Free All Mapuche, Indigenous, Anti-Authoritarian & Revolutionary Political Prisoners
Month: August 2014
Four years after the “Salamandra” police operative, otherwise known as “The [Chilean] Bombs Case,” the repressive tactics used by the police and the media continue to seek the imprisonment of our comrades, in a climate of Antiterrorist hysteria. The State tirelessly discloses its goal to seek revenge for the [Anarchist] “Bombs Case”, and against the various Court cases that have allowed our comrades to walk free.
The following is a text sent to our email on the resurrected phantom of the Anarchist Bombs case.
Four years after the repressive streak of the [Chilean Anarchist] Bombs Case, we do not forget our beloved comrades Monica and Francisco, who are currently held hostage by the Spanish State. We are not talking about a past struggle, but one that is ever present.
Unto the Threats of Power: No Silence or Complacency
Spread the revolt for the total liberation with all forms of struggle, and against all authority!!
In the last few weeks, we have seen through the media how the Powerful have initiated a new offensive against the Anti-Authoritarian/Anarchist community. Once again, we can see how the newspapers and news channels have propagated the idea of trapping those responsible for various arson attacks and explosions that have taken place since 2011. Alleged suspects are turned into convicts through the media, with the end of validating future repressive waves unto so-called “public opinion,”unleashing possible identities, accusations, and investigative lines.
This is not a new context considering the continuation of strategies that the Powerful have developed throughout history to annihilate all forms of radical expression and revolutionary struggle. Moreover, we have a recent case in 2010 that unleashed a mass media campaign that prepared the way to “Operation Salamandra” led by then Prosecutor Peña, through which many homes, social centres, squat houses were raided under charges for the alleged [Chilean Anarchist] “Bombs Case.” The accused spent a year in prison and ended up being absolved by the Courts due to lack of evidence.
Today, the enemy once again begins to mobilize their media mongrels and repressive forces to point out signs of governability and control unto the growing number of actions (which have included explosives and arson) claimed by Anarchist groups and others claimed by those in power to have been allegedly done by groups of the same kind. Those in power have configured a scenario that promotes a kind of collective psychosis towards bomb blasts, at the same time that the media displays plausible police theories, both new and old, on the alleged identity of those responsible for these attacks, thereby socially necessitating their capture.
This media display and its correlating subsequent repression – with meetings between high intelligence authorities, the Executive power, State prosecution, and the police – have had their eyes focused on the string of attacks that have taken place during the months of May and June, 2014 (claimed by anarchist groups), and more recently on the bomb that exploded in the middle of July on a subway train during late operating hours (which NO group has claimed), among other cases. But beyond this recent contingency, those in power and their intelligence apparatus had already reactivated their media offensive through the arrest of comrades Monica Caballero and Francisco Solar in November 2013 [(the two former accused under the Chilean Anarchist Bombs case)], accused of placing explosive artifacts against various churches.
Later allegations of police conjectures continued after the death of comrade Sebastian Oversluij in December 2013 during a bank expropriation, which later was also brought on by the arrest of Tamara Sol, whom shot a bank guard in January 2014, as well as with judicial circus and conviction of the comrades accused under the “Security Case”.
Who looks for the enemy today? Simple, we only have to look at the mass media and its role as the spokesperson for those in power. What those in power seek is to plant the idea that behind the latest attacks there are mainly comrades that are already being investigated or have been previously accused (such as with the Anarchist “Bombs Case”) that have continued being active and in solidarity with prisoners of this social war.
The enemy seeks to validate the idea that revolutionary solidarity is the same as placing explosive artifacts, and that anarchist struggle is only sustained through bombs, therefore anyone who is active in the struggle could very well be persecuted. In order to achieve this, the representatives of those in power modify the Antiterrorist Law to amplify its repressive grasp with undercover agents and other intelligence techniques that are characteristic of police control over drug trafficking.
As we have already stated, revolutionary experience throughout history demonstrates that these kinds of tactics are part of the various methods used by agents of power to neutralize and annihilate movements, as well as communities of struggle that propagate rebellion against the existing system of domination. This would stop the extension of the conflict against Power towards other areas of struggle, and the propagation of other ideas and practices of liberation throughout various areas of society.
Nevertheless, the incarceration of comrades and the attack of a collective community of struggle is what us being sought after in the short term.
Unto this, our position is not to victimize ourselves, nor is it to clean the image of the Anti-authoritarian offensive, or anarchist “ideology” in fact. Nor is it to allow ourselves to be subdued by silence and complacency leaving open ground for those who wish to make society into a graveyard of obedience, resignation and cowardice.
We call out to all anti-authoritarian comrades to take on this context with a collective perspective; unto the steps led by those in power, let us forward our solidarity with our comrades that are being singled out by the media and defend our positions of struggle with all the means at our reach. The Anti-authoritarian struggle does not create hierarchy between comrades nor means of struggle, for which every gesture, as small as it may appear to be, could help in stopping the encirclement of those in power. Stopping them by proposing Anti-authoritarian ideas, values, and practices that clearly identify the enemy.
This war is against Power, which today is sharpened with the continuity of struggle and rebellion that unites so many Anarchist and Revolutionary comrades in history, as well as in the present. We are called to action unto the attack of our ideas and comrades in struggle in this as well as distant territories, combating annihilation and the desire to become detached from the current reality.
Let silence and complacency not leave the door open for repression. Today is when we demonstrate what we are really made of in this struggle.
To propagate the Anti-Authoritarian offensive in various ways against all forms of authority.
We must begin by categorically reaffirming that this dispute is not over extensions of land – that is the concept of land as a commodity – but the reclamation and struggle to regain a way of life, an understanding of how to conceptualize the world and how to live accordingly. It is for a social and cultural form of organization. It is here where the concept of territory becomes effective, conceiving beyond its geographical specificity; is the place of traditions, histories, symbols, worldview, norms, dreams, and utopias. Certainly, this was the way things were understood by our ancestors, in the days of Reche and Mapuche reaffirmation; it is where culture and identity is constructed, where there is the reproduction of relationships that establish a social fabric, a worldview, an AD MAPU ADMONGEN KA. It is the projection of our people towards a better future.
Therefore, the defense and reclamation of our territory is the defense of our identity and its political structures, which is cultural, spiritual, and religious. It is the form taken by our people to reproduce materially, based on the land, understanding the relationship between humans and the environment.
It is for this reason that today, the conflict should be directed primarily against the real exploiters, those who directly undermine the Mapuche material and spiritual world. Today they are represented by the plunderers, the forestry companies, the conservative landowners. The struggle is also against the State and its legal and political institutional framework, while listed as protector of the interests of dominant groups.
Second, we must continue to establish the real situation that we live in today as a Mapuche Nation. In this regard we noted that what characterizes the relations of our people are that of domination, oppression and dependence on the State, a situation that began 130 years ago with the occupation of Wallmapu through armed violence. It is thereby, a relationship based on the subjection of a territorial system whereby plunder continues on a structural basis; the imposition of liberal norms regarding the law and property rights, as well as our forced integration to Chilean society, especially through education. Therefore, it is a relationship where our fundamental rights as indigenous people is, understood is denied in its entirety; that is the social, political and cultural construct of our society.
Third, we should note that domination and oppression we suffer from today is partly due to what is known as “Neoliberal governance,” which repositions the conservatives to take the lead in this country once again. That is, the local elites are those who exert the power of domination. In regards to the conflict, we are referring to the forestry companies and other private interest groups (such as large estate landowners) who through the media have generated real campaigns against our people, to the point of assigning the term “internal enemy”. Indeed the forestry companies, landowners and the media are aligned against the Mapuche cause and pressure the Chilean government to develop containment strategies, such as repression, criminalization, persecution and disruption of our Peoples’ most consequent expressions of struggle for territorial and political reclamation.
Articulated in these two large economic groups (i.e. forestry companies and large estate landlords) are the right-wing media, conservative intellectuals and most of the political parties in the “Alliance for Chile” Coalition and “The New Majority.”
In this regard, we understand that the media’s influence is most definitely not minor (i.e. major newspapers such as El Mercurio, La Tercera, La Segunda), which have fulfilled their objectives in stigmatizing and exacerbate the image of the “violent” Mapuche as terrorists that are funded and have international links. These mass media outlets have manipulated and manufactured information to the point of creating setups. They are responsible for the promotion and polarization of the conflict, as well as ultimately giving credit and coverage to all reactionary and conservative views of this country; in all, creating a true axis of power that expose the positions and discourse of the political class, intellectuals and government.
This is the way the State confronts the Mapuche movement that seeks to reorganize itself and struggle for our rights.“Neoliberal governance” is thus imposed, that with this new government only seeks to aim towards multiculturalism, continuing welfare state policies of integration and repression, criminalizing the Mapuche cause.
However, we must also understand that Neoliberal States are unstable and are therefore vulnerable to social unrest. Thus, they are forced to develop strategies for control and domination by creating a series of social mechanisms, developing devices for counterinsurgency, policies for criminalization and the production and/or fabrication of an internal enemy.
Indeed, at present there is a strong challenge to the relations of the Chilean State with Mapuche Nation. The conflict has caused a crisis in the relationship. That is how the dominance of Power has understood has understood it, and is why the State has readjusted its strategies in the context of Social Counterinsurgency, using a multicultural model to lay out its plans, policies and how the distribution of land is to be set.
It is in this context that one must understand the social policies and programs as essential for the reproduction of the status quo. They are made to disguise the predatory regime of accumulation, based on the appropriation and plunder of Mapuche land. The aim is to block the conflict to facilitate the accumulation of capital, which is maintained through the management of trading clients and welfare based on state subsidies.
These multicultural and social programs are aimed at promoting participation of indigenous peoples as a way to remedy the exclusion they have been submitted to. However, the trend is clear and points towards assimilation and integration, whereby an absorbing effect takes place in assimilating ethnic identities within the framework of “representative democracy,” and of course towards neoliberal economic growth. The multicultural character of “identity building.” Nonetheless presents obvious structural limitations and that are part of a strategy that legitimizes the current system. Therefore, these strategies are used only as tactics of social insurgency, which in the Mapuche case are aimed towards a potential social support base and are focused towards the most consequent of its anti-systemic positions, such as the CAM.
MORE ON STRATEGIC STATE INITIATIVES
In order to understand State intervention more accurately in this new socio/political scenario, it is necessary to analyse the various initiatives that have been more strategic in isolating the Mapuche movement.
Firstly, there are many references to various legislative and indigenous rights reforms in existence, Constitutional reforms and international conventions that have been signed, such as Convention 169 of the ILO. That said, Chile is one of the most backward countries for its conservative nature; the prevalence of the Indian Act is indicative of its backwardness in regards to rights, since we are not even recognized as a nation.
There are different positions regarding Constitutional recognition, depending on the area that is assumed about Mapuche reality. Ideally, for the most recalcitrant, fascist, racist section of the Right, the idea of the Mapuche being physical exterminated would be the solution to a national problem. The other section of the Right insists in ignoring internationally recognized indigenous rights, arguing for the concept of the Nation State and being Chilean. For the newly renovated “Concertación Coalition,” now called “New Majority,” the aim is for multicultural recognition but through small and insufficient reforms in the framework of the current Constitution, so as to not affect the current model of neoliberal governance; a very comfortable position to take. This is a goal shared by most Mapuche organizations in recent times and as a result of the advancing processes of community struggle, especially those who claim the right to self-determination, thus continuing the legalistic and institutional interest of the State and the powerful interest groups. However, there is another position that we have proposed as the CAM, which is more coherent and consistent with the approach for autonomy and anti-systemic liberation; it is based on its construction in practice, and will struggle for it in various ways stated previously.
Secondly, regarding the issue of CONSENT or the right to consultation, participation and political representation; it is well known that consent has not had been held to account, especially regarding issues of development, territorial investments and/or infrastructure projects, which under current circumstances are held under Capitalist order. Only the Indian Act allows for a slight possibility of participation, but within the wider scope of things is practically nothing.
In this regard, we should note that recent announcements by the Executive branch of government in relation to establishing consent according to Convention 169, will most likely be through these same pre-established legalistic limits, and thus become obsolete in its effectiveness.
Third, there have been various development programs announced to build culture and identity, which is nothing more than the continuation of Indian policy that has been applied for almost two decades by the “democratic” governments that have focused on achieving “social integration within the coexistence of a rule of law.” Essentially, it is the forced integration embarked within the “Origins Program” as a model for understanding indigenism with a clear mitigating and containment factors in managing the material needs of Mapuche communities.
Fourth, there are the dialogue and negotiation initiatives taking place in order to establish a relationship with the State. In this regard we should note that since the outbreak of the Mapuche Movement, there have been a number of these initiatives which have not gotten anywhere, except to ensure the so-called “social peace” that is sought by interest groups in conflict zones. We should remember the “Community Dialogues” initiative, or the indigenous development plan, various negotiation tables and the notorious Commission on Truth and a New Deal, among others. All of which have been proposals that have not derived more than very basic and inadequate welfare policies. It is needless to say that the CAM never participated in these events, due to both self- defining terms, as well as the lack of political will by the authorities to recognize our expression as valid partners to solve the conflict. The reason is simple; the CAM does not dialogue based on the basis of crumbs or deceit. Today once again, there is talk to establish dialogue with all sectors within the Mapuche Movement but the CAM and the autonomous movement Mapuche continue to be ignored, because the State insists on only recognizing claims of a social, economic or cultural nature; not in terms of political rights. Precisely because we know they will refuse to recognize these political rights, we will continue to raise the issue of self-determination and autonomy.
Finally, we will address the government policy of giving back land, which is the breaking point in the relationship between the State and our Mapuche People. In fact, it is the reason for the current conflict, and has developed a crisis of governance in Wallmapu.
To reaffirm our proposal, the fact remains that when there are conflicts over land there are several ways that allow for its solution, depending on the positions and the interests that have developed. There is a State route for land redistribution based on expropriation. In fact, there is a law in Chile for this very reason, which took root during the 60’s and early 70’s and contributed to the reconfiguration of the territorial map, benefiting the peasantry as a whole and partial Mapuche demands. However, this is the legal State route, and therefore represents the continuity of ideological colonialism, both structurally and symbolically, which does not represent us.
Therefore, we as the CAM have proposed a type of distribution based on direct action, mainly through productive land reclamation. We do not recognize State legalism and its institutions. This implies taking greater leaps, since we are engaged in the active reclamation of the land and its resources generating real changes. This is what we have covered extensively, and is known as the experience of territorial control as the way to reconfigure the territory and lay the foundations for autonomy. This also means understanding that communities are able to counteract the pressures of Capitalist interests and the integrationist policies of the Chilean government. Not to do so would vitally contradict the process of accumulating strength, due to the way in which the struggle is fought; whether it be expropriation or under the logic of the market, these methods weaken the autonomists processes would cause a setback on the road to national liberation. Not only because we would continue being submitted under the framework of the system, but also because of the dependencies that develop with institutions and the market.
Unto the expropriations and experiences of territorial control, the State or rather “Neoliberal Governance,” and successive governments, also have a third way; the redistribution of land market through market assistance; i.e. within the framework of the Capitalist system. It is the route that goes in tandem with the neoliberal economic model, which in turn can reduce or eliminate pressure on governments to expropriate. Moreover it is the way of dealing with land reclamation struggles that are based on direct action, seeking to transform and bring about real change in the structures of domination as suggested by the CAM.
Even at present, the “New Majority” Coalition government insists on using the market, where the solution is to buy and not to expropriate. It is a type of policy that involves redistribution based on the will of an individual to sell, meaning that the system protects private property and a type of trade that is subjected to the discretion of an owner through commercial activity. Speculation can take place in relation to land. Indeed, the owners are forestry companies, large estate landowners or farmers, and may raise land prices, earning exorbitant profits in a commercial process that can become long and tedious; sometimes unworkable and have even led to acts of corruption.
No doubt this has been the most harmful State policy to achieve the containment of the conflict and is related to the strategy established for land transfer. Beyond being a way that promotes and defends the Neoliberal Capitalist economic model, it has had a boomerang effect for those in power. With the aim of containing the conflict, it has allowed for the ethno/cultural disarticulation of Mapuche communities within the territory; from the moment when the National Corporation of Indigenous Development (CONADI) intervenes in the land claims process, the land may be transferred to other communities in different areas which in recent times has been widely opposed by the majority of Mapuche Movement. This is simply the cost for an oppressive State that uses land as part of a social counterinsurgency strategy. Therefore we must understand these three-pillars used by those in power to manage the Mapuche Movement during the period new government; first, to deliver a few more resources through various social welfare programs and maintaining the policy of conditionally handing back land. Second, they will put more pressure to further politically isolate autonomist Mapuche expressions through State policies, for which they can count on the reaction of conservative public opinion. Third, the implementation of social and symbolic counterinsurgency, which means the militarization of the conflict zones, broad and selective repression, and the criminalization involved in exacerbated legal punishment, allowing for more political prison.
Unto this current ongoing process, we have the permanent dilemma of which way to go; the autonomist and insubordinate route of no negotiation or the route of assimilation to market logic. In such a scenario we conclude, continue the resistance and reconstruction our nation Mapuche people.
CSIS OUT OF WALLMAPU: EL ENGAÑO “The Deceit” Film Screening at the PSF!!
FRIDAY, AUGUST22 @ 4PM, The Peoples’ Social Forum| University of Ottawa
Room: FTX 232 (In)Famous Players
NGÜENÉN: EL ENGAÑO [The Deceit – with English Subtitles] (2012)
See Trailer Here:
A documentary made by the directors of “El Despojo” (The Plunder) focusing on the international political dynamics of the “War on Terror,” and the counterintelligence strategies used to criminalize the Mapuche struggle for Autonomy and Territorial Reclamation.
Lies and deceit are as old as war itself. The objective of these intelligence actions called “Psychological Operations” (or PsyOps) is to destroy the morale of the enemy and assure the approval of the population through propaganda, misinformation, manipulation, the fabrication of news, omission, decontextualization (etc). Everything to allow for a SETUP, since “to convince is to overcome.”
Chilean Prosecutor, Mario Elgueta, whom was the alleged victim of an annihilating attack in southern Chile, was also a student in an FBI and CSIS antiterrorist course in Virginia USA. Later, the events became grounds for 17 Mapuche land defenders to face trial under the Antiterrorist Law, at first risking a total of up to 800 years in prison. Four bicentennials on the backs of those who oppose the arrogance of the Chilean State. A must see film on the ongoing criminalization of the indigenous Mapuche struggle.
Organized by: The Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu [Toronto]
Neoliberal governments, like their economies need certain commodities in the course of their development with the ends to consolidate, improve and deepen their dynamics, which may not necessarily be easy for the elites. This is why they build stories that empathize with people’s needs, with its deep and heartfelt demands, fill solutions in the framework of populism, but under no circumstances promote participatory processes where the model is questioned and new cultural and economic practices are generated. The deepening of State paternalism and the welfare arm is what is sought out, and of course the perfection of persecutory and repressive tactics. Who questions this model will be persecuted, and who manages qualitative progress in that direction and deepens practices to decolonize our work, advocating own identity and history, will be imprisoned, repressed or killed. That is the dichotomy of this model; on the one hand it offers a sort of paradise, nonexistent, for clients of this dynamic development, and the other chases and stigmatizes you as a terrorist. The main premise is that obedience is a virtue of the “good” Mapuche, and the proclamation of a national liberation project and its proverbial self-defense are by definition practices of “bad” Mapuche.
Unto the statements made by Mr. Peñailillo, Minister of the Interior, commenting on the existence of an expert commission with the purpose of making profound, perfecting, and modernizing changes to the Anti-Terrorist Law (whereby amendments are due to pass in Congress within the next 60 days); we wish to share an opinion piece by Mapuche Political Prisoner, Héctor Llaitul of the CAM for reflection, which may also allow us to take a position on the matter.
The Anti-Terrorist Law and the Criminalization of the Mapuche Cause
HECTOR LLAITUL CARRILLANCA
The current Anti-Terrorism legislation (Law No. 18,314) is a legacy of the military dictatorship. It was in 1984 that the military junta decreed its existence in order to pursue and annihilate opponents. Within the legislation terrorist actions such as kidnapping, destruction of aircraft, assassination attempts, bombings and poisoning water were included, among other things. Arson was then subsequently included in 1991, in the “democratic” era.
As has already been amply recorded, this law led to countless acts of human rights violation during the period of the dictatorship. In turn, it was used again in the early years of the Centre-Left coalition governments of “La Concertación” within the democratic era, which sought to diligently pursue and annihilate the subversive groups that held political-military strategies and, subsequently, was to be applied against the autonomous Mapuche movement.
However, we should point out that once the Mapuche movement began to rise with strength, the first repressive measures that were imposed were other laws and jurisprudence, such as the State Security Law (Law No. 12,927), created in the 50s and reformed and perfected during the dictatorship as a repressive mechanism for political control. It is with the introduction of criminal procedure reform and pressure from business groups that the legal arguments for the use of the Anti-Terrorist Law against the Mapuche cause strengthened, because it was much more punitive and with a greater repressive reach than any other common law used within the Civil Code.
Its debut came in 2002, when the first charges were laid by the government of Ricardo Lagos, which resulted into two separate investigative charges laid against the Arauco Malleco Coordinator of Mapuche Communities in Conflict (Coordinadora Arauco Malleco – CAM). One, which had more resonance in Region IX, known as Illicit Terrorist Association and the immediate consequence was the arrest and imprisonment of twenty Mapuche activists and leaders such as La Chepa [Patricia Troncoso], Llaitul, Norín, Huenchunao, Pichún, among others. Meanwhile, as a result of the Anti-Terrorist law being invoked by local authorities, which included the role of Rodrigo Peñailillo (then governor of the Province of Arauco), another investigation was initiated in the Court of Cañete that led to the charge of Illicit Terrorist Association against CAM, but this time in Region VIII.
Both cases followed their own courses, but ultimately did not succeed, as the arrested Mapuche community members were dismissed and the accused acquitted after spending more than a year in prison.
The cases where there were convictions based on the Anti-Terrorist law were as follows: the case of the Loncos [Chiefs] (Pichún and Norin), the Ancalaf case and Poluco-Pidenco case, all of which had anywhere between 5 and 10 year convictions.
During the last period of Ricardo Lagos and throughout the government of Michelle Bachelet there were numerous charges that resulted in procedures resulting in prison for dozens of Mapuche, but over time, due to the mobilization of the Mapuche people, international reports, agreements and negotiations, many of these charges were dropped or stayed and there were no convictions under the Anti-Terrorist law. This despite the fact that between 2008 and February 2010, the Bachelet government invoked the Anti-Terrorist law in seven cases, involving a total of 54 Mapuche accused of terrorist offenses.
The last occasion when the Anti-Terrorist law was used and Mapuche leaders were convicted according to this logic was in the case known as “The Ambush of Prosecutor Elgueta.” During each stage of the case all mechanisms allowed by this law were used; from the charges themselves to the judicial/police proceedings, the investigation, pre-trial custody and use of protected witness. With it came a host of judicial evidence to which the court has no choice other than to estimate test standards presented by the Public Prosecutor; documents which were mainly composed of protected witness statements, breaking every principle of due process.
On the use of the protected witnesses we will not go into detail, except to reaffirm that their use violates international treaties ratified by Chile and are currently in force under international law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights and other bodies of the UN. The use of protected witnesses has been strongly questioned because it represents an unacceptable restriction of the right to defense. It is particularly serious if the evidence or testimony presented are crucial to the prosecution’s case and a conviction may depend upon such.
It is indisputable that the anonymity of witnesses expand the range of perjury, induced by possible bribery, extortion or manipulation, even buying witnesses straight.
A thorough analysis is required by specialists in the field of human rights as to how the Anti-Terrorism law has operated in the various cases against Mapuche community members, especially regarding the use of protected witness, to understand its negative impact. This is essential to grasp since this judicial-political instrument, which is absolutely illegitimate and immoral on many accounts, is once again used to deal with a people who demand their fundamental rights.
HOW INJUSTICE WORKS
It all begins when an event occurs that has components of political strength by an organized sector of the Mapuche people, which under certain conditions generates violence, whether it is a protest, claim or part of a more strategic political activity. It is always the State that defines, under pressure from the dominant economic and political powers, the form of criminalization of such action. This is always accompanied with a strong media campaign pushing for the classification of terrorism and ends when the Government places those charges in the Court system. At that point, they have already built the “terrorist reality.”
Once the charges are presented, the Courts empower prosecutors and police to implement all the measures and procedures that guarantee the use of the law, with powers for actions that border on illegality and impunity and lack of accountability. Always with great resources, which would even allow them to pay informants and undercover agents.
Once pre-trial custody is determined, we face the “perfect terrorist reality,” with the most diverse accusations, which are the result of the prosecutor(s)’ and plaintiff’s train of thought, imposing an official speech of predetermined culpability. It is a long remand that far exceeds any given time for investigation.
During this period a “top-secret investigation” is established that allows for the manipulation and preparation of evidence, through the recruitment of “secret witnesses”, sampling of blood or saliva, often forcibly, scene reconstructions, etc. This evidence are always unknown to the defense of the accused.
The use of secret witnesses requires the work of recruitment, through torture, extortion or payment. These are never presented spontaneously as with ordinary witnesses, instead, they are taken to Court forcefully.
Specifically in the Elgueta/Jorquera case, “Witness 26,” was a Mapuche villager then later to be known as Elcides Pilquiman, a former Army reservist who worked as a private security guard, with a criminal record history. A history that was unknown to the Court during the proceedings, because he was a “secret witness”. Nonetheless, two of the judges of the Trial Court of Cañete and later the Supreme Court itself, validated his testimony as the only evidence that would result in a conviction. The testimony of “Witness 26,” was therefore the only evidence used to lay convictions against Ramón Llanquileo and myself.
Oral Hearings under the Anti-Terrorism law also have the same defects. It is the result of all violations committed against due process in the previous phase, giving legitimacy to the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly in the case where the Court can validate such evidence when it comes to determining the sentence. In the Llanquileo / Llaitul case, the testimony of “Witness 26” was considered at all stages of the process, reaching the Supreme Court, whose expert judges rejected the veracity of that testimony in the “Elgueta Case”, lowering sentence of the leaders of the CAM to 10 years, but, strangely, validating his testimony in the “Jorquera Case”, confirming the sentence of the Court of Cañete.
It should be mentioned that because the Military Court did not consider the testimony of “Witness 26” CAM leaders were acquitted, demonstrating that there was no other evidence. With this one can conclude that the Military Courts are actually more lenient than civilian Courts.
That is why the last UN rapporteur who visited the Mapuche political prisoners insisted and recommended:
“Those who have been convicted based on the testimony of anonymous witnesses should be given the right to have their sentences be reviewed and, where appropriate, be ordered a new trial to be held under the provisions of ordinary criminal law, without resorting to anonymous evidence “.
The existence of Anti-Terrorism Law is born, exists and is modernized in order to prosecute and punish an alleged internal enemy, whose existence is forcefully constructed by those who see their interests threatened. That is, it is born against anti-capitalist movements, and in our particular case, the Mapuche Nation.
Unto this our position is the following: we are against the existence of the Anti-Terrorism law and we will not participate in discussions about its modification, modernization or adjustment. This law exists to pursue social movements, and criminalize their just demands. In Chile there is no terrorism, much less the Mapuche cause. It is plunder, abuse and discrimination that is the trigger of resistance against the prevailing economic and social model.
Wichan Info al Día
Distributed by: The Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu
This communiqué is in regards to the latest meeting between the Chilean Interior Minister Rodrigo Peñailillo, other government representatives of the Right, such as Diego Paulsen, Rene Manuel Garcia and German Becker (of the Region of Arauco), and statements made by the current General Director of Chilean National Police, Gustavo Gonzalez Jure, over the increase of police in the area of Arauco and Malleco. Unto all the above, the CAM states the following:
Once the government of Michelle Bachelet had been instated, it has clearly shown the way that it will confront the growing demands of the Mapuche autonomist movement. On the one hand, they eco the pressures of corporate interests in Mapuche territory and on the other they have strengthened the militarization and repression against our communities.
The repression is mainly aimed to deter the struggle of areas under territorial control that affect forestry companies; especially those that find themselves in the areas of Arauco and Malleco. This together with the extension of Law 701 that seeks to continue the uncontrolled subsidization of forestry development.
With these signs it is clear they pretend to consolidate the administration of a neo-liberalist model in Wallmapu, deepening extraction and plunder, which expands through repression, prison and death against our Pu Peñi lamnien [Brothers/Sisters] that rise up in the autonomist Mapuche process.
Unto this scenario of provocation and confrontation, the CAM assumes with greater conviction its Anti-Capitalist conviction on the basis of self-defence and territorial control, in the struggle for autonomy and territory towards national Mapuche Liberation; not just consequent with its actions and projection as the only dignified revolutionary path, but also of the responsibilities that this implies as being Mapuche.
Free All Mapuche Political Prisoners!
Oust the Forestry Companies and Capitalist Investment in Wallmapu!!
Autonomy and Territory towards Mapuche Liberation!!
Political Commission, CAM (Arauco Malleco Coordinator)
Wallmapu, June 13th, 2014
Distributed by: The Women’s Coordinating Committee for a Free Wallmapu