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.
