|
Globalization and Indigenous Rights The event brought together professors and students from FIU and the University of Miami. The discussion involved the ways indigenous rights movements as relate to the pressures of globalization in the hemisphere. Many long-standing tensions between native values and external factors have been rekindled or received new urgency as local communities react to the new waves of foreign trade and investment that accompany globalization. These pressures exacerbate centuries-old conflicts between native populations and ladino outsiders. The charges of subversive activities and drug running were put into this context, as was the involvement of international solidarity in indigenous rights struggles. The workshop's leaders argued that many of the accusations and counteraccusations are only one layer of a profound and continuing conflict between traditional rural values and advancing modernization. Indigenous communities see these conflicts in one light, while well-intentioned international solidarity movements often approach them from a more political or ideological focus. Wallach provided some thought-provoking examples from his own experiences in dealing on these two levels. Ramírez described Zapotec efforts to build autonomy in the face of crushing poverty and fierce government repression. This is not a recent phenomenon. For decades, if not centuries, caciques and pistoleros have abused their power, taking land and controlling municipal government. Ramírez recounted how in the Loxicha region, home to 35,000 indigenous people from the mountains to the southern plains of Oaxaca, indigenous communities united in the 1980s behind a leader who, by popular consensus, became head of the municipal government. This triumph of autonomy was short-lived, however. On August 29, 1996 the EPR attacked a Mexican Army checkpoint at Huatulco, Oaxaca. One of the EPR fighters killed in the attack was a resident of Loxicha, and the government used this fact to accuse the local population in general of having links to the guerrilla forces. A targeted campaign of repression was launched against the entire Loxicha region. The Army and local bosses took the municipal palace by force, detaining the autonomous authorities and many others without warrants. The arrested were accused of membership in the EPR. What followed, by Ramírez's account, was the wholesale repression, intimidation, murder and disappearance of the Loxicha communities. Hundreds of indigenous people from the region were arrested and tortured, forced to sign blank papers and confess to having joined the EPR, and paraded in front of TV cameras as guerrillas. Many of the prisoners do not speak Spanish and have no way to defend themselves. In June 1997, the wives, children and families of the political prisoners began a sit-in in front of the governor's palace in Oaxaca to demand their release. Mexico's new president, Vicente Fox, and his minister of the interior have stated their desire to resolve the situation. Not to be outdone, the local PRI government declared an amnesty in December, saying that if the prisoners admit to their crimes they will be released. The local communities are considering this offer carefully, since the accused must admit to crimes they insist they didn't commit. They see the amnesty as an attempt to undermine the movement for indigenous autonomy and control over their communities. Ramírez's description of this specific struggle helped dramatize the broader context of indigenous movements and protests throughout the hemisphere. As the FIU workshop made clear, many of these conflicts have roots that go far deeper than the current pressures of globalization. The current focus on globalization, however, as well as modern communications technology such as the Internet, has allowed the drama to be played out on a much larger stage. The challenge is to provide solutions that respect local needs and cultures that have resisted external pressures for centuries.
|