Translated by: Amanda Coe
The force of events and the immutability of the government's position are overwhelming. Everything happens at once, with very little time to breathe or distance yourself between tragedies. In the span of a week, we can read news ranging from the configuration of impunity in the Tlatlaya case, the continuing horror in Veracruz, the refusal to receive the UN Rapporteur on Torture, and the opening of a criminal investigation against the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
The latter event marks a milestone in recent Mexican history vis-a-vis international organizations for the protection of human rights. In the late 90s, Mexico started a feeble policy of openness to international scrutiny in this area, which was consolidated since 2000 with the alternation of parties leading the federal government. In the first six years of the 21st century, our country ratified, supported and even encouraged the creation of a significant number of institutions and international treaties on human rights. Mexico is remembered, now with nostalgia for some, for its leadership in forming the still new UN Human Rights Council; or for its promotion of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
However, now it is systematically denying a serious human rights crisis [It rejected the March 2 report of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which so described the situation], accusing a UN Rapporteur [on Torture] for lack of professionalism, or allowing the IACHR executive secretary to be criminally investigated. This is not a contradiction with the apparent "honeymoon" our country is in with international organizations.
Not many years had to pass for organizations of Mexican civil society to realize that everything was a simulation. Various agencies began to review and make recommendations on various topics: women, children, indigenous peoples, torture, independence of judges and prosecutors, migrants, civil and political rights, enforced disappearances (then erroneously considered a thing of the past), etc.
Alongside the recommendations, there has also been an increase in [the government's] internal diagnostics and a frenzy of human rights programs as a panacea for public policy that would dismantle the corporatist structure [system by with the PRI government incorporated all sectors of society, such as workers, farmers, teachers, etc., under its control via unions and other organizations it sponsored and paid for.] built, literally from blood and fire, after little more than 50 years of authoritarianism.
At the end of first PAN administration [of Vicente Fox, 2000-2006], the failure in the investigation and prosecution of so-called crimes of the past became evident, a fact that was particularly symptomatic of Mexican authoritarianism only changing to adapt to new circumstances. Nothing from a [Fox] campaign promise was of any value; no one could punished for tortures, executions, and forced disappearances committed against the public during the "Dirty War" [of the 1970s against leftist activists and guerrillas who were disappeared.] The power that at one time protected the perpetrators never really left, it continued, regardless of the party in power.
The policy of openness to international scrutiny, accompanied by a strong diplomatic display in human rights organizations, was one of those changes that Mexican authoritarianism adopted as a survival strategy. For a while, it was relatively easy to "accept" countless recommendations without a real will to change the structures that allow human rights violations.
The working methods of the international mechanisms for protection of human rights are based on States' will to cooperate. The implementation of their decisions and recommendations depends almost entirely on at least the preservation of dialogue in good faith with States. Thus, direct confrontations are strange in this environment and diplomatic language predominates.
For nearly 10 years, Mexico was rarely questioned definitively about its unwillingness to fulfill its obligations to human rights. However, as soon as the position of these international organizations changed, that is, when Mexico became more deeply questioned about the real reason for the failure to fulfill its obligations, the authoritarian beast revealed its true form. A form that never changed, only changed its appearance in an international context that was comfortable and functional for a while.
This is what the attacks on the IGIE [Independent Group of Interdisciplinary Experts reviewing the government investigation of the Ayotzinapa case] and human rights defenders are about; the mess with Juan Méndez [UN Rapporteur on Torture]; and the investigation against the IACHR executive secretary.
The authoritarianism was always there. It isn't a matter of a regression, because we never advanced. It is the beast who is no longer afraid of showing itself as it is, before everyone, including the international community. Spanish Original
*Humberto Francisco Guerrero Rosales is Coordinator of Human Rights for FUNDAR, Center for Analysis and Research @FundarMexico