|
Article Excerpt
It is still true that the first part of self-determination is the
self. In our minds and in our souls, we need to reject the colonists' control and authority, their definition of who we are and what our rights are, their definition of what is worthwhile and how one should live, their hypocritical and pacifying moralities. We need to rebel against what they want us to become, start remembering the qualities of our ancestors and act on those remembrances. This is the kind of spiritual revolution that will ensure our survival. --Taiaiake Alfred, 2005
How is self-determination being framed in the contemporary indigenous-rights discourse? And to what degree are indigenous peoples asserting visions of self-determination on their own terms in order to "start remembering the qualities of our ancestors and act on those remembrances"? The 1999 Nisga'a Final Agreement, which is part of the British Columbia Treaty Process (BCTC) and represents federal and provincial governmental efforts to permanently resolve indigenous land claims in Canada, provides some important insights into the current realities of indigenous self-determination movements in Canada and around the world. According to the comprehensive analysis of the BCTC made by Kanien'kehaka (Mohawk) scholar Taiaiake Alfred, whose words provide the epigraph to this article, (1) the $190 million paid to the Nisga'a tribal council, coupled with surrender of their tax exemption status under the Indian Act and the dire prospects for future economic growth in the Nass Valley, makes it "difficult to see how the Nisga'a people will find the money to survive as a nation." (2)
As Alfred points out, "Most likely, Nisga'a people will find themselves having to sell off land, mineral, fish and timber rights to fund their government and social programs." (3) Political scientist Jim Tully provides a similar assessment:
As far as I am aware, this is the first time in the history of Great Turtle Island that an indigenous people, or at least 61 percent of its eligible voters, has voluntarily surrendered their rights as indigenous peoples, not to mention surrendering over 90 percent of their territory, and accepted their status as a distinctive minority with group rights within Canada. This appears to be the first success of strategies of extinguishment (release) and incorporation by agreement. (4)
Unfortunately, the land-settlement strategies employed by Canada extinguish original indigenous title to their territories and force community members to accept monetary payouts for their unrecovered land. In this case, the Nisga'a final agreement left 92 percent of their original homelands to Canada and put the community at risk by leading them into an unsustainable future under the banner of "self-government." As with the Nisga'a agreement, states tend to narrowly frame self-determination by focusing on state political/legal recognition of indigenous peoples as self-governing entities while diverting energies away from more substantive discussions regarding the reclamation of indigenous territories, livelihoods, natural resources, and the regeneration of community languages and culturally based practices.
As the above example demonstrates, the rights discourse can take indigenous peoples only so far. Over the past thirty years, indigenous self-determination claims have been framed by states and global organizations in four distinct ways that jeopardize the futures of indigenous communities. First, the rights-based discourse has resulted in the compartmentalization of indigenous powers of self-determination by separating questions of homelands and natural resources from those of political/legal recognition of a limited indigenous autonomy within the existing framework of the host state(s). (5) This was evident from the above-referenced Nisga'a Final Agreement, which provided a political/legal basis for limited autonomy but neglected to address interrelated issues of regenerating sustainable livelihoods, food security, and renewal of community relationships with the natural world.
Second, in several cases, the rights discourse has led states to deny the identities or very existence of indigenous peoples residing within their borders (or to reframe them as minority populations or other designations that carry less weight or accountability under international law). (6) For example, Botswana refuses to acknowledge peoples residing within its borders as indigenous (that is, San, Nama/Khoe), instead referring to them in its constitution as a "race," "community," or "tribe." Botswana staunchly opposed ratification of the nonbinding United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereafter referred to as the declaration), claiming that the declaration "raised issues with serious economic, political, and constitutional ramifications, which in Botswana's view, could only contribute to ethnic conflicts within nations of which African had had more than a fair share." (7)
Third, the framing of rights as political/legal entitlements has deemphasized the cultural responsibilities and relationships that indigenous peoples have with their families and the natural world (homelands, plant life, animal life, etc.) that are critical for their well-being and the well-being of future generations. In contrast with a dominant Western perspective on self-determination and sustainability, indigenous peoples tend to "concern themselves with (and have based their whole world-view on) the idea of learning how to give back to Creation, rather than taking away." (8)
Finally, the rights discourse has limited the applicability of decolonization and restoration frameworks for indigenous peoples by establishing ad hoc restrictions. This was clear with the ratification of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (1960), which set limits on decolonization through the implementation of a so-called Salt Water Thesis, stipulating that only territories separated by water or that were geographically separate from the colonizing power could invoke self-determination. (9) There have been some promising initiatives undertaken recently for setting new global standards for restorative justice, such as UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 (2006) to implement "Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law." (10) However, the applicability of resolution 60/147 becomes limited when attempting to restore territories and natural resources to indigenous peoples as a result of ongoing colonial encroachment by their host states.
In order to move beyond the limitations of the existing rights discourse, I propose that indigenous powers and views of self-determination be rethought and repositioned in order to meet contemporary challenges to indigenous nationhood. Strategies that invoke existing human rights norms and that solely seek political and legal recognition of indigenous self-determination will not lead to a self-determination process that is sustainable for the survival of future generations of indigenous peoples. Additionally, indigenous mobilization strategies of surveillance and shame have not been effective for generating substantive changes in existing human-rights norms and customary international law. (11) In order for indigenous self-determination to be meaningful, it should be economically, environmentally, and culturally viable and inextricably linked to indigenous relationships to the natural world. These relationships are discussed specifically in Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes's comprehensive United Nations report entitled Indigenous Peoples' Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources.
In this report, Daes asserts that "the right of permanent self-determination over natural resources was recognized because it was understood early on that without it, the right of self-determination would be meaningless." (12) In other words, self-determination has to be sustainable in practice or it merely becomes another venerated paper right. Unfortunately, what is considered sustainable practice by states comes at a high price for indigenous communities, often leading to the further degradation of their homelands and natural resources. (13) It is time for indigenous peoples to reassert sustainability on their own terms. Therefore, I propose the concept of sustainable self-determination as a benchmark for the restoration of indigenous livelihoods and territories and for future indigenous political mobilization.
In the first section of this article I examine some limitations of the existing rights discourse and how these limitations have been expressed by states and global institutions since Cayuga Chief Deskaheh's visit to the League of Nations in 1923-1924. The second section elaborates on the concept of sustainable self-determination, a concept that can become a credible benchmark for future indigenous political mobilization. The final section of the article links theory to praxis by focusing on specific strategies that move the discourse from rights to responsibilities. Findings from this research can yield better theoretical and applied understandings regarding the effectiveness of indigenous transnational activist networks in promoting a holistic model of self-determination that is sustainable for future generations.
Illusions of Inclusion in the Contemporary Indigenous-Rights Discourse
Deskaheh (1872-1925), Cayuga chief and Speaker of the Six Nations Council, set the tone for the contemporary global indigenous-rights movement and also exposed limitations in the rights discourse that persist to this day. (14) Deskaheh worked tirelessly during the eighteen months he lived in Geneva promoting Haudenosaunee self-determination. Deskaheh's strategies included seeking League of Nations recognition of Six Nations as a state as well as attempting to take Canada before the World Court. (15) While he did not gain formal recognition at the League of Nations for his efforts, Deskaheh's historic efforts inspired future indigenous activists.
In 1921, Deskaheh traveled to England in order to protest Canadian treaty violations and encroachment onto Iroquois homelands. Asserting that "they would not deal with a Canadian domestic problem," British authorities refused to even consider Deskaheh's request for assistance. (16) In September 1923, Deskaheh shifted tactics and left for Geneva, Switzerland, carrying a Haudenosaunee Confederacy passport. Deskaheh's Haudenosaunee passport was recognized by the Swiss government, and, once in Geneva, he sought to stave off Canadian attempts to "bring our lands under administration of Canadian laws and policy." (17) On August 7, 1923, Deskaheh submitted a petition to the League of Nations via the government of the Netherlands in order to challenge Canadian encroachment onto Iroquois territory:
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....
|
