[A-List] The Role of the International Indigenous Movement and What the Left is Missing

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxxxxx>]

The Role of the International Indigenous Movement and What the Left is
Missing
What Brought Evo Morales to Power?
Counterpunch.org

By ROXANNE DUNBAR-ORTIZ

What has been left out of reports and analysis in both the mainstream
press and among anti-imperialists and leftists about the triumph of Evo
Morales' election as President of Bolivia is the role played by the
three-decade international indigenous movement that preceded it. Few are
even aware of that powerful and remarkable historic movement, which
springs from generations of grassroots organizing.

If the left, particularly the Latin American left, misses this point,
it's a shame, as mistrust of and racism against the indigenous nations
has been the Achilles heel of previous revolutionary movements in Latin
America (as well as North America).

Indeed, some indigenous activists and organizations in the Andean region
are wary of Evo Morales because of his left politics and alliances, for
the very reason that the Latin American left has so consistently either
ignored indigenous issues and aspirations, or used the indigenous and
tossed them aside (recall that the liberation armies of Bolivar and San
Martin and the independence movement and 20th century revolution in
Mexico, as well as the recent Guatemalan revolution, were made up of
indigenous foot soldiers).

The burden is on the American (and I mean Western Hemisphere) left to
catch up with what has been going on with the indigenous movement in
order to understand the victory of Evo Morales, which is a victory for
the indigenous peoples of the world AND for
anti-imperialism/anti-capitalism. If there is ever to be socialism and
just societies in the Americas, the leadership and form of it must come
from the indigenous peoples. Peruvian communist pioneer, José Carlos
Mariátegui recognized this reality, and it's time to take another look
at past and future strategies and not just pay guilty lip service to the
"plight" of indigenous peoples.
Here's a short history, with references for further study, of the
international indigenous movement.

In 1972, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (now called Sub-Commission
on the Protection of Human Rights) commissioned the "Study of the
Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations. A member of
the Sub-Commission, Ambassador José R. Martínez Cobo of Ecuador, was
selected as Rapporteur. The Study was completed a decade later in 1982,
having taken longer than any other study in the history of the United
Nations.[i] This essay covers that same period, particularly the last
five years of that decade during which indigenous representatives took
control of the new item on the UN human rights agenda.

This was not an auspicious beginning. The Sub-Commission is composed of
26 "independent experts," who serve technically in their own capacity,
but are elected by the UN Commission on Human Rights from nominations
made by UN member states.[ii] The Commission on Human Rights, the parent
body of the Sub-Commission, is composed of UN member states, as is the
Commission's parent, the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations (ECOSOC), a parallel body to the UN General Assembly that
focuses on human rights and social issues. Although the Sub-Commission's
original mandate was to prepare comprehensive reports in the areas of
discrimination and minorities, it actually did much more, making dozens
of resolutions to the Commission regarding all aspects of human rights.
For that reason, the name of the Sub-Commission was changed, without
changing its structure and status.

All the Sub-Commission members are close to, or work within, the foreign
ministries of their respective governments. Several members also serve
as their nations' representatives to the UN Commission on Human Rights.
However, despite that, the Sub-Commission is the only official body of
the UN in which non-governmental organizations (hereafter NGOs) are able
to enjoy full access and participation. However, the NGOs were required
to have official recognition and consultative status under ECOSOC, which
required an arduous process of application and approval by consensus.
Also, human rights issues, as well as development and disarmament, are
centered at United Nations headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, an
expensive and inaccessible site for indigenous peoples.

In the first stages of the study on Indigenous Peoples, governments were
sent lengthy questionnaires, which formed the basis of monographs on
state practices. The Rapporteur also had the authority to solicit of
receive information from experts and ECOSOC-recognized NGOs. During each
annual session of the Sub-Commission, which annually convenes in Geneva
for the month of August, interim reports on the study were submitted in
the form of chapters.

Between the 1975 and 1978 sessions, no reports were submitted, and it
seemed that the study, whose reports had not been met with any great
enthusiasm on the part of the Sub-Commission members, would simply be
discontinued. Martínez Cobo was no longer a member of the
Sub-Commission, and none of the members appeared interested in reviving
the study. However, the 1977 International Conference on Indigenous
Peoples of the Americas asked, among other things, that the
Sub-Commission establish a Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
Thus, the conference and direct participation of indigenous
representatives revived the study and stimulated new interest in the
question. Martínez Cobo, as an outside expert, was appointed to complete
the study.

The definition used by the Sub-Commission for the study, and the
definition that persists is the following:

Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the
peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or
partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic
origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, and,
by conquest, settlement or other means, reduces them to a non-dominant
or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their
particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than
with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under
a State structure which incorporates mainly the national, social and
cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are
predominant.

In its elaboration of the definition, the Sub-Commission made it clear
that the subordinate position of such groups is unrelated to population
figures; equally, it is irrelevant whether the groups live in more than
one country or are scattered throughout a particular country. On the
other hand, the study took into account the factor of circumstance that
established the particular relationship between the state in question
and the indigenous group under study, as well as the national and
cultural characteristics that form the basis of the state structure.

The definition's fundamental consideration was the existence of certain
groups prior to the establishment of the state, as well as whether the
original inhabitants and their descendants are regarded as indigenous in
relation to the colonizers and their descendants. As long as the group
remains so identified, the degree of racial intermixing with the
colonizers or any other group is not relevant, removing the possibility
of racial identification per se.

The definition of indigenous also assumed that the original groups or
their descendants were compulsively forced within the new state
structure when it was established, and had no voice in creating it. In
general, although not in all cases, the definition would apply to groups
who are rural and whose land ownership systems are based on the clan or
community, not on private ownership, and whose land base is not
recognized as a nation.

The time-scale established relates to whether the group was present at
the time the colonizers arrived, not whether they had always been there
or had migrated there from other regions in pre-colonial periods:

This study is not concerned with the question of establishing who may
have been the original inhabitants of a country or region…in most
countries at least substantial groups of the present inhabitants are
descendants of people who arrived there from other parts of the world at
one time or another.[iii]

The definition uses the terminology, "present territory of a country,"
rather than "country," explaining that it is doubtful whether, at the
time of first contact, the country existed as a state or had the same
territory as today. In explaining the terminology, "by conquest,
settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial
condition," the analysis clarifies this as meaning simply "by colonization."

In reference to the phrase, "who today live more in conformity with
their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions
than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part,"
the elaboration is worth reproducing in full:

No existing indigenous population can validly be said to conform to
institutions it has maintained, unchanged, since the time of the
conquest, settlement or other form of reduction to a non-dominant or
colonial condition. What are now known as 'indigenous institutions' are
a mixture, in varying degrees, of colonial and precolonial institutions
as adapted by the indigenous populations to their new condition.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to indicate that indigenous populations
'today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic
and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the
country of which they now form part.' This wording seeks to avoid any
characterizations of the customs and t4raditions beyond the fact that
they are 'particular' to such groups, not whether they were originally
their own or not.[iv]

The analysis makes clear that the definition is not intended to attack
the very existence of state structures when it characterizes them as
mainly reflecting the national, social and cultural characteristics of
the dominant segments of the population, but rather that the reference
is to the reality of the "non-neutral State structure." The study
identifies this as the crux of the problem and calls for protective
measures favoring the indigenous populations.

Due to its long and unusual history, the study is more like two separate
studies. The first part of the Sub-Commission study, based on reports
from the first three years of the study, 1973-75, is dry and legalistic,
as well as being paternalistic in that indigenous peoples were not
involved. It nevertheless contains important material and constitutes an
archive on state policies and claims. The second part of the study is
more dynamic and balanced, with the inclusion of material from
indigenous organizations and experts and other non-governmental sources.

The first interim report[v] submitted to the Sub-Commission's 1973
session contains all measures adopted by the UN that are applicable to
indigenous peoples, including the UN Charter. The International Labor
Organization (ILO) 1953 Convention on Tribal and Indigenous Populations
was analyzed in detail. More importantly, three other international
treaties were taken up: The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment for Genocide; the Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the
Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery; and the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. In addition, actions and initiatives by all organs of
the UN are reviewed, together with actions taken by its specialized
agencies.

The 1974 report[vi] outlines actions taken by the Organization of
American States (OAS), the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights, and
the Interamerican Indian Institute. Finally, it began preliminary
consideration of certain substantive aspects of the problem of
discrimination against indigenous peoples in the areas of housing,
political rights, religious rights and practices, protection of sacred
places and objects, and protection of places and objects of
archaeological interest.

The 1975 report[vii] was structured around the governments'
questionnaire responses as well as information from experts.

The first issue dealt with was definition. The definition of indigenous
populations was analyzed in terms of ancestry, culture, religion, the
fact of living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous
community, dress, livelihood, language, group consciousness, acceptance
by the indigenous community, residence in certain parts of the country,
legal definitions, change in status from indigenous to non-indigenous
and vice versa, registration and certification, and the decision-making
authority in deciding who is and who is not indigenous. The report also
dealt with population, both composition and statistical trends, although
the analysis was superficial and incomplete.

After two years of no reports, the study resumed in 1978, and the report
from the following years, up to the final report in 1982, reflect the
participation of indigenous representatives.

Two important individuals behind the scenes in Geneva played key roles
in incorporating indigenous peoples into the UN human rights agenda. One
was Augusto Willemsen-Diaz, a Guatemalan international law specialist
and longtime staff member of the UN human rights secretariat. Although
not Mayan himself, Willemsen-Diaz was preoccupied with the situation of
the Mayan people who comprised the majority of the Guatemalan
population, a situation that would soon turn into state genocide against
them. He befriended and convinced Martínez Cobo to propose the
Sub-Commission study of indigenous peoples.

Willemsen Diaz also made certain that indigenous peoples be a category
in the UN Decade to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Apartheid,
which began in 1974[viii]. The Decade focused on apartheid in South
Africa, but also dealt with peoples living under military occupation and
migrant workers. His goal was to build a base of documentation upon
which indigenous peoples could construct infrastructure within the UN
system. Willemsen Diaz was the actual architect of the Sub-Commission
study and the definition of indigenous peoples for the study. Until his
retirement, and even afterwards, Willemsen-Diaz served as an unpaid
consultant to indigenous peoples at the United Nations, mentoring the
initial activists, including this writer.

The other influential individual was Jimmie Durham, a Cherokee and a
successful sculptor and artist, who lived in Geneva during the late
1960s and early 1970s when his wife worked for the World Council of
Churches, which is based in Geneva. This was a time of national
liberation movements for decolonization, particularly in Africa,
inspired and emboldened by Vietnamese resistance to United States'
aggression. In Geneva, Durham befriended a number of the African
liberation leaders who came there to present their cases at the UN,
including Amilcar Cabral of PAIGG, the liberation front in Guinea
Bissau, the African National Congress (ANC) and Southwest Peoples
Liberation Organization (SWAPO) of southern Africa, and those of Angola,
Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. From afar, Durham followed the birth of the
American Indian Movement (AIM) in the United States, from the 1969
occupation of Alcatraz to the 1972 seizure of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs building in Washington DC, and, most importantly, the over two
month siege at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Sioux reservation. He
returned to the United States at that time, met with AIM leaders and
proposed an international project that was realized in the June 1974
founding of the International Indian Treaty Council, (IITC) which Durham
headed for the following six years, gaining ECOSOC non-governmental
organization status for the IITC in 1977. Even before that, Durham had
persuaded some of the most important international NGOs to sponsor a
conference on Indians of the Americas at UN offices in Geneva. These
organizations included the World Council of Churches (WCC) the World
Peace Council (WPC), the Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom (WILPF), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and others.

At the same time, the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada, headed by
George Manuel, the National Congress of American Indians in the United
States, headed by Joe de la Cruz and Phillip (Sam) Deloria, and the
Nordic Sami ("Lapland") Council had founded an international NGO, the
World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), that gained ECOSOC status in
1977.

The key event that marked the beginning of indigenous peoples' direct
activity in the international context was the 1977 International
Non-Governmental Organizations' (NGO) Conference on Indigenous Peoples
of the Americas, held at United Nations' offices in Geneva. The more
than one hundred Indigenous representatives from all over the western
hemisphere reflected organized forces of inestimable dimensions.

The conference was initiated by the International Indian Treaty
Council[ix] and was organized by the NGO Sub-Committee on Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Apartheid, and Colonialism, of the Special NGO Committee
on Human Rights, based in Geneva. and made up of an influential and
broad based group of international NGOs. More than fifty international
NGOs with Consultative Status in the UN Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) registered for the conference, and thirty-eight UN member
nations officially participated. The conference formulated a program of
action[x] for NGOs with recommendations to submit all documents to
divisions of the UN.[xi] The twelfth of October ("Columbus Day") was
declared International Day of Solidarity and Mourning with Indigenous
Peoples of the Americas, with a view to establishment of a permanent
United Nations' day honoring indigenous peoples.[xii]

The recommendations included a call for respect for traditional law and
customs, and for unrestricted rights of land ownership and control over
natural resources by indigenous peoples in their territories. The
conference found that indigenous peoples in the Americas have the right
to own land communally and manage it according to their traditions, and
that such ownership must be recognized and protected in international as
well as national laws. Governments of all the states of the western
hemisphere were called upon to ratify the Declaration of Human Rights
and the United Nations' human rights conventions. A recommendation was
made for the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities to establish a Working Group on Indigenous
Peoples. This recommendation was taken up in the 1981 session of the
Sub-Commission, and was approved by the Commission on Human Rights and
ECOSOC in their 1982 sessions. The newly established Working Group on
Indigenous Populations met for the first time in August 1982.

The indigenous representatives participating in the 1977 conference in
all night sessions hammered out a document that they submitted
collectively. This document, entitled "Draft Declarations of Principles
for the Defense of the Indigenous nations and Peoples of the Western
Hemisphere,"[xiii] represents the dominant theme of the conference and
set the basis for subsequent UN negotiations regarding the question of
indigenous peoples. The declaration contains 13 brief and unequivocal
statements of indigenous rights:

(1) Recognition of Indigenous nations: Indigenous people shall be
accorded recognition as nations, and proper subjects of international
law, provided the people concerned desire to be recognized as a nation
and meet the fundament requirement of nationhood, namely: (a) having a
permanent population; (b) having a defined territory; (c) having a
government; (d) having the ability to enter into relations with other
states.

(2) Subjects of International Law: Indigenous groups not meeting the
requirements of nationhood are hereby declared to be subjects of
international law and are entitled to the protection of this
Declaration, provided they are identifiable groups having bonds of
language, heritage, tradition, or other common identity.

(3) Guarantee of Rights: No indigenous nation or group shall be deemed
to have fewer rights or lesser status for the sole reason that the
nation or group has not entered into recorded treaties or agreements
with any state.

(4) Accordance of Independence: Indigenous nations or groups shall be
accorded such degree of independence as they may desire in accordance
with international law.

(5) Treaties and Agreements: Treaties and other agreements entered into
by indigenous nations or groups with other states, whether denominated
as treaties or otherwise, shall be recognized and applied in the same
manner and according to the same international laws and principles as
the treaties and agreements entered into by their states.

(6) Abrogation of Treaties and other Rights: Treaties and agreements
made with indigenous nations or groups shall not be subject to
unilateral abrogation. In no event may the municipal laws of any state
serve as a defense to the failure to adhere to and perform the terms of
treaties and agreements made with indigenous nations or groups. Nor
shall any state refuse to recognize and adhere to treaties or other
agreements due to changed circumstances where the change in
circumstances has been substantially caused by the state asserting that
such change has occurred.

(7) Jurisdiction: No state shall assert or claim to exercise any right
of jurisdiction over any indigenous nation or group unless pursuant to a
valid treaty or other agreement freely made with the lawful
representatives of indigenous nation or group concerned. All actions on
the part of any state which derogate from the indigenous nations' or
groups' right to exercise self-determination shall be the proper concern
of existing international bodies.

(8) Claims to Territory: No state shall claim or retain, by right of
discovery or otherwise, the territories of an indigenous nation or
group, except such lands as may have been lawfully acquired by valid
treaty or other cessation freely made.

(9) Settlement of Disputes: All states in the Western hemisphere shall
establish through negotiations or other appropriate means a procedure
for the binding settlement of disputes, claims, or other matters
relating to indigenous nations or groups. Such procedures shall be
mutually acceptable to the parties, fundamentally fair, and consistent
with international law. All procedures presently in existence which do
not have the endorsement of the indigenous nations or groups concerned,
shall be ended, and new procedures shall be instituted consistent with
this Declaration.

(10) National and Cultural Integrity: It shall be unlawful for any state
to take or permit any action or course of conduct with respect to an
indigenous nation or group which will directly or indirectly result in
the destruction or disintegration of such indigenous nation or group or
otherwise threaten the national or cultural integrity of such nation or
group, including, but not limited to, the imposition and support of
illegitimate governments and the introduction of non-indigenous
religions to indigenous peoples by non-indigenous missionaries.

(11) Environmental Protection: It shall be unlawful for any state to
make or permit any action or course of conduct with respect to the
territories of an indigenous nation or group which will directly or
indirectly result in the destruction or deterioration of an indigenous
nation or group through the effects of pollution of earth, air, water,
or which in any way depletes, displaces or destroys any natural
resources or other resources under the dominion of, or vital livelihood
of an indigenous nation or group.

(12) Indigenous Membership: No state, through legislation, regulation,
or other means, shall take actions that interfere with the sovereign
power of an indigenous nation or group to determine its own membership.

(13) Conclusion: All of the rights and obligations declared herein shall
be in addition to all rights and obligations existing under
international law.

The declaration could be characterized as the fundamental political
document of the international indigenous movement, and would provide the
basis for the elaboration of the Draft Declaration of Principles for the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations that became the subject of a decade of negotiations in the
Commission on Human Rights, remaining unresolved.

Another recommendation made by the 1977 conference was to its own
constituency to organize a conference that would focus on the land and
its relationship to indigenous rights, broadening the geographical scope
to global. The NGO Sub-Committee on Racism followed through with this
directive and organized the International NGO Conference on Indigenous
Peoples and the Land, which was held from 15-18 September 1981 at the UN
in Geneva.

The 1981 conference was organized into four commissions, whose
individual reports made up the final report, covering the following
areas: land rights, international treaties and agreements; land reform
and systems of tenure; indigenous philosophy; and the impact of nuclear
arms build-up. Five indigenous international and regions groups were
invited to solicit and submit documentation for the conference and to
organize delegations: the International Indian Treaty Council; the World
Council of Indigenous Peoples; and the South American Indian Council
(CISA); the Australian National Conference of Aborigines; and the Indian
Law Resource Center (ILRC), and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.[xiv]

Participants in the 1981 conference included 150 indigenous
representatives from the Americas, as well as aboriginal representatives
from Australia and Sami delegates from Norway. Fewer governments
participated officially than in 1977, due at least in part to the call
by the Reagan administration for a government boycott of the conference.
Among Western countries, only the government of Norway registered,
although other governments were present unofficially, and dozens of
African, Asian, and Latin American governments registered and attended.
Nearly 50 international NGOs with consultative ECOSOC status registered.
Dozens of scholars and experts participated as individuals.

A striking aspect of the 1981 conference was the active participation of
several national liberation organizations, including the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Southwest Africa People's
Organization (SWAPO), with the latter representative chairing the
Commission on Transnationals.[xv] The Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front/Revolutionary Democratic Front of El Salvador
(FMLN/FDR) also participated, and special sessions were held on El
Salvador, Angola, Namibia, and Nicaragua. The government of Nicaragua
sent a special delegation headed by Comandante Lumberto Campbell,
Vice-Minister for the Atlantic Coast, and representatives of the Miskitu
and Sumu indigenous communities.

The participants unanimously supported the conference's final
declaration and resolutions, which manifested solidarity with indigenous
peoples in their "just struggle for self-determination and for the right
to determine the development and use of their land and resources, and to
live in accordance with their values and philosophy."

One of the excuses for the Reagan administration boycott was the
presence of Romesh Chandra of the World Peace Council (WPC) as president
of both the 1977 and 1981 conferences, and Edith Ballantyne, Secretary
General of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
(WILPF) as the Secretary. The Reagan administration accused Chandra and
the WPC of being a Soviet front, and Ms. Ballantyne and WILPF of being
Soviet dupes. These were also the days of the Cold War and binary
politics in the United Nations. This had not been an issue in 1977 with
the Carter administration, which was claiming to champion international
human rights. President Carter's UN representative, Dr. Andrew Young, a
high profile African American civil rights leader, cooperated to some
extent with the IITC in organizing the 1977 conference, although he
expressed his displeasure with the initiative. The Carter administration
sent two activist Native Americans, Kirk Kickingbird and Shirley Hill
Witt, as members of their delegation. At the time, IITC people were
suspicious of the cooperation and kept the administration at arms length
to remain independent. The Reagan administration was just the opposite,
and the going was tough during those eight years. Yet, much would be
accomplished.

Jimmy Durham had set the stage for the IITC to be linked with The
Non-aligned Movement (NAM), the organization of African, Asian, and
Latin American/Caribbean states and national liberation organizations
that had been founded by Nehru of India, Nasser of Egypt, and Tito of
Yugoslavia in the 1950s, in order to avoid the Cold War binary and stake
out an autonomous path for decolonization, nation-building, and economic
development. United States' administrations consistently charged that
the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was a tool of the Soviet Union. However,
it was a fact that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc always voted in
the UN on the side of NAM, not the reverse. The NAM states were a varied
lot with many different systems of governance, only a few, such as Cuba,
being actual Soviet allies.[xvi] The other international indigenous NGOs
eschewed the NAM linkage and rather sought allies in the North Atlantic
states.

Despite harassment of the Reagan administration, the Sub-Commission in
its 1981 session discussed the next step on the completion of its study
on indigenous peoples, and decided to recommend to the Commission on
Human Rights that a Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) be
established within the Sub-Commission. The Human Rights Commission
approved the working group in its 1982 session, as did ECOSOC. The
Working Group met for the first time in 1982. Tribute for this action
must be paid to the head of UN Human Rights, Dr. Theo van Boven, who was
promptly pushed out of his post by the Reagan administration due to his
advocacy for the Working Group and for other human rights initiatives.
The mandate of the WGIP is spelled out in the UN resolution that
established it.[xvii]

The WGIP would meet annually up to five working days--this soon
increased to ten working days--before the annual sessions of the
Sub-Commission. Its task was to review developments concerning the
promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of
indigenous populations, and "especially" information from indigenous
peoples. The conclusions from such reviews were to be submitted to the
Sub-Commission. The terms of the resolution were open and broad, despite
attempts by various governments to narrow the task to establishing legal
standards and writing a convention, both of which could be taken up
within the broader mandate. Importantly, the resolution called for open
attendance by indigenous representatives regardless of ECOSOC
consultative status. The WGIP was, and is, made up of five members of
the Sub-Commission, chosen by the Sub-Commission and appointed by its
chairman.[xviii]

At its first meeting in 1982, the WGIP discussed its mandate and
reiterated its broad nature. The problem of definition was discussed, as
were standards. Several areas of concern were identified and discussed
and these were summarized in the Final Report under seven categories: a)
the right to life, to physical integrity and to security of the
indigenous communities; b) the right to self-determination, the right to
develop their own culture, traditions, language and way of life; c) the
right to freedom of religion and traditional religious practices; d) the
right to land and to natural resources; e) civil and political rights;
f) the right to education; and g) other rights.[xix]

Observers at the first meeting of the WGIP included the governments of
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Morocco, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Panama, Sweden, the USA, North Yemen, and the PLO. Also
represented in the session were several UN specialized agencies,
including the International Labor Organization (ILA) and the High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The three indigenous organizations
holding UN consultative status were present, as well as ten indigenous
organizations without such status, eight of them from North America. The
South American Indian Council (CISA) was represented by its Director.
The ECOSOC NGOs that had organized the 1977 and 198l conferences sent
representatives, as did numerous NGOs that had not in the past shown an
interest in issues concerning indigenous peoples. Soon, they would take
up indigenous issues within their own organizations.

Despite the explosive and sensitive issues involved, a remarkable
unanimity pervaded the establishment of the WGIP and its first meeting,
certainly due in part to the excellent leadership of its elected
chairman, Ajsborn Eide, a Norwegian and Sub-Commission expert-member.
Some observer pointed out that the presence and participation of
representatives of indigenous groups was the key factor that did not
allow the WGIP to become politicized along East-West Cold War lines.

However, it was the presence and testimony of Rigoberta Menchú Tun[xx],
a Mayan leader in exile from Guatemala that galvanized that first
meeting and set the tone of urgency that has remained inherent to WGIP
meetings. Menchu's parents and brother had been murdered by the
Guatemalan military in 1980, driving her and her other siblings into
exile where she became the most important spokesperson for the Mayan
people in their struggle to survive the genocidal project of the
Guatemalan military government. Allied with the Guatemalan military, the
Reagan administration had successfully protected Guatemala from human
rights accusations in the UN, until Rigoberta Menchú arrived, changing
the situation. Menchú went on to receive to Nobel Peace Prize in 1992,
and was appointed UN special ambassador for the UN Decade for Indigenous
Peoples, 1995-2004.

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is author of Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the
Contra War (South End Press, 2005), which documentshe first clash
between the emerging international Indigenous movement and a leftist
revolution arose with the triumph of the Sandinistas (FSLN) in
Nicaragua. In organizing the Contra War, the Reagan administration,
through the CIA, then the NSC, manipulated conflicts over indigenous
rights between the Miskitus of northeast Nicaragua and the Sandinistas,
dividing the North American Indian movement. She can be reached at:
rdunbaro@xxxxxxxxxxx

NOTES

[i ] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/33, August 25, 1982.

[ii] For the history and functions of the Sub-Commission, see: Tom
Gardeniers, Hurst Hannum, and Janice Kruger. 1982. "The U.N.
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities: Recent Developments." Human Rights Quarterly 4 (3): 353-370;
and Peter Haver. 1982. "The United Nations Sub-Commission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities." Columbia
Journal of Transnational Law 21: 103-134.

[iii] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L566. June 29, 1972.

[v] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L84. June 25, 1973.

[vi] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L596. June 19, 1974.

[vii] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L707. July 17, 1975.

[viii] US administrations from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush have
boycotted the UN initiatives on Racism, including the activities of the
two Decades--1974-1983, 1984-1993--ostensibly because of the inclusion
of the Palestinian question on the agenda. However, although Zionism as
Racism was removed from that agenda after the 1993 Oslo accords, the
United States continued to be unsupportive of anti-racist initiatives.
The George W. Bush administration registered, then walked out of the
2001 World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa. Many US NGO
representatives of color, including Native Americans, believe that the
US rebuff to the issue of racism internationally is due to the
institutionalized racism inherent in the US government itself.

[ix] The author was a member of the IITC staff organizing and directing
the conference. Delegates to the conference were elected at the annual
meeting of the IITC in June 1977 at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation.
The IITC also invited Latin American indigenous organizations to send
delegates of their choice.

[x] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.684 Annex IV, p.3. July
21, 1978. United Nations Sub-Commission, 31st Session, Item16. See also:
Official report from the NGO Sub-Committee on Racism, Geneva, 1978, and
Report from the International Indian Treaty Council, New York, November,
1978. These and other documents are available from DOCIP--the Indigenous
Peoples' Center for Documentation, Research and Information, located at
14, av. de Trembley / CH - 1209 Geneva.

DOCIP was founded at the 1977 Geneva conference with the mandate to
collect and house all documents relevant to the international indigenous
peoples' movement.

[xi] The conference documentation was formally submitted to the UN
Secretary-General and the President of the UN General Assembly in
November 1977.

[xii] "See: Fact Sheet No.9 (Rev.1), The Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Programme of Activities for the International Decade of the World's
Indigenous People (1995-2004) (para. 4), General Assembly resolution
50/157 of 21 December 1995, annex. Find the Fact Sheet at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs9.htm
August 9 was selected as the day (General Assembly resolution 49/214 of
23 December 1994 para. 8), and 1993 as the year for indigenous peoples
(resolution 45/164 of 18 December 1990), while the UN Decade for the
World's Indigenous People spanned 1995-2004 (General Assembly resolution
50/157 of 21 December 1995, annex). These dates were compromises after a
long attempt by the governments of Spain, Italy, the Vatican, and the
United States, to acknowledge the 500-year anniversary "encounter" of
Europe and the Americas with the landing of Columbus on October 12, 1492
by celebrating that event in the United Nations in 1992, calling for a
day, a year (1992), and a decade (1993-2002). I was present in the
General Assembly meeting in October 1982 when Spain presented the
proposal. I was shocked, then disgusted, when the Irish and the
Norwegian ambassadors teased the Spanish that their countries had been
first to "discover America." After a half hour of general hilarity,
suddenly one of the African delegates stood up and walked out of the
room, followed by every other African representative. A recess was
called, and the Western European and North American delegates appeared
dazed and confused. I heard one say, "Why on earth would Africans even
be interested in the issue?" I was amazed at their ignorance. When the
African bloc returned an hour later, its elected spokesperson read a
statement that condemned the call to celebrate the onset of
"colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and genocide" in the halls
of the United Nations. That killed the proposal, but did not faze its
supporters. The Vatican even wanted to expand the concept of "encounter"
to include a phrase about the "gift" of bringing Christianity to the
heathens. During the decade that followed Spain, the Vatican, Italy, the
United States, and all the Latin American countries they could bribe
brought full pressure on the African states to agree, but they never
budged. Meanwhile the international indigenous movement and local
indigenous groups of the western hemisphere opposed it and insisted on
those dates to honor indigenous peoples, a battle they won in the end.
To pacify Spain and the Vatican for their total defeat, August 9 was
designated as the day, and 1993 rather than 1992 was named the "UN Year
for the World's Indigenous Peoples," followed by a UN Decade (1995-2004)
by the same name.

[xiii] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.684 Annex IV, p. 3.
July 21, 1978.

[xiv] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/Sub.2/476/Add.5, 198a: 56. The
ICC did not respond to the invitation. The invited indigenous NGOs were
selected due to their status as consultative NGOS with ECOSOC. During
the 1980s and 1990s, numerous other indigenous NGOS gained consultative
status.

[xv] When SWAPO took power in Namibia and the African National Congress
(ANC) in South Africa in the early 1990s, they developed a cooperative
relationship with the international indigenous movement, developing
initiatives for the San people ("Bushmen"), who are the indigenous
people of Southern Africa.

[xvi] In 1978, following the 1977 Geneva conference, I became a
representative of the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organization
(AAPSO), a non-governmental organization with ECOSOC consultative status
based in Cairo, that was associated with NAM, in order to develop
stronger links with NAM.

[xvii] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/L.772. September 1,
1981: 3. Only two representatives for indigenous issues, including
myself, were present at the Sub-Commission to lobby for the WGIP.

[xviii] Five is the minimum number of members allowed on UN Working
Groups, as it is required that an equal number of representatives from
the five UN regions be members of any UN body. These regions are: the
Western states, including western Europe, North America, Australia and
New Zealand; the Eastern European states; Asia; Africa; and Latin
America/Caribbean.

[xix] United Nations Document No. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/1982/33, August 25, 1982.

[xx] The author persuaded Menchú to attend the WGIP, after that the
Sub-Commission, followed by the UN General Assembly in the Fall of 1982,
and the Commission on Human Rights in 1983.

--
Macdonald Stainsby
http://independentmedia.ca/survivingcanada
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
In the contradiction lies the hope
   --Bertholt Brecht.