News:

resistencia

image/svg+xml image/svg+xml
radio
Javier Hernández Alpizar

(Español) Atenco frente a la arrogancia del señor Aeropuerto

(Continuar leyendo…)

radio

(Español) Nos declaramos en rebeldía.- Declaratoria del Encuentro de Medios Libres en defensa del territorio (Agosto 2014)

radio
Mumía Abú-Jamal

Night of pain, night of rage

Listen in English (Descarga aquí)  

Escucha en español (Descarga aquí)  

Once again, a Black unarmed youth has been killed by a cop.

And while the facts surrounding the shooting are presently unclear, what is clear is that a cop shot 18 year old Michael Brown 8 times.

(Continuar leyendo…)

radio
Medios Libres en La Realidad

Indigenous Peoples of Mexico Denounce Dispossession and Repression

(Continuar leyendo…)

radio
Medios Libres en La Realidad

EZLN and CNI announce the First Great World Festival of Rebellions and Resistances

“Where those from above destroy, we from below rebuild”

The Indigenous National Congress and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, meeting together for 6 days in Caracol 1 of La Realidad, widely denounced the different dispossessions against the indigenous peoples throughout the national territory. “This dispossession has a name and that name is capitalism,” said Venustiano Vázquez Navarrete, delegate from the Wixarika people, who along with Miriam Vargas, read the first of the closing statements.

In this event Armando García Salazar, belonging to ñ’hañhú people, read a communiqué announcing the call to the First Great World Festival of Rebellions and Resistances, which will be held on the days from 21 December this year until 3 January 2015, in 6 states of the country.

(Continuar leyendo…)

radio
CNI / EZLN

We from Below Rebuild! – The EZLN Invites to the World Festival of Resistances and Rebellions

EZLN invita al Festival Mundial de Las Resistencias y las Rebeldias contra el Capitalismo “Donde Los De Arriba destruyen Los de Abajo Reconstruimos”

EZLN invites to the World Festival of Resistances and Rebellions “Where those from Above Destroy, those from Below Rebuild”

Saturday, 9 August 2014

Invitation from the EZLN and CNI to the World Festival of Resistances and Rebellions

LISTEN IN AUDIO HERE (Spanish):
(Descarga aquí)  

To the brothers and sisters of the National and International Sixth:

In the gathering of our peoples in the Exchange between Zapatista Peoples and the National Indigenous Congress “David Ruíz Garcia,” we shared with each other our pain as well as our words and experiences of struggle, rebellion, and resistance.

Together we know that within our rebellions is our “NO” to the politics of destruction that capitalism carries out across the world. And we know that within our resistances are the seeds of the world that we want.

These rebellions and resistances are not just those of the indigenous peoples of Mexico. They are also found in the footsteps of the originary peoples across the continent and in all corners of the earth where individuals, groups, collectives, and organizations not only say “NO” to destruction, but go about constructing something new.
(Continuar leyendo…)

radio
Medios Libres en La Realidad

YES to Resistance – Words of Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés at the Closure of the Exchange between the CNI and the EZLN

(Continuar leyendo…)

radio
Manuela Picq

Self-Determination as Anti-Extractivism: How Indigenous Resistance Challenges World Politics

Self-Determination as Anti-Extractivism: How Indigenous Resistance Challenges World Politics Print
Written by Manuela Picq
Monday, 02 June 2014 19:46
This article was originally published in E-International Relations’ free-to-download Edited Collection, Restoring Indigenous Self Determination: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. Republished under a Creative Commons License.

Indigeneity is an unusual way to think about International Relations (IR). Most studies of world politics ignore Indigenous perspectives, which are rarely treated as relevant to thinking about the international (Shaw 2008; Beier 2009). Yet Indigenous peoples are engaging in world politics with a dynamism and creativity that defies the silences of our discipline (Morgan 2011). In Latin America, Indigenous politics has gained international legitimacy, influencing policy for over two decades (Cott 2008; Madrid 2012). Now, Indigenous political movements are focused on resisting extractive projects on autonomous territory from the Arctic to the Amazon (Banerjee 2012; Sawyer and Gómez 2012). Resistance has led to large mobilized protests, invoked international law, and enabled alternative mechanisms of authority. In response, governments have been busy criminalizing Indigenous claims to consultation that challenge extractive models of development. Indigenous opposition to extractivism ultimately promotes self-determination rights, questioning the states’ authority over land by placing its sovereignty into historical context. In that sense, Indigeneity is a valuable approach to understanding world politics as much as it is a critical concept to move beyond state-centrism in the study of IR.

The Consolidation of Indigenous Resistance against Extractivism

Indigenous peoples are contesting extractive projects in various, complementary ways. Collective marches have multiplied as an immediate means of resistance throughout the Americas. In 2012, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador led thousands of people on a 15-day, 400-mile March for Life, Water, and the Dignity of Peoples, demanding a new water law, the end of open-pit mining, and a stop to the expansion of oil concessions. Within days, a similar mobilization took over Guatemala City. The Indigenous, Peasant, and Popular March in Defense of Mother Earth covered 212 kilometers to enter the capital with nearly 15,000 people protesting mining concessions, hydroelectric plants, and evictions. In Bolivia, various marches demanded consultation as the government prepared to build a highway within the Indigenous Territory and National Park Isidoro Sécure (TIPNIS). From Canada’s Idle No More movement to the protests against damming the Xingú River Basin in Brazil, Indigenous movements are rising and demanding they be allowed to participate in decisions affecting their territories.

Protests are at the core of global Indigenous agendas. In 2013, the Fifth Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples of the Abya Yala encouraged communities to step-up resistance in light of the threat posed by state-sponsored extractivism. This is what Indigenous women were doing when they walked from Amazon territories to Quito, Ecuador, denouncing government plans to drill without consultation in the Yasuní reserve. Local protests are not trivial or irrelevant in world politics. Rather, they are part of a larger effort to transform local concerns into international politics.

Indigenous peoples have remarkable expertise in international law and are savvily leveraging their rights to consultation and self-determination guaranteed in the ILO Convention 169 (1989) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (UN General Assembly 2008). They have won emblematic legal battles at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), at times obliging states to recognize Indigenous territorial authority. In the decade-long case of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the IACHR upheld the right of free, prior, and informed consent with a binding sentence against the Ecuadoran State for allowing a foreign oil company to encroach on ancestral lands without consultation during the 1990s. A 2011 petition by communities of the Xingú River basin led the IACHR to order Brazil’s government to halt the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. The Mayan Q’eqchi’ expanded jurisdiction by taking Hudbay Minerals to Court in Canada for crimes committed at an open-pit nickel mine in Guatemala. In Canada, two Manitoba First Nations used their own legal systems in 2013 to serve eviction notices to mining companies operating illegally on their land.1

International pressure is significant, yet states frequently eschew what they perceive to be uncomfortable mechanisms of accountability. Courts may validate Indigenous resistance, and UN reports warn against the catastrophic impact of extractive industries, but Brazil continued to build the Belo Monte Dam and Peru’s government did not consider suspending the Camisea gas project of drilling 18 wells on protected territories that have been home to Amazonian peoples in voluntary isolation (Feather 2014). Nevertheless, states that evade prior consultation obligations only foster Indigenous inventiveness. In the absence of official mechanisms of consultation, people establish autonomous ones. Local communities of the Kimsacocha area took matters in their own hands after years of being ignored, demanding Ecuador’s government consult them on a mining project in the highlands. In 2011, they organized a community-based consultation without the authorization of the state that was nevertheless legitimized by the presence of international observers (Guartambel 2012). The community voted 93% in favour of defending water rights and against mining in the area. Autonomous forms of prior consultation are increasingly common in Latin America. In Guatemala alone, there have been over sixty community-based consultations since 2005 (MacLeod and Pérez 2013).

Contesting States of Extraction

Indigenous resistance has been the target of severe government repression, ranging from judicial intimidation to assassinations of activists. Mobilizations against the Congo mine in Cajamarca, Peru, led President Ollanta Humala to declare a state of emergency and unleash military repression. An estimated 200 activists were killed in Peru between 2006 and 2011 for resisting extractivism (Zibechi 2013). Colombia’s government, in turn, declared protests against the mining industry illegal. In Ecuador, about 200 people have been criminalized for contesting the corporatization of natural resources. Many have been charged with terrorism. Violent repression against TIPNIS protesters in Bolivia revealed that even Evo Morales, Latin America’s first elected Indigenous president, is willing to use force to silence demands for consultation. Various activists opposing the multinational mining giant AngloGlod Ashanti have been assassinated. Argentina’s Plurinational Indigenous Council, which calls for an end to extractivism, has recorded eleven assassinations since 2010. The Observatory of Mining Conflicts in Latin America (OCMAL) estimates there are currently 195 active conflicts due to large-scale mining. Peru and Chile lead the list with 34 and 33 conflicts respectively, followed by Mexico with 28, Argentina with 26, Brazil with 20, and Colombia with 12. Mega-mining alone affects nearly 300 communities, many of which are located on Indigenous territories.

This wave of intense criminalization indicates the expansion of the extractive frontier. In Peru, where anti-extractivist unrest toppled two cabinets under the Humala government and led to the militarization of several provinces, mineral exploration expenditures increased tenfold in a decade. In 2002, 7.5 million hectares of land had been granted to mining companies; by 2012 the figure jumped to almost 26 million hectares, or 20% of the country’s land. Nearly 60% of the province of Apurímac has been granted to mining companies. In Colombia, about 40% of land is licensed to, or being solicited by, multinational companies for mineral and crude mining projects (Peace Brigades International 2011). According to OCMAL, 25% of the Chile’s territory was under exploration or operation as of 2010. In 2013, Mexico’s government opened the state-controlled energy sector to foreign investment, changing legislation to allow private multinationals to prospect for the country’s oil and natural gas resources for the first time since 1938.

The problem is that governments are largely licensing Indigenous land. In 2010, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues reported that Colombian mining concessions had been awarded in 80% of the country’s legally recognized Indigenous territories. Colombia’s government has 8.8 million hectares of Indigenous reserves designated as oil areas and granted 168 mining licenses on Indigenous reserves in 2011. Extractive industries lead to evictions, toxic waste, and resource scarcity, creating conflicts over water, soil, and subsoil. Open-pit mining uses unsustainable amounts of water. The controversial Marlin mine, partly funded by the World Bank in 2004, and today fully owned by Goldcorp, uses in one hour the water that a local family uses over 22 years (Van de Sandt 2009).2 In Chile, mining consumes 37% of the electricity produced in the country – which will reach 50% in a few years – compared to 28% for industry and 16% for the residential sector. This requires the Chilean State to continually expand energy sources, thereby accelerating displacement and the transfer of agricultural land to hydroelectric projects.

Conflicts against extractivism should not be dismissed as only concerning Indigenous peoples. They encompass larger debates about the role of extractivism in politics and contest a development model based on the corporatization of natural resources. In particular, they reveal the continuous role of resource exploitation as a strategy to finance states. Governments are prioritizing extractive industries as key engines of growth, although there is ample evidence that extractive industries create relatively few jobs. President Juan Manuel Santos promised to turn Colombia into a mining powerhouse because it attracts quick investment. Opening Ecuador to mega-mining financed much of President Correa’s third re-election. In fact, his unexpected policy shift to approve drilling within the Yasuní Reserve is explained largely by his government’s urgent need for cash. China, which holds over 35% of Ecuador’s foreign debt and financed 12% of its budget in 2013, buys about 60% of the country’s oil and is expected to pre-buy Yasuní oil (Guevara 2013).

Indigenous claims against extractive projects contest a world system based on predation and usurpation. In Guatemala, mining is managed by long-standing political elites and inscribed in the colonial genealogy of power. In many instances, the entrepreneurs promoting mining today are the scions of the same oligarchical families that have controlled Indigenous land and peoples for centuries (Casaús 2007). The political economy of extractivism encompasses global inequalities of exploitation, within and among states. About 75% of the world’s mining companies are registered in Canada, and most operate in the so-called Global South (Deneault et al. 2012). Extractive industries in the North rely on alliances with national elites to exploit natural resources of peoples and places historically marginalized from power politics.

Indigeneity as a Way to Rethink International Relations

Claims against extractivism are ultimately claims to the right of self-determination. The unilateral expropriation of land for mining today is a continuation of the Doctrine of Discovery. It conceptualized the New World as terra nullis, authorizing colonial powers to conquer and exploit land in the Americas. It also paved the way for a paradigm of domination that outlasted colonial times to evolve into a broader – and more resilient – self-arrogated right of intervention embodied by the modern state (Wallerstein 2006). Today, the idea of “empty” lands survives in extractivist practices. Large-scale mining by multinational corporations perpetuates the human abuse and resource appropriation initiated by Spanish colonizers centuries ago in the Bolivian mines of Potosi. International rights to self-determination may have replaced Papal Bulls, yet the political economy of looting natural resources on Indigenous lands continues, now in the name of development.

In this context, Indigeneity is a privileged site for the study of international relations. First and foremost, the extent and sophistication of Indigenous political praxis is relevant to any explanation of world politics. The rise of anti-extractivism as a politics of contestation against state exploitation calls for alternative sites of governance, such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council (Shadian 2013). Indigenous claims are shaping political practice, framing international legislation, and destabilizing assumptions about stateness. They seek the redistribution of rights as much as the uprooting of the concentration of power in the state. In that sense, Indigenous claims to consultation challenge the authority of states over natural resources as much as Westphalian forms of sovereignty.

Second, Indigeneity disrupts state sovereignty (Ryser 2012). The UNDRIP became the longest and most hotly debated human rights instrument in UN history because the expansion of Indigenous rights is intrinsically related to issues of state authority over territory. Rights to self-determination entail the recognition of plural forms of territorial authority in competition with states. Indigeneity is attributed to peoples who have historically been excluded from projects of state-making. Yet it contributes much more than making visible historically excluded groups. It refers to a politics that both precedes the state and lies outside of it. It is the constitutive “other” of the modern state, marked by a co-constitutive history that explains why Indigenous politics vary depending on different processes of state-formation. Consequently, Indigeneity is vital to a discipline dedicated to studying relations among states precisely because it is intrinsically related to state-formation. Standing outside of, and prior to, the state makes Indigenous standpoints valuable in terms of thinking critically about world politics and imagining what post-national political assemblages may look like (Sassen 2008).

Finally, Indigeneity is a strategic perspective in expanding scholarly debates on what constitutes IR. Indigenous experiences complement and broaden official national histories with forgotten or repressed narratives (O’Brien 2010), thus expanding methodological assumptions on how to do IR (Jackson 2010). Its precedence over the modern state encompasses alternative worldviews to think about the international beyond stateness. Indigeneity thus defies core epistemological foundations about power. In particular, it historicizes the state and sovereignty, moving away from Eurocentric conceptions of the world (Hobson 2012) and breaking with the discipline’s unreflective tendencies (Tickner 2013). The vibrancy of Indigenous struggles not only confirms the inadequacy of the state, echoing calls to provincialize Europe’s political legacies (Chakrabarty 2000), but it also provides concrete experiences of what the international can actually look like within and beyond the state (Tickner and Blaney 2013). Indigeneity is therefore doubly valuable for world politics. In addition to contributing alternative praxis of the international, it instigates critical theory to expand disciplinary borders.

Conclusion

Indigeneity is a valuable category of analysis for world politics. Indigenous experiences offer a fuller understanding of the world we live in. Integrating indigenous perspectives in the study of IR speaks to the ability to extend our political practice beyond the ivory tower. It is not a category of analysis that concerns merely Indigenous peoples, just as racism is not a matter for people of African descent only, or post-colonial studies the domain of previously colonized societies. The entire thrust of Indigeneity is that the non-state is the business of the state, and that there are alternative pathways available to decolonize the discipline.

Stripping IR of its state-centrism invites us to reflect upon the entrenched colonialism of international relations. Indigenous perspectives will hopefully inspire scholars to adventure beyond the conventional borders of the discipline. After all, opening an alternative locus of authority is nothing short of revolutionary.

Article originally published in E-IR’s free-to-download Edited Collection, Restoring Indigenous Self Determination: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. Republished under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license

References
Banerjee, S. (2012) Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Beier, J.M. (2009) International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity, Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Casaús, M. E. (2007) Guatemala: Linaje y racismo. Guatemala: F&G Editores.
Chakrabarty, D. (2008) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cott, D.L.V. (2008) Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deneault, A., Denis, M. and Sacher, W. (2012) Paradis sous terre: comment le Canada est devenu la plaque tournante de l’industrie minie`re mondiale. Montre´al: E´cosocie´te´.
Feather, C. (2014) Violating rights and threatening lives: The Camisea gas project and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation. Moreton-in-Marsh, United Kingdom: Forest Peoples Programme.
Guartambel, C.P. (2012) Agua u oro: Kimsacocha, la resistencia por el água. Cuenca, Ecuador: Universidad Estatal de Cuenca.
Guevara, F. E. (2013, December 10) “La explotación del Yasuní: reprimarizacioón de la economía del Ecuador.” Opción- Ecuador.
Hobson, J.M. (2012) The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, P.T. (2010) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York: Routledge.
MacLeod, M. and Pérez, C. (2013) Tu’n Tklet Qnan Tx’otx’, Q’ixkojalel, b’ix Tb’anil Qanq’ib’il, En defensa de la Madre Tierra, sentir lo que siente el otro, y el buen vivir. La lucha de Doña Crisanta contra Goldcorp. México: CeActl.
Madrid, R.L. (2012) The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, R. (2011) Transforming Law and Institution: Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate.
O’Brien, J.M. (2010) Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Peace Brigades International. (2011) “Mining in Colombia: At What Cost?” Colombia Newsletter, 18: 1–47.
33
Self-Determination as Anti-Extractivism
Ryser, R.C. (2012) Indigenous Nations and Modern States: The Political Emergence of Nations Challenging State Power. New York: Routledge.
Sassen, S. (2008) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sawyer, S. and Gomez, E.T. (2012) The Politics of Resource Extraction: Indigenous Peoples, Multinational Corporations and the State. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shadian, J.M. (2013) The Politics of Arctic Sovereignty: Oil, Ice and Inuit Governance. New York: Routledge.
Shaw, K. (2008) Indigeneity and Political Theory: Sovereignty and the limits of the political. New York: Routledge.
Tickner, A.B. (2013) “Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations, 19(3): 627–46.
Tickner, A.B. and Blaney, D.L. (2013) Claiming the International. New York: Routledge.
UN General Assembly. (2008) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. 2 October 2007, UN. Doc. A/RES/61/295.
Van de Sandt, J. (2009) Mining Conflicts and Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala. The Hague: Cordaid.
Wallerstein, I.M. (2006) European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: The New Press.
Zibechi, R. (2013, October 27) “Latin America Rejects the Extractive Model in the Streets.” Americas Program. Available at: http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/10983 (Accessed 29 January 2014).Endnotes
1 A delegation from the Red Sucker Lake First Nation descended on the work camp of Mega Precious Metals, Inc., a mineral exploration company, to stop them from working and demand that they vacate the land immediately. The Mathias Colomb First Nation issued a similar order to Hudbay Mining and Smelting Co., Ltd. and the Province of Manitoba.
2 According to the company’s own social and environmental impact report, the Marlin mine consumes about 250 thousand liters of water every hour (MacLeod and Pérez 2013).

radio
Chris Hedges

Tod@s debemos ser zapatistas

We All Must Become Zapatistas, By Chris Hedges

We All Must Become Zapatistas

Posted on Jun 1, 2014

By Chris Hedges

Subcomandante Marcos, the spokesman for the Zapatistas (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, or EZLN), has announced that his rebel persona no longer exists. He had gone from being a “spokesman to a distraction,” he said last week. His persona, he said, fed an easy and cheap media narrative. It turned a social revolution into a cartoon for the mass media. It allowed the commercial press and the outside world to ignore traditional community leaders and indigenous commanders and wrap a movement around a fictitious personality. His persona, he said, trivialized a movement. And so this persona is no more.

“The entire system, but above all its media, plays the game of creating celebrities who it later destroys if they don’t yield to its designs,” Marcos declared.

The Zapatistas form the most important resistance movement of the last two decades. They are a visible counterweight to the despoiling and rape of the planet and the subjugation of the poor by global capitalism. And they have repeatedly reinvented themselves—as Marcos has now done—to survive. The Zapatistas gave global resistance movements a new language, drawn in part from the indigenous communal Mayan culture, and a new paradigm for action. They understood that corporate capitalism had launched a war against us. They showed us how to fight back. The Zapatistas began by using violence, but they soon abandoned it for the slow, laborious work of building 32 autonomous, self-governing municipalities. Local representatives from Juntas de Buen Gobierno, or Councils of Good Government, which is not recognized by the Mexican government, preside over these independent Zapatista communities. The councils oversee community programs that distribute food, set up clinics and schools and collect taxes. Resources are for those who live in the communities, not for the corporations that come to exploit them. And in this the Zapatistas allow us to see the future, at least a future where we have a chance of surviving. (Continuar leyendo…)

radio
JBG-EZLN

GGC-EZLN Denounce Paramilitaries from CIOAC

Sorry, this entry is only available in Mexican Spanish. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

JUNTA DE BUEN GOBIERNO HACIA LA ESPERANZA DENUNCIA ENÉRGICAMENTE A LOS PARAMILITARES CIOAQUISTAS ORGANIZADOS POR LOS 3 NIVELES DE LOS MALOS GOBIERNOS EN CONTRA DE NUESTROS PUEBLOS BASES DE APOYO DEL EJERCITO ZAPATISTA DE LIBERACIÓN NACIONAL-EZLN

JUNTA DE BUEN GOBIERNO
HACIA LA ESPERANZA

CARACOL I

MADRE DE LOS CARACOLES

MAR DE NUESTROS SUEÑOS

LA REALIDAD, CHIAPAS, MEXICO

A 5 DE MAYO DEL 2014

DENUNCIA PÚBLICA

A LA SOCIEDAD CIVIL NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL

A LOS ALUMNOS Y ALUMNAS DE LA ESCUELITA

A LOS COMPAÑERAS Y COMPAÑEROS DE LA SEXTA EN MEXICO Y EN EL MUNDO

A LOS ORGANISMOS INDEPENDIENTES DE DERECHOS HUMANOS

A LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACION ALTERNATIVOS

A LA PRENSA NACIONAL E INTERNACIONAL

A TODAS LAS PERSONAS HONESTAS DE MEXICO Y DEL MUNDO.

Compañeros y compañeras, hermanos y hermanas, denunciamos enérgicamente los paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS organizados por los 3 niveles de los malos gobiernos en contra de nuestros pueblos bases de apoyo del Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación nacional- EZLN.

Porque el día 16 de marzo del año en curso cuando estábamos realizando una campaña de la otra salud autónoma con nuestros pueblos zapatistas, ubicado en el municipio autónomo General Emiliano Zapata con sede en Amador Hernández, los paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS de la Realidad nos detuvieron la camioneta de la Junta de buen Gobierno que transportaba los medicamentos para nuestra campaña, con el pretexto de los dos camiones de grava que aportaron nuestros compañeros bases de apoyo de la Realidad, para la construcción de un dormitorio para promotores y promotoras de la clínica autónoma municipal del municipio San Pedro Michoacana con sede en la realidad.

1.- Como el pretexto: antes había acuerdo que usen la grava. Pero los paramilitares de la Realidad lo están usando para construir gallineros y chiqueros que les dan como casa digna los malos gobiernos, pero los paramilitares ya no permiten que nuestros compañeros usen esa grava, fue el pretexto de esto.

Como paramilitares, organizado por los tres niveles de malos gobiernos preparados para la campaña de contrainsurgencia, provocaron a nuestros compañeros zapatistas y fueron en contra de la junta de Buen gobierno, porque en vez de detener el camión que transportaba la grava, detienen al vehículo que está al servicio de la salud de miles de zapatistas, nunca quisieron entender para resolver, y el dirigente de los paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS es el Javier López Rodríguez comisariado ejidal, Carmelino Rodríguez Jiménez agente de los paramilitares, Jaime Rodríguez Gómez, Eduardo Santiz Santiz, Álvaro Santiz Rodríguez, Oscar Rodríguez Gómez.

Esto es un pretexto de provocación por la grava, porque hay un acuerdo de la comunidad que la grava es comunal, los paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS de la Realidad ellos están usando la grava para la construcción de chiqueros que dice el mal gobierno casa digna.

Entonces los compañeros pensaron que igual tienen derecho de usar.

Los paramilitares de la Realidad están pagados, organizados, dirigidos y entrenados por los tres niveles de los malos gobiernos para dividirnos, provocarnos a los pueblos zapatistas y al gobierno autónomo zapatista, la cosa lo voltearon, fueron en contra de la Junta de Buen gobierno.

Como Junta quisimos resolver pero ellos nunca quisieron entender, porque los dirigentes paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS de la Realidad son ellos que llevan su gente en contra de la junta de Buen gobierno y así no se pudo resolver y lo llevaron arrastrando la camioneta de la Junta de Buen Gobierno hasta la casa ejidal que hasta hoy día está en sus manos.

2.- Viendo así como Junta de Buen Gobierno creíamos de que habia entendimiento con los otros dirigentes paramilitares CIOQUISTAS HISTORICA es decir a los lideres paramilitares Luis Hernández, José Antonio Vázquez Hernández, Roberto Alfaro Velasco, Alfredo Cruz Calvo, Juan Carlos López Calvo, Romeo Jiménez Rodríguez, Víctor García López, Conrado Hernández Pérez, Gustavo Morales López y Roberto Méndez Vázquez, y acompañados por algunos de sus militantes como Adrián López Velásquez, Cesar Hernández Santiz de la comunidad Victoria la paz. Bernardo Román Méndez, Enrique Méndez Méndez, son del Ejido Miguel Hidalgo. Misael Jiménez Pérez, Vidal Jiménez Pérez, Marconi Jiménez Pérez de Guadalupe Tepeyac. Ismael Garcia Perez de San José la esperanza. Y otros cómplices que maniobran a fuera: Gilberto Jiménez Hernández, Delmar Jiménez Jiménez, Gerardo Hernandez Perez, estos tres son jefes paramilitares que operan en Guadalupe Tepeyac.

Y otros de Guadalupe los Altos Julio Rodriguez Aguilar, Carmellino Rodriguez Aguilar, Ranulfo Hernandez Aguilar y Alejandro Vazquez, y de San Carlos Veracruz Gaudencio Jimenez jimenez que trabaja en la presidencia municipal de las Margaritas, Gabriel Grene Hernandez, Isauro Mendez Santiz, Ivan Mendez Dominguez, Fidel Mendez Zantiz, Alfredo Mendez Rodriguez, estos de Veracruz anexo de San Carlos.

3.- Sabiendo sus actitudes de estos líderes paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS es decir la banda de los Luises, acudimos primero con los Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolomé de las casas, le explicamos los actos de provocaciones que nos hicieron y que fuera el frayba a explicarle a los Luises y entregarle la citatoria con fecha 31 de marzo, que hubo una primera citatoria una segunda y una tercera ,la respuesta fue que si la citatoria es por los problemas con los CIOAQUISTAS de Guadalupe los Altos, Santa Rosa el Copan, Diez de Abril, San Francisco o en San Jose el Puente, que si es por eso lo desconocen y Frayba lo explico de la situación por la citatoria y además en la citatoria especifica el problema CIOAQUISTA de los paramilitares de la Realidad, pero no se presentaron.

4.- Mandamos de nuevo como segunda citatoria es a través de Frayba y la respuesta fue que van a llegar y nunca llegaron.

Viendo esto con preocupación tuvimos que acudir en las oficinas de frayba dándole mas amplio el sentido del llamado y que fueran a decirles los líderes paramilitares Luises, hasta esa tercera citatoria se presentan y como testigo pedimos su presencia a frayba de una solución pacífica y ellos pusieron la fecha que es el primero de mayo del presente año.

5.-Primero llegaron Roberto Alfaro Velasco que es el secretario de la organización CIOAC y Alfredo Cruz Calvo secretario de transporte, uno de ellos Alfredo Cruz Calvo salió a hablar con sus compañeros paramilitares CIOAQUISTAS de la Realidad y como los ha enseñado a ellos sus actitudes no fue comprendido eso fue lo que nos dijo a su regreso con nosotros como Junta de Buen gobierno y nos dieron la propuesta que van a salir uno de ellos a hablar con otros líderes paramilitares de la Realidad y esto fue la maña porque no fue a hablar con los paramilitares de la Realidad sino que fue a hablar con el jefe paramilitar los Luises, se regresa Alfredo quien supuestamente salió a hablar con los paramilitares de la Realidad, ahora ya regresa con 15 personas a decirnos que diéramos su libertad a Roberto Alfaro o sea no viene por el problema y es propuesta de ellos que van a quedar uno de ellos para hablar con los lideres de la Realidad.

Una vez estando empieza la discusión de ellos aclarándoles por Roberto Alfaro que no esta secuestrado ni detenido y los 15 que llegaron obligándolo a Roberto Alfaro que acepte que esta detenido y secuestrado y todo esto el Frayba es testigo, siempre estuvo su presencia, Roberto Alfaro pidió con esos 15 a que hablaran con los paramilitares de la Realidad y no aceptaron esos 15, el dia 2 de mayo estábamos llegando a un acuerdo por allí de las 5 y 6 de la tarde, que al otro dia íbamos a entablar otro día de dialogo lo que habían hecho esos 15 con el jefe paramilitar los Luises, ya estaban organizando otra cosa a fuera, en la tarde del dia 2 de mayo estaban llegando compañeros bases de apoyo zapatista en nuestro Caracol para hacer otros trabajo como zona y esto paramilitares ya estaban emboscados en la entrada de la comunidad para agredir a nuestros compañeros.

Los paramilitares de la Realidad ya estaban organizados y el plan de lo que iban a hacer, estaban en 2 grupos, un grupo en la entrada de la comunidad y otro grupo en el centro armados con armas largas y corta- machetes, garrotes y piedras, antes de llevar a cabo el asesinato empezaron con la provocación destruyendo la escuela autónoma de nuestros compañeros bases de apoyo de la comunidad, cortan la tubería de agua de nuestros compañeros zapatistas y del centro del caracol, nosotros nada más lo vimos y escuchamos, en esos momentos estaban llegando ya los compañeros por los otros trabajos de la zona, inmediatamente los paramilitares de la Realidad fueron a emboscar en la carretera en la entrada de la comunidad y empezaron a agredir a nuestros compañeros con piedras, garrotes, destruyendo la parabrisas de los camiones como pudieron bajaron de los camiones nuestros compañeros y se defendieron, nosotros como Junta de Buen Gobierno nos dan la información inmediata de que ya son agredidos nuestros compañeros y salen otros compañeros que se encontraban en el caracol haciendo trabajos para ayudarlos pero ya no pudieron llegar, fueron atacados en el medio del poblado con armas de fuego y allí es donde cae nuestro compañero José Luis Solís López, maestro de zona de la escuelita por la libertad según las y los zapatistas, recibió una bala en la pierna derecha y otro en el pecho derecho con bala de calibre 22, con machetazo en la boca y lo rematan con un tiro de gracia a tras de la cabeza del mismo calibre y con varios garrotazos en la espalda.

Tenemos otros compañeros heridos de balas, de machetes, de garrotes y piedras:
-Romeo Jimenez Lopez herido de bala uno en la pierna derecha y otro en la pierna izquierda, de bala calibre 22.
-Andulio Gomez lopez con un rozon de bala en el pecho-calibre 22.
El compañero Abacuc Jimenez Lopez herido con machete en el brazo derecho.
El compañero Yadiel Jimenez Lopez herido de machete tambien en el brazo derecho.
El compañero Efrain herido de piedra en la cabeza
el compañeros Gerardo herido de piedra en la boca
el compañeros Ignacio herido de piedra en la mano derecho y en la ceja.
el compañero Esau herido de piedra en la ceja.
el compañero Noe herido de piedra en la cabeza
el compañero Saul golpeado y por piedra en el brazo derecho
el compañero Elder Darinel con golpes en el cuello
el compañero Hector herido en el ojo por piedra
el compañero Marin golpe en la boca destruyendole los dientes con piedra
el compaeñeo Nacho herido en la mano y el ojo con machete y piedra
el compañero jairo golpes en la espalda
Nuestros compañeros fueron traslados en nuestros hospital escuela la primera esperanza compañero Pedro, para su atención

6.-Desmenttimos enérgicamente que nosotros estábamos armados, si fuera así el resultado seria otra cosa, esto paso a las 8.30 de la noche del dia 2 de mayo.

Esa bola de líderes paramilitares o sea los 15 que estaban con nosotros se les dijo que salieran a controlar a su gente pero ninguno de ellos quisieron salir.

7.-Hoy 5 de mayo vimos que dice el mal gobierno de Chiapas que han detenido a 5 personas uno de ellos si es el líder paramilitar dela CIOAC que es Conrado Hernández Pérez, los otros no los conocemos, pero ellos si se conocen sobre todo el máximo jefe paramilitar Manuel Velasco Cuello y también sabe el supremo líder paramilitar de Peña Nieto, pero: los asesinos criminales paramilitares quien le quitaron la vida y le dieron tiro de gracia a nuestro compañero Jose luis Solis lopez no están detenidos, siguen estando en la Realidad continúan provocando y seguirán porque es el plan del supremo paramilitar y el máximo paramilitar en Chiapas y los jefes paramilitares de CIOAC.

8.- Como pueden ver en lo que les contamos, en todo momento estuvo presente el Centro de Derecho Humanos Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas. Por eso no dijimos rápido nuestra palabra sobre lo sucedido. Por respeto a su mediación y a su palabra imparcial, esperamos a que el Frayba dijera su palabra como neutrales que son en todos los problemas que son su trabajo. En su palabra del Frayba ahora pueden ver directamente quién está diciendo mentira y dónde está la verdad, según quienes estuvieron presentes y no son de ningún grupo.

9.- Ahora se ve claramente que todo lo que salió en la prensa de paga es mentira. Nunca hubo un enfrentamiento. Lo que pasó fue un ataque en contra nuestra.

10.-Viendo todo este problema y el cobarde asesinato de nuestro compañero Galeano, la Junta de Buen Gobierno decidió retirar su participación y hemos decidido pasar a las manos de la Comandancia General del Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional todo el asunto, para que investigue bien y para que se haga justicia. Ahora hay que esperar lo que dicen nuestros compañeros del EZLN.

ATENTAMENTE

JUNTA DE BUEN GOBIERNO

HACIA LA ESPERANZA

ZONA SELVA FRONTERIZA

http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2014/05/05/junta-de-buen-gobierno-hacia-la-esperanza-denuncia-energicamente-a-los-paramilitares-cioaquistas-organizados-por-los-3-niveles-de-los-malos-gobiernos-en-contra-de-nuestros-pueblos-bases-de-apoyo-del-e/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EnlaceZapatista+%28Enlace+Zapatista%29

Página 26 de 34« Primera...1020...2425262728...Última »