The struggle being waged by indigenous peoples for their rights at the international level is not always appreciated locally, as if it were out of place in everyday activities.  But Juan León Alvarado, Mayan-Kiché, maintains that it is essential that such a struggle takes place "on both fronts: in each State or country, concurrently with that taking place internationally.” In fact, he qualifies, "at the local level one learns new things about the international arena making connections with the day-to-day activities of local organizations. In addition, binding international agreements that have been signed, such as Convention 169 of the ILO, put pressure on each country and ensure that indigenous peoples have an agenda of activities to advance as they confront their local government. For me, this is what is most important about the relationship between external and internal struggles, and vice versa."

Reinforcing this, he says, "In our experience, the relationship with other indigenous peoples has sharpened our outlook of what we have to do, improving the concepts we use in our language and political work, learning about other ways of organizing, other means of communication, as well as being strengthened by the exchange of experiences that long-term relationships provide. Although in this aspect I believe that we haven’t learned very much, because sometimes we repeat mistakes that have already taken place elsewhere.  However, it is still something that supports and contributes to the possibility that indigenous peoples can share the same vision. This is what has happened with international instruments; whether they have been approved or not, they have opened up spaces for dialogue, conversation, and a search for consensus.  And – well – in Guatemala we learned that there are other struggles taking place elsewhere and that we’re not alone."

Juan León Alvarado, who was recently designated the Ambassador of Guatemala to Ecuador, is President of the Working Group for the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the Organization of American States (OAS). This was what he said in dialogue with ALAI.

ALAI:  Currently the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is being discussed as much at the UN as it is by the OAS.  With respect to the first, the petition would be that the General Assembly approves it as it’s currently written. Is this the case?

JLA:  First of all, the declaration of the UN is not a document that was developed by indigenous peoples.  It originated with a technical group, a highly professional, multidisciplinary group that consulted with representatives of indigenous peoples in the working group.  But it wasn’t actually indigenous people who were at the table and who said, “This is our declaration.”  For that reason there are elements that could be improved upon and concepts needing redefinition.  In this regard, I’m referring to the results of the Subcommittee on Minorities, as it was called at the time.  When the Intersectional Group was put together in order to draft the declaration with repect to the Commission for Human Rights, the indigenous representatives said that it was so good that they would adopt it as their own without changing even a comma. For four or five years it remained that way.

However, following this came a very difficult moment at which some countries wanted to weaken the content of the declaration, and that was another struggle. As a result at this time, the indigenous representatives were correct not to open up the process to begin revising the language achieved because they were scared of losing everything. The first amendment proposed by this group of countries very much undermined what would actually strike a balance in this document.  This is when we stepped in to save the process and to stop these countries from weakening all of the content and we managed to obtain a balanced declaration.  For this reason, the question needs to be raised, “Why did the US, Russia and Canada vote against the declaration?”  The answer is, “Because the declaration isn’t bad.”  In any case, the process stalled because some countries were arguing that they hadn’t been taken into account, like many African nations.  However, this isn’t necessarily the case because they were always informed about the process.  At this time, the indigenous representatives are in a situation where they are seeking support from the Africans and Asians because they are now those in greatest opposition to the Declaration.  And the current indigenous position is that there are no further revisions to the document approved by the council.

ALAI:  One of the points creating tension deals with self-determination, or autonomy, which is being compared to a separatist threat.  Does this continue to be a underlying issue?

JLA:  In the results from the Subcommittee on Minorities this element concerning self-determination was very unbalanced, because it conceded self-determination to indigenous peoples, in the sense of the complete international right.  It is concerning this subject that the process is now stalled within the UN given that many countries view this as a right to secession or territorial division, such that there are now two or three articles in the Declaration to ensure that self-determination does not mean secession from the state.  From my point of view, as part of the negotiating team for the Declaration, a balance has been reached.  A counterbalance to self-determination has been put into place such that states are guaranteed that they won’t have problems. Besides, we are convinced that if indigenous peoples do want independence, they will proceed using any other instrument, apart from the Declaration.  According to us this was addressed, but this is also one of Africa’s arguments.  They want to see a greater counterbalance against self-determination.

ALAI:  Today, at least in Latin America, the idea of autonomy has been adopted as part of the neoliberal project, even though this demand was shunned when it was first proposed by indigenous peoples.

JLA:  That\'s why indigenous peoples don’t simply want autonomy, but rather self-determination, so that autonomy is not mistaken for a mere economic concern, nor simply about labor, or health, or whatever.  But that it is something far more integrated that can’t be confused with something else, that takes into consideration territory, resources, laws and self-government.  In everyday language when autonomy is spoken of, it is interpreted as meaning separation.  Indeed there are dominant interest groups trying to hide behind the banner of autonomy, deceiving people and not really addressing what autonomy is and who it is for, so it\'s from here that confusion arises. Regardless, in both instruments it is clear that for indigenous peoples autonomy relates to territory, to their habitat, to their laws, and to their governments.

ALAI:  What you can say about the OAS declaration?

JLA:  It’s a different process from that taking place in the UN.  In the OAS there is participation by indigenous representatives, both those funded by the OAS as well as those that are self-funded.  Also, there is generally equal participation under the same conditions as state representatives.  When debate is taking place, when proposals are put forward and when they are trying to reach consensus, indigenous people are taking part in the decision-making process.  In the UN, it’s governments who are deciding if they will consider or not what indigenous people bring forward.  In the OAS the rules are clear: the declaration will not be adopted without the consent and participation of indigenous representatives.  As a result, it’s very different.  It’s also what makes it a slower process.  Agreement between governments is reached much more rapidly because they make decisions that will least affect the state.

At the moment, the OAS Declaration is entering into its second reading and some of the text is already finished.  About sixteen articles have already been approved.  And this is another difference from the process in the UN.  In the UN, once the Working Group reaches consensus on an article, it faces formal questioning by the legal and political committee, then passing along to the Permanent Council, after which it is automatically approved by the General Assembly since consensus was reached earlier.  For this reason the process of the Working Group is vital.  However, within the process being used by the OAS, anyone at any stage can open a text for revision.

There are some truly difficult passages.  Returning to the subject of self-determination, some governments don’t want to recognize this.  Indigenous peoples want this to be an international right.  I believe that in the same way as with the UN text, we are going to arrive at a counterbalance within the Declaration because there is no other way out.  But this it is a very tough discussion.  It’s an article that we have already discussed three times.

The issue of lands, territories and natural resources also becomes more difficult every time it is raised.  As time goes by, transnational companies are entering countries, becoming owners of underground resources, draining these nations of their natural resources and contaminating the environment.  These companies have a lot to do with governments, such as is the case with Canada.  A correlation can be made here between Canada’s interests in promoting exploration with the exploitation of natural resources. As a result, issues that were not so problematic in the OAS 10 years ago have become more difficult today, because natural resources and territory have became strategic matters, not only for the integrity of States, but also now because of the macroeconomic interests of the transnational companies involved.

So these have become complex subjects because they disrupt borders and global economic interests, as well legal interests.  They also challenge the legitimacy of States and States do not like having their legitimacy or their integrity thrown into question.  For this reason there is also insistence that the words "as long as it does not diminish territorial integrity and political unity of states" be included in the text.  So this has become part of the debate. But as I have said to some indigenous representatives, what harm will this do us to have it included if constitutions already say this and if there aren’t any indigenous peoples actually trying to secede.  If we look around Latin America, not even in countries where indigenous people are a majority are they seeking secession.  In this regard, I have also said to the government representatives, “What is the problem with accepting self-determination?”

ALAI:  With regard to organizational and political rights, what advances have been made?

JLA:  There are several articles refering to this subject.  First, with regard to autonomy, the Declaration recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to create their own institutions according to their own needs and interests, along with the right to continue developing their own forms of organization.  In other words, it is recognized that the organizations of indigenous peoples are not static.  This ensures that those who do not already have an ancestral form of organization can create one, and that for those who do, they can build upon it.  Additionally, with regard to political organization this means that while indigenous peoples already have within standard practice and their own organizations the opportunity to participate in the electoral politics of the state, they also have the opportunity to create organizations according to their interests.  Economically, the right to develop integrated development projects is recognized, including in areas of financial management with a range of facilities and provisions for such organization.

ALAI:  And with respect to cultural identity?

JLA:  In the OAS Declaration this right is treated as self-identification, whether by physical characteristic, philosophical position, spiritual practice, or whatever element you like that reflects culture and identity.  Additionally, there are particular articles that address the right to culture based upon cosmovision, philosophy, or belief.  The issue of language is another element of identity that is also included. However, for me, the right to self-identify is the appropriate way to deal with this because we can say that indigenous peoples have a right to their own language or whatever other cultural aspect, but if the subject of those rights does not want to be identified in this way, what good does it serve?

ALAI:  There is an article that makes specific reference to the rights of indigenous women, but in a number of communities there is resistance to protecting this within cultural traditions.

In both declarations the rights of women and children are recognized, although I believe that the OAS Declaration is more forceful in this regard.  There is an article that was already approved during our meeting in Brazil.  I would say that there are two visions within the indigenous world with respect to the rights of women.  There are those who think that it is unnecessary to delineate this article because of the aspects of identity, culture and cosmovision that guarantee fairness between men and women.  But there are also those who think that there are aspects of our cultures that end up being negative with regard to equity and respect of women’s rights.  The language within the declaration also recognizes violence against women, which is not merely an issue for indigenous people, but for all of humanity.  In this sense, while there are many things that remind us of the importance of ensuring equity, I believe that it’s a good and positive part to be included in the declaration, and for that reason it was quickly approved.

ALAI:  Amongst the gaps, some have pointed out the absence of any references to urban indigenous people.

JLA:  Up until now, that is correct, neither declaration makes any reference to this.

ALAI:  This is also the case with food security and food sovereignty.

These are not present either. For this reason, with regard to the OAS declaration, we are considering that, once all of the current articles have been finalized, we will provide an opportunity to see if some important areas have been skipped over.  Certainly one of the strongest themes at this point in time is the right to food security based upon indigenous identity, because right now food security is being considered only in the context of using genetically modified corn, GM seeds or with regard to junk food.

ALAI:  Given the greater public presence of indigenous peoples, international organizations such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), international aid organizations, etc. have made way for relevant programs, but only within the framework of their own agendas.

We will need to address all forms of international cooperation, including multilateral, intergovernmental or specialized agencies such as the World Bank and others.  In this field, I have encountered two types of cooperation: there are those who give you money, who support you, who back you up unconditionally and who say, “What do you want to do - we will support you.”  In this situation, the project as conceived by the indigenous peoples is taken up by the aid agency.

However, then there are others who impose their agenda on people.  They say, “We are giving financial support, but you must do this or that.”  And these large institutions fall within this framework.  They will speak eloquently about indigenous peoples but only in order to encounter less resistance to their projects.  It’s toward this end that they carry out consultations, not because they have a real interest in accompanying indigenous peoples in their struggle for their rights, but so that they can realize their own projects.

In my perspective then, the most important aspect of international cooperation are its goals and objectives, and this is where the autonomy of indigenous organizations comes to be tested.  When I was leading the Defensoría Maya, I had to say no to several proposals of support, indicating that we are the ones who must set the agenda, not the external agency.  But we also need to considering that, at least in the case of Guatemala, that the indigenous movement has entered a stage of economic survival.  Earlier, indigenous peoples cooperated with one other.  However since international assistance arrived, dependency began to be created within organizations and amongst leaders.  We have developed such dependency now that if there isn’t a way to be paid - money for lunch, money for transportation, a daily stipend - people no longer participate.  A situation has been created within which people have to be paid to participate.  We have experienced enormous damage to our organizations as a result of this and for this reason the strength of the movement has been undermined.

This also leads to fighting for scarce resources.  To give an example, there is an agency that has a million dollars and it has determined that it is going to give out ten thousand dollars per organization.  However, since there are so many organizations competing for the same funds, organizations turn to undermining and deleglitimizing one another in order to get the ten thousand dollars rather than demonstrating the quality of their work, their degree of organization, as well as other achievements and operations.  So that is another aspect of the damage that we have faced.

Furthermore, one can see how organizations’ goals have become oriented toward economic survival rather than facilitating social movements; that their objectives are being modified to suit the aims of such-and-such international cooperation agency.

ALAI:  A recent report by CEPAL indicates that in most countries of Latin America laws have been changed to better recognize the rights of indigenous peoples, however that as a result of violations of these norms, the survival of indigenous peoples is at a critical stage.  How do we overcome this situation?

JLA:  I believe that this is a subject calling for a response from both sides.  It is as much reliant upon governments as upon indigenous organizations.  We have been thinking that it is enough to put in place a law, a decree or a resolution and that somehow automatically these will be implemented.  However, I believe that this is a mistake being made on the part of indigenous peoples all around the world: to not be equipping ourselves with a follow up mechanism from the start for achievements that are made in law or institutional changes.  Clearly the lack of political will on the part of governments also enters into play here.  But, indigenous achievements are taking place, only later on to be lost and not implemented because of a lack of capacity and a lack of resources as much as through a shortage of political will on the part of governments.

- First published in Spanish in America Latina en Movimiento, No. 418, "Pueblos Indígenas: hacia una agenda común", March 2007, ALAI.  http://alainet.org/publica/418.html