what was that again?
TRANSCRIPT
What Was that Again?
What Kind of a Rights-based Discourse in the International Indigenous Movement?
Liam Midzain-Gobin
Prof: Dr. Saurette
POL 7108
January 6, 2014
Liam Midzain-Gobin
2
Introduction and Context
Recent decades have seen the rise of increasingly urgent calls for the respect of
indigenous peoples worldwide. These demands are now being made from within
international institutions, mechanisms and regimes (Brysk 2000: 60), and reflect the
development of “a panindigenous worldview” (55). This worldview is often spoken of in
terms of indigeneity at the international level, and involves the creation of one single
international indigenous movement. Indigenous movements still remain at the national
level; however, they are increasingly feeding into a unified voice on the international
scene. Such an understanding is made abundantly clear in international fora such as the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), the UN Expert
Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), as well as other, more
regional forums such as the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Arctic
Council, as many of the speeches at such fora include appeals to ‘indigenous peoples,’
often in reference to the idea of oneness among peoples (Sena, 2013; Brysk, 2000).
The activism of the international indigenous movement has become unified
around a rights-based discourse, which has led to demands for action centering upon calls
to reverse “an era in which dominant thinking justified infringing or, at best, ignoring
indigenous peoples rights” (Anaya, 2012). Such calls have become the norm in many
cases, with the international indigenous movement often being referred to explicitly as
the “Indian rights movement” (Brysk 2000: 55). The United Nations (UN) General
Assembly concretized this rights-based approach in 2007 with the adoption of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration). The Declaration has
increasingly become a focal point for the international indigenous movement, with calls
Liam Midzain-Gobin
3
now being made to ensure that states “implement” the Declaration and the rights
contained within it (Atleo, 2013). This focus on the rights of indigenous peoples is
interesting, particularly given that the concept of human rights has traditionally been
emphasized with reference to the individualized rights of persons, a point of view that
could be seen to clash with the more holistic and interconnected worldview
(cosmovision) held by numerous indigenous peoples worldwide (Savard, 1977). This
human rights language is also on full display in forums in which indigenous peoples work
at the international level, as well as indigenous-specific mechanisms such as the Human
Rights Fund.
In taking this approach, indigenous leaders find themselves within a
contradiction: they are attempting to use a discourse that was set up by and for non-
indigenous peoples to argue for fair treatment and dignity for their indigenous identity
and beliefs. Also, in nearly every instance these leaders utilize a rights-based discourse
that has traditionally emphasized the individuality of persons, rather than a holistic
worldview that emphasizes the connections between peoples, and indeed between all
things (Savard, 1977). It is these potential contradictions that I will engage with in this
paper. Specifically, this paper will seek to interrogate the rights-based discourse
employed by the international indigenous movement and its supporters, and will do so
through a case study of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
More specifically, I will undertake a genealogical analysis to answer the question ‘where
does the rights-based discourse utilized by the international indigenous movement come
from, and what kinds of rights are being discussed?’ Ultimately this paper finds that
Liam Midzain-Gobin
4
while IWGIA may speak of human rights today, their documents and body of work
actually focuses on the language of indigenous rights, and not human rights.
Foucault’s Genealogy
As previously mentioned, I will undertake a genealogical analysis of the rise of a
rights-based discourse within the international indigenous movement, specifically
focusing on understanding the productive and silencing effects of the rights-based
discourse used by the international indigenous movement. Theoretically this will include
the use of Foucauldian genealogy, “a form of history which can account for the
constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects etc.” (Foucault 1977: 117).
Foucault conceives of two forms of history. One form – historian’s history (163) –
involves itself in building totalities through “transform[ing] documents into monuments”
(Foucault 2002: 8), and is also labeled “wirkliche Historie” by Foucault (Foucault 1977:
153). The other form of history is “Effective” history,” which “differs from traditional
[wirkliche] history in being without constants” (ibid). It is this second form of history that
encompasses Foucault’s genealogy and serves as my lens of analysis, and it is this one
which will be expanded upon below.
Genealogical analysis can be seen to engage in a deconstruction of a ‘truth,’
where truth is something that is produced, rather than being ‘real’ in the sense in which
we use it colloquially. This can be seen insofar as Foucault even rejects the use of the
term origin in its ordinary form (145), as well as rejecting beginning from a historical
‘point of origin’ or truth (Sembou, 2011: 4-5). Foucault is more interested in tracing the
origins of the meaning of something (5), as can be seen in his discussion of Nietzsche’s
Liam Midzain-Gobin
5
use of Ursprung, Herkunft and Entstehung (Foucault, 1977). Here Foucault rejects
Nietzsche’s use of Ursprung, as “this search assumes the existence of immobile forms
that precede the external world of accident and succession” (Foucault 1977: 142),
meaning that it already assumes the existence of an origin, and that in this case, the
historian’s role is simply to examine the construction from this point of origin. Instead,
Foucault advocates for the use of Herkunft and Entstehung, arguing precisely that they
“are more exact than Urpsrung in recording the true objective of genealogy” (145).
This exactness of the terms Herkunft and Entstehung comes from how they
deconstruct what was previously held to be unitary: the truth, or origin. For Foucault
genealogy is literally a descent. Indeed, “The search for descent is not the erecting of
foundations: on the contrary, it disturbs what was previously considered immobile; it
fragments what was thought unified; it shows the heterogeneity of what was imagined
consistent with itself” (147). The meanings of the two terms – descent (Herkunft ) and
emergence (Entstehung) – capture the essence of what Foucault views genealogy as
doing. Genealogy for Foucault is a process by which effective historians deconstruct
previous historical truths, in order to understand better how the totalities were produced
as truth. This is done through a descending analysis, through mapping out the emergence
and production of this discourse (or events, truth, or beliefs) from top to bottom, rather
than from bottom to top. Genealogy looks “for instances of discursive production (which
also administer silences to be sure), of the production of power (which sometimes have
the function of prohibiting), of the propagation of knowledge (which often cause
mistaken beliefs or systematic misconceptions to circulate),” and chronicles “the history
of these instances and their transformations” (Foucault 1990: 12). This discussion of
Liam Midzain-Gobin
6
silences is particularly relevant to the genealogical analysis of the IWGIA, and will be
discussed further below within this context.
IWGIA and its Role in the International Realm
IWGIA was founded in 1968 at the 38th International Congress of Americanists
by a group of anthropologists concerned with the worsening situation faced by
indigenous peoples in South America (Dahl, 24). As could be expected from a group of
academic anthropologists, IWGIA initially focused its efforts on documentation of
atrocities and abuses committed against indigenous populations throughout the world
(26). This documentation came in the form of “professional contributions of fellow
anthropologists and was targeted at a politicaly aware public” (ibid). In the words of
IWGIA itself, “The work group intends to use knowledge collected by social scientists to
seek solutions to the problems arising from forced acculturation and integration in
various countries throughout the world” (IWGIA Newsletter No. 1 in Dahl: 2009). In the
early years of the organization it only had non-indigenous anthropologists write for its
various documents, a strategy that changed throughout the 1980s as indigenous peoples
became increasingly active within the publishing portion of the IWGIA’s work (Dahl, 52-
3).
A documentary focus has not been the only focus of the group throughout its 40-
year history however, and two other activities stand out clearly: campaigning and project
support, both of which were born in the late 1970s, and continued to mature throughout
the 1980s (Dahl: 2009). Campaigning was never the sole focus of IWGIA, and indeed in
some ways can be seen to have fallen by the wayside in the years since the 1990s (Dahl,
Liam Midzain-Gobin
7
56). Nevertheless, it was an important aspect of the IWGIA’s work throughout the two
decades of the 1970s and 1980s (55). Specifically, IWGIA campaigned to have the rights
of indigenous peoples recognized by governments around the world, including the
hunting rights of indigenous peoples around and within the Arctic Circle (58-60).
Even during times of campaigning for indigenous peoples, at international fora
the IWGIA never sought to speak for indigenous peoples. During UN meetings and other
conferences, IWGIA always sought to have indigenous voices and peoples take their
allotted speaking times whenever possible (Dahl: 2009). This has specifically taken the
form of IWGIA working with other international NGOs to support the Human Rights
Fund, which was created in 1984. Work with the fund “has been a key component of
IWGIA’s human rights activities” since that time (Dahl, 74). The Fund was set up
specifically to offer “indigenous peoples an opportunity to attend the meetings” held at
the UN (Cohen, 49).
Project-work has more recently taken on a significant portion of the IWGIA’s
work in recent years, a move which has shifted both the policies of IWGIA, as well as the
strategies undertaken by the organization (Dahl, 76). This new approach included
working with governments to secure funding for specific projects to be undertaken, most
notably the Norwegian and Danish Development Agencies (Norad and Danida
respectively). IWGIA has had a very close relationship with Norad especially over the
years, including a consulting contract with them from 1987-90 that saw “IWGIA…use its
expertise on South and Central America to review and advise on development projects
sent to Norad by indigenous groups” (77). IWGIA also worked closely with Danida,
winning grants and money to pursue a land-titling project within Peru in a bid to bolster
Liam Midzain-Gobin
8
indigenous claims of land rights in Ucayali, in the Peruvian Amazon (79). The final
approval from Danida for this project came in August of 1989 (ibid).
As can be seen from the above discussion, IWGIA has been deeply involved with
nearly every aspect of the international indigenous movement from the inception of its
modern incarnation. Indeed, as will be discussed further below in this paper, IWGIA has
worked with nearly all of the major indigenous organizations within the international
indigenous movement, and has a body of work that extends to every corner of the world.
IWGIA’s reach alone makes the organization a worthwhile place to interrogate the
formation and operationalization of a rights-based discourse within the international
indigenous movement. However, reach is not the only reason why IWGIA is an ideal
focus for this project. In addition to the reach of the organization, because IWGIA is the
centre for documentation of the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples, as well
as because it has also worked to chronicle the rise of indigenous organizations (Sanders:
1977), the IWGIA is perfectly positioned to display the types of language used within
and by the international indigenous movement. It has been noted that the panindigenous
movement in Latin America took off initially after transnational linkages with NGOs
were formed (Brysk, 2000), and that these “Principled international actors provided the
tools for mobilization” to indigenous peoples across the region (62). This is especially
important for this analysis, as the IWGIA was explicitly created to work with and support
indigenous peoples in order to better the conditions that they face (Dahl 2009: 20), and in
some ways can be seen as helping to build the very movement it is now supporting. It is
for these multiple reasons that I have selected the IWGIA to study in this genealogical
analysis.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
9
Genealogy and IWGIA
Throughout much of the literature regarding indigenous peoples and the issues
facing them and their communities worldwide, the discussion centres upon the issue of
these peoples’ rights, without any real discussion of where these rights – or the discourse
about rights – come from.1 These claims implicitly invoke “objectivity, the accuracy of
facts, and the permanence of the past” (Foucault 1977: 158), and work to “form totalities”
(Foucault 2002: 8) with respect to the sense one gets that the rights-based discourse has
forever been focused on human rights.2 The continual reproduction of this understanding
of the indigenous movement does not allow for fissures within it, as the very language
that is used follows the same script nearly everywhere that you look. This very
understanding of the movement produces an abandonment of “the irruption of events
[differences in terms and understanding] in favour of stable structures [the discourse
itself]” (Foucault 2002: 6). It is this creation of a unified whole to the rights discourse
that I am – in part – seeking to dissolve, following Foucault’s conception of the role of
genealogy (Foucault 1977: 163).
For Foucault, “the problem is no longer one of tradition, of tracing a line, but one
of division, of limits” (Foucault 2002: 6). This is how I am seeking to help to guide my
analysis. Following Foucault I will be attempting an ‘effective history’ (Foucault 1977:
87-90) of IWGIA’s discourse. This means that I will be looking to “[unearth] the force
relations operating in particular events and historical developments” (Sembou 2011: 2).
1 Please see Brysk, 2000 and The Indigenous World 2013 for examples. 2 In Dahl (2009) it is possible to see many times how he claims IWGIA works to promote the recognition of human rights for indigenous peoples. Indeed, he has even placed “Human-Rights” on the front cover of the book.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
10
A genealogical analysis is also especially valuable in the analysis of the IWGIA,
as a “genealogy must define even those instances where they [events] are absent, the
moment when they remain unrealized” (Foucault 1977: 140). This objective of
Foucauldian genealogy comprises a brief concluding portion of this paper: who is
silenced by this rights-based discourse.
The IWGIA engages in, and by extension works to legitimize, specific discourses:
the IWGIA itself now says that engages in human rights advocacy (Dahl 2009: 30-1). In
advocating against abuses of indigenous peoples’ rights, the IWGIA is explicitly framing
the discourse in a certain way, which means that those looking at the work of the IWGIA
will understand the discourse as a truth, and not as one possibility among others. This
works to silence other voices, and other discourses are not seen as being legitimate, thus
further reproducing the rights-based discourse, as it is the only legitimate option. A
genealogical analysis is useful in this regard, as it seeks specifically to shed light on those
– in this case – discourses that have been silenced by the universalization of the rights-
based discourse.
What Kind of Rights?
A prolonged discussion on the theory of human rights is not the primary focus of
this paper, although in order to bring order and understanding to the project, a brief
discussion is important.3 This is especially the case as it is arguably unfair to assume that
a rights-based discourse is a natural progression of where indigenous thought would have
follow, had it not been for the imposition of Western legal systems on indigenous peoples
3 For a further discussion on this topic, please see Schulte-Tenckhoff (2012) in Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration (Pulitano ed.)
Liam Midzain-Gobin
11
through colonization. For this reason I will continue here with a brief discussion
surrounding human rights, and their potential incompatibility with indigenous
worldviews.
It is undeniable that the language of rights is at the very centre of the international
indigenous movement. This assertion has been shown in the introduction, and any
cursory glance at the international indigenous movement will confirm these assertions.
With this understanding, it is possible to argue that there is an inherent tension between
the individualistic concept of human rights, and a more traditional indigenous worldview.
Specifically, human rights are often individualized and accessible by all peoples,
not solely groups of peoples4 (Schulte-Tenckhoff, 71-2). This means that any individual
person may lay claim to having a right to life, or having specific property rights, or even
a right to safe drinking water and food. At its core then, the non-indigenous view on
justice is that it is “concerned primarily with questions of equity in treatment or
distribution” (Alfred, 42), and this equity is found in how individuals are treated in
relation to each other.
Indigenous worldviews on the other hand are concerned primarily with
“maintaining the state of harmonious coexistence that is the goal of all political spiritual,
and economic activity” (43). This means that indigenous conceptions of our place do not
insert individuals into a starring role. Instead, they see a need to place harmony at the
centre of an interwoven web of relationships. If harmony is necessarily at the centre of
indigenous conceptions of justice, then it is possible to see how it is more important that 4 This is perhaps not true of the right to self-determination, although even this right can be individualized insofar as one cannot (in theory) be compelled live within a political entity or system that they do not wish to.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
12
harmony be restored, than that every individual is treated equitably and similarly to every
other individual. Because of this distinction, the very logic of human rights is not
necessarily a logic that would be found at the heart of a solely indigenous articulation of
the issues facing indigenous communities.
Within this question of human rights and the use of a rights-based discourse
within the international indigenous movement, there is also the question of indigenous
rights, which is the language that is increasingly coming to the forefront of discussions
surrounding indigenous issues internationally. Here these rights are again not ensured to
every member of a society, but rather, are restricted to only those who are considered to
be indigenous (Schulte-Tenckhoff, 69). Indeed, the UN recognizes three distinct forms of
rights: human, minority and indigenous (68), with minority and indigenous rights being
primarily collective rights available only to specific groups, and human rights being
individualistic and available to any individual (ibid).
Arguably, indigenous rights claims are best brought to an organization like the
UN, or other international bodies, as they are unlikely to be dealt with fully by states
(73). This is because such demands have “brought a number of states face to face with
their colonial past and their often questionable acquisition of sovereignty over the
national territory and its resources” (ibid). Because of this states are more likely to allow
for protective rights, such as those contained within minority-rights provisions (ibid).
Ultimately it is easy to see how this discussion of the issue of rights can very
quickly become complicated. Before moving into the analysis of IWGIA’s language it is
important to make two points explicit. First, I am actively working against arguing that
Liam Midzain-Gobin
13
all rights-based discourse is inherently counter to a more traditional indigenous
perspective. Rather, I am working to highlight the dissonance between a human rights-
based approach to protecting indigenous peoples, and to interrogate the rights-based
language that is primary to much of the IWGIA’s work. The articulation of an
specifically indigenous rights approach is relatively recent, and has taken on various
forms, and it is illuminating to see which other forms rights-based language may take in
the future.
Second, this discussion clearly highlights the complexity that is at the heart of any
discussion regarding rights, and a rights-based discourse. This complexity will be on full
display below – as would befit a genealogical analysis – and as the paper discusses the
language of indigenous rights vs. that of human rights. This complexity is one of the
fascinating aspects of the international indigenous movement, and should not be shied
away from.
Rights-based Discourse and IWGIA
Looking through the contemporary literature regarding the international
indigenous movement, listening to the speeches and discussions that take place at the
international fora that host such talks, it is possible to come to the conclusion that a
human rights-based discourse has always been the key focus of the movement. Indeed,
even those within the movement argue this, as Jens Dahl has done in his history of the
IWGIA by placing the concept of human rights so prominently on and throughout the
book (Dahl: 2009). In the face of rhetoric such as this, it is important to interrogate this
question, and to seek to understand whether this it is indeed the case that a human rights-
Liam Midzain-Gobin
14
based discourse has always prevailed within and surrounding the international indigenous
movement.
Interestingly, the short answer to this question is that it is complicated: sort of yes,
sort of no. The long answer to this question is what will be elaborated below, and in
doing so will touch upon various uses of a rights-based language, changes in which
follow along with important events and changes within the IWGIA itself.
Beginnings
IWGIA was born out of the late 1960s, a time in which anthropology was
becoming a much more politicized field of study (Becker, 88). This prompted a small
group of anthropologists to come together and present “detailed documentation…on
atrocities and forced integration of Indian tribes in various Latin-American countries”
(IWGIA Press Release 1 in Dahl: 2009). This group was IWGIA in its first incarnation.
Reading backwards it is easy to see how IWGIA was “created in response to
reports of gross violations of the human rights of Indians in South America” (Dahl, 20),
and indeed, throughout Dahl’s IWGIA: A History the language of human rights can
clearly be seen, as he describes IWGIA as “a human rights organization” (30). This
perspective is one that I would argue has been applied to the organization as it has been
viewed through a rearview mirror, as the specific language of human rights – especially
those political, social and economic rights discussed at length later in the IWGIA’s work
– is not readily apparent throughout all of IWGIA’s early work especially. Indeed, while
it is true that IWGIA’s language is somewhat exclusive to anthropologists and non-
indigenous peoples (Lizhot, 166), that exclusivity comes primarily out of the fact that
Liam Midzain-Gobin
15
English was the chosen language of publication (ibid), and not out of the type of rhetoric
used within the texts themselves.
One way that this can be seen is by looking directly at the first documents
produced and published by IWGIA. In this case, I am looking specifically to the
documents produced by IWGIA within the first few years of its existence that discuss the
exact purposes of the organization. To begin with, there was a press release that came out
of the 38th International Congress of Americanists, where the organization was born. The
press release discusses the atrocities committed against indigenous populations
throughout Latin and South America, though contains no specific rights-based language.
For example, the press release notes the “Land-grabbing and wholesale extermination of
Indian tribes,” as well as how “Indian villages have been bombed with napalm, and
Indians hunted down by colonists and army units,” and finally how “With the abrupt
withdrawal of the missions, the Christianized Indians are left to survive in slum
conditions with no economic prospects” (IWGIA Press Release 1 in Dahl: 2009). None of
this, nor any of the other language included within the first press release, notes abuses of
the human rights of indigenous peoples.
IWGIA remained relatively unorganized for its first few years, and it is not until
1971 – three years after its founding in 1968 – that the members formalized the goals of
the organization. Those goals were as follows:
a) to establish field groups, b) to obtain consultative status under
ECOSOC (the UN’s Economic and Social Council), c) to help establish
channels of communication for indigenous groups, d) to produce
Liam Midzain-Gobin
16
documentation, e) to encourage anthropologists to become concerned,
and f) to get more supporters. (IWGIA un-numbered newsletter, 1971 in
Dahl, 2009)
Obvious in its lack of mention is reference to the human rights of indigenous peoples.
Even in the portion that discusses documentation, it is worthwhile to note how the
organization does not say that they are working to document the violations of the rights
of indigenous peoples, as became nearly de rigeur in later documents.5
The one way in which IWGIA does directly discuss the rights of indigenous
peoples is in reference to their land or territorial rights. This can be seen in the third
document published by IWGIA, called “Aboriginal Land Rights” by A. Barrie Pittock
(1973). In the document Pittock affirms directly that there was an absolute lack of
recognition of the land rights of Aboriginal Australians until 1966 in South Australia and
1970 in Victoria respectively (Pittock, 3). Within the document he also – briefly –
discusses the issue of land rights stemming from treaties signed in New Zealand, Canada
and the United States as well (4-5), before delving deeply into “the history and
significance of the land rights issue” in Australia (3). The important aspect of this
document for this project is not only what it argues,6 rather that throughout the entire
document the language of land rights for indigenous peoples is the primary vehicle
through which this argument is made.
5 This can be seen through a perusal of the titles of IWGIA documents, which including the word rights much more frequently as history unfolds, as well as the content of the documents themselves. 6 At the end of the paper Pittock comes to the conclusion that Aboriginal land rights must be respected if atrocities committed against this population are to cease (Pittock: 1973).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
17
Indigenous peoples’ land rights are also a feature of other documents published by
IWGIA during the early portion of its existence. Another example is the Declaration of
Barbados, which IWGIA published as its first document. The Declaration was produced
at the Barbados Symposium, which was hosted by the World Council of Churches, the
Programme to Combat Racism, and the Ethnology Department of the University of
Berne, and contains can effectively be seen as a call to arms by anthropologists “to define
and clarify this critical problem of the American continent [the atrocities committed
against indigenous populations] and to contribute to the Indian struggle for liberation”
(Barbados Declaration, 3). While only short portions of the Declaration discuss rights
specifically, these short portions do speak to how “The several states avoid granting
protection to the Indian groups’ rights to land,” as well as “the right to remain
themselves” and rights to “organize and govern in accordance with their own traditions”
(4). Taken together these references amount to directly addressing land rights, as well as
rights to self-determination for indigenous populations, rights which have been described
as “primary issues” for IWGIA since its inception (Becker, 88). Interestingly, the right to
self-determination has not been mentioned as explicitly by IWGIA in other early
documents as the land rights have been7. This shows that in terms of a rhetoric or
discourse, land rights have been articulated by the IWGIA from its inception, though
other types of rights have not necessarily explicitly been mentioned.
The focus on land rights from the very beginning could potentially be because
two reasons: the development of anthropological theory over the course of the past
century (Gray: 2009, 18), as well as the importance that indigenous peoples place on their
7 See also Bodley (1972), Arcand (1972) and Moser (1972).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
18
territory. While there is not time or space for a prolonged discussion of these issues here,8
it is important to note that these conceptions of indigenous land rights do not come from
nowhere. Indeed, I would argue that especially given that IWGIA comprised solely of
anthropologists at its beginning, both reasons offer compelling arguments for the focus of
the organization.
IWGIA working with partners
Because IWGIA was one of the first international NGOs to focus on international
indigenous issues, it spent much of the first half decade of its existence working on a
more ad hoc basis with other organizations. This can be seen insofar as IWGIA focused
mainly on documentation for the majority of its first decade (Dahl, 49-50). The
documents were documentary in orientation, produced by anthropologists and “focused
on a group of people among whom the authors had conducted field work” (49). Indeed,
Dahl describes the Newsletters of the era as “fairly uncritical, amateurish and focused
heavily on massacres” (50). Such practices were to change however, and this change
began slowly and quietly in the early 1970s, and came to a more fulsome expression in
the later 1970s and 1980s.
One of the key changes undertaken within the organization was an increased
focus on working with international partners. One of the first of these partners was the
World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), in whose founding IWGIA played a vital
part. Indeed, the WCIP would not have been possible without the support of IWGIA,
8 For a more detailed discussion, please refer to Andrew Gray’s “Indigenous Peoples and Their Territories” in Decolonizing Indigenous Rights ed. Adolfo de Oliveira (2009).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
19
both fiscal and otherwise9 (WCIP Newsletter no.4 in Dahl, 48). This example clearly
reflects Brysk’s discussion regarding the essential role of international NGOs in
supporting the burgeoning international indigenous organizations, and movement at large
(Brysk, 62), as it would not have been possible for WCIP to survive as an independent
organization (or indeed perhaps even organize itself initially) had it not been for the
support of IWGIA.
WCIP maintained a more rights-based focus than other international indigenous
organizations, such as the International Indian Treaty Organization (IITC) specifically
(Dahl, 42). The IITC took a more Marxist approach, which included discussions of class
over those of rights (ibid). Ultimately IWGIA elected to continue working more closely
with the WCIP over the IITC, aligning itself with a more concentrated focus on rights in
the process10 (ibid). It is important to note here that this rights-based approach still
maintained the language of indigenous rights, a fact that Dahl makes quite clear (ibid).
Throughout his book, Dahl speaks of human rights often, but in this section says
specifically that WCIP delegates had an “indigenous rights-based approach” (ibid).
It was also during this time of the late 1970s and 1980s that IWGIA began to
become more involved in the UN system, and other international processes to support
indigenous peoples and their aspirations. Dahl notes that some of the most important
conferences for IWGIA at this time included “the 1977 NGO Conference; the UN
9 George Manuel, the founding Chair of WCIP and its driving force in its early years, worked extensively with Helge Kleivan and IWGIA itself in order to set up the conference that gave rise to the organization (Sanders, 11). Additionally, when WCIP faced bankruptcy early on, it was IWGIA who worked with the Norwegian government to secure funding for the organization (WCIP Newsletter no.4 in Dahl, 48). 10 This did not mean that IWGIA solely focused on issues of indigenous rights at this time however. Specifically, they continued to publish more Marxist work, including “Violence as an Economic Force” by Nicolas Inigo Carrera (1982).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
20
Conference on Racism in 1978; the Fourth Russell Tribunal held in Rotterdam in
November 1980 (The Rights of the Indians in the Americas) and the 1981 conference on
Indigenous Peoples and the Land” (Dahl, 46). At many of these conferences, especially
the 1980 Russell Tribunal and 1981 conference the language around rights still focused
on issues of land rights. The 1981 conference included in its opening statement, the plea
that “We are Nations which demand the right to live and be part of our own land”
(Cultural Survival, web). Discussions at the Russell Tribunal also revolved primarily
around the issue of land rights (Chartier, web), though there was also discussion
surrounding the economic rights of indigenous communities within Canada (ibid).
It is also during this time that IWGIA began to be become increasingly involved
with state governments, especially the governments of Norway and Denmark, along with
other financial support from liberal European countries. Support from both states came in
the form of both core funding for the operations of the organization itself, as well as
project funding which was intended for specific work by IWGIA.
Working with liberal governments such as this will require that organizations
submit written reports to the organizations, and work with these governments to justify
the funding given to them. During this time (and still ongoing) it was clear to IWGIA that
the language used by donor agencies such as Danida and Norad were the language of
“human rights” (Dahl, 81). This means that IWGIA would have been working within the
language of human rights for many of its activities, and indeed, could potentially begin
framing itself as a human rights organization.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
21
These connections put on display a widening of the approach to international
activism as it pertains to IWGIA’s role in the international indigenous movement. This
widening role also came with a change in language, perhaps (unconsciously) grafted from
the work that IWGIA was doing with Danida, Norad and other international actors. An
example of this is Document 30 in the IWGIA documents list, which discusses the rights
of indigenous Bolivians (Apaza, 1978). Within the document Apaza discusses “INDIOS
[sic]” as being “descendants of a highly civilized, age-old culture” (3), and demanding
their rights and liberation (4). This kind of language is a departure from the other
discussions regarding rights that centred primarily upon indigenous land rights in earlier
documents. Indeed, the rights discussed in this example would appear to better mirror the
minority cultural rights discussed by Schulte-Tenckhoff, than rights specifically
pertaining to indigenous peoples. This example shows how IWGIA’s documentation was
opening up more to a rights-based discourse11 as it opened up and began new partnerships
with other international organizations and agencies that were more rights-focused. During
this time IWGIA still did not significantly alter the type of rights discussed in their
publications however, and continued for the most part to refrain from using explicitly
human rights language.
IWGIA working with the UN and more closely with donor agencies
While IWGIA began to broaden the scope of its activities in the late 1970s and
1980s, it was in the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000s that arguably should have seen the
greatest move towards the language of human rights for indigenous peoples from the
11 While still retaining much of the kinds of language and documentary style that had been a part of the organization’s work since its beginnings. For further examples see Barnes (1984), and Gray (1986).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
22
organization. This expansion of the language used in IWGIA publications would have
come about for two key reasons: the coming of age of IWGIA work with the UN and
other international processes, and increased institutionalization of connections between
governments and donor agencies. Both groups used a more human rights based language.
IWGIA had thought it would be deeply involved with the UN from its very
beginning, but it was not until the 1980s “that IWGIA began focussing [sic] on the
United Nations, and the UN Human Rights work became the second pillar of its work”
(Dahl, 33). This began with the creation of the UN Working Group on Indigenous
Populations (WGIP), in which the WCIP was very active (46). The WGIP allowed for
indigenous peoples to have a forum at the UN, as well as offering “new opportunities
[sic] [for]…indigenous organizations in developing countries to obtain support from
Euro-American NGOs and development agencies” (71). IWGIA approached the WGIP
specifically as a way to further its human rights agenda (71-2). Other IWGIA
involvement in the UN included funding indigenous peoples and organizations
participation in UN mechanisms through the Human Rights Fund for Indigenous Peoples
(73-6), as well as helping to organize and establish the UNPFII (87-93) and other
international for a such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (95-
102). Much of the work carried out at the UN and other international fora with regards to
indigenous peoples has been carried out through committees and commissions that have
included human rights directly in their titles, such as the UN Commission on Human
Liam Midzain-Gobin
23
Rights (Minde: 2008), displaying how the concept of human rights is central to the
workings of the UN and other international processes12.
The time from the late 1980s through to the current day has also seen the
increased concretization of connections between IWGIA and donor agencies in liberal
states, such as Norad, Danida and other European states. I have given an example above
of the cooperation between IWGIA and Norad with regards to the consultative role
IWGIA played in Norad’s funding decisions. This type of cooperation is only the tip of
the iceberg though, especially as many of these states are focused on liberal human rights
issues, one such example is the “Strategy for Danish Support to Indigenous Peoples”
where it is made clear that Denmark will work to actively support activities that help
indigenous peoples to participate in human rights mechanisms (Danida, 17). This
emphasis on human rights within international donor agencies means that indigenous
peoples and NGOs within the indigenous movement – in this case IWGIA – oftentimes
operationalize the language of human rights when discussing the projects that they
undertake, thus not clearly distinguishing indigenous peoples’ rights from those available
to others.
The increased attention placed on international fora within the UN and the
connections made between IWGIA and donor agencies has meant that the language used
by IWGIA should in theory reflect a shift as well. This shift should be seen most clearly
12 This can also be seen in spaces that are directly intended to defend indigenous rights, such as in issues such as the hunting rights of indigenous peoples, which are sometimes referred to as human rights (Dahl, 58-60).
Liam Midzain-Gobin
24
when examining publications such as the Indigenous World series13, which has within it a
section that is specifically reserved for discussions on human rights, though in truth there
has not been a major shift, and for the most part the actual language used is that of
indigenous rights. Discussions contained within the documents still focus clearly on
issues of land rights (Indigenous World 2001, 30), hunting rights (33), as well as
language and other rights that are very specific to indigenous peoples – including the
rights to winter grazing areas for indigenous farmers/ranchers (32) and language rights
offered because of indigenous status (33-4). Other issues of importance remain resource
rights that are available only to indigenous peoples (Indigenous World 2006, 155-7). This
kind of language is also seen in the other documents published by IWGIA throughout this
time as well, especially a focus on land and treaty rights (Cohen: 1991).
Part of the reason as to why we see the stickiness of a focus on indigenous rights,
even as IWGIA has moved internationally, and begun to focus their attention on
processes that explicitly call for human rights, is that while this shift in arena has
occurred, a parallel shift has also occurred: IWGIA has used their newfound platforms to
allow indigenous peoples to speak (Dahl, 52-3). This has meant that as IWGIA has
increasingly internationalized, they began to include more indigenous authors in their
publishing lists (ibid); giving indigenous peoples the IWGIA’s speaking time at fora such
as the UN (53); and supporting indigenous peoples to participate in, and write
Declarations and other documents of international importance (46-8; 54-5). This
approach culminated in IWGIA’s South-South strategy, through which IWGIA focused
13 This series is intended to provide a comprehensive yearly overview of the status of indigenous issues worldwide, and touches upon issues at both the national and international levels. It began in 1986 with an IWGIA Yearbook, and has since transformed into the IWGIA Indigenous World publication.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
25
on offering indigenous peoples the tools and oppourtunities to do their own work, and to
“promote their own self-development” (108). This particular move meant that it was not
IWGIA and donor agencies framing issues through specific language, but rather
indigenous peoples themselves on the whole14. What can be seen then is that indigenous
peoples are adopting the language of rights, but still speaking specifically to indigenous
rights, and where these rights can sometimes be seen to overlap with minority rights,
indigenous peoples speak to the specific indigenousness that their discussion derives
from.
Conclusion
What can be seen clearly through a genealogical investigation of IWGIA and its
body of work is that while it works with the language of rights, and indeed through many
mechanisms that are explicitly human rights focused, the key language and discussions
from IWGIA remain on the level of indigenous rights. This distinction is key, because as
seen above, there is a difference between them, and the focus on indigenous rights can be
seen to reflect on the theoretical development of anthropology at the outset, but also the
central role that indigenous peoples themselves have played as the voice of the IWGIA
during the time of its integration within the international indigenous movement.
As mentioned above though, the choice of a discourse inevitably creates silences,
and in closing I will very briefly touch upon two potential silences created by this focus
on indigenous rights. The first silence was seen above, whereby a more Marxist approach
14 And even those non-indigenous peoples who did still write for IWGIA are typically those that continue to work with various indigenous organizations, or still academics in the tradition established by IWGIA throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
26
by the IITC was pushed farther to the margins of the international indigenous movement,
in part through the work of IWGIA and its alignment with the WCIP as opposed to the
IITC (Dahl, 42).
The second potential silence is that of alternative indigenous voices, specifically
the Rehoboth Basters of Southern Africa. In his book, Dahl argues that IWGIA attempted
to not intervene in the discussions between indigenous peoples themselves (153-5). This
simply does not hold up though, as IWGIA may not have actively discouraged the voice
of the Rehoboth Basters, but they did actively work with the voice of others, which meant
that Basters peoples were effectively silenced. This work is not the place for a normative
judgment on this case, however, examining the silences of a discourse is just as important
to a genealogical analysis as the actual discourse itself. Hopefully future work can be
devoted to this pressing issue as well.
This paper also clearly shows that a contemporary focus on human rights is not
necessarily the genesis of the international indigenous movement, despite the language
used by some scholars. Instead, while a rights-based discourse has existed within the
international indigenous movement from its very inception, it has oftentimes been
focused quite clearly on specifically indigenous rights, rather than those rights available
to all humans. These rights have also somewhat fluctuated with time, and a thorough
investigation shows that it is not possible to build one totalizing structure for the
movement, as Dahl has done around the issue of human rights. Rather, it has been seen
that while indigenous rights have been at the heart of much of IWGIA’s work, there have
also been periods and specific instances where this has not been the case, and where other
forms of rights have come to the forefront.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
27
Sources Cited
-Taiaiake Alfred. Peace, Power and Righteousness. An Indigenous Manifesto. Oxford University Press (1999).
-Julia Tumiri Apaza. “The Indian Liberation and Social Rights Movement in Kollasuyu (Bolivia).” IWGIA Document 30. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1974).
-James Anaya. Address to the EMRIP (2012).
-Bernard Arcand. “The Urgent Situation of the Cuiva Indians of Colombia.” IWGIA Document 7. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1972).
-Sean Atleo, Speech to 12th Session of the UNPFII (2013).
-Robert Barnes. “Whaling off Lembata: The effects of a development project on an Indonesian community.” IWGIA Document 48. International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (1984).
-Marc Becker. “Third Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples and Nationalities of Abya Yala: From Resistance to Power” in Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies Vol. 3. No. 1. March 2008. pp. 85–107.
-John H. Bodley. “Tribal Survival in the Amazon: The Campa Case.” IWGIA Document 5. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1972).
-Alison Brysk, From Tribal Village to Global Village: Indian Rights and International Relations in Latin America. Stanford University Press (2000).
-Nicolas Inigo Carrera. “Violence as an Economic Force: The Process of Proletarianisation Among the Indigenous Peoples of the Argentinian Chaco 1884-1930.” IWGIA Document 46. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1982).
-Clem Chartier. “Fourth Russell Tribunal: On The Rights Of The Indians Of The Americas” in Saskatchewan Indian. Vol. 11. No. 1-2. Jan/Feb 1981. Accessed from http://www.sicc.sk.ca/archive/saskindian/a81jan07.htm on January 2, 2014.
-Faye G. Cohen. “Implementing Indian Treaty Fishing Rights: Conflict and Cooperation” in Critical Issues in Native North America vol. 2 by Ward Churchill (ed.). IWGIA Document 68. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1991). pp. 154-173.
-Faye G. Cohen. “UNWGIP: Indigenous Participation. Report on a Study of Indigenous Experience and the role of the Human Rights Fund for Indigenous Peoples” in IWGIA Newsletter 1. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1993). pp. 49-53.
-Cultural Survival. “The Indigenous Peoples Network.” Accessed from http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/the-indigenous-peoples-network on January 2, 2014.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
28
-Jens Dahl, IWGIA: A History – Document no. 125. International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (2009).
-Danida. “Strategy for Danish Support to Indigenous Peoples.” Danida (2004).
-“Declaration of Barbados.” IWGIA Document 1. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1971).
-Michel Foucault, Counter-Memory, Practice, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History” (1977).
-Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality Volume 1. Vintage Books (1990).
-Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge (2002).
-Andrew Gray. “And After the Gold Rush...? Human Rights and Self-Development among the Amarakaeri of Southeastern Peru.” IWGIA Document 55. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1986).
-Andrew Gray. “Indigenous Peoples and Their Territories” in Decolonizing Indigenous Rights ed. Adolfo de Oliveira. Routledge (2009). pp. 17-44.
-Jacques Lizot. “IWGIA Documents” in L’Homme T. 14, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Dec., 1974). pp. 165-166.
-Cæcilie Mikkelsen (ed.). “The Indigenous World 2013.” International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (2013).
-Henry Minde. “The Destination and the Journey: Indigenous Peoples and the United Nations from the 1960s through 1985” in Indigenous Peoples: Self-determination – Knowledge – Indigeneity by Henry Minde with Harald Gaski, Svein Jentoft & Georges Mindré (ed.). Eburon Academic Publishers (2008). pp. 49-86.
-Anette Moelbech (ed.). “The Indigenous World 2000/2001.” International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (2001).
-Rupert R. Moser. “The Situation of the Adivasis of Chotanagpur and Santal Parganas, Bihar, India.” IWGIA Document 4. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1972).
-A. Barrie Pittock. “Aboriginal Land Rights.” IWGIA Document 3. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (1973).
-Douglas E. Sanders. “The Formation of the World Council on Indigenous Peoples.” IWGIA Document 29. International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (1977).
-Remi Savard, Le sol américain : propriété privée our Terre-Mère? l’Hexagone (1977).
-Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff. “Treaties, peoplehood, and self-determination: understanding the language of indigenous rights” in Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration ed. Elvira Pulitano. Cambridge University Press (2012). pp. 64-86.
Liam Midzain-Gobin
29
-Evangelina Sembou, Foucault’s Genealogy. Presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Social Theory Consortium, University College, Cork, Ireland. June 2011.
-Paul Kanyinke Sena. Address to the Opening of the Twelfth Session of the UNPFII (2013).
-Sille Stidsen (ed.). “The Indigenous World 2006.” International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (2006).