Rosalina Tuyuc: Maya activist and congressional deputy, Guatemala

What has the recent signing of the Peace Accords
between the government and the Guatemalan National
Revolutionary Unity (URNG) guerrilla movement meant
for you?
As women who were victims of the armed con-
flict, we believe that this is an opportunity to
promote the participation of all sectors of soci-
ety. The Peace Accords only provide general guide-
lines for the construction of a different state. This is the
opportunity for the state to be transformed into a space
of participation for everyone. Yet achieving this will
generate conflict because the problems which gave rise
to the conflict in the first place are still present. The
only accomplishment of the Peace Accords is that that
they confirm the end of the armed conflict. This means
that, we will still have to engage in many struggles if
we are to make changes in the judicial, executive and
legislative arenas.
At the national level, what changes are necessary for the
implementation of the Peace Accords?
What is most important is that the ruling party legis-
late on the basis of consensus and not on the basis of its
slight majority in Congress. It is not advisable for any
party with just a simple majority in Congress to claim
that it is going to transform this country. This is also a
responsibility of the opposition. We must recognize that
this is the government of all Guatemalans, despite the
fact that many of us did not vote for it.
Do you think that the Peace Accords are being utilized by
the dominant sectors of the country and that they are
not attending to the interests of the majority of the pop-
ulation?
In practice this has been the case, particularly with
the Law of National Reconciliation, which is one of the
first laws of the Peace Accords. This legislation was not
based on consensus. It does not represent the feelings of
the majority of Guatemalans. This is also the case with
two recent laws-one concerning the national police
and the other regarding public enterprises–both of
which passed with only a simple majority. Popular
protest in defense of public enterprises has been
ignored.
What is CONAVIGUA’s position with respect to the Law
of National Reconciliation?
We opposed this law because we believe that it will
be impossible for the victims to submit proof of all that
happened to them during the period of army repression
in the 1980s. There must be trials and punishment for
those responsible, not forgiveness or amnesty. Anyone
29
0
0
29 Vot XXXI, No 1 JuLY/AUG 1997
I G U A T E M A L AVOICES ON THE LEFT
can file a request for amnesty. The
only one of our proposals that the
negotiating parties accepted was
that perpetrators of crimes like kid-
napping, torture and massacres
could not receive amnesty. The only
thing that remains to be done with
the current law is for the courts to
examine each case and determine
how to proceed.
Approximately how many cases do
you think CONAVIGUA will be pre- senting to the Human Rights
Commission?
We do not know yet. The infor-
mation is still incomplete. Right
now only a few cases have been
presented to the Commission, and
only a few of the hundreds of clan-
destine cemeteries are currently
being excavated. There are other
cases as well. The problem is that
The only
accomplishment of
the Peace Accords is
that they confirm the
end of the armed
conflict. We will still
have to engage in many
struggles if we are to
make fundamental
changes.
we have not collected statistics since the 1980s. All the
compafieras come to us with their testimonies but they
are still not in written form. Only some of these stories
have been written down.
What was the role of CONAVIGUA during the negotia-
tion process that led to the signing of the Accords?
We were the first to fight for the establishment of the
National Commission for Reconciliation as well as for
the installation of the UN Mission. We made these
demands in the streets, in front of the government
palace, and in the interior of the country, because we
thought it was important to strengthen the importance
of the Human Rights Accord in Guatemala. This has
been one of the principal tasks to which CONAVIGUA
has contributed. Because almost all of us are victims of
the war, we are the most interested in the peace process.
Although we are not taken into account in the decision-
making process, perhaps because we are campesina
women, we are the ones who have most strongly sup-
ported the negotiations because we are the ones who
have lived through war.
What role did you play during the dialogue that pre-
ceded the Accords? Did CONAVIGUA make its proposals
directly to the government and to the URNG?
Yes. From the outset of the dialogue, we began to dis-
cuss the contents of the Agreement on the Identity and
Rights of Indigenous Peoples with various organiza-
tions. For over four years we continued this discussion
in order to arrive at a consensus. We focused on the
think must end.
rights of indigenous women, on the
agreement about reparations for vic-
tims and displaced people, and on the
strengthening of civilian authority.
Did you participate in the talks about
the ceasefire and the demobilization
and reinsertion of combatants?
Those were more operational ques-
tions, therefore civil society was not
allowed to participate. Operational
issues like these were resolved exclu-
sively by the government and the
URNG.
How is CONAVIGUA preparing itself to
participate in the process of consoli-
dating the Accords?
Our main focus will be to create a
Center for the Defense of Indigenous
Women, and addressing two key
issues: displaced people and compul-
sory military conscription, which we
CONAVIGUA, as a member of COP-
MAGUA and of the organizations of displaced people,
hopes to be taken into account the by commission over-
seeing the implementation of the Accords.
In Guatemala some analysts have pointed out that the
social movements of the 1980s have kept a very low pro-
file during the negotiations, that they have taken a more
passive attitude during the peace process. Do you agree
with this?
I believe so, but there is a reason for this. As a social
movement that promotes human rights and campesino
and indigenous rights, we placed too much hope in the
peace process. We were the only ones who expected
that the agreements could be fully implemented. With
all that has happened, we have realized that we
expected too much and that we were too trusting.
Protests have already reappeared. We are back out on
the streets again. This is not, as many seem to think,
because the URNG was at the helm before, and now
that there is peace it is not. Organizations like CONAV-
IGUA have always struggled. What happened is that the
media rarely covered our struggle. There is always a
resistance on the part of the media to write about
protests. This is part of the reason. It is not that we have
sold out, but that we placed too much hope in this
process.
In general, do you think that people today are more or
less willing to mobilize than they were five or ten years
ago?
The first example occurred last week, with the first
mobilization against the current government’s eco-
SNCIA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS 30VOICES ON THE LEFT
nomic policies. I think that greater mobilization is the
direction in which we are heading. A similar protest has
been announced, for example, for this week. And, if
you consider all the protests that have taken place in the
interior, it shows that there is a profound discontent
among the entire population. Today, the government
doesn’t have the same attitude it did at the negotiating
table. There is an incongruence here.
In the long term, what do you think is the future of
CONAVIGUA?
We are going to continue working as we are presently
doing. I think it is very unlikely that CONAVIGUA will
disappear any time soon. It has taken us 500 years to
address the problem of indigenous women-and cer-
tainly, this government will not be passing any legisla-
tion that protects our rights in the near future. For us,
the Accords are a first step in recognizing our rights, but
there are other rights which they do not address.
CONAVIGUA will have to continue working to obtain
these rights. This is still a very powerful challenge for
women, particularly because we are the ones who have
suffered most from the violence and other social prob-
lems like illiteracy.
How would you describe the present state of the indig-
enous movement in Guatemala?
It would be difficult to say that there is a well orga-
nized movement. The little that we have right now is
quite new. Unfortunately, the indigenous movement
was disarticulated starting with the repression of the
1980s, and this has made it difficult to build a strong
movement. We have made important steps in the past
few years, and some organizations have flourished, but
there is still a very long way to go.
There is also a fear to organize that continues to limit
our ability to regain our strength. The strongest organi-
zation we have is COPMAGUA, which brings together
nongovernmental organizations from the popular sec-
tors, research centers, academics and Mayan priests. It
serves as an umbrella for certain sectors of society, but
many groups are absent considering that there are
between four and five million indigenous people in
Guatemala.
What do you think of the positions within the indige-
nous movement that maintain the need for a separate
Mayan state, parallel to the Ladino state, with its own
institutions, norms and codes?
This would be ideal, but at the moment these posi-
tions are premature. We are attempting to work within
the state that exists today. In two or three years time we
can assess whether or not it is really worthwhile to be a
part of this state or whether we should form another.
What we see is that neither indigenous peoples, nor
women, nor men can expect to bring about change on
their own. If we recognize our diversity and struggle
against our national problems, we will be able to
accomplish something. As indigenous people we are
just starting. There is much work yet to be done.
What do you think is the greatest challenge facing the
indigenous movement today?
The greatest challenge is to obtain legal recognition
of indigenous peoples’ rights. Many existing laws are
discriminatory. Obtaining full recognition of our legal, economic, social and cultural rights would be the first
step. The Constitution does not recognize our rights, so
this is something we are working on.
How would you define the current state of the progres-
sive movement in Guatemala?
It is difficult to define. After what happened in the
1980s, it is slowly beginning to gain momentum.
Disagreements arise around whether this or that is cap-
italism, socialism, Communism, Marxism and all that.
Because we have felt hunger and humiliation, we do not
categorize our ideas in this way. We simply want justice
and the opportunity to be included in the making of
decisions that affect our lives.
What has it meant for you as an indigenous woman to
be a deputy in the National Congress and also to have
been elected as the third vice-president of the congres-
sional steering committee for this period?
Reaching this point has had immense costs. Much
blood has been spilled, and many brothers and sisters
have lost their lives for these gains. We are here not
because this government is democratic, but because of
all the struggles we have fought to get here. I dedicate
this space to all the struggles fought by the women of
CONAVIGUA. If it wasn’t for their determination, we
would not be here. Personally, I would be no one with-
out these women’s struggle.
Why do you think you were so criticized for accepting
the third vice-presidency of the Congress?
This is a reflection of the same discriminatory senti-
ment that has permeated our society for centuries.
Either because one is a woman or because one is
indigenous, they are always trying to buy one’s ideas
and work. The criticisms do not stem solely from the
fact that I am a woman, but from my bringing my child
to Congress. As an indigenous campesina woman, per-
sonal criticism is the cost for trying to balance my cul-
tural beliefs and practices. I have to bring my baby; an
indigenous woman always carries her baby with her.
These attacks are always due to discrimination.