IN-DEPTH REPORT On The Offensive Intensified military occupation in Chiapas six months since the massacre at Acteal

In contrast to much of Latin America, which has been devastated by a succession of military coups and instability throughout this century, Mexico has been a bulwark of stability and civilian rule in the region for over seventy years. The Mexican military has historically remained subordinated to civilian authority and has played a limited role in the internal affairs of the country. This was possible in part because the Mexican Constitution carefully delineates the proper role of the armed forces and places strict limitations on the scope of its activities.

Now, the careful balance between military and civilian power in Mexico is being threatened. Since 1994, large areas of Mexico's majority indigenous southern states (especially Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Guerrero) have come under virtual military occupation. The army remains out of its barracks and, for the first time in decades, its influence is growing in the country's civilian life.

This widened scope of military activity has been made possible by a dramatic increase in the size and capacity of the Mexican Armed Forces. The World Bank recently reported that, contrary to international trends, Mexico increased its spending on the military from 2.6 percent of the government's total spending to 5.1 percent between 1985 and 1995. (See Article) Military spending has continued to escalate since 1995, growing fifty percent in real terms between 1995 and 1997, according to data collected by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Despite the lack of any serious external threats, the total number of Mexicans in the armed forces has doubled in the last two decades, now totaling approximately 250 thousand. The steepest increases have come since 1994.

In the regions of high military concentration, Army troops frequently violate the Mexican Constitution by infringing on the right to free transit and free expression, an explicit violation of Article 129 of the constitution. Article 129 states that "in peace-time, no military authority can carry out functions other than those that have a direct connection to military discipline." Additionally, the majority of Mexico's thirty-two states now have federal military participation in their civilian police command structures. In some areas, soldiers are even administering social services such as public assistance and literacy programs, which increases their control over the community. Rebel insurgencies, urban crime, and growing drug trafficking have been used to justify unwarranted police and army sweeps and arrests in urban and rural areas.

These violations have continued with impunity--government authorities have never applied sanctions on the armed forces, nor has anyone been prosecuted.. In fact, not only have government officials been co-participants in the unconstitutional operations, but some have gone so far as to support the development of paramilitary groups, which maintain a climate of terror in indigenous communities that oppose the government.

Militarization exacts an enormous human cost. In recent years hundreds have died as result of armed conflicts in Mexico with military or government-backed paramilitary forces causing an overwhelming majority of these deaths. As Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented in their most recent reports on Mexico, cases of torture and disappearances are steadily rising. The growing violence and human rights abuses on the part of army and local security forces have led both of these prominent human rights organizations to conclude that Mexico has become one of the worst abusers of human rights in the western hemisphere.

The gravest results of the militarization of Mexico have surfaced in the Southern states of Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Chiapas, where the large majority of military actions have occurred. In Chiapas, since the Zapatista uprising of 1994 and the ensuing military occupation of the highlands region, hundreds have died, tens of thousands have fled their homes and many more have been forced to live their lives in constant fear. A similarly critical situation exists in Guerrero and Oaxaca, although the documentation of military abuses in these states has just recently begun.

Although rarely reported in the Mexican and international press, a similarly critical situation exists in Guerrero. Guerrero is now the state in Mexico with the highest levels of political violence. In Guerrero, security forces have been involved in two massacres of indigenous people in recent years and political violence has also been directed towards opposition parties. Nearly two hundred activists of the PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party) were murdered and eight more disappeared between 1989 and 1997 in Guerrero. And the situation is worsening. Since the victory of PRD opposition mayoral candidate Zeferino Torreblanca in Acapulco on Oct. 3, 1999, a wave of repression has been unleashed against opposition activists in the state of Guerrero.

In a sign of the seriousness of the situation in southern Mexico, state governments have conspired with ruling party militants to block roads and prevent national and international observation in areas where the most serious rights abuses have been reported. In 1998 alone, at least 144 foreign observers were expelled from the country by the government, adding to the climate of instability. A new wave of deportations was initiated this year. In the first week of 2000, the Mexican government initiated deportation proceedings against 50 foreigners who were visititing Chiapas.

Despite tremendous historical and institutional obstacles, Mexico has made important strides toward democracy in the last decade. These gains were evidenced in the July 1997 elections, when the ruling party lost its absolute majority in the lower house of Congress for the first time in its 68-year reign and opposition candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas was elected Governor of Mexico City. Still, military and paramilitary forces continue to harass opposition supporters and civil society leaders in many regions of the country, threatening this tenuous democratic opening. As long as military and paramilitary forces continue disrupting the rule of law in Mexico and creating climates of fear and intimidation, it will be impossible to achieve the environment necessary for the consolidation of Mexico's democracy.

The militarization of Mexico is not solely an issue of importance to Mexico.. The threat to Mexico's democracy and stability is a concern to the increasingly important bilateral relationship between the United States and Mexico. The growing collaboration between the governments and business communities of the United States and Mexico assures that the social, political and economic destinies of our two nations will become evermore intertwined. Precisely because our futures are joined, citizens on both sides of the U.S.- Mexican border have a great stake in ensuring that changes are democratic and are not undermined by authoritarian institutions.. The United States thus has a profound interest in insuring that the militarization of Mexico is contained.

IN-DEPTH REPORT The Slippery Slope US Military Moves Into Mexico

On both sides of the border, sporadic and uniformed public discourse about the growing role of the military in Mexico has lead to numerous myths and misconceptions about the issue. In the U.S. and Mexico, the drug war has been cited as the primary reason for the expansion of the military. However, most of the militarization in Mexico is unconnected to fighting drug trafficking. Personnel and equipment earmarked for counter-narcotic efforts can and have been used in counterinsurgency efforts and other campaigns unrelated to drug trafficking. Moreover, despite official rhetoric, militarization is not solving the drug crisis. Drug cultivation and trafficking continue to skyrocket. Peasant farmers are turning to drug cultivation in record numbers as the government's current structural adjustment economic policies make it increasingly hard for them to survive cultivating traditional crops.

Even U.S. officials agree that militarization cannot counteract these economic realities. "Increased illicit drug production will probably be a direct result of the discontinuation of subsistence crop subsidies," noted an internal DEA report, and a 1991 State Department report concluded that economic pressures help explain why, despite military efforts, illicit drug producing areas in Mexico have expanded. The increased role of the army often only exacerbates the drug problem. Drug related corruption has grown at all levels of the military in recent years.

Similarly, militarization has not been a solution to the other manifestations of social unrest, such as the growth of rebel insurgencies that have rocked Mexico in recent years. In fact, militarization threatens to heighten the abject poverty that is at the root of much of this unrest. Millions are being forced further into poverty as badly needed funding for social services is diverted to the ballooning military budget.

In an era of increasing military and economic cooperation between Mexico and the United States, the United States bears some responsibility for and influence over the actions of the Mexican military, particularly in its role as Mexico's primary source of military aid, training and support. Since 1997 the United States has provided $112 million dollars in military assistance to Mexico, in the form of training, arms, and equipment. Between 1996 and 1998, Mexico sent more military personnel to the U.S. for training than any country in the Western Hemisphere. In 1999, it is second only to Colombia.