posted 01-28-2004 09:20 PM            

Riot police stormed the autonomous, indigenous town of Tlalnepantla, south of Mexico City, in the early morning at 1am last Wednesday, 14th of January.
Eye witnesses talk of at least 2 deaths, a dozen injured and a dozen missing persons, and of widespread police brutality and intimitation.

GREG BERGER, independant reporter and documentary film maker in the Interview with Democracy Now!

“An armed incursion by the state police of about 1,500 riot police stormed the town. There were snipers placed on buildings, a rain of bullets fell on the people who were holding the city hall as an autonomous municipality, and at least two people were killed. Many people were beaten. I personally spoke with several old women who were beaten in the face and body by the riot police. Many of the people from the town ran into the hills and are currently being chased with helicopters and police dogs through the woods. And the entire town is basically in a state of siege.”

According to SF Bay Indymedia, human rights observers have also been attacked and injured by riot police when trying to evaluate the situation days later.

The attack followed the town's “Declaration of Independance” on Sunday, January 11th, when the inhabitants of the municipality of Tlaneplanta in the state of Morelos gathered in the public square to set up the People's Autonomous Council. [Chiapas Imc]
The town hall had been occupied by protesters since 1st of November 2003. The traditional way of selecting the towns major by an open council of all adults was abolished by the states electoral committee last July 2003. The winning candidate was very controversial and unpopular; not only because just 10% of the entitled voters had given him their vote, but also as a political boss who has been accused of corruption in other political offices he has held. The majority of the towns inhabitants decided to ask for the election results to be annuled and their former process to be legally recognized.

Tlaneplantas quest for autonomy followed the just recent celebration of 10 years of Zapatista uprising.

posted 01-28-2004 09:23 PM            

Mexican Army Burns Down Zapatista Village
Edinburgh-Chiapas Solidarity Group, Scotland, 27.01.2004 17:57

Mexican armed forces have attacked the Zapatista community of Nuevo San Rafael, burning down 23 homes and violently evicting the Chol indigenous inhabitants. The attack, reported variously as happening on either 19 or 22 January, took place in the remote Montes Azules jungle area of Chiapas.

Resource-rich Montes Azules has long been coveted by multinationals. As the governments and multinationals press forward with the Plan Puebla Panama and Free Trade Area of the Americas, the “war of low intensity” against the thousand-plus Zapatista autonomous communities erupts into blatant repression. The Secretary of Government of Chiapas, Rubén Velázquez López, promises more evictions, declaring that land invasions will no longer be tolerated.

The fate of the inhabitants of Nuevo San Rafael is unknown, as the army is preventing reporters and human rights observers from entering the area. Local indigenous Chol, Josué Jiménez Cruz, has been arrested, and is apparently imprisoned in the town of Ocosingo. International solidarity activity is vital, declare Zapatista solidarity groups.

According to the testimonies obtained by The Human Rights Centre Bartolome de las Casas, 23 houses of the community were burned and at the moment 40 Marine and Police officers remain in Nuevo San Rafael. The inhabitants of this community, also known as Ignacio Allende, are indigenous Choles, refugees who had to flee from Calvario, municipality of Sabanilla in the north of Chiapas, two years ago. See Rport

The Human Rights Centre “wholeheartedly condemns the way in which the communities are being held incommunicado” and the “violation of the right to travel freely in the Montes Azules region” by the state authorities and the Marines.

MORE EVICTIONS THREATENED

The Chiapas State forces have also evicted hundreds of peasants in the OPEZ organisation from 2 occupied estates in Suchiate, near the border with Guatemala. The Mexican daily La Jornada reports on 25 January:

“The high season for the eviction of campesinos has begun. The government of Chiapas has resolved to persecute land invasions, even those going back as far as 11 years, as happened yesterday in the estates Los Cerros and Los Cerritos in Suchiate, near the border with Guatemala. The lands were returned to their legal owners, that is the real estate company Las Cruces and the private persons Guadalupe Barrios, Arturo Barrios and Roberto Ocampo.”

“The (Chiapas)Secretary of Government, Rubén Velázquez López, the author of this escalation, declared yesterday that "this government will allow no more invasions", but he pointed out, "it will excel in guaranteeing that human rights are respected" during the evictions.”

MONTES AZULES

In Montes Azules 110 Zapatista villages and settlements are threatened with eviction. The Mexican government cites conservation concerns in the Biosphere Reserve.

The real reason is the economic and strategic interests of transnational corporations and the USA and Mexican governments - the Plan Puebla Panama aims to "develop" southern Mexico and Central America, exploiting natural resources like biodiversity and hydro-electricity and driving peasants off their land into sweatshops.

WIDESPREAD REPRESSION

Meanwhile in the north of Chiapas the Zapatista committee of good government has denounced a state of siege from the military, the situation remains tense at the threatened Zapatista caracol of Morelia and further north in the state of Morelos repression continues against the community of Tlanepantla, where the people declared themselves autonomous.

LA LUCHA SIGUE

posted 01-28-2004 10:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
One thing is certain. The Zapatistas will not give up their autonomy, won with their own blood.

---

Interesting you should bring this up.

Back in 1994 they took up arms when NAFTA was signed but the original fervor and political purpose of the Zapatistas pretty much disappeared within two years.

The Zapatistas are illegal, armed rebels. You should equate them to a group of Branch Davidians taking up arms and basically holding the state of Kansas hostage, setting up illegal checkpoints, and basically operating under a local strongman.

The Zapatistas are now a group of thugs lead by "Comandante Marcos." While they still claim to fight for the rights of the native people of the area, that myth has all but been buried. The group exists for its own sake and the ego of Comandante Marcos who always wears a ski mask like the outlaw he is. It is doubtful that they will ever put down their arms regardless of what the Mexican government concedes.

The Mexican government, especially under Fox, has tried to negotiate an end to the "conflict." I put conflict in quotes because unlike the U.S. (who would rightfully attack the rebels and free Kansas in the above example), the Mexican government has done virtually nothing since the conflict began. They even let the rebels into Mexico City, into the Mexican Congress, to try to negotiate an end to the problem and let them leave the capital peacefully after no solution was achieved. It is clear that Marcos wants the problem. Why would he want to give up the power he wields now as the unelected dictator of Chiapas?

Now, I don't live in Chiapas. I can't say that the above didn't happen since I wasn't there. But if it happened it would be completely out of character for Mexico which has been very hesitant to use any force whatsoever since the riot back in 1967. While I wouldn't want civilians hurt, the Mexican army (a joke in and of itself) should have gone in and taken out the Zapatistas years ago.

posted 01-29-2004 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Thanks for the information Letxa. This whole premise is new to me!

---

No problem.

quote:

---

In the first article, when they say riot police, do you know if they mean Mexican, U.S., someone else?

---

State police. See below for details.

It definitely wouldn't be the U.S. The U.S. has nothing to do there. Plus if there is one thing that bothers Mexicans and would put the whole nation in a rage, it's U.S. meddling in Mexican affairs. Slaughter a village of natives in Chiapas and the government will get bad press... Let the U.S. military into Chiapas to slaughter natives and Mexicans nationwide would be in the street. A coup might not even be beyond the realm of possibility.

quote:

---

Do the Mexican Police HAVE helicopters and dogs as mentioned?

---

Yes, they have both. It is the 21st century, even in Mexico.

quote:

---

In the second article when they say 40 Marine and Police officers, are they referring to U.S. Marines and Mexican police?

---

No, for the reason above I can assure you that the U.S. Marines were not there. Given that the U.S. Marines were not there, the fact that they called Mexican forces "marines" is strange. In Mexico they have the "naval" (Navy) and they have the "ejercito" (military/army). I've never heard of them referred to as marines--unless that was some reporter's way of mistranslating "ejercito."

quote:

---

Maybe you don’t know either, but I was hoping you might locate and report some news from your end.

---

Interestingly, I searched the local newspaper's website (El Norte, paid subscription required). I wasn't able to login last night.

Here's the scoop on Tlalnepantla:

Since President Zedillo started reforming the Mexican electoral process back in 1998 leading up to the 2000 election of Fox, the IFE (equivalent of the Federal Elections Commitee) has been trying to improve the electoral process nationwide, eliminating fraud, standardizing the process, etc.

This village has always had their own way of electing a mayor. It consisted of them all getting together in a town hall and voting--by raising their hands. Since previously there was only one political party in town (PRI), the PRI itself allowed Mexican law to be "bent" and recognized the result of the "show of hands" vote. It didn't matter since it was always going to be PRI (in the "good old days.") But since 2000, there are other parties present and they demanded the secret ballot required by Mexican law.

It turns out that prior to last election day (July 6, 2003) they conducted their own election in the usual fashion (raising of hands) and elected a candidate with 1300 votes. Apparently they thought that the "real" formal elections on July 6th were just a formality (as they had been in the past) and very few people went to vote. Someone else won with just 405 votes. So 2 mayors were elected: One legally, one in the "traditional" method. The Federal Elections Commitee (IFE) recognized the one that was legally elected according to Mexican law.

At the end of November, to protest, a number of people blocked a local highway (typical form of protest in Mexico). The police forced them to open the highway and detained 50 of them. They continued to try to get their "tradtionally elected" candidate recognized officially, but to no avail.

On January 11th the town formed their own independent council and took up shop in the municipal building. This is NOT the same as a "Declaration of Independence." It's essentially another form of protest.

Given that these people were illegally occupying the municipal building and preventing the legally elected mayor from doing his job, he requested assistance from the state police. The state police moved in to secure the municipal building and it is reported one person was killed in the process. The legally elected mayor is now in possession of his office.

Observed errors in the first article:

1. The municipal building had not been occupied by protesters since November 1st. Prior to January 11th they were protesting in other places (highways, etc.) and dialoging. They took the municipal building on January 11th. They were evicted 3 days later.

2. They didn't "Declare Independence" nor were they on a "quest for atonomy." They simply wanted to try ignoring the results of the official vote in favor of the results produced in their traditional way. It had nothing to do with independence--just an electoral misunderstanding.

3. The article tries to spin this as having something to do with the Zapatistas. It has nothing to do with Zapatistas. The Zapatistas are in Chiapas, this ocurred in the state of Morelos--and amounted to an electoral dispute, not a Zapatista rebel uprising.

Given the above errors--such as suggesting they were looking for atonomy and then spinning it as if it had something to do with the Zapatistas--feel free to draw your conclusions about the rest of the article, including the number dead and missing. Officially, 1 is recognized as having been killed.