What is the meaning of Indigenous People`s Rights?
Who is indigenous and who is not? What is an indigenous person? The debate on indigenous peoples is something that remains alive. The struggles for resources, the attempts to prevent conflict and to make peace are all part and parcel of the politic of defining “the indigenous”. In Africa many people consider themselves to be indigenous to where they are living today. In Europe many Europeans consider themselves indigenous to the continent. Immigrants have been seen as non-indigenous everywhere. All these complexities arise as a result of the challenges in defining who is indigenous and what the rights of the indigenous person are.
What is an indigenous person?
Article 1 of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention provides the following definition:
Article 1
1. This Convention applies to:
( a ) Tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;
( b ) Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.
2. Self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply.
3. 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. (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/indigenous.htm )
Such is the legal definition of indigenous peoples provided for by the United Nations system. What are the challenges inherent in this definition? We can use Africa as a case study. Most Africans fear labeling some certain groups as indigenous and others as not. The fear is driven by the fact that differentiating between indigenous and non-indigenous has led to a plethora of conflicts in many parts of the continent. Some people have been denied access to life critical resources simply because they are considered not indigenous to certain areas.
How States Fear the Indigenous People
During the deliberation on whether to adopt the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, a lot of African governments were skeptical of the deal. It was the African block that could make or break the declaration. It was also special that there was an alliance between the African block and some western nations like Canada, USA and Australia in questioning the implications of the bill. Countries from these blocks fear that they might lose resource control if they abide by the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. However a country like Norway with a significantly influential indigenous Sami population supported the declaration. A country like Norway has learnt that empowering indigenous peoples is not a big threat at all to development strategies. In fact most indigenous peoples do not wish to break away from the mainlands. They just demand equitable allocation of resources and to have a say in matters that concern them economically, politically and culturally.
Way forward on Indigenous Peoples in Practice
The rights of indigenous people as enshrined in the declaration should be respected. If there are weaknesses in the declaration then improvements should be made. There should be no fear of indigenous peoples as some states do. However there should be a clear message that any attempts to promote secessionist tendencies or desires should be stopped. Nations develop much if they have unity and cultural pluralities. Advocating for secession simply because one is a different indigenous group from the other will not solve the problem. Sharing of resources is critical in promoting the rights of indigenous people. Exploiting resources from those areas owned by indigenous peoples is especially cruel. People who live in a certain area should decide over their resources. There is no validity in modern laws that legislate for prospecting and property rights of big businesses at the expense of indigenous peoples. Were indigenous peoples consulted when making the laws that will affect resources in their area? If not, what is the validity of these laws? It has been noted that big businesses simply claim to have obtained licenses to mine for oil, diamonds, gold and many other resources in indigenous areas. The companies just use state apparatus to evict indigenous peoples from their homes in order to extract their resources. Such scenarios are big causes of conflicts. How can that be prevented? It is simply by consulting with indigenous peoples over their resources that positive development can be realized. The challenge is therefore to make sure that indigenous peoples own their resources. The language of “scaring or attracting foreign investors” should not be a justification to offer licenses that take resources away from its rightful people and transferring them to the multinationals with vast amounts of money. Indeed the debate on indigenous will remain a head cracking one. Debate on these issues is welcome as it promotes new ideas and new thinking that works in favor of the indigenous peoples positions.
By Ocean Marambanyika
Expert on Peace, History, Development and Conflict Studies
University of Oslo (Graduate), Norway
oceaniamars@yahoo.no
FULLPLAY LIST: www.youtube.com Ken O’Keefe’s Website www.worldcitizen.uk.net BIOGRAPHY: www.worldcitizen.uk.net
Video Rating: 4 / 5