La Jornada
December 16, 2001
By Armando Bartra

How come a government program promising much (recently with whispering tones) and achieving little provokes such a widespread and passionate response? Perhaps because it is a symbol of a globalization process which, with or without such a plan, is shaping our lives. Alternatively, perhaps because the provisions of the Puebla-Panamá Plan (PPP) are more than just ominous threats -- they are ancient Mesoamerican realities... But also because we need to give neoliberalism the identifiable traits of a villain -- and the pleasantly sounding PPP is a Pedro Páramo of sorts of all plundering projects.

How sad it is to be poor! It depends; everything in this world has its own "it depends"... It is true that with this school thing Those who have learnt to read are under the influence Of impossible things. Even my wife is sometimes sad because she says She wished she had wings on Sundays. (Miguel Angel Asturías. The President)

The tame Indians who accompanied Pedro de Alvarado in 1524 gave it the unlikely name of Quetzaltenango. However, the new nahoas who visited the Guatemalan city in November 2001 had known it by the Mayan name Xelajú. When leaving the city on Saturday 24, after a march and a rally in the park of Benito Juárez, they were calling it by the familiar name of Xela. The visitors were not all nahoas; there were chinantlecos, purépechas, totonacas, zapotecos, mestizos... we came from Mexico. Besides our brothers from Guatemala and us, others came from Panamá, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras (visitors from Costa Rica were missing and the Belizean representatives had an accident on the way). There were also about 60 visitors from such remote and exotic destinations as Canada, the USA, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.

We were roughly 800 in total, representing about 300 professional and social organizations. We met in the Xelajú Forum 2001 over three days, under the motto "People before globalization". We sought to define, from the bottom up, social alternatives to the PPP and the imminent Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA).

The meeting in Guatemala has been the best attended and representative, yet neither the first nor the last of it kind. The PPP threat had already brought together about 300 people from 130 social organizations from five Mesoamerican countries, who met in Tapachula, Chapas, in May 2001. In June 2001, protesters gathered again in the capital of Chapas, San Cristobal de las Casas, where 75 organizations debated over the threats to biological and cultural diversities imposed by the PPP and other plans. In August, the same city welcomed the leaders of the Partito de la Revolución Democratica (Democratic Revolution Party -- PRD) and a large number of activists from the South East, with the aim of establishing the party's official stance against the PPP. New meetings were held in September in Jáltipan, among the representatives of several social organizations of the State of Veracruz, as well as Oaxaca, Tabasco and Querétaro. Finally, in December, a few days after the Xelajú Forum, a new peninsular meeting was held among representatives from the states of Campeche, Yucatán and Quintana Roo. At the same time, the state of Puebla hosted a number of workshops analyzing the adverse effects of the industrial, commercial and services "corridor" between Veracruz and Guerrero. Representatives from Tlaxcala, Guerrero, Morelos and Veracruz took part to those workshops; among them stood out the presence of the Unión Campesina Emiliano Zapata Vive (Peasant Union "Emiliano Zapata is Alive"), which has been defending from expropriation the lands of Tepeaca, threatened by the Proyecto Milenium. The social organizations and municipal administrations of the Tehuantepec region are veterans in the fight against mega-projects like the PPP. For almost 25 years, they have been opposing resistance to cross-isthmus plans, at the time known as Alpha-Omega. The PPP has additionally been the object of a large number of workshops, seminar, conferences, newspaper articles, leaflets... and not least a recently published book: "Mesoamerica. The Deep Rivers", with the subtitle "Plebeian Alternatives to the Puebla-Panamá Plan".

Besides all this, the Mexican coordination of the PPP held hurried and superficial "social consultations", while government officials and representatives of the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) promoted meetings with businessmen, NGOs and other sectors. Only on a few occasions had a government plan had the summons capacity of the PPP. And seldom before had critics been so unanimous in their views, if not in their tone: they questioned the project as a "new colonization", putting the priorities of international capital in front of those of the Mesoamerican peoples.

How come a government program promising much (recently with whispering tones) and achieving little provokes such a widespread and passionate response? Perhaps because it is a symbol of a globalization process which, with or without such a plan, is shaping our lives. Or perhaps because the provisions of the Puebla-Panamá Plan (PPP) are more than just ominous threats -- they are ancient Mesoamerican realities: inter-oceanic clefts which turned out to be wound and curse, labor exploitation and massive exodus, predatory transnational corporation controlling an enclave economy, ecological disasters and disregard of cultural diversity, loss of sovereignty... But also because we need to give neoliberalism the identifiable traits of a villain -- and the pleasantly sounding PPP is a Pedro Páramo of sorts of all plundering projects.

Economic circumstances are not in favor of the PPP, however. In times of war and recession, rulers, suffering from the strong apache syndrome, refine their paranoia by hopelessly trying to shut themselves away. Garage sales are not appropriate in times like those, as they put on sale and special offer all potential Mesoamerican yields. Negative growth rates, initially affecting production, are now spreading to consumption. As a result, maquiladoras in the automobile, electronic and manufacturing industries are shutting down. Tourism is significantly on the decrease, and investments are generally falling. Infrastructure plans -- like the Central American electric integration project announced by the IADB -- are still on the agenda. These plans, besides the development demagogy of their supporters, form the core of the PPP. The wide-ranging investments in productive activities, however, will have to wait for the time being.

A breathing space in the neocolonial threat, some will say; further delays in the Mesoamerican development process, others will argue. One thing is certain: global recession is worsening the already dire state of the regional economy. Recovery of demand and price levels in critical agricultural sectors such as coffee will in all likelihood fail to materialize. Moreover, if the assembly industry keeps applying the break, while looking for cheap labor in the East, we will soon be missing the good old times of the maquiladoras concentration camps. If this were not enough, northbound labor migration is becoming increasingly difficult. On the one hand, the US government and its faithful guard dog, the Mexican government, have increased military and police controls at the US-Mexican border; on the other, employment opportunities for migrants in the US have significantly fallen. The poisoned cherry on the cake is the predicable reduction in dollar remittances by Mexican expatriates, and the likelihood that some of them might return. "A few years ago we used to worry that young people with the highest potentials and initiative would go and work abroad", says a peasant, "now we are worried they are coming back".

While the global economic crisis is temporarily reducing the colonizing effort of international capital, its catastrophic effects on the people are making a sustainable development more and more urgent. Perhaps this is the reason why discussions around the PPP have gone from stern and extreme criticism of the program and its premises, to concrete proposals of alternatives which build on the people and their communities.

The Xelajú Forum 2001 -- as many other political forums -- was highly critical of the PPP, while putting forth some concrete proposals. The final declaration "rejects globalization which has been imposed on us"; moreover, it denounces the PPP for "wanting to create a service infrastructure for the export industry, for exploiting our natural resources, our biodiversity and our people's labor, without answering at any time to any social concerns...". The declaration also denounces that the "design of the PPP... has not been the result of a proper consultation process, to the extent that Central American governments approved a draft put forth by the... Mexican Government, in its role as a US intermediary for the region... this violates our countries' sovereignty". Beyond a "complete rejection of the PPP", the declaration establishes the need to "increase our efforts to create a systematic body of experiences and alternatives for community and regional development, with equity, justice and sustainability".

The various discussion committees at the Forum did propose alternative options for development. For example, the committee dealing with the situation of the rural economy denounced the ongoing repression in the countryside and the lack of political freedoms, asking at the same time for the recognition of indigenous rights. Indian people account for a fifth of total population in the Mexican South East and for over half of total population in Guatemala. Yet the Right has marginalized Indian groups in the upcoming of their constitutional recognition. While describing the downfall facing small agricultural producers, the countryside committee proposed elaborate plans for reversing this trend.

The agricultural sector is asking for urgent actions, a true plan of regional recovery, given that over half of the population is living in the countryside, that 70% of families are facing conditions of extreme poverty and that 1.5 million people are threatened with starvation. The countryside committee outlined the main steps of an urgent rural conversion plan for the Mesoamerican region, tightly summarized in the proposal of the National Federation of Farming and Agro-industrial Cooperatives (Fenacoop) of Nicaragua.

First the diagnosis: "Transnational food and grains corporations, by invading local and national markets, are destroying the agricultural and livestock sectors in the Third World... food uncertainty is on the increase... as well as the destruction of biodiversity... and of traditional, community-based agricultural systems... Multinationals... are monopolizing genetic and agricultural resources... causing rural-to-urban migration, the inability to produce one's own food and to purchase it... Our countries do not have an agricultural policy that recognizes and values food production as a top priority for sovereignty and food security... (Nevertheless)... the agricultural sector remains the main supplier of our national economies, in terms of food production, employment generation and self-employment..."

Then the proposals: "The rural production system of indigenous people is not limited to the production of corn. It is also responsible for the sustainable management of natural resources, in the respect of biological and cultural diversities and the communities' way of life... (It is therefore necessary)... to exclude agriculture from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and thus from the FTAA... Agriculture must be granted a special treatment inside the FTAA, such that each country can formulate and develop agricultural policies depending on their needs and realities..."

A challenge for the agricultural sector supported those views: "The small-scale production model... allows us to increase food availability and reduce hunger, instead of repeating the mistakes of the... Green Revolution, which increased food availability as well as hunger..." A strong commitment to food sovereignty: "Food security and sovereignty... must become a national and regional priority, requiring a strong commitment by all social actors... The WTO and the FTAA must reach an agreement... with special and differentiated measures to allow technological advances... to achieve food security and sovereignty... and to compete more successfully on international markets... Developing countries do no just need free trade, but fair trade". And a strong support to environmental issues: "It is necessary to define a model of sustainable agriculture, which makes the best use of natural resources, preserves production diversities and genetic wealth, strengthens rural families and organizations... and empowers local communities."

Just a peasant's dream? Not really. This proposal, like others of its kind, is backed by a large coordination of rural organizations in Central America, which were present in Xela as the Mesa Regional Campesina (Regional Countryside Committee -- MRC). The MRC is driving, alongside de Forum, a Mesoamerican initiative for integration and sustainable development. Organizations from five counties in Central America, grouped into national bodies, are taking part to the initiative. In Guatemala there is the Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Campesinas (National Coordination of Peasant Organisation -- CNOC), which brings together about eigth local groups. In El Salvador the organizations taking part to the MRC are the Comité para la Incidencia del Desarrollo Agropecuario y Rural (Committee for the Impact of Rural, Agricultural and Livestock Sector Development -- CIDAR) and the Mesa Permanente de Mujeres Rurales (Permanent Committee of Rural Women). In Honduras seven organizations are acting together in the Comité Coordinador de Organizaciones Campesinas de Honduras (Coordination Committee of Peasant Organizations of Honduras -- Cococh). In Nicaragua the Coordinadora Agraria (Agricultural Coordination) brings together the above mentioned Fenacoop, the Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo (Association of Rural Workers -- ATC), the Unión Nacional Agropecuaria de Productores Asociados (National Union of Associated Agricultural and Livestock Producers - UNAPA) and even the Asociación de la Resistencia Nicaragüense (Association of Nicaraguan Resistance -- Arnic), uniting the former contras. The MRC and the Unión de Productores Agropecuarios (Agricultural and Livestock Producers Union -- UPA) operate in Costa Rica. All the above organizations participate to the MRC. There are however other Mesoamerican associations converging in the same direction: the Asociación de Organizaciones Campesinas para la Cooperación y el Desarollo (the Association of Peasant Association for Cooperation and Development -- Asocode), bringing together coordinating bodies from the five countries mentioned above and the Asociación de Pequeños y Medianos Productores de Panamá (Association of Small and Medium Producers of Panama). Many of these groups belong to the Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones Campesinas (Latin American Coordinating Body of Peasant Organizations -- CLOC) and are bound to the worldwide network called Vía Campesina (The Peasant Way).

No doubts there still are a few problems: many peasants do not belong to any organisation, there still are loose groupings, there are almost always several national coordinating bodies, some of which are scarcely representative, and regional convergence on relevant issues is still weak. There is no doubt, however, that there is an entity taking shape beyond rural proposals for Mesoamerica. A very important actor that showed up in Xela loudly banging her feet, meeting up with Mexican indigenous and rural organizations such as the Unión de Comunidades Indigenas de la Zona Norte del Istmo (Union of Indigenous Communities of the Northern Area of the Isthmus -- Ucizoni), the Frente Popular de Organizaciones del Sureste de Veracruz (Popular Front of the Organizations of the Veracruz South East - Freposev), the Organización de Pueblos Indigenos de la Chinantla (Organization of Indigenous People of the Chinantla -- OPICH), the Movimiento Agrario Indígena Zapatista (the Zapatista Indigenous Agrarian Movement - MAIZ) and the Uníon Campesina Emiliano Zapata Vive, among others. Together these organisations indicated in an official Social Organisations Statement that "we see this event as a symbolic economic forum that looks like a symposium...", thus making even more apparent the lack of convergence between the so-called Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and the so-called Basic Social Organisations (BSOs). It is true that NGOs generally hold all the cards, but the BSOs are the cards. Luckily the situation has not degenerated. Differences between the parties were positively overcome by the demand that, "there will be new room for the participation of organisations representative of the people, with the NGOs having a more technical and methodological role" in the third forum of the series "What should be achieved in Nicaragua by the middle of next year?". Moreover, the BSOs demanded "the creation of specialised sector committees: for peasants, indigenous people, women, trade unions, small entrepreneurs, migrants and political organizations...". And promised: "We will create a coordinating body for social organisations... and bring concrete proposals to Nicaragua".

This will definitely be the case, so that in Managua there will be concrete proposals and topics for discussion. Therefore, let the PPP shake.