La Jornada
January 13, 2000
By Triunfo Elizalde

The criteria the National Institute of Migration (INM), of the Ministry of the Interior, requires of foreigners in order to grant the "International Human Rights Observers FM3" immigration form must not be allowed to stand under any circumstances; given that "the requirements are excessive and bureaucratic," they "constrain observation activity" and leave foreigners in an indefensible position, according to the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center, which characterized the application of INM policy as "xenophobic and repressive."

This statement was made in a wide-ranging analysis of actions taken against Kerry Andrew Appel and 33 other U.S. citizens, three Italians, three French citizens, a Portuguese citizen, an Argentine, and a Spanish citizen, who received summonses to appear at immigration offices early in January. "In these last few days," the report says, "the INM has once more demonstrated the restrictive and obstructive nature of its policy, which is damaging to those foreigners who enter the country to carry out humanitarian work and human-rights observation."

The Pro Juarez Center took note that the visitors' work consists of "documenting the human-rights situation in indigenous communities and presenting it to the international community to the end of providing a distinct alternative to what is offered by the Mexican government, especially when official policy has been focused on disseminating the image of a Mexico where human rights are respected and government actions are aimed at dialogue and peace, particularly in zones of conflict."

Obviously, given the reality on the ground, the visitors' reports "speak of the existence of paramilitary forces, of displaced indigenous people, and of growing militarization, bringing with it prostitution, drug addiction, sexual assaults, torture, house searches, illegal deprivation of liberty, and detention, among other abuses carried out not only by the army, but also through joint operations with police forces working with the blessing of the state and federal governments."

The foregoing, the report says, was essentially the "reason" why the federal government reacted as it did against the observers, since their work made the Mexican authorities uncomfortable, driving them to set to work "to discredit their performance." This was especially true at the end of December 1997 and the beginning of 1998, after the massacre carried out by paramilitary forces at Acteal, when the government tried to "defend the indefensible"; when this did not succeed, it applied a policy that resulted in expulsions, deportations, holding persons in isolation, and the prohibiting of re-entry to Mexico.

The non-governmental organization added that at the same time, there was an intensification of "holding persons in isolation, illegal detentions, violations of guarantees of due process, attacks by paramilitary groups, violations of the right to free assembly, violation of the right to move about freely, and military and judicial interventions in the requirement of immigration documents, among others, all of which worsened the situation of foreign observers."

The justification used by the Mexican immigration authorities took two directions: one political, claiming that this type of observers come to Mexico for the purpose of "revolutionary tourism," involving themselves in political affairs that concern only the Mexican people; and the other juridical, by means of which it was argued that carrying out activities "outside those authorized in their immigration forms" made them deserving of expulsion or, failing that, deportation.

It is fitting to recall that at another moment the escalation aimed at obstructing international observation "turned juridical," culminating in the issuance of a new standard, which created a new form especially for the observers: "FM3 International Human Rights Observers." The consequence of this was "the legalization of repression," since the expulsions, which had gone beyond all bounds in flagrant violations of human rights, constitutional guarantees, and international human-rights treaties, were legitimated by means of this form.

Since then, the standard has been used as an obstacle to foreigners entering Mexican territory legally, owing to the fact that "the obligations they impose are unrelated to the activity of observation and above all to the real dynamic of human-rights violations."

Among the requirements demanded, the following stand out: present a program of work that you intend to carry out in our country, which must include activities, the agenda to be accomplished, and institutions you will conduct interviews with, as well as federative entities, municipalities, and localities to be visited.

Likewise, requests for entry must be presented 30 days in advance. In case entry is authorized, "they will only be able to remain in the country for a term of 10 days, starting with the day of their arrival in Mexico," a requirement that affects "the possibility of responding rapidly to events, a crucial issue because of the real dynamic of human-rights violations, besides the fact that the work of observation requires lengthier stays, because of the need to acquire some understanding of the causes behind what occurs."

Translated by Vajra Kilgour