Few people may
realize that we are living in the United Nations'
International Decade of the World's Indigenous People
(1995-2004). As with other UN designated Decades - Women
(1976-1985) and the Eradication of Colonialism (1990-2000)
- the goal stated at the outset of the Indigenous Decade
was ambitious: to strengthen international cooperation for
the solution of problems faced by Indigenous peoples in
the areas of human rights, culture, the environment,
development, education and health.
As the Decade comes to a close this year, it is apparent
that the Decade has been remarkable only in the emptiness
of the UN's rhetoric and in how so little has been done by
states and international organizations to bring practical
effect to their lofty rhetorical concern for Indigenous
peoples.
The most pressing goal for Indigenous peoples during the
Decade has been the revision of the UN draft Universal
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for
eventual ratification by the General Assembly. However,
since advancing to the Intercessional Working Group of the
Commission of Human Rights in 1995, only two of the draft
Declaration's forty-five articles have been approved.
Mocking the UN's theme of "Partnership in
Action" for the Indigenous Decade, it has been
obstructionist behaviour, sometimes open but most often
times covert, by state representatives in the
Intercessional Working Group (especially the Canadian métis
Wayne Lord, Canada's appointee to the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues) that has stalled important processes
and blocked ratification of the draft Declaration.
Given that the Decade ends with the failure of efforts to
see the draft Declaration ratified, it is a fair question
to ask if any gains have been made in the pursuit of
Indigenous self-determination through activism in global
forums ever, much less over the past ten years.
|
Clearly, the
Decade's objectives and goals have been
undermined by the decision of states to withhold
financing of its initiatives. Given the lack of
financial and human resources provided by states
during the Indigenous Decade, it is amazing that
substantial programs have in fact been developed.
|
We must remember that long
before the UN designated the rhetorical Indigenous Decade,
and before the establishment of the UN Working Group on
Indigenous Populations in 1982, Indigenous peoples have
been active and ever vigilant in protecting their
ancestral homelands, and using whatever means necessary to
ensure their security and survival, including engaging
global forums. In April of 1923, Deskaheh, a Six Nations
Cayuga, petitioned the UN's precursor organization, the
League of Nations, through the good offices of the
Government of the Netherlands:
We have exhausted every
other recourse for gaining protection of our sovereignty
by peaceful means before making this appeal to secure
protection through the League of Nations. If this effort
on our part shall fail we shall be compelled to resist by
defensive action upon our part this British invasion of
our Home-land, for we are determined to live the free
people that we were born.
Then, as now, Indigenous peoples' efforts to achieve
justice were rebuked by the international community.
Deskaheh ultimately failed to gain the recognition and
support of Haudenosaunee sovereignty from the members of
the League of Nations. So if it has been impossible to
gain the recognition of Indigenous national sovereignty in
the past, and if states today refuse to accept a simple
declaration of respect for the fundamental human rights of
Indigenous peoples, what is the potential for
accomplishing anything in regards to Indigenous people in
the UN system?
In 1993, the UN Voluntary Fund for the Indigenous Decade
was established to finance Indigenous activities and
programs. However, no funding was available for Decade
related activities until 1997. Very few states make
regular contributions. Seventy percent of the overall
contributions to the Voluntary Fund, amounting to a meager
US$185,162 in 2003, are donated by only three countries:
Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark. Shamefully, the United
States has not contributed at all, and Canada's 2003
contribution of US$9,747 (for clarity, that is: nine
thousand seven hundred and forty-seven American dollars)
is ridiculously small in comparison to its rhetorical
support for Indigenous rights.
Clearly, the Decade's objectives and goals have been
undermined by the decision of states to withhold financing
of its initiatives. Given the lack of financial and human
resources provided by states during the Indigenous Decade,
it is amazing that substantial programs have in fact been
developed.
|
Indigenous peoples
need to head in a different direction and begin
the process of rearticulating Indigenous rights
within global forums.
|
In 2000, a Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues was created by the Economic and Social
Council. This is one of the most significant developments
of the Decade. However, the Forum was compromised from the
start. Even in terms of its name, states refused to
approve a "Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples"
(our emphasis) fearing that use of the word
"peoples" would imply a recognition of
Indigenous peoples' right of self-determination. As well,
appointed Indigenous and government representatives
attending the inaugural meeting of the Permanent Forum in
New York stressed the view that it should function in
support of research and policy-making in relation to
Indigenous peoples and not as a site of "complaints"
and political debate, and reference the long-running and
contentious annual meetings of the UN Working Group on
Indigenous Populations in Geneva.
Couching as "complaints" the human rights abuses
brought to the world's attention by Indigenous people at
the Working Group and now the Permanent Forum, including
genocide and torture, is an act of cowardice and
obfuscation by the appointed representatives. To go
further in suggesting that the Forum serve only state
policy communities and ignore the opportunity the
gatherings provide for promoting awareness of contention
and conflicts over Indigenous peoples' rights is
reprehensible.
As it stands, delegates attending the Permanent Forum have
approximately three minutes to convey the needs of their
communities within pre-determined topic headings such as
"Health", "Environment," and, "Economic
Development." Even as a permanent organ within the UN
system, the Permanent Forum provides no formal recourse
for Indigenous delegates to remedy human rights violations
occurring within their communities. Given its severe
limitations in addressing or acting on the blatant
injustices and continuing genocide perpetrated against 370
million Indigenous peoples worldwide, structuring the
Permanent Forum to function solely as an internal report
writing and data-gathering agency for state policy circles
is tantamount to an act of criminal negligence on the part
of the UN.
Indigenous organizations and individual nations have
continued to assert themselves during the Indigenous
Decade by refusing to compromise their rights and
sovereignty in the face of state pressures to do so, and
there has been a proliferation of Indigenous declarations
across a wide range of issues also attesting to their
defiance and to the shortcomings of the Indigenous Decade
in substantially addressing issues of importance.
Unfortunately, given the rhetorical style, political
context and non-binding legal status of these documents,
they are ignored by states. Listed below are a few of the
recent Indigenous declarations:
- Indigenous Peoples
Seattle Declaration (1999);
- Baguio Declaration
(1999);
- Declaration of
Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change (2000);
- Indigenous Peoples
Millennium Conference statement (2001);
- Declaration and
Platform of Action on the occasion of the First
Indigenous Women's Summit of the Americas (2002).
Similar to the efforts of Deskaheh over 80 years ago, the
words of today's Indigenous leaders provide insight into
their communities' needs for survival and
self-determination. For example, one better understands
the self-determination needs of some 30 Indigenous
representatives from Asia based on their assertions in the
Baguio Declaration of 1999:
The implementation of the
right of self-determination is fundamental for the
survival and achievement of human security for
indigenous peoples, including, but not limited to, their
cultures, values, languages, religions, economies,
political and legal institutions, indigenous knowledge
systems, way of life, ancestral territories, lands and
resources.
|
Activities within
other global forums do offer some promise.
Recent rulings by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights ... have given legal protection
to Indigenous communities against continuing
state and corporate encroachment on their lands.
|
This declaration - like most
of the other Indigenous declarations emanating from
activism in global forums - is a clearly stated and
consensual statement of Indigenous political identity and
objective. But the question is not whether Indigenous
peoples are capable of stating their belief and position.
The real important question centres on how Indigenous
peoples can promote state accountability to high principle
and to Indigenous peoples' rights within the UN system.
Clearly, the activities undertaken thus far during the
Indigenous Decade suggest that getting Indigenous issues
on the UN agenda is not enough to ensure the protection of
Indigenous peoples' human and political rights.
Activities within other global forums do offer some
promise. Recent rulings by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, such as the 2001 case of The Mayagna (Sumo)
Indigenous Community of Awas Tingni v. The Republic of
Nicaragua, have given legal protection to Indigenous
communities against continuing state and corporate
encroachment on their lands. However, the enforcement of
such decisions is inconsistent at best.
Ten countries have ratified the International Labor
Organization (ILO) Convention 169 "Concerning
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries" during the Indigenous Decade. The
political effect of these ratifications in promoting
Indigenous rights is limited, though, because only 17
states in total have signed onto the Convention. As well,
the substance of ILO 169 is a very weak statement on
Indigenous rights: the phrase "self-determination"
does not appear anywhere in its 44 articles, and
Indigenous rights are cast not as international law but as
existing within the legal authority the state governments,
essentially making Indigenous self-determination a "domestic"
issue for states to regulate:
The use of the term
"peoples" in this Convention shall not be
construed as having any implications as regards the
rights which may attach to the term under international
law.
Yet even the limited "paper rights" of ILO 169
and other international treaties have yet to be fully
recognized and implemented.
This review of recent developments on Indigenous rights
within the UN system leads us to conclude that Indigenous
peoples need to head in a different direction and begin
the process of rearticulating Indigenous rights within
global forums. Our experience (and that of the many other
people who have worked within the UN system for much
longer than us) points to a few possible directions:
- Shift towards engagement
and activism in the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization (UNPO). This would offer the potential to
work outside the state-centric confines of the UN
system. Founded in 1991, UNPO membership is comprised
of 52 nations (not state governments as with the
formal UN system) acting together to promote common
goals of self-determination. In fact, the UNPO's
steering committee confirms that individuals claiming
to represent Indigenous peoples actually speak for,
and truly represent, those communities.
- Emulate the strategies
of successful Indigenous nations. For example, the
Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del
Ecuador (CONAIE), formed in 1986, represents 80% of
the Indigenous population in Ecuador, and has been
successful in decolonizing governmental structures in
that region. In fact, CONAIE actually secured
ownership of two million acres of their land from the
Ecuadorian government after a 1992 uprising that
exerted political and economic pressure that resulted
in the ousting of Ecuador's Presidents in 1998 and
2001.
- Give declarations real
effect by using them as political instruments.
Declarations must be made into more than rhetorical
statements designed to advance a negotiating position
in state-regulated processes. Indigenous declarations
would have power if they were reflections of consensus
and unity, rearticulated the meaning of Indigenous
self-determination, and were starting points for
practical assertions of movement to build a new
relationship with the state.
- Build unity among
Indigenous peoples by reinvigorating the process of
treaty-making among Indigenous among Indigenous
nations.
These are just a few ideas that spring from a reflection
on the paucity of progress towards our peoples' goals
during the UN's Indigenous Decade. There are new
challenges facing our peoples every day, including the
spectre of state-supported biopiracy and other insidious
forms of neo-colonialism manifest as attacks against our
very being, our knowledge and even our DNA. As we move
through to the end of the Indigenous Decade, the main
lesson of the last ten years has been that if we hope to
survive as Indigenous peoples we need to get beyond
rhetoric of all forms and move toward the real assertion
and defence of our land and our connections to the land.
Paper rights cannot achieve self-determination nor can
they promote state accountability to moral precepts and
international law.
Until we resolve to do this, we will continue to voice our
resistance to the state-centric system, just as our
ancestors have so eloquently promoted Indigenous
self-determination in the past, but like them we will
continue to see our people abused, our rights denied, and
our Indigenous existences slip away from us.
Jeff Corntassel is Graduate Advisor for the Indigenous
Governance Program (IGOV) at the University of Victoria (Canada).
Gerald Taiaiake Alfred chairs IGOV and is Indigenous
Peoples Research Chair in the Faculty of Human and Social
Development. |
