Global Exch: Mexico's Campaign Against Foreigners of Conscience


Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
...............................................................

GLOBAL EXCHANGE:
Foreigners of Conscience 

The following is a (translated) summary of Global Exchange's latest report
entitled "Foreigners of Conscience: The Mexican Government's Campaign
Against International Human Rights Observers in Chiapas".

Originally printed in El Proceso magazine:

May 16, 1999

Global Exchange Report:

The Mexican Government Continues to Harass Foreign Observers with Threats of
Expulsion, Arbitrary Interrogations and Immigration Restrictions

By Pascual Beltran del Rio

WASHINGTON, D.C.-Alarmed by the international reaction and judicial rulings
against its practice of deporting foreign human rights observers, the
Mexican government seems to have suspended this practice, although it
continues to resort to the threat of deportation, arbitrary interrogations
and irregular immigration restrictions in order to obstruct observers work.

The non-governmental organization Global Exchange arrived at these
conclusions after a year's research into the Mexican authorities' recent
treatment of human rights observers and other foreigners interested in
the Chiapan conflict.

"The government has tried to maintain its image as a promoter of human
rights despite the evidence that shows the expulsion of dozens of
international witnesses from Chiapas. Throughout 1998, the Mexican
authorities systematically misapplied domestic and international laws in an
attempt to politicize and discredit humanitarian and human rights work in
Chiapas and other conflictive states."

"Throughout 1998, the Mexican authorities systematically misapplied domestic
and international laws in an attempt to politicize and discredit
humanitarian and human rights work in Chiapas and other conflictive states."

The report's authors point out that they have been able to document 144
deportations of international human rights observers as well as social
workers since December of 1997.

"The number of expulsions should be of serious concern to governments and
international institutions that have invested in the country's transition to
democracy. Even as Mexico strengthens its ties to other countries through
historic political and economic treaties, the Zedillo Administration is
expelling dozens of those countries' citizens whose only crime
has been to see, hear and speak about the human rights violations committed
against indigenous communities by Mexican soldiers, state police and
government-sponsored paramilitary groups."

For Global Exchange, the intentions of the authorities are clear: "The
harassment of international observers can best be understood within the
logic of a wider government counterinsurgency campaign. ... The strategy has
one basic objective: to break the resistance of Zapatista support base
communities and, in so doing, to weaken the position of Zapatista
negotiators in the dialogue process."

The 57 page report, which will be presented this week, was based on research
conducted by Mexican lawyers Adriana Camarena, of Stanford University, and
Federico Anaya Gallardo, legal advisor to the Diocese of San Cristobal de
Las Casas. Global Exchange, which is based in San Francisco, has organized
trips to Chiapas for foreigners as part of its Reality Tours program.
Apparently upset by these trips, the Mexican government has refused to grant
an observer visa to Ted Lewis, Director of Global Exchange's Mexico
Program.*

In the wake of Acteal, the report accuses the Mexican government of carrying
out a "xenophobia campaign" designed to "restrict information about the
situation in Chiapas and undermine international support for independent
social movements in the state." This campaign, the report says, "has
intensified since the December 1997 massacre at Acteal, as part of a wider
counterinsurgency strategy to isolate nonconformist indigenous communities."

In the opinion of Global Exchange, the opening world economy has generated
international interest in human rights issues. "Greater economic integration
has led to greater interdependence, and national issues are now of concern
to citizens in countries that are key Mexican economic and political
allies." However, the report adds, the Mexican government has had an
ambivalent response toward the effects of globalization. "Despite a
reluctance to address fundamental human rights issues such as those
affecting the indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico has accepted the
scrutiny of international observers and monetary foundations to monitor
electoral and economic progress."
The authorities' hostility toward international human rights observers, the
report says, "is not due to any political content of their activities, but
rather to the fact that the information they provide about human rights
violations can have a profound effect on other countries' foreign policies
toward Mexico."

Global Exchange maintains that the Mexican government is mistaken in
proclaiming that international human rights observation interferes in the
political affairs of the country: "Such activities are upheld and
legitimized by international conventions and declarations that the Mexican
government itself has endorsed, such as the American Convention on Human
Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights."

The report continues:  "The presence of foreign observers has significantly
deterred the potential for abuse in the indigenous communities by the
Chiapan or Mexican authorities, whether they are military, police, or
civilians. .... Various human rights organizations (have concluded) that had
there been a permanent observation presence in the community of
Acteal, there would not have been a massacre on December 22, 1997."

Global Exchange says that the number of international observers expelled
from Mexico increased following the massacre.  "Coverage of the massacre by
[Mexican] NGOs and solidarity organizations ... was extensive and
encouraged a new wave of scrutiny from concerned citizens and governments
around the world. Since then, harassment of foreign members of religious
orders, news organizations, and NGOs by immigration officials and Mexican
security forces has escalated. Restrictions on entering the country have
proliferated."

 The report identifies President Ernesto Zedillo's January 23, 1998 speech
in Mirida as marking the beginning of this harassment "campaign." On this
occasion, the high official said he considered it "unacceptable" that
foreigners be involved in the conflict in Chiapas "even though they use
humanitarian reasons as an excuse for doing so."
In the opinion of Global Exchange, "the president's comments marked the
beginning of a carefully orchestrated campaign aimed at confusing Mexican
public opinion about the role of international observers and aid workers in
Chiapas."

In this context, the report says, sectors of the Mexican media, principally
television, launched attacks against foreign observers. In May 1998, the
Mexican government announced the creation of a new category of FM3
documentation to be used by "international observers in situ." The measure
imposed new requirements for foreigners who wish to
visit the country as observers.

The restrictions have provoked frustration among international human rights
groups, who have said that the procedures imposed by the Mexican authorities
have made their work difficult and put their witnesses in
danger. Additionally, they have complained that Mexican consulates generally
have imprecise information about how to obtain the document and many times
obstruct the administrative procedures involved in requesting
one.

The Global Exchange report agrees and argues that "in Guatemala, El
Salvador, Colombia and other Latin American countries that have experienced
or are currently suffering human rights crises, international human rights
observation has never been restricted to this degree. Mexico's approach
earns it the distinction of having the most restrictive policy
on human rights observation in all of the Americas."

But the report goes even further: "The new rules have no legal or
constitutional authority due to the fact that they were never approved by
either the Executive or the Congress. ... According to Mexican law, new laws
and regulation can only be established by the legislative branch of
government ... Because these rules were created by the National Immigration
Institute (INM), it is obvious that this is an encroachment of the
Legislative Power. ... The Executive's power to regulate statutes approved
by the legislatures is restricted by the lettering of each statute." Given
these rules, the report says, "there are no grounds for creating a new
category of non-immigrant since existing regulations do no mention any 'In
Situ Human Rights Observer Visitor' category. The new immigration rules for
international observers are therefore unconstitutional and illegal since,
among other things, they were implemented through an administrative memo."

Article 33 and the Population Statute
The government's "strategy" against observers has led to other illegal
actions, the report insists. And these have begun to be noted by the
government's own Federal Judiciary.

"The government campaign to restrict the activities of international
observers now seems to be reaching its legal limits as the CNDH (National
Human Rights Commission) and Mexican judiciary have started to
formally acknowledge the violations being committed by the INM." The report
focuses on the application of Article 33 of the Constitution to expel
foreigners.  The deportations of various members of an Italian delegation
(44 out of a total of 120), as well as U.S. school teacher Peter Brown and
the 12 international observers that were detained during the dismantling of
the Tzeltal community of Taniperla, were carried out under Article 33.  All
of these expulsions took place between April and July of 1998. (Other
deportations were based on alleged violations of the General Population
Statute.)

"Article 33 of the Constitution is used arbitrarily by the Mexican
government as means to impose its desires" Global Exchange argues. "The
application of Article 33, it appears, is based more on political expediency
 than an objective application of the law."

According to the report, the Executive is obligated by law to clearly
substantiate the reasons for expelling a foreigner under Article 33. "The
Executive branch must justify its decision based on facts, and explain the
just cause for the expulsion. ... Such an argument must demonstrate that
there is no other option but to expel the offending foreigner in
order to avoid a national emergency. ... The fact that the Federal Executive
has extraordinary powers does mean that it can exercise these powers
arbitrarily. ... The President is only authorized to suspend the foreigner's
right be heard before a court. None of the foreigners' other fundamental
rights may be denied."

And the report also says that the Mexican government did not legally justify
its decision to deport the foreigners in question. "Mexican government
officials claim that foreigners were detained and expelled for engaging in
political affairs exclusive to Mexican citizens. So far, they have been
unable to substantiate these charges." The report argues that behind these
three cases of deportation there is "an arbitrary and misleading
interpretation of what is political activity in Mexico," and points out that
"there are no constitutional grounds to stop foreigners from giving their
opinions publicly. ... The Mexican State has no constitutional right to
obstruct foreigners' exercise of their freedom of speech."

Besides, Global Exchange says, "when the federal government needs to win
international approval for its handling of Mexico's democratic transition
process, it conveniently abandons its abusive interpretation of Article 33
when confident of favorable reports from foreign observers. In regard to its
deeply flawed human rights record and its repressive approach to the Chiapas
conflict, Article 33 is applied illegally and arbitrarily with the clear
intent of frustrating international scrutiny."

The report says that the government has also acted in an irregular manner
when it has carried out deportations under the General Population Statute
without subjecting its decisions to a judge's ruling.

"According to the INM and the Interior Ministry, an expulsion is not a
punishment that impinges on the life or personal freedom of the individual.
That is, an expulsion remains a legal 'administrative penalty' because it is
enforced through the application of administrative rules. The Supreme Court
has ruled many times against this position regarding the administrative
nature of expulsion. ... Under Article 51 of the Organic Statute of the
Judicial Branch of the Federation, the Federal Judiciary has always
considered expulsions under the General Population Statute as criminal
cases. ... The INM must defer jurisdiction to the Judiciary."

Forced Changes.

Due to the Judiciary's adverse rulings and the reaction of international
organizations, "attempts by the Mexican State to preserve the President's
exceptional powers to expel foreigners with out conceding the right to a
hearing are in vain," the report says. "The fact that growing numbers of
foreigners are filing Amparos and demanding the protection of the
Inter-American Human Rights system makes it more difficult for the INM to
expel human rights workers from
Chiapas."

The report recalls that between August of 1998 and March of this year the
Judiciary has ruled in favor of expelled foreigners on various occasions.

"The rulings seriously undermine the Mexican government's position ...(and)
obliges the Executive to demonstrate before the courts exactly how by
visiting indigenous communities the foreigners had exercised political
rights exclusively reserved for Mexican citizens."

In response to legal attacks made by some deported foreigners, the report
continues, the Mexican authorities seem to have changed their strategy.

"Short of expulsion, the Zedillo Administration has developed a series of
administrative obstructions that hinder the arrival of international
witnesses to Mexico." Mexican authorities most frequently employ the
convenient Departure
Order to prevent observers from extending the length of their stay in the
country.

Global Exchange considers this practice a disguised expulsion.
"By using the Departure Order, the INM hopes that the foreigner will have
been so intimidated by this procedure that he or she will want to avoid any
further confrontation with the authorities and therefore discontinue their
original schedule."

"In 1999, 31 foreigners have been served with Departure Orders to leave
Mexico ... The immigration authorities therefore seem to have partially
accepted the arguments of unconstitutionality developed by human rights
lawyers in the Amparo cases. The government apparently views this as a less
politically embarrassing method of expelling international observers."

Recommendations to Congress
Finally, Global Exchange makes a series of recommendations, among which
include the following:

To national and international human rights organizations and to civil
society in general: Lobby the Mexican government to clarify the distinction
between "deportation" and "expulsion," terms which have been used
arbitrarily by the Mexican Government to confuse public opinion and restrict
the human rights of foreign nationals. Article 33 of the Constitution never
uses the term expulsion. It only states that the Presidency has the
authority to "make the inconvenient foreigner abandon the country."

Legal practice has called this institution an expulsion. In old statutes
(1936 and 1947) the term deportation was used to describe the expulsions
made under immigration statutes. However, in 1974 the new General Population
Statute changed the term deportation into expulsion. Today, Mexican
legislation uses both terms as synonyms. The term deportation is used only
in Article 51 of the Organic Statute of the Federal Judiciary (analyzed in
the text) and in several rulings of the Supreme Court in cases brought under
the immigrationstatutes of 1936 and 1947.  The Mexican Government prefers to
use the term expulsion because it implies an arbitrary action, beyond the
legal
control of the judiciary. To counter this type of abuse it is necessary to
apply pressure on two fronts: 1) the elimination of Article 33's expulsion
power; and 2) the limitation of the General Population Statute to use only
the term "deportation." Deportation implies legal proceedings and respect
for human rights.  By clarifying what is meant by deportation, other abuses
will cease, such as those committed by the INM when applying expulsions to
foreigners who had the right to an extradition under bilateral treaties
signed by Mexico.

To the Mexican Congress: Eliminate the expulsion power granted to the
Presidency by Article 33 of the Constitution, making this article's text
congruent with Mexico's international obligations on human rights, and amend
the General Population Statute to ensure that all foreigners can observe the
human rights situation in Mexico and report on it without unlawful or
illegitimate constraint by the Mexican Government. The Congress also must
guarantee the respect of the freedoms of transit, association and work, in
compliance with international treaties and in accordance with the
universal duty to see that human rights are respected worldwide.

To the Supreme Court of Justice and the Federal Judiciary Council:
Ensure that the legal resolution of all cases related to foreign nationals'
expulsion from Mexico be impartial, verifying the legal and constitutional
ground of the expulsions, as well as Mexico's compliance with its
international obligations. In particular, the Judiciary must stop the abuse
of the 'Amparo para Efectos' ruling in expulsion cases.

*[Please note that while the Proceso article states that Ted Lewis was not
granted a visa, in fact he was granted a visa restricted to five days. On
May 30th this restriction was challenged by the legal staff of the Miguel
Agustin Pro Human Rights Center who contend that Mexico's National
Immigration Institute is arbitrarily applying administrative procedures that
contradict the General Population Law, the legislated juridical foundation
of Mexico's immigration policies. Currently the case is pending and Ted
Lewis continues to travel to and from Mexico.]
-------------------------------------
The full text of the 57 page report can be obtained without charge in either
Spanish of English at: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/mexico/
The report may be purchased for $11.75 (ten dollars plus 1.75 shipping and
handling).

Please send checks payable to Global Exchange to:
2017 Mission St. #303
San Francisco, CA 94110
tel. (415) 255-7296 ext. 200

Global Exchange
2017 Mission St., Suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94110
Phone: 415.255.7296 Fax: 415.255.7498
1-800-497.1994
http://www.globalexchange.org

 
=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems 
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012             
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org 
=================================================================
 
nytcamer-06.23.99-12:53:12-28630