Rigoberta Menchú Tum
Guatemala, 1992
"The Role of Indigenous People in a Democratic Guatemala"
November 5, 1998

[Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum's remarks begin in Mayan, after which she says through her interpreter, "There is no translation." The remainder of her presentation is translated from Spanish.]

Rigoberta Menchú Tum: I don't know what I will say today after listening to so many experiences, and after being among so many extraordinary people, including Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama. Bishop Desmond Tutu has been my role model for a long time, and I feel very well accompanied, spiritually. And since I will be using a translator, I understand that I will be allowed to speak forty minutes!

I want to say to you that the great inspiration of my work are the indigenous peoples. And maybe because I am Maya, and I was born Maya, and I was also born in a country where indigenous peoples have been the majority, and where we have made history, have had to make war and have to make peace. Over and above feeling indigenous, I believe that the indigenous peoples of the world are a fount of inspiration for an inter-cultural world. The indigenous peoples have a message to give in the prevention of conflict because for many centuries, our peoples used dialogue, patient conversation toward peaceful means for the resolution of inter-ethnic, familial, and inter-cultural problems.

And overall, the contribution of the indigenous peoples toward a new perspective on education, one of education in the word, and education in which the value of the word will give the opportunity to the other to express himself and to be heard. And I would want to say that to us was given, as a people-not as famous men and women, but as a people-an experience of dialogue, an experience of conversation of solution to internal problems. We were able to contribute to peace, to negotiation, and, thank God, we were able to contribute so that the war would come to an end in Central America. But from a collective conviction. As a raw, painful experience, as part of the victims of armed conflict. We've also contributed to peace as exiles, as displaced people, as refugees, and also from the standpoint of indigenous women and indigenous peoples, who are not always listened to, not only in our country but also throughout the world. We learned that dialogue and negotiation belonged to the elite. They were the ones who had dialogue at their disposal, the ones who could decide what could be done with dialogue. We can also say that it was their decision to bring the war to an end. In the case of Guatemala, if the agents in the war had decided twenty years ago to speak with each other, then we would have prevented thousands and thousands of deaths, we would have avoided a great deal of destruction. It is important that the actors in the war must decide to seek peace, and this is important throughout the world, not just in our own case. Right now, we are reconstructing our country, also in the midst of great difficulties. Especially when there has been so much distrust, so much social fragmentation. And especially when the system of justice has always favored certain groups, it has been a great struggle to create a just, legal system.

Returning to the struggles of indigenous peoples, I also come here to seek allies. Will and desire are not enough to bring about change. Change is brought about by societies, by institutions, by governments. Changes are something that we all make together. Throughout the world, indigenous peoples have not only not changed their situation, but they are running the risk of becoming reduced to indigenous ghettos. I struggle to break that silence. I struggle to call out to you so that you will recognize that the indigenous peoples have an inter-cultural experience, a multi-ethnic experience, a diverse experience. I also struggle so that together we can erase all the stereotypes that exist about indigenous peoples. When indigenous peoples are over-protected, this over-protection is also racism. And if we forget them, and they are marginalized, that is also racism. The problem is that we never know which is worse-forgetting or too much attention. People want to know what do I think about Chiapas, what do I think about Colombia, what do I think about Guatemala. But I want to say that the most important thing is to do continuous work. We want to make a contribution to inter-cultural education, to a culture of peace, in which peace does not just come as a result of war but rather as the product of a peaceful coexistence, and of exchange, and the result of mutual respect. We must also accept that today's world is a multi-ethnic world, a multi-linguistic world, a multi-cultural world. If we don't accept that, then we will always be playing to the dominant cultures.

When I am in an indigenous community in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Guatemala, in Mexico, I can see that misery and poverty are not the sole property of indigenous peoples, but of many, many people throughout the world. When I see the street children, I notice that not many of them are indigenous. I do not see indigenous. Why? Because the children are in the community, they are in the family, because they have found a new family. The same thing has happened with indigenous children in the areas of conflict. All the orphans of the indigenous people have been absorbed by the community. The indigenous people in the areas of conflict found a new home in the community, but in other conflicts not involving indigenous peoples, I have found that the orphan children have been left out on the street.

This is to say that indigenous peoples also have a lesson to offer in the prevention of conflicts and the resolution of conflicts. And we also have a message in the reconciliation of our peoples. In order to do so, we have to create a different climate, a climate of respect toward us. So each time that we have common problems, we must find common solutions. This is why I am here with my colleagues, my fellow Nobel Laureates. I believe that each of us has a specialty in our own work, in our own convictions, that works in favor of peace. When we struggle individually, we sometimes give it an accent-more Maya, more woman, more radical, less radical-but we are all working toward the same goal.

Finally, I would like to say that there is a millennium, a millennium which is fast approaching. And we have in our hands the possibility to start a new millennium again with good intentions. Or to turn to a new millennium simply observing the problems of the world. We have no need for observers in this world; we need actors. We need people who will work, who will know how to make speeches-but only once in a while. Also, we need people who will struggle, no matter under what conditions, for collective values. I want to convoke you then, so we can all find one thing that we can do in the new millennium. For example, the university could give scholarships to 5,000 Guatemalan students, Mayas.

Well, I don't want to tell you what you can give, but you have to give all that you can give. Conviction is not enough. It is not enough to be conscious of the problems of the world; how we involve ourselves in their solution is the most important thing. So, let us once again believe in the children, in the youth. Let us once again believe in indigenous peoples. Let us once again believe in the people who can promote dialogue in search for peace. And, of course, let us all struggle to get rid of firearms, for as long as there are arms, there will be people who will use them.

Thank you very much for this, and I await your questions.

DISCUSSION AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS

Julian Bond: Thank you a great deal. Let me pose a question. What is the responsibility of a state where there are competing and emerging ethnic, religious minorities striving for recognition, some degree of independence? How does a state balance the needs of these groups with its desire for stability and homogeneity among its people?

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: Bueno. I think that there is a legal matter that has to be addressed, a question of laws and a change in constitutions in a country like that. All of the national constitutions recognize a homogenous people; they refer to only one national culture and do not speak of the multiple ethnic groups that exist within one nation. Maybe there was a point in time in history where dominant cultures had the right or the ability to dominate others, but that is no longer the case today, and this has to be changed because today, everybody is multi-cultural, multi-lingual, and multi-ethnic. And if there is a form of education that exists that goes against a culture, it means that it is not an education at all. So, I think there are formal and legal changes that must be made, but that which is most difficult is the change in the attitude that people have, because we also have countries and constitutions with wonderful laws, but these have never been enforced. In Guatemala, in the peace process, we have managed to produce a series of wonderful laws that recognize the different ethnic and indigenous groups of the country, but those accords will take a long, long time-many, many years-before they can be implemented. But the world believed that the dove of peace had landed on our heads, that peace had arrived, and that everything was fine and nothing much more had to be done in order to accomplish the peace. Therefore, I think that much has to be done educationally from a perspective of multi-cultural identities.

Many people have said to me, "Well, what happens if we give indigenous peoples technology, will they lose their culture?" And what I say to them is, "Don't worry so much about what we will gain and what we will lose. Just give it to us, and we will use it." But if those technologies are imposed on us, and they do not serve our interests, our communities will reject them with all our energy, s we have always done. But if our peoples incorporate those technologies into their own cultures, with their own knowledge, with their own local technologies, then, certainly, those things that are offered to us and given to us will have many positive results, will save many lives, and will offer a dignified life for the people. So if there are some rich people here, and some big corporations, they, too, can work with indigenous peoples as long as it is in a relationship of trust and understanding.

I would also like to say that it has been the attitude of governments in the last three decades-I am a very young person, so I don't know very much of what has happened before those three decades-but in the last two decades, I have to say that many governments have simply refused to take a positive attitude and to begin to discuss questions about native peoples and indigenous cultures in their own countries. Or ethnic minorities. Or religious peoples. One of the big fears that immediately emerges is that people say, well, if we give these people more rights, they will suddenly want to become independent. And it appears that our independence within nations is what people worry the most about. But I think that in our day and age there are very, very serious problems with the lack of comprehension, the lack of understanding amongst people of different ethnic and religious orientations. It is a very serious problem that has to be on our agenda, and we have to engage it. In addition, I would like to struggle to be a bishop, and a cardinal, although I don't think I am going to be successful in that.

Julian Bond: Earlier today, you were discussing your contacts with the insurgencies in Nicaragua, in Colombia, and Chiapas, and saying there was a difference between Colombia and Nicaragua, the insurgencies there, and Chiapas. Can you talk about that?

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: [She replies in Spanish that the conversations were confidential. Julian Bond responds, "Si." The interpreter says, "Spanish and English are so similar that I don't need to translate."] There is a deep difference between the insurgencies that took place in Central America, and the conflict that is currently taking place in Chiapas. The situation in Central America, and the peace process, is very, very different between Central America and Chiapas. In Central America, there were two parties in conflict: on the one side, the insurgency; and on the other, the state and the military. There were no other actors. One of the big problems was that we saw the militarization of state power in those countries. But in Chiapas, it is different. There are many different actors, many different places where the situation occurs, and many, many different actors. And that means that the solution in Chiapas is not going to be very easy. In Guatemala, it unfortunately took ten years of dialogue to reach the point of peace accords. It is important that something like that happen also-and very, very quickly-in Chiapas, because otherwise the situation becomes more complicated, and we will have a situation like we have in Colombia today. It is a frontier area, it is a rich area in resources. It is an area where people are struggling over those rich resources. There are indigenous peoples who live there, but what I have to tell you is that this is not an indigenous struggle, because there are many, many different peoples who live in Chiapas. I don't know if I have answered your question, but simply by recognizing that there are many different actors involved here, and not just two basic parties in conflict, that we begin to recognize what it is that needs to be done. And if you all are on the Internet, you can always ask me more questions by asking me over the Internet.

Jody Williams: What is the current situation of groups who struggle to have a voice in the socio-political life of Guatemala? Have they had to lower their voice to maintain peace on the surface, or do they still struggle with the same determination to make sure that the beautiful words of the peace on paper is reality for everybody in society?

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: Bueno. So that you don't hear me as being very pessimistic, I am going to say some of the most optimistic things that I believe in. The biggest, the most important thing that we have accomplished in Guatemala is to bring the violent conflict to an end-a conflict of thirty-seven years that created all kinds of separate interests. A war in which many people made their life from it, earned their daily income and made a lot of money, as well. So it is a very good thing that that war is over. But we have not all won in that war, and those who are most affected by that war are the victims of the war: the internal refugees that are probably 95% indigenous peoples, the former combatants on both sides-on the side of the government, of the military, and of the guerrillas. Those combatants have not really obtained or gotten anything. They are no longer mobilized, they are no longer members of groups, but we find that they do not have anything, they don't have land or a way to earn their income, and we find that they are always beginning to look for something, some way to survive. Since Jody Williams knows El Salvador, and we make comparisons, we often feel that more has been accomplished in El Salvador than in Guatemala. What has been obtained, what we have managed to get in El Salvador really is quite minimal.

We are still struggling to streamline the judicial system, and if I were to tell you just one case of trying to get a legal, judicial process going against the military, you would recognize how difficult and complex that is. There are still judges being bought, there are threats, blackmail-I don't know what it is called, but we've got it! But I have said that the peace accords are political agreements, and political agreements have to become judicial agreements, and to go from the law to the actual practice is a long process. We are changing the entire police system, we are trying to change the army from a repressive to a non-repressive army. And all of this will take a very long period of time. We, the indigenous peoples, it appears, are absent from all of this. We are absent in the sense that we are absent among the elite, among those who are making the decisions, but we are very, very active in all other regards. There are many changes taking place. There are indigenous peoples who are local mayors, and we are participating all the time in this broader peace process. That has been our struggle: it is not enough to simply sign the peace accords, but what really happens is what happens after those peace accords have been signed. What is oftentimes worse than the war is the period after the war, to come to grips with the reality of our country, with the repressions which the war has left, and with what it has left us for the future.

Harn Yawnghwe: I am not very familiar with your country, but I would be interested to know, is it possible, according to your legal system, for somebody like yourself to be in national politics? For example, could you run for president?

Dr. Rigoberta Menchú Tum: Si. Yes, indigenous peoples can participate in the political institutions of the country, but unfortunately they cannot do so as indigenous peoples. So, if someone who is an indigenous person would like to be president of Guatemala, he or she would have to work with an established political party, and that party would have to support the candidate. If it were by indigenous voting, that person would not need a political party. The political parties in the country are all racist; so, they will not work for someone who is indigenous. Maybe I am not completely correct here, but maybe there will be a change in the new millennium. So then maybe the question is why don't indigenous peoples themselves form a political party. [In English] Because we don't have money! Because we indigenous peoples are the poorest peoples of this earth, and we have not had our own businesses, our own developed economies, we have not been able to make our own moneys. In addition, we are not very experienced in the world, we don't have a lot of experience of politics, we don't know what the intrigue of politics is, we haven't learned what it is like to trip up another political candidate! And in terms of whether I would like to be president of Guatemala, what I can say is that it is the main worry of a lot of people that I do want to be.

Julian Bond: Thank you. Questions have been collected from members of the audience, and now Professor Jeffrey Hopkins will read them.

QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

Jeffrey Hopkins: This is a question for Archbishop Tutu. What thought, what idea did you communicate to your country's leaders that finally forced them to action?

Archbishop Tutu: Which action? Quite seriously, I did nothing. There were many other people who were doing some superb work. I often say that I was the leader by default, because our real leaders were in jail or in exile, and perhaps it was part of God's sense of humor that God chose to have someone like me. It was probably because I had an easy name!

Jeffrey Hopkins The next question is for Jody Williams. How do you feel about the trend in anti-affirmative action legislation that may have the power to eliminate programming designed to inspire minority groups and women toward historically white male dominated careers in academic pursuits?

Jody Williams: It doesn't have too much to do with landmines. Although the question is a landmine, I guess. I would prefer to address the overarching question of racism in our society that Betty touched on before. And I don't think that racism is the purview of just this country. Everywhere you go, you find racism. Look at what's happening in India, between the Muslims and the Hindus. I think that part of the problem that Betty addressed is the political correctness running rampant in the country at this moment, where we pretend there isn't racism. We pretend that we are all the same. I believe that unless and until we can address each other's similarities, but equally their differences, we are never going to get beyond it-pretending that we are all the same is absurd. We are not all the same. We are all the same before the law-theoretically, which is also absurd-but theoretically, that's where we are the same. But we don't all have the same skills, we don't all have the same even basic gifts or not-gifts, and as long as we keep pretending that Afro-American culture is the same as White culture, is the same as Hispanic-American culture, we are never going to bridge the gap. I prefer you come up to me in my face and say, "You're a white American, I'm a black American. We are different. How are we going to deal with the differences and move on with respect for each other?"

And I am a complete believer, additionally, in personal responsibility. Sentiment without action is irrelevant. I can sit there and cry with the best of them. I can. Italian Catholic-we cry good. Catholic-mortal sin. But-mortal sin, bad one, I used to have them all the time, too All sin was mortal-burn in hell. Seriously, I used to fear hell. Now I know that hell is on earth, fighting against the evils of the planet, actually. But if we don't take personal responsibility to change the things we don't like, it's going to get worse. It's going to stay the same. If you don't think it should be this way, get up, go out, and change it. Don't sit back and wait for the other guy to defend your right. If you really believe you have one, go for it! You can't sit back and say, "Oh, we know Julian Bond and the NAACP is going to take care of this because that's their issue area." Excuse me? He is one voice, they are one part of the voice, but you are part of this society and if you want it different, make it different. That's my answer.

Jeffrey Hopkins: This question is addressed to His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Does His Holiness find from his personal experience that philosophical ideas affect people's behavior? For example, does he see that an over-emphasis on oneself, as opposed to an emphasis on helping others, affects one's behavior?

The Dalai Lama: I don't know! First of all, I don't know what the exact meaning of "philosophy" is. Anyway, a certain way of thinking, or vision, or certain deeper meanings: such belief or viewpoint certainly widens our view, our outlook, towards oneself, toward others. For example, one Buddhist view or philosophy is interdependency. Now that view is very, very helpful to widen our outlook or perspective. It is the view or the theory that one thing depends on many other factors. Once that sort of viewpoint or understanding is there, then if an event happens here, immediately there is a desire to look at the wider implications or the causes and conditions-to look at these rather than at this event itself. So these things, rather this event itself. So that way I think is useful. But otherwise, I don't know.

Jeffrey Hopkins: The next question is for Jos» Ramos-Horta. How does one strike a healthy balance between action on a local level and action on a broader, international scale?

José Ramos-Horta: I think both must be intimately linked because.... Well, there is no escaping that to achieve changes, you have to act locally. A famous American politician said, "All politics are local." And that is applicable everywhere, anywhere. But at the same time in this increasingly small, interconnected world, we cannot isolate ourselves. And often, the actions we undertake internationally have a greater impact on the behavior of a certain country than, let's say, the use of violence, for instance, against that particular country. I have had this experience in dealing with the U.S. Congress in relation to the situation in East Timor or Indonesia. And I have had these discussions with some of my colleagues, some of the freedom fighters. I said, "Well, by getting some action at the U.S. Congress to ban the delivery of an F-16 aircraft to Indonesia, it was far, far cheaper than if we ever try to shoot down that F-16 once it's delivered. We can muster all the money we get, and we'll never get it, we'll never be able to shoot down that F-16 anyway." So, by talking to a few really moral individuals in the U.S. Congress, we managed to cause such an uproar in the Congress that, in the end, the Indonesians said they got sick and tired of the whole controversy, and gave up trying to buy the F-16.

And, I give you another example that it just remarkable. Four old women in England-three were British, one Swedish-they went into the British Hawk Aircraft factory in Liverpool-they went just with kitchen tools-and damaged the entire computer system of one of the Hawk Aircraft that had been paid for by the Indonesians and was waiting to be delivered to Indonesia. That factory was supposed to be high-security, but somehow they managed to enter, did their job, completed it, they danced around the aircraft, and still the security didn't come. Only when they finally phoned the media, then the media arrived, and security came. They were arrested, and I was one of the people who finally was allowed as a defense witness for them in Liverpool (God, I forgot what was the whole issue, anyway?). Anyway, one of the women, she spoke in the court, and she said, "Well, I read a statement by Jos» Ramos-Horta about the use of the Hawk aircraft in Timor, and that is why I did this." There I was, standing there-and then she said she was motivated by something I said. I felt so bad, she really ruined my whole day because I thought this woman might be sentenced to twelve years in prison because of a statement I issued.

But finally, against all our expectations, they were acquitted. For the first time in British court, the invocation of an act of conscience was accepted. The trial lawyer for the four women, that same woman lawyer, Goddard Pierce, who was played by Emma Thompson in the film In the Name of the Father, she was the one who acted as the lawyer for these four women. So it was a highly successful case, and it set a very-according to British aerospace-set a very dangerous precedent that if you incapacitate some weapon in England, it is now legal to do it.

But, anyway, that is just to show that, yes, in our experience, being a small country, at one point abandoned by everybody all over the world-and when I say "everybody" I mean the major powers, no army behind us, no major powers behind us-it was the international action that a) gave us the moral boost, support, that gave us the courage, the faith to continue, and it was the solidarity work in the Congress, the European Parliament, governments, that caused so much damage to the Indonesian side and to the point that it because the most costly foreign policy issue for Indonesia.

The Dalai Lama: The second part of that question. May I add something?

Jeffrey Hopkins: Yes, please. If one's idea is too strongly on individualism-your own self-does it make a difference to have that idea, or to have an idea of altruism?

The Dalai Lama: Now again, "individualism," I don't know the exact meaning of that. But in any case, I want to say something. The moment one thinks of oneself, the whole mental focus is very narrow. So, within that narrow area, even a small problem appears very big. The moment you think about others, the mental level becomes very wide. So, one's own problems appear as insignificant. That I think is a big difference. Then, another thing. When we develop a strong sense of caring for others, then when we hear or see the pain or unfortunate experiences of others, at that moment it disturbs a little bit your peace of mind or your calm mind. But then, if you look deeper, there are big differences. Some kinds of minor disturbances or feeling of burden-out of a sense of caring for others-in its depths is a kind of volunteer. You take care of others. You are taking some kind of sincerest concern for others' welfare. So, deep inside, you voluntarily accept it. And, on the basis of that feeling, there is inner strength. You have self-confidence. And on the basis of that, you have the courage to take care of others. The other one: just thinking of "myself, myself," and if some unfortunate thing happens, it is really overwhelming. So deep down there are big differences. So thinking about others actually is of great benefit to oneself.

Julian Bond: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a fifteen-minute break. I hope the audience will keep their seats until the Laureates have cleared the stage, and we will back in fifteen minutes.