Global Exchange: In February 1995, Don Samuel Ruiz made a call for international observation, what do you think was the purpose of this call?

Marina Patricia Jiménez: The fundamental purpose was to attend to the situation that existed in the communities since the army at that time was entering the communities and displacing the population. The people in the communities asked us at the Fray Bartolome Centre to look at mechanisms for organizing a civil society presence so that they could return to their communities of origin.

This is the background to the call that the President of the Centre, Samuel Ruiz, made. But also the presence of the army in the communities started to generate a very tense situation as they began to systematically harass the communities and carry out a series of human rights violations. One of the mechanisms for containing these activities was national and international observation. So this is more or less the origin [of the observation mission] although I should point out that since the confrontation between the Zapatista Army and the Mexican Army in 1994, there has been an observation presence of various kinds. But it was of a short term nature. There were both national and international observers. So it's important to point this out, because there have always been observers here since the hostilities began in 1994.

However, when all this starts to become much more formal, we see the development of a xenophobia campaign by the government to try to breakdown civil society structures, not only the Zapatistas but also in the indigenous communities.

Global Exchange: Can you explain to me why you are calling for international observers and not just national ones?

Well, because observation isn't just something that Mexicans can do. From a human rights perspective, in many other countries where there is a critical situation, international observers can play a fundamental role in terms of documenting what's happening and becoming protagonists in a movement that contains the violent actions of the authorities. But also in this sense they strengthen the potential for displaced people to return to their communities within the atmosphere of security that comes with the presence of observers.

Global Exchange: Because of the presence of foreign observers in particular?

No, I think just as much with the Mexicans as with the foreigners, they play very similar roles.

Global Exchange: Is there a difference with the international presence?

Yes, I think there is a difference, in the sense that some internationals belong to organizations that have strong connections with the media or academic institutions, and so this creates communication bridges that don't just stay in the local and national arena, but open out towards the outside.

Global Exchange: So the fact that foreigners take other kinds of information to their countries so that these countries react to the situation - is this part of what the Fray Bartolome Centre wants when it creates a program for international observation?

I think that this isn't the fundamental objective, because here in the Centre we have a section that already carries out this function. They manage all the information that needs to be communicated abroad - we have a web page, for example, which over 13,000 people have visited since December [1997]. So the objective for us isn't just the diffusion [of information], but rather to create a space for the presence of civilian observation and in this way reduce the incidence of human rights violations. So this is the fundamental objective, the accompaniment of the communities, the denouncements, and all the other activities are a consequences of this.

Global Exchange: So in your opinion the presence of foreigners doesn't give greater security than the presence of Mexicans?

The role of observation is very homogenous in the sense of who is present, whether Mexican or foreign - it's support for the communities - but also it's difficult to maintain a national presence sometimes given the limited financial resources.

Global Exchange: Would you mind now telling me something about the criticisms that the Fray Bartolome Centre has received in relation to the accreditation of foreign observers?

The person who started all this was Alejandro Carillo Castro from the National Immigration Institute, when he began to say, in an arbitrary and tendentious way, that the credentials that we were giving were official, and that an investigation was necessary because we were usurping public functions. In this sense I think that what the Interior Minsitry wants to do is attack the work that we've been doing from a more legal or political angle. This reaction also tells us that the observation activities have had a strong impact on the image that the government has been creating about Mexico. And in this sense, although we are being very careful because this was a political attack, we are also taking things calmly because in order to do our work we have to identify people for organizational reasons: just like [commercial companies] have to identify international people that are working with them, we have to do the same.

So in the moment that we were [supposedly] usurping public functions, it became clear to us that we were getting into a confrontational situation with immigration. But we are going to be very vigilant that they respect the human rights of the observers; it also seems to me that the comments of Carillo Castro were being made within the framework of the beginning of the xenophobia campaign against international observers, and was a way of trying to destabilize the activities that were being carried out on behalf of the National Intermediation Commission [CONAI] and the Fray Bartolome Center, within the framework of what has been a permanent observer presence here in Chiapas since 1995.

So perhaps the expulsion of foreigners was an attack against the activities of the Fray Bartolome Centre and the CONAI?

I think so. For me there's no doubt that part of the actions [of the government] were about attacking in this way. But also it's very clear to me that the government has tried to maintain an image abroad that nothing's going on here, that we're a country that's in transition towards democracy, that it's a democratic country, that it's a country that respects human rights; and the nature of the work that we've been carrying out abroad in terms of providing information and documentation is well respected, and international public opinion today is in no way indifferent to what is going on. And I also think that the whole image that the government was presenting abroad that nothing is going on here has collapsed.

Global Exchange: You've commented that the Fray Bartolome Centre manages its own communications abroad, but do you think that the expulsion of foreigners also helps to create a different image of Mexico?

I think that's right. A very recent example is the group of congressional representatives that was here, when there was a series of incidents previous to their arrival in relation to the presence of international observers. And one of the points that we raised with them was the issue of international observers and the impact that they can have. This was very interesting because they started an initiative in the Congress of the United States saying that the Mexican Government was carrying out a whole series of human rights violations against North American citizens and that they weren't going to allow it. What happened with the two people that were supposedly United States military attaches in the community of Los Platanos is also a very important factor because it clearly reveals the policy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in that they are saying "if you had let us know that you were going, we would have arranged everything"; so the treatment that an international observer gets is also dependent on who comes. That's to say, you can obtain certain privileges if you are X person, but they can continue to violate your rights if you aren't from a group that has a certain influence.

Global Exchange: Do you think the fact that the U.S. sent military attaches came without warning the Mexican government is a sign that they don't believe the official version of what is going on in Chiapas?

I don't see it quite so radically. I think that the Mexican diplomatic corps do a really surprising misinformation job, and even they themselves sometimes are really misinformed about what's really going on; they only receive information from sources within the Interior Ministry. For example, I had the opportunity to meet the Consul in San Francisco and the Embassador to Switzerland, people from different places, and it really surprised me that many of the things that are done within a framework in which people are badly informed. So then what happens is that this misinformation situation generates a scenario in which all information about what is happening in Mexico is managed in the same way, and that there is no kind of interpretation or dialogue with the NGOs. So the information sources are very limited because they are all official and nothing more. So I think that in this sense the Mexican government doesn't realise that yes, Mexico's image has changed abroad, and that this is nothing more than the consequence of what some of us can do in the NGOs, because the presence of international observers has had a very significant impact in relation to the information that reaches outside.

Global Exchange: Many of the international observers that come to Mexico do so under a program from one of the Mexican NGOs, but obviously when they return to their countries they could have other agendas. We can see this is in the resolution that has been introduced in the U.S. Congress. What do you think about the role of foreign observers in their own countries?

Well, you know I think that one of the actions that I consider most fundamental is to find out what is going on in the indigenous communities, and that everyone who is interested has the chance to do this. When you take a recording or a photograph or a testimony from a community that says that such and such is happening, obviously this starts to change many of the activities that are taking place in relation to the communities. I think that it's crucial to continue these kinds of [information] diffusion activities about what is happening. I also think that providing analysis about the situation in the communities is also fundamental because often the information that arrives is hardly analysed and it's therefore difficult to interpret with any certainty why certain things are happening. Sometimes the analysis that goes out is very superficial. One of the main challenges for the local organizations is to professionalize our work, that we send reports abroad that are not just to the point, but well documented and very clear about what is happening. So in this sense the various kinds of initiatives that I have come across all seem fundamental to me, from people who come here in solidarity to the various fora in the universities that promote issues related to Chiapas. I have also been to official institutions such as the European Parliament or the United Nations where there are always opportunities for giving presentations about Chiapas.

So what I am trying to say is that there are different levels in the sense the NGOs that are here have the responsibility to do much more thorough research to have reports that can be taken to other arenas. But there are also the universities and the international observers - some of them belong organized bodies, others come on their own account, but in any case other kinds of arenas are opened out through them.

Global Exchange: In more concrete terms, can the [Leahy/ Dodd] resolution that's being passed through the U.S. Senate be characterized as interventionism towards Mexico?

You know, it really surprises me that the Foreign Minister is speaking out about this when there is already so much North American interventionism in other areas such as the people who enroll in the School of the Americas - why don't they, for example... well, to me it would appear more to the point to defend the people that go to work in the United States. What I'm trying to say is that there are many levels at which I would put in question all of this. Regrettably the Mexican Government only reacts when it is pressured from abroad. This action on behalf of the Congress to pressure Mexico seems very legitimate to me in the context of the defense of human rights - sometimes concrete measures to contain violence only begin to be created when there is pressure from outside. So I wouldn't categorize it as interventionism when it creates a framework in which the Mexican Government has to try to justify its actions in relation to what's happening in Mexico and in Chiapas in particular.

Global Exchange: Can I ask you what role foreigners play within the Fray Bartolome Center?

Their task is fundamental in the communities, to accompany the communities, to create a security cordon around them through [the maintenance of] a civilian presence, both national and international, with a view to preventing human rights violations: for example, threats, arbitrary detentions, including more severe activities such as displacement. So their work isn't so much an integral part of the organization itself, but rather in connection with our work in the defence of human rights in the indigenous communities.

Global Exchange: When the foreigners come back from the communities do they have to write their testimonies directly to the Fray Bartolome Centre.

Yes, that's right. There are a well established set of mechanisms - we have procedures set out in relation to the participation of the observers. We request that part of the documentation in the communities is in a written format, that they pass on the complaints from the communities. Then we take charge of processing all the information that needs to be made public, or to evaluate what kind of aid needs to be organized, or the need to present a formal complaint about something. There are various actions that can be based on this.

Global Exchange: Do you do any kind of pre-training?

Yes, in fact part of our work involves educational workshops about the socio-political situation in the state, and in particular about the places that they're going to visit, and in such a way that people have a clear idea about the situation that they're going to find when they go out to the communities.

Apart from the procedures we give them specific information on how to conduct themselves and what to write in their reports, which we evaluate, which can range from how they themselves feel to the general situation in the communities.

Global Exchange: This report is going to be distributed in Mexico as well as abroad; have you any recommendations that you'd like to make to foreigners that intend to come to Mexico to observe human rights?

Well, look, I think there are a number of fundamental questions. The first is that the ability to do national or international observation is a right that any citizen of the world can have. It's not attributable to only those people that the authorities decide to limit it to: they're not the exclusive rights of the authorities or the government. On the other hand, the situation in Chiapas, which has been worsened by increasing militarization and paramilitarization, means that we have minimal information on what is going on. That's why we have to professionalize [human rights] observation. The other is the Civil Observation Peace and Human Rights Brigades (la BRICO) that we are promoting in order to have greater mobility - there has to be more pressure on consulates and embassies to obtain the FM3 [observation visa]. But also acknowledge that it is increasingly closed, an ever greater obstacle, but that they [the foreign observers] shouldn't limit themselves to having the FM3 and to look for other mechanisms.

Global Exchange: Regarding the treatment of international observers for the elections, do you think that...

Yes, of course, because there are mechanisms already established for election observation, in that the Minister for Foreign Affairs decides who can come and who can't. I also think that this is a very heavy control mechanism. I think this has to be a challenge for civil society in relation to the authorities, to really observe what is happening in the country, and the kind of participation of an observer in an electoral process is very different to that of one involved in human rights.