Defenders Without Protection
Permanent Forum and Special Rapporteur shy away from indigenous defenders
The torture to death of Mr Choles Ritchil, a prominent indigenous Garo leader in Modhupur of Bangladesh on 18 March 2007 brought to the fore the risks the indigenous rights defenders continue to face across the world. His only fault was opposing the establishment of an Eco-Park over 3,000 acres of land in Modhupur forest which will destroy identity and existence of 25,000 indigenous Garo people. Taking advantage of the state of emergency and atmosphere of fear, Choles was done away with forever.
Across the border, Habel Koloi, Chairman of Borok Peoples Human Rights Organisation of Tripura State of India was released as we go to the print after incarceration in jail following his arrest on 26 October 2006. Koloi was, among others, charged with anti-terrorism act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and waging war against the State. After having been granted bail by the court in all these charges, the authorities slapped him with detention notice under the National Security Act. Earlier, Umakanta Meiti of the Threatened Indigenous Peoples' Society of Manipur of India who was arrested on 23 August 2006 under the anti-terror law had to be released unconditionally because of the lack of evidence.
Those who are alive are virtually the lucky ones. In Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo adopted execution of political opponents and human rights defenders as a State policy. Indigenous rights activists have been specifically targeted for opposing the policies and practices of the State to promote mining and other extractive industries in indigenous peoples' territories.
Asia is not alone. On 9 March 2007, Chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, expressed concerns about the allegations that the indigenous community leaders and persons who were supporting the action of Comision Juridica Para el Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Originarios Andinos (CAPAJ), which had filed a complaint against Peru with the CERD Committee under its early warning system during 69th session, have been subjected to threats and intimidation. Peru has been asked to report by 1 July 2007.
The reports of the United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders highlight many of the risks faced by indigenous defenders.
The pertinent question is what has been the role of the United Nations mechanisms dealing with the indigenous issues?
AITPN studied the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people on his “Mission to Ecuador” (A/HRC/4/32/Add.2 of 28 December 2006). It is an excellent report. But the Special Rapporteur did not raise the issue of the lack of developments pertaining to the attempt of assassination of Leonidas Iza, President of Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE). On 1 February 2006, when Leonidas Iza had just arrived at the airport in Quito from Cuba, where he had taken part in a meeting against the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and when he and his family were getting out of a taxi outside the CONAIE office, two assassins shot at them. Iza escaped unharmed, but four of his relatives were injured. His 23 year-old son, Javier was seriously hurt and his wife, Josefina Anguisaca was hit on the face with a gun by one of the attackers. Inability to raise such issues is irksome to say the least!
Almost in a similar fashion, General Secretary of Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), Ram Bahadur Thapa Magar was severely beaten up by hooligans while he was leading a group of indigenous activists to enforce the general strike called by NEFIN on 15 February 2007 demanding federalism and proportionate representation in the Constituent Assembly. He was beaten up in front of the police, admitted to a hospital with head injuries but no arrest was made. As it was with Leonidas Iza, no one will ask any further question with regard to Ram Bahadur Thapa Magar.
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues faces a crisis of “operationalising its mandate”. Its members cannot decide whether they should act as part of the UN Secretariat to coordinate the activities of the UN agencies on indigenous issues, of course, without requisite secretariat assistance and funds or like the UN independent expert bodies to intervene in some urgent cases of violations.
During its fifth session, PFII failed to censure Bangladesh for threatening indigenous leaders for their oral interventions at the 4th session demanding implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. The fact that H.E. Ambassador Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, who was serving as the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh during the 4th session of PFII has been appointed as de facto and de jure Foreign Minister of the military backed caretaker government of Bangladesh and that a warning has been sent by torturing Choles Ritchil to death, indigenous activists from Bangladesh better watch out at the 6th session!
There is a general tendency among the UN mechanisms dealing with indigenous issues to reduce “indigenous issues” to economic and social rights, in particular land, natural resources and extractive industries, or to anthro-pological and environmental issues. These are fundamental for survival of indigenous peoples. But, often enjoyment of civil and political rights – which are taken as guaranteed in Europe, North America or Australasia - is crucial to demand implementation of these ESCR rights in Latin America, Asia and Africa. Without the right to life and the right to freedom of association and assembly, indigenous leaders or defenders cannot raise the issues central to their survival. States will remain States but Indigenous Rights Quarterly expects the UN expert and expert bodies to understand specificities and intervene.