Translate

20 Feb 2013

Mediators' Position in Armed Conflicts (Zapatista case)

(a Russian opinion or, rather, question relating to the well-known Mexico's event)

It seems interesting how Mexican CONAI (National Comission for Intermediation) defines their moral position while negotiating the peace between government and indigenous rebels.

The CONAI was created in 1995 by Chiapas bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia with views to help establish the peace process after armed rebellion by EZLN ( indigenous neo-Zapatistas) which took place on 1 January 1994. Immediately after the conflict, a very unstable truce was established in Chiapas, so bishop Samuel Ruiz put forward his peace initiative proposing himself and his Commission as mediators between the rebels (who were mostly of his congretation) and the government.  Soon CONAI was recognised by then Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari as a lawful mediator between the EZLN and Government representatives.

Anyway, after three-year process of peace negotiations, in 1998 the CONAI withdrew from the negotiation process.  Bishop Ruiz explained this action as a protest again government's infulfilment of San-Andres Accords.  In response to this claim, he was accused by various officials of "evading his mediator's duty" and "non-neutrality".  Indeed, mediators' code of conduct reads that they shall be neutral and promote the process of negotiation by being impartial and free of any personal or political preferences, as well as be adamant against any external pressure.

Miguel Alvarez Gandara, then CONAI Secretary, explained the  Commission's moral position by arguing their moral standpoint:

The CONAI, -  he said, - was an independent entity which was impartial to all parties in the conflict. The accusations of non-neutrality refer mostly to CONAI's moral position which they assumed from the very beginning of the armed conflict - the CONAI was seeking to build the type of negotiation which would eliminate the real roots of the conflict, and namesly, disrespect and exclusion of indigenous peoples of Mexico. The only resolution of the conflict, as it was seen by multiple experts, opposition politicians, observers and majority of Mexicans, might be found  only in pursuing the appropriate and relevant constitutional reforms granting indigenous peoples the status of "public law entities", not "objects" by public law to be easily manipulated by unstable and ever changing political situation.

Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, one of the Mexican most prominent intellectuals, ex rector of the UNAM (Autonomous University of Mexico) and a former member of CONAI,   formed this standpoint by saying that he "cannot remain neutral while facing the truth."

Shall a mediator be neutral as it is demanded by his/her job position?  Shall he/she seek the real solution of the conflict, or confine himself with pacification measures only? What is the real objective of political mediation?