Analysis: Chiapas Under Occupation
Recently, the organization Capise (the Center for Political Analysis and Economic and Social Investigations) released a report on the state of militarization in Chiapas called "The Prisoners Dilemma," which the Peace House is helping to translate. The report gives an in-depth analysis of the military's organization and tactics in Chiapas, while correlating population distributions of Indigenous peoples, locations and numbers of military bases, and poverty rates.
The report also argues that the presence of military bases in Chiapas violates the people's constitutional rights. It indicates that the areas of greatest poverty in Chiapas roughly coincide with the areas with the highest percentages of Indigenous people. It also tells us that though the state is not in an officially declared war, it is the most militarized in the country.
And that this militarization continues. In the state of Chiapas there are a total of 91 military installations. The Mexican constitution guarantee's the right to land for the Indigenous of Chiapas, but an overwhelming majority of military bases impinge on Indigenous land. Of the 91 military bases 29 are on federal land; 4 are on municipal land; 1 is on private land; and 57 are on Ejido, or communally owned land, primarily held by Indigenous peoples. These military occupations of Indigenous land in Chiapas are illegal and unconstitutional, violating the people's rights to their own territory.
The state of irregular, or low intensity, warfare in Chiapas has been growing since the Zapatista uprising in 1994. In '95, Mexico began to send its soldiers up to the School of the Americas in earnest, and from '95 on Mexico was the country which sent the most soldiers to receive training in Fort Benning, Georgia, until 2000, when it was surpassed by Columbia. After the upsurge in military training at the SOA, paramilitaries began to appear in Chiapas in large numbers. Irregular operations do not have as their end a decisive objective, but are meant to harass and wear down the enemy, rather than defeat them outright. The training of paramilitary groups and the involvement of police forces are promoted as a major component of low intensity warfare, as Capise has found in reviewing the manuals from Fort Benning. The army views the EZLN as a non-conformist group and considers itself as involved in a "preventive" war. After President Vicente Fox took office in 2000, many hoped that militarization would decrease in the state, but this has not occurred.
Article 16 of the Mexican constitution states that in times of war the people are required to provide housing for the military. When the Mexican government officially declares war, it then has the power to suspend constitutional rights. When the EZLN declared war on the government on January 1st 1994, their declaration was not accepted. Because of this the Mexican government is not currently in a state of war, and therefore has the obligation to respect the constitutionally protected right to territory. After the uprising of the EZLN, however, the military began expropriating land from Indigenous people to build an increasing number of military bases. The total number of expropriations is difficult to document, as it involves combing over newspapers day by day to find the official expropriation notice. At least ten expropriations have been documented so far in which the notices of expropriation were filed and then decreed after the land was taken and the bases built. According to article 95 of the constitution, the military cannot occupy land if the decree of expropriation is pending. Legally, parties whose land is taken must be informed why their land is being expropriated before hand and they must be compensated. In the majority of land expropriations from Indigenous communities by the military this has not occurred.
{mospagebreak}
The community of Amador Hernandez brought a suite to the courts in 2000 against the military, saying that the base on their land was built before the expropriation was decreed, and that the occupation of land by the military was unconstitutional. The judge ruled in favor of the community. The base was a violation of the constitution because the army has not declared a suspension of rights since the conflict in Chiapas began. Therefore, the occupation of the land while the declaration of expropriation was pending was illegal and violated the community's constitutional rights. Victories such as this are rare, however, given the enormous obstacles faced by rural indigenous communities in researching and arguing their cases. Despite this important ruling, expropriations continue to be made before declarations are certified. There have been 8 new expropriations have been declared recently, and in 3 of the cases the army has installed a base while going through the process of declaration. For example, in Las Margaritas a base was set up in '95 but only now are they declaring the expropriation.
At the end of January, in the community of Emiliano Zapata, a mixed group of Indigenous protesters made up of PRI, PRD and Zapatista supporters gathered with a united voice to push for an end to the base that has been on their land since 1995. The people argue that the presence of the troops represents a constant danger to women and minors and further divides their community. Generally, when military bases are opened in communities, a sharp rise in alcohol and drug use, prostitution, and paramilitary formation is reported. The majority of the community, forty heads of families in a community vote, is against the base and wants to see it go. But a small minority of the community, 17 heads of families-consisting of those who own local businesses, whose who rent out rooms, and clothes washers and therefore profit from the military presence, and those who have come in from outside the community, such as prostitutes-do not want to see the base leave. In the past, protestors and representatives from NGO's doing human rights observations had been pelted with sticks and stones by members of families that have benefited from having the base near by. The military has stated that if protests continue, militarization in the area would increase. This threat was followed by the release from prison of 27 members of the notorious paramilitary group Paz y Justicia, based out of a neighboring community. The question of the base's future is still being negotiated, with a meeting set for the 26th of March between the community leaders and the military. There is hope, however, that with the ruling in 2000 in favor of Amador Hernandez that the base can be shut down and the constitutional rights of the community restored.
Capise is following the release of this important report with a series of educational workshops in communities across Chiapas, so that people living under this militarized state have the tools to identify the specific military units responsible for human rights abuses, and fight to reclaim their land from military bases. For more information on the work of Capise, visit their website at www.capise.org. You will be the first to know when the English translation of the report is finished.
Follow CASA's stories and events via Facebook and Twitter.