agreements (?)".
28)   OAS:   The Mexican government proposes, lastly, adding "Article
XXIII.  Flexibility in the application of the declaration:  The regulations
of this declaration will be applied by the States, with the necessary
flexibility, taking into consideration each country's own conditions".
With this article, the entire OAS Declaration is annulled.


"THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF THE LAW:  IMPUNITY"
(Excerpt, Part XXVI)*

Article 17:  Prohibition of forced displacements.
1.  The displacement of the civil population for reasons related to the
conflict may not be ordered, unless demanded by the security of civilian
persons or for urgent military reasons.  If such displacement must be
carried out, all possible measures shall be taken to provide refuge for the
civil population in satisfactory conditions of housing, health, hygiene,
security and food.
2.   Civilian persons may not be forced to abandon their own lands for
reasons related to the conflict.

	All of the residents of Guadalupe Tepeyac have been living in exile since
the Mexican Army converted their village into a barracks (and a brothel) 3
years ago, without Zedillo resolving the wellbeing of those expelled
(Fernandez, P.  From January 12 to December 22.  La Jornada,  1/12/98,  p.
14).

	One after another, statements detailed the first weeks of their 1105 days
of exile and total dislocation from their village, their lands and their
belongings.  The material enumeration is painful.  "The bad government
dislocated us for saying our word", the Guadalupanos say, who, until today,
had 2260 hens, 1130 machetes, 230 hatchets, clothing for 500 persons, 339
pigs, 100 horses and mules, 30 stoves, 5 refrigerators, 126 maize grinders,
80 large tortilla cookers, 80 table presses, 70 sewing machines, 226 record
players and radios, 80 electric irons.  In addition, they denounced the
looting of the canteen, a nixtamal mill, a community tailor shop with 9
sewing machines from the womens collective and 5 well-stocked shops
(Bellinghausen, H.  Testimony of Residents of Guadalupe Tepeyac to the
International Civil Commission of Human Rights Observation.  La Jornada,
2/21/98,  p. 9).


	The displaced population is losing their community identity, because the
social fabric has been broken.  Collective projects were destroyed, such as
the cooperatives and the clinics.  That is, what gives unity is destroyed.
They also lost the individual, with the burning of homes, the destruction
of the coffee and maize plantations (which is why the paramilitaries carry
out more actions during harvest time).  The aggressors displace the
residents from their communities and obtain a political "triumph", but also
economic gains.  Without anything, the displaced lose their identity.  "We
don't know where we're from now, because now we're not from here or from
there, because this isn't our land, but neither can I go into my community
because I'm threatened with death by the PRI's and paramilitaries of Los
Chorros", says Alonso Mendez, of the community of Los Chorros, in refuge in
San Cristobal de Las Casas.  In the Northern and Los Altos zones, the war
changes terrain, and it is manifested in the promotion of massive
displacements of the population, assassinations, ambushes, torture and the
burning of the belongings of activists from those organizations which
maintain a political activity in opposition to the government   (Hidalgo,
O.  Fear as a Political Weapon.  Masiosare.  La Jornada,  1/18/98,  p. 12).

	Assassinations, rapes, kidnappings, intimidations and dislocations
attributed to the PRI organization Peace and Justice, caused 4000
chiapanecos from four communities in the municipalities of Tila and
Sabanilla to be displaced to other areas   (Venegas, J.  La Jornada,
3/30/97,  p. 3).

	At least 4112 indigenous EZLN sympathizers from the Northern zone of the
state are still displaced from their communities "for political reasons",
and "they are surviving in very precarious conditions due to the lack of
support", representatives of the displaced reported today.   (Henriquez, E.
 La Jornada,  10/17/97,  P. 50).

	"On August 15, 1996, PRI militants, Public Security, the federal army,
federal judicial police, state judicial police, security officers, with
orders from the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, and some 34
trucks, traveled towards the community of Tuitzol (municipality of Tila),
where they were holding the community hostage.  Two federation helicopters
circled together, in order to fight against the campesinos in their rights;
 they expelled everyone, men, women and children, towards the mountain,
threatened them with shots and grenades and bombardments from helicopters
at the community"   (Campesinos in the Northern Zone.  Ojarasca.  La
Jornada,  3/11/98,  p. 7).

	Close to 70 families find themselves in refuges in the Sierra, and members
of the Chiapas police forces are continuing to harass the zapatista
families of San Pedro Nixtalucum.  "More Mexican Army forces and Public
Security officers are arriving in order to support and protect more PRI's",
states Alvarez Gomez, who heads the popular local council of San Juan in El
Bosque   (Balboa, J.  La Jornada,  3/17/97,  p. 10).

	The waters are troubled in Chenalho.  It gives the impression that a black
hand wants to cloud them.  PRI paramilitary groups, sponsored by the police
and the army, operate blatantly.  While weapons appear in Santa Marta, and
Puebla is a firing range, total expulsions occur for sympathizing with the
EZLN or the PRD, for supporting the autonomous municipality with its seat
in Polho, for not giving money to PRI activities or for the purchase of
bullets in the communities.  Every day in the communities it is about
bullets   (Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,  9/28/97,  p. 7).

	The wave of violence worsened in Chenalho last Thursday, when PRI's from
the community of Los Chorros burned 14 homes (official figures) of
zapatista families, who had to flee from there in order to not be attacked;
 the same was done to tzotziles in other locations   (Henriquez, E.  La
Jornada,  9/24/97,  p. 7).

	"On the same September 17, in the ejido of Los Chorros, authorities from
the official municipality also demanded monetary cooperation in order to
finance the armed attack against the autonomous municipality.  Those who
refused to collaborate in this illegal conspiracy were arrested and beaten.
 There were seven illegal detentions.  Also, that day, 14 houses were
burned (?) there were 60 families displaced as a result of these events"
(Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,  9/25/97,  p. 9).

	More than 4500 EZLN sympathizers and members of civil society from the
municipality of Chenalho are in refuge in the mountain or in neighboring
communities because of the violent events which have occurred over the last
weeks, informed the PRD-zapatista autonomous municipal council.  At the
same time, police patrols and the presence of state, federal and army
agents have notably increased, since this Sunday, in various communities in
the municipality, for the purpose of preventing new acts of violence
(Enriquez, E.  La Jornada, 11.24.97,  p. 3).

	Two months later, surrounded by the Mexican army and the police forces,
practically prisoners, 8000 tzotziles are concentrated in this large,
hastily erected refugee camp (Polho), where 2 children have already died of
pneumonia   (Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,  12/31/97,  p. 1).

	Lacking professional medical attention, with food which barely reaches one
meal a day and 110 examinations recorded daily for respiratory, skin and
stomach infections, the indigenous displaced by the paramilitary groups in
the area of Los Altos, are confronting an ever more critical situation.
Ten days after concentrating in Polho, three newborns have died of
pneumonia   (Gil Olmos, J.  La Jornada,  1/6/98,  p. 10).

	Close to one thousand families from Chenalho had to abandon everything in
order to escape the threat of death.  They left behind their maize plots,
without harvesting them, their houses, their animals, their vegetable
gardens, their tools.  They also left their organic coffee plots, which
they had tended for four years with a care that had earned them
international recognition (the international organic certificate).  Agustin
Vazquez Perez, of X'cumumal, is one of the conscientious coffee growers.
Today he survives, displaced, in Polho.  He lost everything, except hope:
"When the paramilitaries are done, then we want to return in order to
begin, to rebuild our houses, to put the coffee fields back together, to
have crops" (?)  On December 23, we found out what had happened to our
brothers in Acteal, and we saw the threats were real.  We didn't want to
die, and we agreed that it was better for all of us to come and take refuge
in Polho.  We left on December 26 at 6 in the morning (?)  I left my 15
bags of certified coffee there which I had ready to send to the Union, it
was the fruit of the entire year;  from that I was going to get some money
for all the expenses, and everything was stolen.  It was organic coffee
which the union was going to sell, and now the PRI's have certainly given
it to the coyotes to buy weapons and bullets.  I left my house which took
me so much work to build.  I left the tools that I was putting together
little by little.  All my clothes and linens.  All my animals remained
there.  We didn't bring anything when we left, just the clothes we had on
(...)  Now we are living in Polho, we eat a little tortilla every day, some
maize we got from the aid that comes.  Sometimes we have beans, rice and
soup.  The little there is shared with everyone, and we are many.  There
are days we don't even have salt for the tortillas, we don't have soap to
wash with or to wash our clothes.  Many are sick, because when we left
there was much rain and cold"   (Perez Grovas, V.  It is Better to Resist.
Masiosare.  La Jornada, 1/18/98,  p. 11).

	The coexistence with the Mexican army makes life exasperating in the
refugee camps.  Over the last few days, the troops have tried to go into
Acteal.  In Poconichim, there was the threat of entry by Force and Reaction
troops, the police body which is camped 200 meters from the more than 1300
refugees who are in this mountainous village   (Bellinghausen, H.  La
Jornada,  1/20/98,  p. 6).

Representatives of the displaced from the autonomous municipality of Polho
explain that the refugees are currently living in very difficult
conditions.  "Thousands of people are living under a small plastic roof,
which doesn't protect at all from the rain or the cold, and many are living
out in the open"   (Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,  1/21/98,  p. 5).

In a large camp, on a hill, 56 families are housed, expelled from Tulantic,
Chimix barrio (Chenalho).  On November 22, paramilitaries from Chimix (the
same ones who participated in the Acteal massacre a month later) ejected
them with gunfire (?)  They have no belongings, and they built sleeping
quarters which allow them to be covered from the elements by blue nylon (?)
 In the displaced camp of Poconichim, they are watched over by Public
Security forces, just 100 meters away, and 200 meters more, a Mexican army
camp (?)  Poconichim lacks water, maize.  Their conditions are even more
critical than those of the refugees in Polho;  and they have been uprooted
from their homes for more than half a year (?)  "We don't see the
paramilitaries stopping.  Those that put us here are keeping watch over us.
 We don't know if some day we're going to have to run from here also", some
of the residents say.   (Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,  1/22/98,  p. 7).

A religious and political cleansing  was recorded in Canolal today;  all
the residents who practiced the Catholic faith (located geographically at
the edge of the village dominated by Presbyterians) abandoned their lands
and left their parish church in neglect.  "By force", remembers old Thomas
(?)  In order to accompany the 120 tzotziles from Las Abejas civil society
and EZLN sympathizers, the military and police institutions mounted an
impressive operation, and they utilized 150 troops;  among these, the
presence of the militarized anti-riot police officers was noteworthy,
equipped with electric prods, riot gear, tear gas and acrylic shields
(Balboa, J.  La Jornada,  1/30/98,  p. 3).

The refugee camp at Acteal is under a virtual state of siege by openly
hostile groups of PRI's, in obvious collusion with the military checkpoints
which are at the ends of the village   (Bellinghausen, H.  La Jornada,
2/13/98,  p. 12).

In response to the new military actions today, the 18 families from the
Yalchiptic ejido, municipality of Altamirano, decided for the second
consecutive day to abandon their homes and to go to other villages, in fear
of detentions by the soldiers   (Gil Olmos, J.  La Jornada,  1/3/98,  p. 7).

"The Mexican Army has not increased the number of troops in Chiapas.  The
troops deployed in the state are carrying out social work, keeping watch
over order and the security of the people, with special attention to the
displaced, whom they are protecting and helping, in the face of the risk
that they might suffer acts of violence"  (Statements by the Mexican
government to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.  2/19/98).

"The EZLN is protected by the Law for Dialogue, Conciliation and a
Dignified Peace in Chiapas"  (Roberto Albores Guillen, Governor of Chiapas.
 1/23/98).


*Excerpt from the document, "The Unbearable Lightness of the Law:
Impunity;  Three Months from Acteal", by "Alternative Popular
Communication, Working Group", from 4/11/98



Gustavo Castro Soto
Center of Economic and Political Investigations of Community Action, A.C.
CIEPAC
CIEPAC, member of the "Convergence of Civil Organizations for Democracy"
National Network (CONVERGENCIA)

 ******************************************
Translated by irlandesa for CIEPAC, A.C.
******************************************

Note:  If you use this information, cite the source and our e-mail 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 sending to
the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank:  BANCOMER
Bank Account Number:  1003458-8
Branch:  437
San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.
Thanks!

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 the
e-mail address shown below.

ciepac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR NEW WEB SITE:
http://www.mexicosolidarity.org/ciepac/
_____________________________________________________________________
CIEPAC, A.C.
Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción Humanitaria
Eje Vial Uno Número 11
Col. Jardines de Vista Hermosa
29297 San Cristóbal, Chiapas, MEXICO

Tel/Fax:	en México	01 967 85832
		fuera de México	+52 967 85832
________________________________________________________________________


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---