[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S274-S275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                         THE CRISIS IN CHIAPAS

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, every day we read about bone-
chilling atrocities around the world, in Algeria, Colombia, Sri Lanka, 
and even in Mexico.
  I have always felt relations between the United States and our 
southern neighbor left a lot to be desired. On the one hand it is a 
relationship fraught with tensions fueled by illegal immigration, 
racism, drug trafficking, and a long history of misunderstanding. Yet 
on the other hand it is a relationship based on friendship and respect, 
and of many shared interests.
  A traveler to Mexico is immediately struck by the great disparity in 
the standards of living between our two countries. Millions of Mexico's 
people, especially members of indigenous groups, live in poverty. If 
they are lucky they own a piece of land, but rarely enough to support 
their families. They work from sunrise to nightfall bent over a hoe in 
the fields, or at some other backbreaking job. They sleep in a house 
built of scraps of wood and tin with a dirt floor, wash in a polluted 
stream, live in fear of the police, and do their best to care for half 
a dozen poorly clothed, hungry children who have little hope of 
anything better.
  But there is another Mexico. It is one of modern factories, busy 
cities, a government that is evolving from one-party rule to democracy, 
and an economy that has been largely state controlled becoming 
increasingly market-based. It is managed by well-educated professionals 
who grapple daily with seemingly intractable problems.
  Mexico is, above all, a land of contrasts, and the United States has 
an enormous stake in Mexico's development. Our economies are 
increasingly interdependent. Some of our most pressing problems are 
also Mexico's. No fence, no matter how impenetrable, along our border, 
will solve those problems, whether they are drugs, other types of 
crime, infectious diseases, polluted air and water. If we are to combat 
these threats successfully, we have to work together.
  It is for that reason, Mr. President, that the recent violence in 
Mexico--in the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca--should be of 
such concern to both our countries. Last July I spoke on this floor 
about the situation in Chiapas, and warned that unless the Mexican 
Government dealt effectively with the causes of the conflict there, 
renewed violence was likely. My warning, like similar warnings by many 
others, was ignored. Today I rise to speak again about Chiapas, and the 
tragic events there shortly before Christmas. But I want to emphasize 
that Chiapas is representative of a much larger problem in Mexico--as 
in so many other parts of the world--which can most succinctly be 
attributed to the widening disparity between the haves and have-nots.
  The brief but dramatic Zapatista uprising in 1994 was the result of 
centuries of discrimination and mistreatment of indigenous people in 
Chiapas, a situation largely unknown outside Mexico's borders. That 
violent outburst shook the nation, and led to talks between the 
Zapatistas and Mexican authorities which sought to address the 
underlying causes of the unrest. Those negotiations resulted in the San 
Andres Accords, but the Mexican Government walked away from that 
agreement apparently concluding that it was too favorable to the 
Zapatistas. Whatever hope there was that those negotiations would lead 
to profound changes in Chiapas had been virtually extinguished by the 
end of last year. The Mexican Government's attention was focused 
elsewhere, mostly on the national elections which to its credit were 
the most free and fair in Mexico's history.
  Meanwhile, Chiapas has remained in an undeclared state of war between 
the Zapatistas and their sympathizers, and anti-Zapatista paramilitary 
groups who have been encouraged and supported by local and state 
authorities. Tens of thousands of Mexican soldiers have also been sent 
to Chiapas, where they have contributed to the tensions and they have 
apparently stood by as local officials have armed the paramilitary 
groups. Caught in the middle are the people of Chiapas.
  Three days before Christmas, Chiapas again exploded in violence. In 
the village of Acteal, 45 unarmed Indian men, women and children were 
slaughtered in cold blood by paramilitary forces reportedly with the 
support of government authorities. Two weeks later, Mexican police 
fired on a crowd in the town of Ocosingo that was protesting the 
December 22nd massacre, killing a woman and wounding her 3 year-old 
daughter and a 17 year-old boy.
  Mr. President, who but the most hate-filled people would carry out 
such a barbaric deed? The fact that government officials are reputed to 
have had a role in the slaughter is particularly outrageous. But it 
should not surprise anyone who knows the history and has followed 
events in Chiapas. In fact, in the months leading up to the Acteal 
massacre human rights groups issued report after report describing acts 
of provocation and violence by paramilitary groups and Mexican 
soldiers. Members of Congress sent letters of concern to President 
Zedillo. Yet these reports and letters did not even receive a response. 
Chiapas was a powder-keg waiting to explode even before the Zapatistas 
first emerged on the scene in support of indigenous concerns about 
discrimination, land rights and the lack of social services. What 
happened in Acteal is only the latest example, albeit a particularly 
atrocious one, of the kind of brutality that is a fact of daily life 
for many indigenous people in Chiapas.
  Since then, the Mexican Government has taken several encouraging 
steps. A federal investigation is ongoing. At least 40 persons 
suspected of committing the murders have been arrested. State and local 
officials who allegedly instigated the attack, and who later tried to 
cover it up, have been arrested or removed from office. The Minister of 
the Interior has been replaced. The Government of the State of Chiapas 
freed several hundred prisoners, in an attempt to restart the peace 
talks. These are important steps. Had the government taken the advice 
of so

[[Page S275]]

many people years ago and treated this situation with the sensitivity 
and urgency it deserved, this entire debacle might have been avoided 
and many people might be alive today.
  The situation in Chiapas remains tense. While the recent violence 
seems to be primarily a result of local and state officials taking the 
law into their own hands and unpardonable passivity on the part of 
federal authorities, I also continue to receive reports of provocative 
acts by Mexican soldiers. It is a situation the United States cannot 
ignore, both because Mexico's political and economic stability are of 
great importance to us, and because we have trained and supplied 
Mexico's security forces for many years. That training and equipment 
has been provided exclusively to combat the drug trade, but has it 
always been used for that purpose? Or have US-trained police or 
soldiers, armed with US-made weapons, also been involved in counter-
insurgency operations? Were any of the weapons used by the assailants 
in Acteal and Ocosingo obtained from the United States--either through 
the anti-drug assistance program or through commercial sales licensed 
by the US Government?
  These are not accusations, they are only questions. But they need 
answers. So far, I am not aware of any evidence that US equipment was 
used in the Acteal or Ocosingo killings. I hope there is none. It would 
be totally contrary to the understandings between the Congress and the 
administration, and between the United States Government and Mexican 
Government, if our assistance were misused in this way.
  Two years ago I wrote an amendment, which was enacted into law and 
re-enacted last year, which has become known as the Leahy Human Rights 
Law. It is quite simple. It says that if the Secretary of State has 
``credible evidence'' that a unit of a security force of a foreign 
country has committed gross violations of human rights, then we cannot 
provide assistance to that unit unless the foreign government is taking 
``effective measures'' to bring the responsible individuals to justice.
  Accordingly, I have posed my questions in a letter to our Assistant 
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Jeffrey Davidow, who I 
respect and who may become our next Ambassador to Mexico. I have, in 
that letter, also asked for additional information, such as what 
assistance we have provided to Mexico's security forces, and which 
units of those security forces have received our assistance. I have 
urged the administration to carefully review the evidence to determine 
if the recent events in Acteal and Ocosingo would trigger the Leahy Law 
cut-off of assistance.
  I would also urge the administration to examine whether any US 
weapons, helicopters or other military aircraft which were licensed for 
sale to Mexico have been used by paramilitary or government security 
forces in counter-insurgency operations in Chiapas. I further urge the 
administration not to grant any license applications of this kind until 
we have a full accounting of these recent incidents.
  Mr. President, Chiapas is not unique. There are countless examples 
around the world of indigenous groups that are suffering from 
government neglect and violence. It should also be emphasized that the 
crisis in Chiapas is a Mexican problem that only the Mexican people can 
solve. But as their northern neighbor with a long history that links us 
culturally, politically, and economically as well as geographically, we 
have, as I have said, many shared interests. And one of those interests 
is to ensure that human rights are not violated and that the United 
States is not implicated in those violations.
  President Zedillo has said the investigation of the violence in 
Chiapas will be carried through to its conclusion. I hope that includes 
not simply the Acteal and Ocosingo killings, but the activities of 
paramilitary groups throughout the region. The government also needs to 
address the plight of the thousands of indigenous people in Chiapas who 
have fled their homes to escape the paramilitary groups and are living 
in makeshift camps. They are suffering from acute shortages of drinking 
water, food and shelter. It is a miserable situation and the sooner 
they can safely return to their homes the better.
  President Zedillo has also said that he wants to resume negotiations 
with the Zapatistas. I know this has the support of the US Government. 
What is lacking, I am afraid, is a clearly defined strategy, or road 
map, for resolving this conflict. Unless both sides have confidence 
that such a strategy can lead to an acceptable resolution, it will be 
only a matter of time before another violent outburst, and more 
needless deaths.

                          ____________________