Now what?

By
Eduardo Dimas                                                                  Read Spanish Version

Without
much publicity — it doesn’t suit some interests — the General
Assembly of the United Nations approved the Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Countries — after 22 years of negotiations!

The
46-article document was approved by 143 votes in favor, 4 against
(U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and 11 abstentions, among
them Colombia, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and several African
countries. 

The
document lists the rights of the indigenous peoples to maintain and
strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to
engage in their own development, according to their needs and
aspirations. It establishes standards for the respect to the human
rights of indigenous peoples and the struggle against discrimination
and marginalization.

It also
deals with individual and collective rights, identity, education,
health care, employment and language. Another article recognizes the
right to the free determination of the indigenous peoples and their
autonomy and self-government in internal affairs.

Other
articles offer guarantees to the ownership of the ancestral lands and
the resources the indigenous people traditionally have owned,
occupied or utilized, as well as the preservation of the environment.
The Declaration forbids military activities in the indigenous lands,
except for exceptional circumstances, and defends the right of those
peoples to establish relations among themselves, even if they are
separated by international frontiers.

The
governments of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
offered strong resistance to the General Assembly resolution,
compliance with which, as you know, is not obligatory, like the
Security Council resolutions.

The four
countries have numerous autochthonous populations, although these
were massacred and stripped of their land and other natural resources
since the beginning of the conquest and colonization of those lands.
Of course they disagreed with the resolution.

This is
also valid for the countries that were colonies of Spain, Portugal,
France, etc., although the European Union voted as a bloc in favor of
the Declaration. 

If the
original populations were to demand the return of the territory that
was taken away from them, the conqueror nations would have to
surrender to them almost all the lands, almost all the natural
resources and would have to indemnify the indigenous people for the
harm and damages they suffered through centuries of exploitation and
humiliation.

You and
I know that that’s impossible. It’s just a pipe dream and the
Declaration itself points out that it is not binding and does not go
against the laws established by the states. Therefore, it is just a
symbolic Declaration that, in my opinion, belatedly acknowledges an
injustice and creates one or two precedents. Beyond that, it is
ineffective. 

The
president of the United Nations’ Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Affairs, Vicky Tauli-Corpuz of the Philippines, said that the
implementation of the Declaration will face great difficulty "because
of the lack of political will on the part of the governments, the
lack of resources and the established interests of the rich and
powerful." She’s absolutely right.

The
Declaration had a big repercussion throughout Latin America, home to
tens of millions of indigenous peoples of various ethnic backgrounds.
Some of the have lived in the same conditions for the past five
centuries, especially in the more remote areas of the Amazon. Others
have had to adapt, like it or not, to the so-called Western
civilization, but they maintain many of their customs and traditions.

The
President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, said the vote
was historic and announced he will host an international meeting of
the indigenous movements on Oct. 10-12, to celebrate the U.N. vote.

In a
speech to a gathering of peasants in Cochabamba, Morales said that
"those who still treat us like ignoramuses, like fools, like
animals, now understand that the whole world recognizes that racism
must be eliminated." The United Nations "took a giant step
in the struggle for the indigenous peoples when it stated that the
rights they always had, but were denied, now will be exercises to
their fullest extent."

I
sincerely doubt that the oligarchies in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,
Guatemala, Venezuela, and Chile — just to mention a few — are
willing to apply that General Assembly Declaration.

Rather,
they will do everything they can to prevent it, unless it suits their
interests of domination. When looked at closely, that Declaration —
which collects the vindication of 372 million indigenous people
worldwide — can be a double-edged sword, because it can provoke
divisions in the fair struggle for a better world.

For
example, it does not take into account the vindication of the African
peoples, who were the worst exploited and fleeced by colonialism and
neocolonialism. Nor does it recognize the rights of the workers of
all races, the more than 3 billion poor people in Third World nations
and the developed countries.

In
Bolivia itself, Felipe Quispe’s Pachakutik Group wants to take the
country back to the pre-Hispanic era. In other words, it wants to
divide the nation into three kingdoms: Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní.
Is such a dream possible in a globalized world where the feudal
production systems have vanished into history? Such a move would be
madness and would strengthen the separatist positions of the
oligarchy in Santa Cruz.

Along
the more than 80 million indigenous peoples in Latin America, there
are about 125 million poor people of other races: black, white,
mestizo. Of these, 84 million live in indigence. Poverty does not
establish differences between the former and the latter. Why do the
affected people establish such differences? What they should do is
unite to change an unfair state of affairs. 

The
demand for ethnic vindication, just though it is, can lead only to a
division of the forces that today confront the oligarchies, that
today support the progressive and revolutionary governments in
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua — the forces that struggle
in other countries to achieve power and carry out the transformations
needed in the quest for social justice for all.

I
believe that the progressive forces of Latin America, particularly
their principal leaders, will take this factor into account. Because
the people who had no alternative but to vote (grudgingly) in favor
of the Declaration, or those who voted against it, can use the
Declaration tomorrow to divide the peoples.

They can
divide peoples who united are an unstoppable force, but separated are
the easy victims of imperial interests and national oligarchies.
Examples of this are many in the history of Latin America and other
countries. You cannot make the same historical mistakes during a
period of changes or in a change of period, no matter how much you’d
like to. It would be like handing to the rich additional years of
power, in exchange for years of misery and exploitation for the poor.