7

INTRODUCTION

Mexico was already a stronghold of diplo -matic and territorial asylum in the nine -teenth century, but even more clearlythroughout the twentieth century. Mex -ican diplomats take enormous pride inthe great names associated with our

country’s practice of diplomatic asylum:Gilberto Bosques, Luis I. Rodríguez, Vi -cente Muñiz Arroyo and Gonzalo Mar -tínez Corbalá. The list of individualsand national groups who have benefit-ed from generous protection in Mex -ican diplomatic missions abroad is verylong. It includes Spanish Republicans,Austrian and German anti-fascists, Rus -sian revolutionary ideologues, Guate ma -lan nationalists, anti-Duva lierist Haitians,

Chilean and Uru guayan socialists, Pe -ronists and anti-Somozan and Salva -doran Fara bundo Martí activists. Thelong list of names includes José Martí,Rómulo Gallegos, César Augusto San -dino, Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre,Fidel Castro, Alaíde Foppa, HortensiaBussi de Allende, Leon Trotsky, LuisCardoza y Aragón, José Gaos, Pablo Ne -ruda, Nicolás Guillén, Luis Buñuel, Ofe -lia Guilmain and Rigoberta Menchú.

Mexico’s Diplomatic Asylum PolicyRoberta Lajous*

* Director of the Foreign Relations Minis -try’s Matías Romero Institute of Consularand Diplomatic Studies.

Politics

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Ministry.

Octavio N

ava/

AVE

Voices of Mexico • 54

MEXICO AND DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM

By asylum, we understand “the protec-tion that a state accords an individualwho seeks refuge in its territory or in aplace outside that territory.”1 In contrastto territorial asylum, which is grantedby a state within its own territory as itssovereign right, diplomatic asylum isthat granted in a state’s diplomatic mis -sion to which an individual comes re -questing protection. People who fearfor their lives for political or ideologicalreasons go to a diplomatic legation seek-ing protection when they find them-selves amidst political instability or vio -lence, as happens during coups d’etat,insurrections, serious disruptions andrevolts. According to experts in inter-national law, “the inviolability of themission’s residence is the basis for thedoctrine of diplomatic asylum.”2 TheConventions of Havana (1928), Mon te -video (1933) and Caracas (1954) estab -lish the inter-American framework forboth diplomatic and territorial asylum.Mexico was the first country to ratify

the First Convention on Asylum, signed

in Havana at the Sixth Inter-Amer icanConference, which established that theright to asylum of so-called “political de -linquents” would be respected as long asthe laws, conventions or common usagesof the country of refuge permitted it asa right or for humanitarian reasons. Thisinstrument, while novel, had certain de -ficiencies since, as jurist César Sepúl -veda said, “in addition to being verybrief, it was also very obscure.”3 Later,in 1933, Mexico actively promoted theConven tion on Political Asylum at theSeventh Inter-American Conference inMon tevideo. This convention introduceda new element that would be a signifi-cant legal step forward: the state whichgranted asylum would decide what“political delinquency” was. Accordingto Sepúlveda, this convention sought“to discipline the practice of diplomaticasylum, not create a body of law for in -dividuals.”4At the Tenth Inter-Amer icanConference in 1954 in Caracas, Mex -ico made important contributions tothe Convention on Diplomatic Asylum.In fact, Mexico’s contributions were thebasis for the negotiation of that instru-

ment.5According to Sepúlveda, the Ca -racas Convention “has the advantageover its predecessors in the sense of notmaking asylum depend on customs orlocal laws, but legal, contractual con-siderations. The state that ratifies it hasthe duty to admit the practice of diplo-matic asylum.”6

In promoting the right to asylum,Mexico has had no object other than toprotect the life and liberty of all indi-viduals. Its practice has benefited per-sons persecuted for their ideas or forcommitting actions which, althoughthey may qualify as political crimes, donot contradict the ethics shared by theworld’s nations.The Foreign Relations Ministry is

not only the institution directly respon-sible for granting diplomatic asylum re -quested of the Mexican government,but also the first to be interested in dis-seminating the principles and legal rea-sons that have led Mexico to play avitally important role in the protectionof a considerable number of people per -secuted for political reasons. (And I usethe word “vitally” in the sense of its Latin

8

Nobel Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú was exiled in Mexico.

Octavio N

ava/

AVE

In promoting the right to asylum,

Mexico has had no objectother than to protect the lifeand liberty of all individuals.Its practice has benefited

persons persecuted for their ideas.

Politics

root, vitalis, meaning “of life.”) For Mex -ico, “the criteria for granting asylumhave been based on international humanrights, on common law in the Americasand on our solid political institutions,which have won for our country inter-nationally recognized prestige in thisarea.”7

DIPLOMATIC ASYLUMAND THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR

The practice of granting asylum is anoutstanding characteristic of our for-eign policy. Mexico’s support for theSpanish Republic during the Civil Waris a memorable episode in the history ofour foreign policy.The defense of the Republic by Nar -

ciso Bassols and Isidro Fabela beforethe League of Nations and our materialaid to the Repu blican struggle were onlythe beginning of the support, whichculminated with the arrival of more than40,000 Spanish refugees to Mexico.Between 1936 and 1942, Mexico

opened the doors of its embassy in Spain

and its missions in France to grant asy-lum to every Spanish Republican whorequested it.When Germany attacked France,

Pre sident Lázaro Cárdenas gave in -s tructions to his representative, Luis I.Rodrí guez, who headed up the Mex icanlegation there, to inform the Frenchgovernment that Mexico was willing toaccept all refugees residing in France. On August 22, 1940, the Franco-

Mex ican agreement on Spanish re fu -gees was formalized between Mexicoand the Vichy government under Mar -shall Pétain. This agreement benefitednot only the Spanish Republicans, butmembers of the International Brigadesand anti-fascist and anti-Nazi fighters.Mexico’s consulate in Vichy also gaveprotection and asylum to dozens of Ita l -ians, Austrians, Poles and Jews to whomit gave documents so they could leaveFrance.This support ended on November

14, 1942, when the Mexican legationwas attacked by Nazi troops and theMexican diplomats taken prisoner andsent to Bad Godesber.

DIPLOMATIC ASYLUMFOR GUATEMALANS

A little known part of our history is theasylum Mexico gave to hundreds ofGuatemalans fleeing from the politicalupheaval that plagued their country be -tween 1944 and 1954.In 1944, the popular revolts that

overthrew the dictator Jorge Ubico, inpower since 1931, and the governmenttake-over by his former ally FedericoPonce increased the number of peopleseeking asylum. This happened againwhen Ponce’s government fell and wasre placed by Juan José Arévalo: bothleaders were later granted asylum inMexico.The Mexican government, true to

its tradition, gave asylum to the mem-bers of opposing factions, regardlessof ideology or political tendency. AsForeign Minister Ezequiel Padilla saidabout the Guatemalan situation:

Our government’s policy on this matter

[asylum] is inspired exclusively in broad

humanitarian considerations....The idea

9

Refugees from Franco’s Spain.

Fond

o Ed

itorial G

ustavo Casasola

Mexico’s support for the Spanish Republicduring the Civil War is amemorable episode in

the history of our foreign policy.

Voices of Mexico • 54

is to make certain that men who have

not really committed a crime and whose

lives may be of use to their homelands

do not fall victim to the passions and cir-

cumstances of the moment.8

In 1951, Colonel Jacobo Arbenz’svictory at the polls made things worseinstead of better. A large sector ofGuatemalan society became radical-ized and took a strong anti-communistposition, which made for new instancesof re pression, deportations and requestsfor asylum.In 1954, a military coup put an end to

Arbenz’s reform government and pro mpt -ed another wave of exiles, among themthe deposed president himself. Aboutthis question, the Mex ican Foreign Mi n -istry’s report for 1954 states:

From September 3 on, a total of 318

persons who had sought asylum in Mex -

ico’s embassy in Guatemala began arriv-

ing in Mexico....On Septem ber 9, Co l -

onel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, former

president of Guatemala, arrived after

taking refuge in our embassy. He was

accompanied by family members and

high government officials.9

In the years after Arbenz’s over-throw and until the end of 1996 whenpeace was signed between the Guate -malan government and guerrilla move-ment, Mexico was the most importantdestination for thousands of Guate ma -lan refugees and exiles who made ourcountry their home.

THE DIPLOMATIC EXILESFROM THE SOUTHERN CONE

In the 1960s and 1970s, different po li -tical events caused the collapse of insti -

tutional life in the Southern Cone of theAmericas. Once again, Mexico imple -mented its policy of asylum and be camea refuge, the land of temporary or defin -itive exile for thousands. In this periodalso, our embassies played an outstand -ing role in protecting those who placedtheir trust in Mexico.There were coups d’etat, military re -

pression and social polarization in Chileand Uruguay in 1973 and in Argentinain 1976. As a result, many leaders andactivists of left social and political orga -nizations, journalists and public officialswere forced into clandestinity or to leavetheir countries to save their lives. Oneof the ways of trying to leave theircountries was to request asylum in theMexican legations in Santiago, Mon te -video and Buenos Aires.10

While scholars agree that there wereparticularities for each nation, “Mex ico’spolicy on asylum in the three nationswas very similar: absolute respect forconstitutional mandates, for foreign po -licy guidelines and for inter-Americannorms on asylum.”11

In the case of Argentina, the num-ber of exiles was relatively low (about65), with long stays in the legation insome cases, such as former presidentHéctor Cámpora, Héctor Pe dro Cám -pora and Juan Manuel Abal Medina. Asign of the political instability priorto the coup d’etat, some of the exilesarrived at the legation long before theactual military take-over on March 24,1976.12 The two countries maintaineddiplomatic relations despi te the tensionsgenerated by the slowness in the issueof safe-conduct passes for the Cám -poras and Abal Medina.In the Chilean case, more than 800

exiles sought sanctuary in Mexico’sem bassy, most of whom were admittedin the days immediately after the Sep -

tember 11, 1973 coup. The presenceof such a large number of people andthe long, drawn-out process of gettingsafe-conduct passes for them createdenormous pressures in terms of dailyliving.13 This experience has been elo-quently narrated in detail in the mem-oirs written by our ambassador in Chi -le, Gonzalo Martínez Corbalá.14

Martínez Corbalá himself says, “Thedecision of the Mexican embassy togrant asylum to any Chileans and LatinAmericans who came to its doors wasbased on the precepts contained in theConvention [of Caracas of 1954].”15

He would later add that Mexican diplo-mats’ actions were also based on thefact that “we could not ignore the mainvalue that must rule the relations amongindividuals, which is the preservation ofthe lives of one’s fellows. Nei ther couldwe put to one side Mexico’s historic tra-dition of making our territory the sanc-tuary for all those seeking freedom anddignity.”16

In the period after the coup, when thesituation was the most complex, Mar tí -nez Cor balá’s opinion was that relationsshould not be severed “until the enor-mous problem of having almost 500exiles under our protection and diplo-matic responsibility was solved.”17 Afterrelations between the two countriesdeteriorated and once pending problemsof asylum had been solved, the Mexicangovernment severed diplomatic relationswith Chile on Novem ber 26, 1974. Finally, in the Uruguayan case, more

than 400 people requested diplomaticasylum at the Mexican legation over aperiod of several years, with the num-bers increasing as military repressionrose after the June 27, 1973 coup. Inmany cases, the Uruguayan governmentfacilitated their departure without rec-ognizing their status as exiles, giving them

10

Politics

special documents in lieu of safe-con-duct passes.18 In this case, diplomaticrelations between the two countriesremained discreet.

CONCLUSIONS

The occasions on which the Mexicangovernment has protected those perse-cuted for political reasons by giving themdiplomatic asylum undoubtedly consti-tute some of the most brilliant chaptersin the history of Mexico’s diplomacy andforeign policy. Taken as a whole, theexpe riences of the Spaniards, the Guate -malans, the Chileans, Uru gua yans andArgen tineans, as well as different indi-viduals, show the continuity in the prac-tice of diplomatic asylum throughoutthe history of Mexican diplomacy. Thishas both saved the lives of people perse-

cuted for their political beliefs and vali-dated a practice closely associated withMexico’s foreign policy.

NOTES

1 Cecilia Imaz, “El asilo diplomático en la políticaexterior de México,” Revista Mexicana de Po -lítica Exterior 40-41 (autumn-winter 1993), p. 54.

2 Max Sorensen, Manual de derecho interna-cional público (Mexico City: Fondo de CulturaEconómica, 1978), p. 399.

3 César Sepúlveda, Derecho internacional (Me x -ico City: Porrúa, 1977), p. 155.

4 Ibid., p. 155.

5 Luis Miguel Díaz and Guadalupe Rodríguezde Ita, “Bases histórico-jurídicas de la políticamexicana de asilo diplomático,” Silvia DutrénitBielous and Guadalupe Rodríguez de Ita,Asilo diplomático mexicano en el Cono Sur(Mexico City: Instituto Mora/Acervo Histó -rico Diplo mático, 1999), p. 75.

6 Sepúlveda, op. cit., p. 156.

7 Imaz, op. cit., p. 63.

8 AHDREM, Exp. II-708-1-(I), “Declaracionesdel canciller mexicano a la prensa sobre dere-cho de asilo” (Mexico City), 27 June 1944.

9 “Memoria de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exte -riores de enero a diciembre de 1954” (reportto the Federal Congress by Foreign MinisterLuis Padilla Nervo, printed by Talleres Grá -ficos de la Nación, 1955), p. 20.

10 Silvia Dutrénit Bielous and Guadalupe Ro -dríguez de Ita go into this experience in greatdetail in their book. Op. cit.

11 Guadalupe Rodríguez de Ita, “Experienciasde asilo registradas en las embajadas mexi-canas,” Dutrénit Bielous and Rodríguez deIta, ibid., p. 134.

12 Ibid., pp. 135-137.

13 Ibid., pp. 138-144.

14 Gonzalo Martínez Corbalá, Instantes dedecisión, Chile 1972-1973 (Mexico City:Grijalbo, 1998).

15 Ibid., p. 202.

16 Ibid., p. 207.

17 Ibid., p. 213.

18 Rodríguez de Ita, op. cit., pp. 144-149.

11