Global Exchange: Why do you think that the government is acting against internatinal observers in Chiapas?

Gonzalo Ituarte: The Mexican government has a way of acting that is about defining reality according to its own tastes and then to adapt its policies to this defined reality. Since the government wants to impose its reality that Chiapas is a very particular local issue, it can't accept that it has international relevance. So it considers the international interest in Chiaps an absurdity, because in this logic, this reality that it has created in its mind, the Mexican government cannot accept that there are international witnesses.

Obviously what's happening in Chiapas is of absolute national and international significance, and has a very profound significance in particular for Latin America because of the situation of the indigenous peoples; it's also signficant for Europe and obviously the countries of North America for its value as an announcement for the new society that's being created by the generation of pluri-ethnic and multi-cultural ideas that are building a new identity in harmony, not through conflict and systematic oppression as the Indians of Mexico have suffered.

Obviously one of the dimensions of all this is that the international witness is a nuisance because he effectively demonstrates that Chiapas has relevance that goes beyond its own borders, including within Mexico. In terms of human rights, we promoted the participation of international witnesses from the very beginning to protect human rights, to impede the confrontation between the two armed forces -- the EZLN and the Mexican Army -- so it was a dissuasive presence, but an uncomfortable one. But also this had international repercussions for the image of Mexico which is more important for the Mexican government than the reality. So what is important is the image and not the reality, so that anyone that can bear witness to the fact that there are problems in Mexico that the government doesn't want to be known, because they think that it will stain their image, is a nuisance factor in their plans.

Global Exchange: But how do you respond when the government claims that it is just "applying the law" ?

Gonzalo Ituarte: Effectively this is nothing more than an abuse of authority; they are violating the constitution. Mexico is a country that prided itself in the fact that no matter who arrived on national territory, they were given total freedom, including slaves from other nations -- they were given total freedom just for stepping on national territory - complete freedom of movement. Formally and legally Mexico is not at war: the government hasn't accepted the existence of the conflict, for which it doesn't have the legal right to restrict the presence of foreigners.

But the rule of law in Mexico and in Chiapas has never existed. The authorities have managed the law - applied the law - at their own discretion: [in terms of both] how they apply it and to whom. When the authoritarian tradition in Mexico finds itself in a situation in which the law is limiting its activities, what it does is twist [the law] as in the present case, because it refuses to submit itself to the law. They think that they are above the law so that they can impose it on others. So that's why they twist their presentation of the law because its very uncomfortable that the constitution allows foreigners to travel around Mexico -- and for them it's very inconvenient that foreigners travel around Mexico! -- so they decide in an authoritarian way to deny this right that is established in the constitution. Obviously it's an abuse of authority, it's historically short-sighted -- it's really an unimaginable despotic conservatism in this world of globalization, in which the Mexican government has accepted that economic policy in Mexico is dictated from Washington, in which the Mexican government designs its policies according to the interests of the world economy; but at the level of defending the lives of the poor and indigenous the government doesn't accept globalization or any kind of external auditing. It's totally absurd.

Global Exchange: Are the attacks against international observers related in anyway to the attacks against the CONAI?

Gonzalo Ituarte: In some aspects, yes. The Conai was a nuisance for government policy because it continued to defend the signed accord, it continued to defend the significance of the process agreed at San Andres, it continued defending the rights of the indigenous people, it continued calling for a national and international contingent, for peaceful ways of resolving the conflict, not for burying it. It was nuisance, and a much greater nuisance than the presence of the foreigners...

Global Exchange: Why did the Conai give acreditation to observers?

Gonzalo Ituarte: It was more of a recognition than an acreditation. It was just a document for informing the communities saying that these were good willed people and that they were coming with this interest -- this was the nature of their presentation. So in a formal sense we don't give acreditation because we're not an authority that acredits. However, since the beginning of the negotiations and the establishment of the rules and procedures it was agreed that the Conai would give acreditation to observers and journalists. For three and a half years the government asked the Conai to do this because it was a way of [ajilizar]. So without being an official document, the Conai acreditation was nothing more than proof that for us these people were trustworthy, so we presented them like that to the authorities and to the communities.

Global Exchange: So it was more in the sense of a business card?

Gonzalo Ituarte: Or an identity card! Yes!

Global Exchange: The fact that the Conai was prepared to give international observers an identity card means that they had a role to play in the peace process?

Gonzalo Ituarte: Obviously we asked the international observers to come. We believe that it's extremely important that as human beings we involve ourselves in these events. It's not a struggle against the Mexican government. It's a historical problem that needs to be resolved in Mexico and Latin America, and so the importance of the international presence is in proportion to the magnitude of the problem we have before us and that's why the Conai invited, called upon, foreigner observers, why we welcomed them and introduced them to the communities so that they would invest their trust in them.

Global Exchange: So that it's really clear, in what concrete ways has the international presence promoted peace, or at least prevented a deterioration of the war?

Gonzalo Ituarte: In the early stages it was very clear that the presence of foreign observers facilitated the negotiations themselves. It was also a dissuasive presence in terms of potential abuse of the indigenous communities by Chiapan or Mexican authorities, whether military, police, or civilians. For us this is extremely clear: if there had not been the presence there was, there would have been a much greater human rights violations. The simple fact of their presence meant that the military and police couldn't bring themselves to act aggressively towards the communities because Mexican and international witnesses were present.

Global Exchange: In more concrete terms, did the presence of international observers, for example, support the Dialogue Laws until recently?

Gonzalo Ituarte: Obviously. But this more during the most acute period of tension. Afterwards, the continual visits and the presence of the civil observation camps in the communities were obviously helping to create favorable conditions for dialogue. They supported in a very discreet, but explicit, way (always respecting the fact that they were foreigners) the dialogue process itself. .