|
AFRICAN 'INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' TAKE
STOCK
WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT
AFRICAN 'INDIGENOUS PEOPLES'
SEARCHING FOR A FUTURE
'Indigenous Peoples' from all
corners of the African continent have met for the first time to
take stock of their situation and organise for their future.
By Marcus Colchester
When John Hardbattle, a /Kwe 'Bushman'
from the Kalahari, was a young boy his mother explained to him
about the variety of peoples. 'God made us all. We are all the
same. But, we are different' she told him, thus encapsulating one
of Africa's great dilemmas: how to recognise the continent's
cultural diversity while at the same time ensuring equality for
all humanity. Today, John is a spokesperson for the 'First Peoples
of the Kalahari' an indigenous organisation that is attempting to
articulate the common demands of the numerous so-called 'Bushmen'
scattered across the drylands of Botswana. He was one among a
large number of indigenous representatives who had travelled to
Copenhagen for a conference on 'The Question of Indigenous Peoples
of Africa'.
A unique event, the conference
brought together for the first time African peoples as diverse as
the desert-dwelling Tuareg of the Sahara, the cattle-raising
Maasai of East Africa, traditionally forest-dwelling 'pygmies' of
Rwanda, so-called 'Bushmen' from the Kalahari, as well as exiles
from Sudan, Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. These together with
academics, lawyers, environmentalists, development specialists and
human rights advocates and some Government officials, ensured a
searching debate on the situation and prospects of Africa's
diverse peoples.
The conference was held from 1 - 3
June as a contribution to the United Nations' 'International Year
of the World's Indigenous People' and was organised by the
Denmark-based International
Working Group on Indigenous Affairs in collaboration with the
Danish Centre for Development Research and with funds from DANIDA.
The puzzle of definitions
But what does the concept of
'indigenous peoples' mean in the African context? The consensus
that developed was that it implies peoples with strong ties to
their lands, who have been in their
region since before colonisation, were now dominated by other
peoples from whom their cultures were markedly different and who
identify themselves as 'indigenous'. Self-identification was the
key. Indeed the right to self- identification is upheld in
international law by the International Labour Organisation's 'Tribal
and Indigenous Peoples Convention', which came into force last
year. Why though should anyone *want* to identify themselves as
'indigenous'? The question had puzzled one of the Tuareg invited
to attend the meeting. What relevance, he wondered, has a
conference on indigenous peoples got for me?
A similar question troubled those
not from discriminated groups. Alice Mogwe of the Botswana Centre
for Human Rights noted that a common response of those from
dominant ethnic groups in
Africa was to ask the question: 'if they are 'indigenous' what
does that make me?'
For those in French-speaking Africa
the concept of indigenous peoples is even more problematic. The
French word 'indigene' implies primitiveness and backwardness -
conjuring up images of folklore and curiosity. The awkward term
'autochthone', used in French translations of international law,
is obscure. However, the discussants made clear that words are
what we make of them. Labels are assumed for convenience and
evolve suitable connotations through use. Indeed, as Howard
Berman,
Professor of International Law from California, noted,
international lawyers are still not agreed on a definition of the
term 'peoples', which has been a key word in the work of the
United Nations since its inception.
'The decolonization process didn't
wait for a definition before proceeding. If it had the colonials
would probably still be there' he remarked. Besides, other terms
were even more problematic. The notion of 'minority' was broadly
rejected as unsuitable, assuming a subordination to the Nation
State, whereas what many peoples are looking for is a greater
measure of autonomy in their own areas where they are the majority.
The Berber peoples of Algeria have a saying, 'the only minority is
the regime', the conference was told by Salem Mazhoud of
Anti-Slavery International.
States, particularly African States,
are, however, fearful of any concept that apparently promotes
ethnic chauvinism, conjuring up images of secession and what
Charles Lane of the International Institute for Environment and
Development called 'the bogey of ethnic violence'. However, as
various speakers from IWGIA reminded the meeting, the whole aim of
asserting indigenous peoples' rights is to provide an alternative
to ethnic conflict, opening up ways of resolving conflicts, based
on negotiated
agreements between States and the peoples that comprise
them.
The Tuareg, after a bitter two year
war in Mali, managed to secure just such a Treaty with their
government in April last year. The aim should be to ensure that
'indigenous' peoples can secure
their future within the African context without resort to arms.
The key is to develop accepted rights for 'indigenous' peoples.
Human Rights
Human rights were conceived as a
means of securing the individual's rights in relation to the State
and internationally have developed from the original Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 into a large body of
international law. Protection of these rights, however, assumes a
benign State but when the process of government discriminates
between peoples, on grounds of their culture or through failing to
appreciate the significance of cultural differences, individual
human rights provisions provide little defence.
Reluctantly after years of argument,
the United Nations bodies have begun to realise that group rights
must also be recognised and protected. The rights of "people's"
to self- determination, peace and subsistence are now recognised
and, in addition, 'indigenous peoples' rights to their lands and
territories, to their customary laws and to represent themselves
through their own institutions have also been made law.
African Governments have gone
farther than most in recognising collective rights. The 'African
Charter on Peoples and Human Rights' agreed by the Organisation
for African Unity in Banjul notes, in Article 19, 'nothing shall
justify the domination of a people by another'. The Charter
establishes an African Human Rights Commission to look into abuses
of human rights in Africa, which while its has not yet considered
group rights provides a hopeful mechanism for resolving conflicts
between peoples.
The problem comes, though, when the
State asserts itself as the holder of collective rights, as when
the Algerian Government claimed that 'the entire Algerian State is
a league for the defence of human rights', at the same time as it
was systematically discriminating against the Berber.
The State
Indeed, as many speakers repeatedly
noted, the very notion of the State is foreign to Africa. Sharif
Harir recalls how the ninety-five peoples of Darfur identify their
problems as beginning with the annexation of this remote Islamic
Sultanate of west Sudan by the British in 1914. Dating their
troubles to 'when the government came', the locals note the
collapse of traditional systems of resource use and
self-government all came about through the colonial impositions.
Legal norms, especially those
requiring the registration of land, were instituted that took no
account of customary rights. The new adminstration imposed leaders
who became tools of the State, no longer answerable to their own
people. All power was centralized and removed to Khartoum.
It was an experience repeated
throughout Africa and which has left an indelible mark. The
colonials may have left - in theory at least - but their laws,
administration, institutions and their values remain behind - and
fit their subjects no better today than when they were imposed.
Independence has brought further problems. Peoples remain
arbitrarily divided by national frontiers. The Tuaregs for example,
now find themselves in Mauretania, Mali, Niger, Algeria, Libya and
Chad. Many 'indigenous' peoples now find themselves the subjects
of new masters but still not masters of their own destiny. The
riverine Sudanese who now rule from Khartoum are as alien to the
people of Darfur as were the British. Many speakers noted that
conditions under the independence governments have got worse.
Indeed, in a now famous unguarded moment President Nimeiry
admitted to a visiting ex-colonial governor 'the Sudan is not as
efficiently run as when you were here.'
Mohamed Salih, of the institute of
Environmental Policy and Society of the University of Uppsala,
noted that a process of 'internal colonialism' has replaced
colonialism, and has led to economic stagnation and collapse,
widespread famine, ethnic partiality and a failure of Government
even to retain power. Misrule in Africa has led to ethnic
conflicts, many of which can be seen as the continuation of the
colonial wars, as the new African States attempt to incorporate
those peoples which the colonial States never successfully
subjugated. As under the colonials, the independent regimes
continue to apply what Salih refers to as 'systematic state
policies to erode or get rid of
cultural differences.'
A study by the World Rainforest
Movement on the situation in Equatorial Africa highlighted the
ecological consequences of such inappropriate policies - the
devastating effects of logging and the wildlife trade resulting
from policies which deny the rights of forest-dwelling
communities. Many of the problems of post-colonial government in
the area had been compounded by covert and overt interventions by
ex-colonial powers. In Equatorial Africa, the French had
repeatedly meddled with the political process to secure access to
natural resources - timber, oil, uranium and other minerals.
French paratroops still remain encamped in Gabon, twenty-eight
years after they intervened, 'where they share a hill-top with the
fabulous palace of President Haji Omar Bongo - an unforgettable
symbol of the coincidence of interests between the French and the
ruling elite'.
Policies of assimilation
Forced relocation, the conference
learned, has been a common problem faced by 'indigenous' peoples
in Africa. The Batwa of Rwanda noted how some of the last
forest-dwelling pygmies of the country have been forced to
relocate to make way for the Gishwati forest conservation project
financed by the World Bank. Destitute through loss of their land
they have been reduced to beggary. But resettlement has not just
been a means to make way for development - dams, mines, irrigation
schemes and conservation zones - but has also been a central plank
of Government's assimilationist policies.
In Equatorial Africa, systematic
torching of forest settlements hastened the people down to
road-side villages; a policy continued by the independence
governments into the mid- 1970s. Under Nyerere's 'ujamaa' ideology,
'villagisation' was imposed on the dispersed homesteads and
settlements in Tanzania, totally undermining customary systems of
land use and leadership. Pastoralists were sedentarised in the
Sahel with the assistance of the International Labour
Organisation.
Resettlement of the 'Bushmen'
remains the policy of the Government of Botswana and a recent
attempt to expel /Kwe groups from the Central Kalahari Game
Reserve was only stopped after concerted protests by the human
rights groups Survival International and IWGIA. In a subsequent
meeting with the local administration the /Kwe were warned: 'You
think that these outsiders will always help you. Well, one of
these days they will be gone and there will only be us, and we own
you and we will own you till the end of time and you will not
achieve what you want.'
Controls on the expression of
culture have been a major means of obliging 'indigenous' peoples
to assimilate. The Berbers continue to be denied the right to use
their language in Morocco. The /Kwe told the meeting how their
children are frequently and repeatedly beaten if they fail to
understand Tsetswana in school. The Tuareg noted how education has
long been used to break down cultural differences and cited a
French colonial official of 1917 remarking: 'We only have at our
disposal a limited number of means to transform the primitive
peoples of our colonies and render them devoted to our aims and
amenable to our enterprises and the most sure is to take the
indigene in his infancy, and ensure that he frequently visits us
and submits to our intellectual and moral customs during the
following few years. In a word, to open up schools where his
spirit can be moulded to suit our goals.'
Maasai representative Saroni ole
Ngulay of the organisation Inyuat e-Maa told the meeting how in
the 1970s in Tanzania 'we were forced to adopt western dressing
patterns and those who did not were refused transport, education
and medicine'. Young warriors were sometimes forcibly shaved of
their plaited hair and the Kenyan government has sought to abolish
'warrior' age grades and prohibit the coming-of-age ceremonies 'when
we ordain the young men to be priests of the community'. Even the
Christian Churches have played a part in this process, by seeking
to prohibit Maasai prophets - the traditional leaders - 'as they
have learned that they cannot win our souls without first removing
them'.
Pastoralists and hunter-gatherers
are widely despised by urban groups. Their wandering lifestyles
appear aimless, as if they trail around randomly without purpose.
Johannes Aron of the 'First Peoples of the Kalahari' emphasised
how this incomprehension was based on lack of consultation. 'Why'
he
wondered 'were we not asked before why we move around? People
appear aimless but if we had been asked they would have found out
long ago why we do it.'
'It appears that even now it is
said that the 'Basarwa' (which means 'those who do not own' in
Tsetswana) never had rights and that they don't have rights now or
a mind or intelligence of their own. This culture that God gave us
has kept us strong through all these centuries, doesn't that show
that we are a people with intelligence? If the government wants to
help our people now - since it has
assumed this responsibility - they should give the people their
rights to land, not handouts. It is not respectful to take
everything and then settle them and give them what they need -
that way the people don't have self-respect. The Government should
ask us what we want. The other thing that hurts is that the /Kwe
are disappearing. We need our land and we want our culture.' 'We
have been hearing about development for a long time but it seems
the word is there but not the will. We hear the word 'development'
but we see our lands disappear and our people dwindle. The
government has in some way abandoned us. They say they are our
fathers and mothers yet we are being discriminated against. It is
our own government that does this. This is painful for us.... It
is a pain to me that when I go home, I sit there and wonder, do I
have a government or not?'
Land rights
The central concern for all
'indigenous' peoples is to retain control of their customary lands.
As Kxao Moses =Oma of the Nyae Nyae Farmers Cooperative of eastern
Namibia told the conference:
'Daily life in Bushmanland revolves
around n!oresi. Bushmanland is our large n!ore. It is like a
territory for all our families. The large n!ore consist of our
small n!ore which are territories of an extended family. N!ore
means basically the place where you were born and your parents and
grandparents were born. In Eastern Bushmanland, we have 200 of
such 'family n!oresi'. The n!ore is not just a piece of land. It
is a piece of nature. It is our natural resource. We find our
entire livelihood in such n!ore: the vegetables, the wild food
plants, the water, the game and material for our houses, tools and
so on. Each n!ore does not provide the same natural resources,
therefore, the Ju/hoan families have learned to share them. We
have learnt to help each other in order to survive in such a harsh
environment. In short, the n!ore is our backbone for survival, and
therefore the foundation for our culture. We wish to maintain and
manage our n!oresi for our children and grandchildren, so that we
have something
valuable to offer them for their future. If you just look across
the border fence to Botswana where our brothers and sisters have
lost their n!ore rights, you might recognise that there the Ju/hoansi
are living in poverty and without any rights, oppressed by others
who have taken over the Ju/hoansi land. We, the Ju/hoansi,
consider the right to our n!oresi, the right to use and manage
natural resources, to be
essential for our lives. I brought this to your attention to
inform you how we are depending on our n!oresi, and how our
culture and well- being are linked to this land system. We Ju/hoansi
were
born here, we grew up here, we married here. Still, Bushmanland
belongs to the government - why don't we have the right to the
land? We know the animals, we know the bush food, we were taught
how to use these valuable natural resources for the best benefit
of all our people. We are afraid of people moving in, and taking
away everything from us. For us, land rights are a human right.'
However, the conference learned
that efforts to legalise land ownership in Africa were fraught
with problems. The tendency to give individual titles to those 'improving'
land is leading to deforestation in Central Africa where settlers
clear rainforests to stake land claims. Lack of precision in the
law about the legal entity that owns communal lands has also led
to abuses. On the one hand the State has found it easy to
extinguish such titles. On the other hand, as among the Maasai,
titling has stimulated improvident land sales, leading to the
emergence of an indigenous elite and the destitution of many
others. One pastoralist researcher had commented: 'I think the
most important thing about a title deed is that it is authority to
sell. A title deed is an instrument of alienation, not control...
Title deeds give you the unilateral
independence to dispose of land and the freedom to become poor.
They are a licence the destroy the future of your children.' The
dilemma for Africa, the World Rainforest Movement noted, 'is to
find a way of legally securing communal tenure in a form
acceptable to local communities without favouring the interests of
indigenous elites and outsiders, whose power and privilege give
them unequal access to the administration.'
Indigenous Organizations
The key to overcoming such problems
lies in the emergence of the 'indigenous' peoples' own
organisations. While some groups have found powerful allies in
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), others have found them to
be all too fallible intermediaries which often run affairs for
their own gain. 'NGOs have not been very good to us' Kaetuai ole
Katampoi, a Maasai from Kenya, told
the meeting.
It was important for these
organisations to build on traditions but not to be shackled by
them. 'The Maasai is his own worst enemy', one Maasai leader had
noted. 'Our society needs to be transformed to meet our
contemporary challenges' Saroni ole Ngulay observed. The meeting
learned of diverse efforts to set up new forms of schooling,
health programmes, cooperatives, land titling exercises, farming
schemes - the most important of all being efforts of awareness
raising. Organisations have emerged which transcend ethnic
boundaries and far from being vehicles for 'tribalism' have
developed as a means of defence against ethnic chauvinism and
discrimination.
This encouraging trend among
'indigenous' peoples to mobilise in the form of alliances has also
crossed international boundaries. The meeting was told that an
effort to create a network of 'pygmy' groups, who live scattered
between Cameroon and Uganda and as far south as Zaire and Burundi,
had recently been initiated with a regional conference in Mbaiki
in the Central African Republic in March this year. Batwa 'pygmies'
from Rwanda have linked themselves to the International Alliance
of
Indigenous-Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests which spans the
globe.
The solutions don't lie only with
'indigenous' peoples themselves, warned Mohamed Salih, who
emphasised that changes in the nature of the State were also
required and implied a wider mobilisation. Only thus could a form
of government develop that was responsive to African cultures and
peoples' needs - through decentralization and the creation of
political accountability.
Concluding the conference, Jens
Dahl of IWGIA projected a note of optimism. When the conference
was first planned two years ago, it was considered impossible to
find an African country willing to host indigenous peoples from
all over Africa. Today the situation is changing. Political
pluralism has now been widely accepted, democratic institutions
are being reasserted and cultural pluralism is thus becoming a
possibility.
The Government of Botswana, which
was represented at the meeting, announced that it was planning a
Regional Conference on the San People later in 1993 to highlight
the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. Thus even
the long mistrusted term 'indigenous' to refer to dominated
peoples has begun to find currency among African governments.
--------------------------
About the writer: Marcus Colchester
is an anthropologist and human rights advocate who works as Forest
Peoples Programme Director for the World Rainforest Movement.
4 June 1993
|
