An Otomi from Hidalgo, Mexico, Margarita Gutierrez is an influential activist involved in organizing the Indigenous people in the Autonomous regions of Mexico. She is the Coordinator of the Women's Assembly of ANIPA and member of the National Indigenous Congress Forum following the San Andres Accord between the EZLN and the government of Mexico. While visiting Abya Yala Fund and SAIIC this summer, Margarita shared her thoughts on the International Labor Organization's Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal peoples and its ramifications for Indigenous peoples in Mexico.
Convention 169 has been a tool for Indigenous peoples in Mexico since its ratification, because it contains the rights that we want to integrate into Mexican legislation. The convention has been an important instrument, not only at the grassroots level, but also for the leadership of the Indigenous communities to demand our rights at the negotiating table. We used the Convention when Salinas de Gortari was president to suspend a resolution that would have brought a dam into the Nahuatl territories of the Alto Balzas. This was an important experience on a national level for the Indigenous movement. During the peace agreement of San Cristóbal de Las Casas in San Andres de Larráinzar in 1994, this Convention proved to be an important instrument for reaching a consensus with the federal government. This is the judicial precedent that can lead to constitutional legislation.
Although there are significant limitations, Convention 169 includes many important issues, in regards to Indigenous rights, that haven't even been addressed by our own countries. I have had dialogues with fellow women, government representatives, who claim (although I have trouble believing it) total ignorance of Convention 169 and all the other international judicial laws that the government had signed and ratified. Although it is possible, with the attitude that our government has, that it has not acknowledged the Convention that it has signed and continues to use silence as a means to ignore such treaties. We are very skeptical. We think that their silence is a smoke screen to hide the fact that the government signs agreements without being fully aware of their implications. I am convinced that President Carlos Salinas de Gortari knew what he was doing. He must have understood the magnitude of this Convention, because one or two years after its ratification came the reformation, or should I say counter-reformation, of article 27 pertaining to Indigenous lands and natural resources. The functionaries responsible for issues relating to Indigenous people such as environmental, land, and resource management, don't acknowledge the Convention, which is very convenient.
We hope to use this instrument to provide a legal precedent for the affirmation of our rights. It serves as a declaration of what the government's obligations towards Indigenous people are and what they have failed to do. By ratifying this Convention, the government of Mexico promised to ensure that the national laws regarding Indigenous peoples are in harmony with the Convention. As an international accord, it is a supreme law of our country, according to article 133 and 134 of the Mexican constitution. We recognize, that if it is a supreme law of the land, it ought to have a means to insure proper implementation. Article 33 of the convention states that the government is responsible for ensuring that the measures discussed in the document will be fulfilled. The Indigenous movement proposes reforms, like Article four, that recognize the pluri-culturality of Mexico and the rights of the Indigenous people to their own social organization and maintenance of traditional languages. Although we welcome the advances of Article four, we realize that it does not provide for any political rights. We demand full participation in the public realm as well the cultural. In the dialogues we are demanding recognition of our political and territorial rights, and here is where the conflict begins. As of this moment, there has been no resolution to this problem. Part VII of Article 27, which discusses land and communities is also vague. We are always forced to maneuver within such contradictions. How do we integrate Convention 169, when it has already been made illegal in our nation?
The constitution and laws seem proper and just on paper, but when applied there are always deceits and contradictions. When the Mexican government realized that they had signed an agreement granting many concessions to the Indigenous community, they quickly created the counter reform Article 27, because it was negotiating free trade as well. Indian communities, along with the Zapatistas, mobilized to protest these counter reforms especially regarding land ownership, in an attempt to mitigate the conflict between Convention 169 and existing national laws.
Convention 169 is a basis for our demands regarding the question of autonomy because it articulates our right to self-determination, albeit a limited one. It is limited in that it is a right to internal autonomy, only within our lands. The sovereignty of the Mexican state is another question, one that creates conflicts. We are seeking to have autonomous communities within the state of Mexico, based on our historically occupied territories such as Yaqui, Otomi or Maya, not complete autonomy from Mexico. We are in constant conflict with authorities that do not respect our own rights and institutions. We are forced to make our case through the local authorities, who are themselves members of the government. We want to be represented in the various levels of government within our territories and to actually have the self-determination granted to us in Convention 169. We are not seeking secession nor an autonomous reserve within the state. An analysis of history will show that our grandparents have shed their blood for the independence of Mexico and we are claiming our share in the nation for which they died.
According to the constitution we are all seen as equal before the eyes of the law, but this is another contradiction, because we are treated differently. We suffer much injustice and discrimination. But we claim our differences, not in being excluded from basic human and individual rights, but by being able to determine our own destiny.
Convention 169 has been and continues to be fundamental to our demands. We fight for our rights of self-determination to be recognized and for the Indigenous languages to be recognized as official languages. We also want respect for our distinct cultures, our traditional medicine, and respect for and participation by women in national society. Therefore we are calling for the reform of Article 115 of the Mexican Constitution, which deals with giving further autonomy to Indigenous peoples. The government is not interested in these issues, rather they seek to strengthen the municipal governments. In addition, we are asking for the recognition of Article three, which deals with Indigenous languages and articles 73 and 53, which deal with autonomy and Indigenous peoples.
We also need to address the fact that these are pluri-cultural lands. We are sharing these territories with Mestizos, Caucasians, and other Indigenous peoples. This creates many problems of discrimination, racism, and undemocratic representation within these regions. Thus we wish to reclaim an equilibrium and be fairly represented. Each Indigenous community needs to have the ability to develop a unique strategy to address their particular situation. There must be a system of government that can respect and address the diversity of cultural, political, and ideological structures in these regions.
This is the proposal and the general aspirations of our political project. This is what was signed at San Andres, however the proposals created by the government are very unsatisfactory. For example, the government proposed that the community must be recognized as a public entity, but the community already exists and needs no recognition. This statement resolves nothing, it says nothing, it does nothing!
What we propose is to restructure these territories, the Otomi territory, the Zapoteco territory, the Mixteco territory. We cannot continue with the current process of continually issuing more political legislation and decrees that simply stagnate our efforts in a quagmire of red tape. These regions, that the governments calls extremely poor, are for us lacking only material things. Although we do not have many basic services, we are wealthy in natural resources and ideas. The issue of the poverty in Indigenous regions is real but we question it as another way for the government to sidetrack us from pursuing our original goals of territorial, political, cultural, and economic autonomy. We must have an integrated autonomy, what good is territorial autonomy if the resources and economy are controlled from outside? Territorial autonomy is especially complicated because it comprise both our homes and our sacred sites such as ruins ( archeological sites), burial grounds, and ceremonial centers. This complex issue is not easy to resolve but we have definite and clear proposals with the legal backing of Convention 169.
Well, the meeting in Chile wasn't specifically focused on Convention 169, but it was certainly one of the themes. It was a theme of the meeting because of its importance, and because it has been ratified by so many governments yet ignored. This meeting convened primarily to begin the dialogue on the idea of creating a permanent forum for Indigenous peoples within the structure of the United Nations. The Working Group was created for a specific purpose and it has served that purpose well. It has been of great importance, but we are asking for a more permanent and inclusive space within the UN. There is a proposal in Copenhagen to create just such an organization. Thus what we discussed in Temuco Chile, Mapuche territory, is not just the possibility of a permanent Indigenous forum but the real need for such a body to be installed. This would not replace or compete with the Working Group, but complement it.
When discussing logistics, scope, and purpose of the forum, we decided that it should be a place where Indigenous people can publicly denounce injustices as well as make recommendations. It can also function as a mediator of disputes between Indigenous peoples and governments. We can no longer continue to function in a system where government policies are implemented unilaterally, regarding Indigenous communities as easy prey. There are two realities; that of national governments and that of traditional cultures. We must begin to hold dialogues with the governments and a permanent forum could be just the parliamentary instrument to this end. It must be an egalitarian assembly that represents the Indigenous perspective on equal footing with the government positions. It has been proposed that the forum would be similar to the UN, that would be ideal but that is perhaps unrealistic. We are aiming for something on the level of ECOSOC, which is a much higher level than where we are in the UN now. We would like to see this forum be a legitimate arm of the UN with an office in Geneva or New York. We sincerely hope that the proposals discussed at this conference will be realized in the near future.