Rigoberta Menchu Turn, a Quich6 Maya, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992 in recognition of her work on behalf of indigenous peoples and
poor ladinos in Guatemala. With the prize money, she established a
foundation in her name to continue the same work. In early 1994, she
returned to Guatemala after 13 years in exile in Mexico. In anticipation of the
December, 1995 national elections, her foundation launched a National
Campaign for Civic Participation, a non-partisan effort to encourage women
and indigenous people to vote. Her decision not to take sides in the election
angered some in the Guatemalan left, with whom she had collaborated in the
1980s. MenchO was interviewed in February in the foundation’s New York
office by the NACLA editors.
W at motivated you to
return to Guatemala in
1994?
I decided to go back because I
wanted the headquarters of the
Rigoberta Menchd Tum Foundation
to be in Guatemala. Only by getting
to know the country again would we
figure out what our work should be
and define the nature of the founda-
tion. In exile, I had begun to roman-
ticize Guatemala a lot, to idealize it
as the promised land. In the process,
I had lost sight of so many things. I
wanted to reconnect with the land,
to find out how the popular move-
ment was doing, and in particular, to
understand the situation of indige-
nous peoples and their struggle. I
asked myself when the security con-
ditions would be better for my
return. My desire to go back was so
great that I decided to do it regard-
less of the risks. In retrospect, I
don’t think it was a mistake. The
conditions are not the same as
before.
How have things changed?
You can no longer simply say no
to elections, no to the government,
and no to the system. An immense
number of people are working to
gain political power at the local
level. For example, numerous civic
committees participated in the
December, 1995 elections. The
Maya organizations had gained
quite a bit of influence in many
places as well. Anyone who scoffed
at the electoral process was running
up against a budding democracy at
the local level.
There is still immense insecurity
and serious human rights viola-
tions. Many people are kidnapped
and killed on a daily basis. Yet
things are not as bad as they were
15 years ago. The civil-defense
patrols in the countryside, for
example, are not the same as those
first implemented by Efrain Rios
Montt during his dictatorship in the
early 1980s. Then, they were run by
bloody and ruthless killers who
controlled the population. Today,
the patrols still exist but the prob-
lems are more localized. Some peo-
ple feel proud to have weapons in
their hands, and act like caciques
who repress and threaten people.
These people are sheltered by the
military institution. Because of that
protection, they commit crimes
without any scruples.
But people are losing their fear of
all this. Our message in the nation-
al campaign to promote citizen par-
ticipation was: “Vote against fear.”
The civic committees which partic-
NACIAREPORT ON THE AMERICAS
5
a
6UPDATE / GUATEMALA
“Conditions
in Guatemala
are not the same
as before.
You can no longer
simply say no to
elections, no to the
government,
no to the system.”
ipated in the elections had over-
come their fear of the civil-defense
patrols, of the blackmail, of the mil-
itary. There was also a certain rejec-
tion of war. The war has caused a
lot of damage, it has divided com-
munities, it has brought confronta-
tion. It was a moment to say no to
the war.
How did you perceive your role in
the December 1995 national elec-
tions?
I thought that my role as Nobel
laureate should be to dedicate
myself to civic education, teaching
people about their rights as citizens.
The foundation launched the
National Campaign for Civic
Participation, a multilingual voter-
education program. We held meet-
ings and workshops in 30 important
regions of the country. We broad-
cast information on 43 radio sta-
tions and two television stations.
We went to communities to talk
with people about the importance
of voting.
Early on, there were rumors that
the opposition-the popular move-
ments, the human rights organiza-
tions, the non-governmental orga-
nizations-would participate in the
elections. We decided not to align
ourselves with any part of the oppo-
sition, whether traditional or non-
traditional. We had absolutely no
relationship with any of the 24
political parties that took part in the
elections, or with the 19 presiden-
tial candidates. We really guarded
our autonomy.
In the past, I have worked in con-
cert with other opposition groups,
the most militant compaiieros, but
there comes a time when the popu-
lation is so fragmented that it’s wis-
est to play a unifying role. Nobody
represents all the people. So
Catholics would feel disappointed
and say that I was sectarian if I sup-
ported the evangelicals, and vice
versa. I had the opportunity to unite
many more people and sectors than
any presidential candidate or any
political party. A Nobel laureate
can’t aspire to be a member of par-
liament, much less a cabinet minis-
ter. I have a much wider space than
that to operate in.
Do you think that participation in
electoral politics is the way to
democratize the state in Guate-
mala?
I think so. What is the alternative
in Guatemala? Is it the seizure of
power by an armed insurgency
through a revolution? I believe that
option no longer exists. The democ-
ratization of the country is going to
come from civic participation. For
example, 50% of women in
Guatemala in rural areas aren’t
even registered to vote. The day
when these women participate, they
are going to make changes, they
will elect better authorities. In the
national elections in 1990, 80% of
the people abstained from voting.
This high abstention rate reflects
the lack of credibility and confi-
dence in the system. People don’t
believe in the political parties and
state institutions because so many
promises have been left unfulfilled
and because there is a lot of corrup-
tion. But abstaining from voting is
not the solution. For so many years,
we’ve abstained from political
involvement, but we haven’t
achieved anything that way. So now
we are dedicated to making people
aware of the importance of partici-
pation.
Maya organizations have tradition-
ally organized at the local level.
What are the obstacles to moving
into the national arena?
The current government is pro-
foundly non-indigenous. There are
two sectors missing in this adminis-
tration: women and indigenous peo-
ple. The state is profoundly ladino,
and lacks channels for indigenous
participation. We all realize that the
municipalities are the best places to
gain a foothold in the political sys-
tem. In Quetzaltenango, Guate-
mala’s second-largest city, the
municipal council is made up of an
equal number of men and women,
of youth and old people. The major-
ity of council members are indige-
nous people. These mayoralties face
the challenge of reflecting a pluri-
cultural, multilingual, multiethnic
country, which is, of course, what
the government in general should
look like. In Guatemala, there is a
significant number of professional
women and men who are indige-
nous. These people will have an
important role to play in future
administrations. We don’t think that
it’s necessary to make a separate
ministry for indigenous peoples to
incorporate them. Rather, they
should be an integral part of the
political system.
How do you explain the strong sup-
port that Alfonso Portillo-ex-dic-
tator Rios Montt’s stand-in in the
presidential race–had in indige-
nous areas?
There are several elements. First
of all, the evangelical churches
directed their followers to vote for
Portillo. Rios Montt’s candidate
Vol XXIX, No 6 MAY/JUNE 1996 7UPDATE / GUATEMALA
was also supported by people
involved in the civil-defense patrols
and others who have benefited from
the militarization of the country.
Their electoral campaign was much
more elaborate than any other party
as well. They had volunteers who
went house-to-house to talk to fam-
ilies. Rfos Montt spent three or four
months making the rounds in each
town in each region. As a conse-
quence, he became much better
known than the other presidential
candidates. I think that the financial
resources of the Rfos Montt cam-
paign played a role as well. In many
places, they bought votes. When
faced with deciding between 10
quetzals and whether you believe
that Rios Montt is the best candi-
date, the choice is straightforward
for people with great needs. People
are also tired of political discus-
sions, of ideologies. They just want
to feel secure. Rfos Montt and his
people manipulated the concept of
internal security. They said that
they were going to be tough on
crime, that they were going to exe-
cute all the criminals.
Unfortunately, there really
weren’t alternatives in the elec-
tions. The choice was between a
militaristic, fundamentalist regime
and Alvaro Arzi, who is a wealthy
aristocrat. But when people say that
Portillo garnered a lot of votes in
the interior, it’s important to
remember that he didn’t win even a
majority of the vote. There are
places where less than 10% of the
people voted.
What do you think of the New
Guatemala Democratic Front
(FDNG), the new left-of-center
political party?
I believe the FDNG has an
important role to play in the politi-
cal opposition. It could have made a
stronger showing had it begun cam-
paigning earlier on rather than 15
days before the registration dead-
line. To be sincere, I have to say
that if the FDNG hopes to be suc-
cessful, it will have to take up
indigenous rights and identity in a
much deeper way. If they continue
to deal with indigenous issues as
they have up to now, they will
become like any other political
party in the country. First, the com-
pafieros don’t really understand
indigenous identity. With indige-
nous issues, you can’t apply
Western concepts of party militan-
cy-in other words, that you are
with me or against me. Recently the
FDNG proposed creating an indige-
nous ministry in Guatemala. We all
came out against it. Why? Because
it would be returning to apartheid in
Guatemala. The Ministry of
Defense and all the other ministries
would be in the hands of non-
indigenous people, and there would
be a tiny bureaucratic office for
Maya peoples. That would be a
mistake. That proposal shows that
the FDNG has not really grasped
the plurilingual and multiethnic
nature of Guatemala. That’s a pity
because the Maya would be their
natural allies. But I think that since
it was the first time they participat-
ed in electoral politics, they have a
great opportunity to revise their
approach to many issues.
I think that the prospects for the
political opposition will be greater
in the year 2000 than this year. It’s
possible that the FDNG will con-
solidate itself, develop a stronger
base, pursue a policy of alliances,
and have a wider vision of what is
happening in the country. The seeds
are there. These lasi elections, in
fact, generated a vacuum where
there was no national political lead-
ership and everything was in crisis.
The opposition didn’t play the role
it should have with respect to chan-
neling the expectations of the peo-
ple and opening up democratic
spaces because they were afraid of
this unfamiliar arena. I think that
the same thing would have hap-
pened with the opposition in any
other country. We have said “no,
no, no” to the system for years.
When we decide to incorporate our-
selves within that system, obvious-
ly we won’t be familiar with certain
ways of maneuvering. I think it was
good that the FDNG participated in
the elections because nothing will
change as long as you only look in
from the outside and don’t get
involved. You learn by getting your
feet wet.
Do you no longer consider yourself
part of the left?
It’s that I don’t know what is
meant by “left.” For me, for a long
time now, those old labels have
been problematic, not only in
Guatemala but throughout the
world. I greatly respect the work
done by the popular organizations,
the trade unions, etc., but I don’t
put a label on them. I understand
what is meant by political opposi-
tion, but not of the left or the right.
I consider myself part of the oppo-
sition, an opposition that has a role
to play in proposing alternatives.
Do you think that the peace process
can produce real social change in
Guatemala?
The armed conflict has become a
cover for all kinds of violent and
criminal acts. Everyone justifies
everything under the pretext that
there is an armed conflict. The
moment that the war officially
ends, I think it will become much
easier to fight this crime wave.
There are people who have made
their living from the war. We will
all have to work together to identi-
fy those sectors, isolate them, and
neutralize them. At the same time, I
don’t believe that a peace agree-
ment will bring about paradise
either.
What do you think of the indigenous
accord signed by the government
and the guerrillas?
It is a minimal set of guidelines
and standards, but very important
NACILA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS 8UPDATE / GUATEMALA
nonetheless. What the accord lacks
is how it will be translated into
national law. It can be a very beau-
tiful, very poetic document but it
won’t do any good unless it is part
of the official laws of the country. A
lot of work must be done to strug-
gle for constitutional reforms so
that the Guatemalan Constitution
reflects these pluriethnic, pluricul-
tural, multilingual principles.
What are the chief obstacles to
signing and implementing a peace
accord?
I think that a peace agreement
will be signed in the near future. I
have the impression that the peace
process has entered into a stage of
political negotiation. When you
arrive at this stage, normally it
smooths the way for the signing of
a peace accord.
We have to be careful, however,
not to commit the same errors that
occurred after a peace accord was
signed between the government and
the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLN) in El
Salvador, when 80 or more former
guerrillas and their supporters were
killed. We need guarantees that
those involved in the conflict in
Guatemala will not face reprisals
once they lay down their weapons.
Also, we will need programs to help
reintegrate former guerrillas into
civilian life. Such a program would
also have to assist displaced people.
A more serious obstacle is how to
control the armed forces as well as
those who supposedly aren’t army
officers but have known ties to the
army. We also have to establish
mechanisms to control the private
security forces and the weapons and
munitions companies, many of
which are owned by retired gener-
als. How can we control these sec-
tors without provoking them to retal-
iate with more repression, kidnap-
pings, and organized killings? On
the day President Arzid was inaugu-
rated, he cashiered nine army gener-
als. Presidents such as Vinicio
Cerezo and Ramiro
de Le6n Carpio, far
from firing generals,
would have de-
corated them with
more honors. The
dismissals demon-
strated that it is pos-
sible to confront an
army like the one in
Guatemala.
Once the accord
is signed, the great-
est challenge that
Guatemala will face
is reconciliation.
How are we Guate-
malans going to
reconcile our many
differences? How
can we do so with-
out it becoming the
banner of a particu-
lar political party?
How can we ensure
that the process of
reconciliation does
not turn into a free-
for-all that opens
up old national
wounds? History
Residents of Todos Santos Cuchumatin in northwestern Guatemala line up to vote in municipal elections.
has been written, the social debt
exists. How will we heal these
wounds? It’s not enough to tell my
story, that they killed my mother,
that they tortured my brother, that
they burned my father to death, that
they burned down my house. What
law can they pass that will assure
me that those things will never
occur again? The theme of reconcil-
iation is so profound, it goes beyond
being rich or poor. We Guatemalans
must have a vision that is more
national, less sectoral, less sectari-
an. We need to begin to erase the
boundaries that divide us.
Do you believe that an amnesty
should be part of that process of
reconciliation ?
Absolutely not. For example, we
are fighting hard right now in the
case of the massacre in Xamdin on
October 5 of last year. In an earlier
era, if such a massacre had occurred,
all of us would have run away or, at
most, organized a large demonstra-
tion to protest, and nothing would
have happened. Today, we decided
to make a contribution-however
small-in challenging the judicial
system and embarking on the path of
justice. Soldiers indiscriminately
kill civilians, and afterwards they are
sheltered by their own institution
because in the military tribunals, the
judge who hears the case is a mili-
tary officer, and the lawyers who
contest it are part of the military.
Military officers are not used to
respecting the law, only giving
orders.
Let me tell you the story. Since
1972, I have been involved in help-
ing refugee communities in
Mexico return to Guatemala. Over
two years ago, we began to pre-
pare the return from Mexico of the
Vol XXIX, No 6 MAY/JUNE 1996 9UPDATE / GUATEMALA
exile community from Xamin in
the department of Alta Verapaz.
For a year, we looked for land and
credit for that community. The
people patiently waited for us. In
Xamin, there were 50 families
who were involved in the civil-
defense patrols, and 200 families
who were returning from exile.
The question was how to integrate
these two groups. We helped
establish a process of dialogue
between them to show how they
could live with each other. It
became a great model of reconcili-
ation in that zone.
The returning refugees arrived on
October 8, 1994. We began to re-
build the area. The Foundation is
helping to provide basic and sec-
ondary education. The primary
schools in fact are already function-
ing. We never thought that there
would be a massacre. It was terrible.
More than 50 people were wounded.
They were shot in cold blood. Eleven
people were killed, and three chil-
dren were shot in the back. Many of
those killed received coups de grdce.
In other words, soldiers continued
to fire on them after they were
already dead. Army grenades were
used. Unfortunately, the official
autopsy was a cover-up. We have
had to carry out an alternative inves-
tigation to uncover the truth. We are
preparing a strong case. We believe
that we have all the evidence we
need. It’s the first time that ordinary
citizens have become involved in a
lawsuit against the army.
Was it a problem of the local mili-
tary troops or do you believe that
the order for the massacre came
from higher up?
Yes, I believe that the massacre
was politically motivated. It was
intended to send a strong message
against the return of refugees,
against the peace process, and
against the elections. Without a
doubt, there are sectors of the mili-
tary who are opposed to these activ-
ities. We are the only foundation
that works in this zone. Therefore,
it was also a very direct message to
me and the foundation.
In the investigation, however, the
military has refused to admit this.
Until now, all the military officers
that we have called on to testify in
the military court have declared
absolutely nothing. They claim that
the 26 soldiers acted in self-
defense, but it is clear that they
intend to let them take the rap. All
of their testimonies have been
clearly aimed at absolving the mili-
tary of any institutional involve-
ment in the massacre. We are fight-
ing so that this case is heard in a
civilian court, not a military court.
The appeals court ruled that the
military tribunals don’t have the
authority to deal with the case of
Xamdn. There were threats against
the judges, against the lawyers, against the prosecutors in the
Attorney General’s office. But a
few days ago, the court of appeals
again ruled in our favor.
What are we ultimately con-
fronting? We are talking about the
role of the military in society. I
believe that we wouldn’t be alive to
tell this story if we had challenged
a massacre in this way a few years
ago. But the time is propitious to
work in this way now.
What is the role of human rights
groups in the struggle against
impunity ?
There has to be a serious investi-
gation into those responsible for
human rights abuses. We have to
begin to name names, to identify
who is responsible for the repres-
sion. The public ministry has to
investigate those incidents. When a
person is being investigated, his
hands become tied, and it’s harder
to act with impunity.
Independently of what is decided
at the negotiating table between the
URNG and the government–even
if they decide to give amnesty to all
the assassins in Guatemala-we
will not accept an amnesty, not for
those killed at Xamin, not for Jorge
Carpio, not for Myrna Mack, nor
for any of the other cases before the
courts. Our fight against military
impunity is yesterday, today and
tomorrow. The struggle against
impunity must continue whether or
not there is an armed conflict.
Human rights groups will have to
do this work. The elections caused
a setback in human rights work
because everyone got involved in
the elections. All the routine human
rights work was put to the side.
Now the human rights NGOs have
to reconstruct their image, their role
in the struggle against impunity,
and their credibility. This is a very
big crisis that we will have to con-
front. You are either a politician or
a defender of human rights. You
can’t be both.
What do you think of the
Guatemalan UN mission (MIN-
UGUA), which is responsible for
verifying the fulfillment of the glob-
al human rights accord signed by
the government and the guerrillas
in early 1994?
The UN has an important role to
play in Guatemala. The UN’s pres-
ence in different parts of the country
has reduced the repression of the
civil-defense patrols and the army.
People have more opportunities to
denounce human rights violations
with the certainty that their confi-
dentiality will be respected. The
UN’s presence assures people who
present complaints that they won’t
be harmed. Without the UN here, I
don’t know if it would have been
possible to carry out the kind of
activities we have in the recent elec-
tions. That said, I would like to see
the UN do more. I recognize that the
UN has a specific mandate that lim-
its its options. But I would like to
see the UN not only receive com-
plaints and publish them in exhaus-
tive reports, but also get involved in
finding a solution, in punishing
those responsible, in bringing jus-
tice to Guatemala.
Menu
