jdmann@labrea.stanford.edu (08/30/89)
/* Written 2am 8/29/89 by David Yarrow(jdmann) in soc.rights.human */
/* ---- INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, Part 2 ---- */
Source: DAYBREAK: Amer. Indian World Views, Winter 88
"International Principles of Indigenous Rights" by John Mohawk
(Note: Part 1 covered the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Peoples)
CONVENTION 107
International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 107, adopted in 1957,
is the only existing international instrument which addresses the rights of
indigenous and tribal peoples worldwide. The Convention has been ratified
by 37 nations states. The 1957 version is written in highly integrationist
terms and, for the most part, attempts to ensure the world's tribal and
indigenous peoples can be assimilated into the economic mainstream as a
workforce in the nation state. The Convention addresses social, economic
and cultural issues and does not address political issues. Political
rights, such as the right of self-determination, fall outside the mandate
of Convention 107.
ILO has been criticized for Convetion 107. Pressure from indigenous
peoples as well as governments urged changes in the integrationist
personality of the Convention. An effort was initiated to revise the
Convention to reflect the aspirations of indigenous peoples.
ILO meets annually in Geneva. To revise the Convention, ILO brings the
process of the International Labor Conference, a tripartite organization
composed of governments, workers and employers. A committee was established
to deal with revisions of Convention 107. Last year ILO sent a questionaire
to governments and indigenous NGOs asking their response to draft language
they prepared to update the Convention. The first meeting to discuss
revisions convened in Geneva in June 88.
Observers at that meeting were disappointed few indigenous people (six
or seven) attended the discussions. Some organizations that did attend are
of questionable legitimacy with little or no grassroots indigenous
constituency, and operate independent of indigenous communities. Indigenous
persons who did attend attempted, through workers' representatives, to
improve Convention 107 language. Some changes were proposed that indigenous
rights advocates find favorable, but for the most part the language
continues to be integrationist.
PEOPLES, NOT POPULATIONS
Some of the most heated discussion related to use of the term "peoples."
Many governments indicated in responses to the questionnaire they had no
problem with the term "peoples" to describe indigenous groups. However,
when the committee assembled, Canada's representative thrust the whole
discussion of the term into the limelight. Canadian government fears use of
the term implies the right of self-determination and, further, the right of
secession. Canada campaigned to ensure the term "peoples" was not used. The
draft text uses italics and parentheses to denote "peoples/populations"
because the committee is undecided about it. Canada, India, Japan and a few
South American governments favor a disclaimer to state use of the term
"peoples" in the Convention would not imply the right of secession.
Indigenous people argued they are not populations, they are "peoples" -
this is what they believe themselves to be. They further state they do have
the right of self-determination and will not back down from that position.
They also oppose any disclaimers or strings attached to Convention
language. Prior to the meeting the text had read "indigenous peoples."
Indigenous supporters consider it regression that the new language now
reads "peoples/populations."
Rebecca Adamson, addressing the Conference, stated, "I strongly urge
that next year we begin using the term PEOPLES. No other term reflects the
cultural collective and indigenous society as a whole. I am an Employers'
delegate from the U.S.; I am a Cherokee American Indian. I can personally
tell you I felt as if I'd been slapped in the face when recognition of my
peoplehood was denied." The matter will be brought up at the June, 1989 ILO
meeting - the second and final discussion on Convention 107.
LAND RIGHTS DISPUTED
Another major area of conflict involved discussion of indigenous peoples
rights to the land and resources. Governments such as Canada, Japan and
India don't want to recognize land rights of indigenous peoples. They
simply sent in so many amendments to ILO that a special working group was
set up on the amendments. Even the working group was overwhelmed by the
number of amendments and the whole matter was adjourned to June, 1989.
"The importance of Convention 107," according to Dalee Sambo of the
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, "is it's the only existing international
instrument that addresses indigenous rights, and it also has an organ you
can go back to and have recourse. If approved by the International Labor
Conference and ratified by governments in its new amended version, a number
of rights of indigenous people will fall under the mandate of the
Convention. If one of these rights is violated and a government is in
violation, indigenous people can go to the Committee on Application of the
Convention and have them brought into line."
"For example, Brazil, which has been killing Yanomami Indians over gold
mining, was raked over coals for their violations of Convention 107.
(Brazil) ratified in the 70s. British and French trade unions were the most
aggressive, assertive, eloquent defenders of indigenous rights I've ever
seen in any international forum. They took the government of Brazil to
task and were able to provide written evidence of the facts; they had
figures on the number of people killed and placed under forced labor -- 12
and 14 year old Indian people. They went through the entire evidence
provided by Amnesty International and Survival International. Some of the
information was shocking, and the public doesn't know anything about it."
"The Brazil Government had to respond. The employers' group in that
committee raked Brazil over the coals. (Brazil) was told they have to amend
their constitution, and to stop killing Indians. ILO will appoint an
independent committee to review government actions in Brazil."
"Before that I questioned whether we should recognize ILO authority. But
after that meeting on the Yanomami, I'm convinced this Convention will save
Indian lives. We'll never be satisfied with the (Convention's) language,
but even that 1957 integrationist language was helping save Indian people
is significant."
LACK OF INDIGENOUS PARTICIPATION
Indigenous people had no direct participation in discussions. In June 88
indigenous people sat at the edges of the room listening to workers,
governments and employers discuss indigenous rights, indigenous aspirations
and indigenous lives. Sometimes they saw those rights evaporate because a
deal was made between workers and employers. Most people leading
discussions are not indigenous people, and do not understand issues and
concerns from an indigenous perspective, especially questions of land and
resources. There are some changes indigenous people will agree are positive
in non-controversial areas such as education, health issues, vocational
training and things the ILO is familiar with.
Leaders of indigenous communities must resolve the issue of indigenous
representation. A first step is for Indian leaders and representatives to
contact the NGOs involved in ILO and WGIP processes. In North America these
are Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Indian Law Resource Center and National
Indian Youth Council.
What would help most is for indigenous representatives to attend
sessions and participate. Having more of our people in the room makes
governments and NGOs more responsive. The work requires more people to
lobby friendly governments and employers' groups. There's work to be done
to help workers' group present arguments supporting indigenous peoples.
Domestically, there is still time to contact the U.S. Department of Labor
to explain indigenous views and concerns.
***************************
(JOHN MOHAWK, a Seneca Indian journalist, is a Professor of American
Indian Studies at the University of Buffalo, and Editor-in-Chief of
DAYBREAK, a quarterly journal of "American Indian World Views"; PO Box 315,
Williamsville, NY 14231; 716-636-3678)
***************************
Indian law Resource Center, 601 E St SE, Washington, DC 20003; 202-547-2800
Inuit Circumpolar Conference, 429 D St Suite 220, Anchorage, AK 99501;
907-258-6917
National Indian Youth Council, 318 Elm St SE, Albuquerque, NM 87107;
505-247-2251
=============================================================
-*+*- prepared by David Yarrow(jdmann), the turtle, for SOLSTICE magazine
***** SOLSTICE, devoted to "Perspectives on Health and Environment", is
published bimonthly at 200 E. Main St Suite H, Charlottesville, VA 22901
804-979-0189/4427.
---
Patt Haring | UNITEX : United Nations
patth@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | Information
patth@ccnysci.BITNET | Transfer Exchange
-=- Every child smiles in the same language. -=-