The African Commission recognises the rights of Indigenous Batwa people to return to their ancestral lands inside the Kahuzi-Biega National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo
The African Commission recognises the rights of Indigenous Batwa people to return to their ancestral lands inside the Kahuzi-Biega National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo
This is excellent that the rights of the Batwa Peoples may actually be restored. But it should be plainly spelled out in the settlements, that if, after receiving title for their land and resources, they should choose to “sell out” to, for instance, an oil or mining company, that their Indigenousness expires upon Capitalization. Too often, big business can come in (as they do for offsets programmes) with weasel-words and promises, and acquire extractive rights from the people. Any such corporate or neo-colonial extractivism should annul the settlements.
I'm pretty sure that the idea of "Indigenousness expires upon Capitalization" would be in breach of the right to self-determination, which is upheld in the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples:
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
That sounds all well and good, re determining political and economic status. However, I think the original intent was to prescribe government and corporate interference so that they could carry on their established cultures, rather like the need to prevent disturbance of the uncontacted tribes. The notion that Indigenous Peoples are somehow genetically incapable of environmental degradation is simply an urban myth. Therefore, when Indigenous Peoples turn their economic interests to capitalist extractivism, while being set apart from normal society by your set of doctrines, they become essentially maquiladoras, exempt from the laws that govern normal commerce. Therefore, they must make the choice - be Indigenous or be Capitalists.
My point is not that Indigenous People are "genetically incapable of environmental degradation". My point is that they have the right to self-determination. They also have the right not to be evicted from their own territories.
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo is auctioning rights for oil exploration in large areas of the country's rainforests. An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Reuters found that the auction was plagued with apparent preferential treatment and backroom deals. The local communities are the ones opposing oil exploration.
Thank you, Chris. I agree with you on those points; "fortress conservation" is wrong in every possible way, but is unfortunately the unwritten/unspeakable underpinning of the 30x30 proposal. Yes, everyone should have the right to self-determination, but if people are determined to be Capitalists they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. We cannot set up yet another segment of the human population that "exceptional," such that it overrides rules to protect endangered species (such as the whaling by "Indigenous" Japan) or build reactors exempt from UN nuclear inspection, or carry out genocide or invade other countries contrary to UN Charter (I'm just giving some examples of exceptionalism already in play on this planet). Setting up sections of the population to be "special" is like having your own set of "pet" humans. But yes, if Indigenous Peoples wish to carry on with their traditional life, they should not be disturbed.
This is excellent that the rights of the Batwa Peoples may actually be restored. But it should be plainly spelled out in the settlements, that if, after receiving title for their land and resources, they should choose to “sell out” to, for instance, an oil or mining company, that their Indigenousness expires upon Capitalization. Too often, big business can come in (as they do for offsets programmes) with weasel-words and promises, and acquire extractive rights from the people. Any such corporate or neo-colonial extractivism should annul the settlements.
I'm pretty sure that the idea of "Indigenousness expires upon Capitalization" would be in breach of the right to self-determination, which is upheld in the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples:
Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf
That sounds all well and good, re determining political and economic status. However, I think the original intent was to prescribe government and corporate interference so that they could carry on their established cultures, rather like the need to prevent disturbance of the uncontacted tribes. The notion that Indigenous Peoples are somehow genetically incapable of environmental degradation is simply an urban myth. Therefore, when Indigenous Peoples turn their economic interests to capitalist extractivism, while being set apart from normal society by your set of doctrines, they become essentially maquiladoras, exempt from the laws that govern normal commerce. Therefore, they must make the choice - be Indigenous or be Capitalists.
My point is not that Indigenous People are "genetically incapable of environmental degradation". My point is that they have the right to self-determination. They also have the right not to be evicted from their own territories.
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo is auctioning rights for oil exploration in large areas of the country's rainforests. An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Reuters found that the auction was plagued with apparent preferential treatment and backroom deals. The local communities are the ones opposing oil exploration.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/theyll-have-to-kill-me-first-locals-in-dr-congo-oppose-plans-to-drill-for-oil
Thank you, Chris. I agree with you on those points; "fortress conservation" is wrong in every possible way, but is unfortunately the unwritten/unspeakable underpinning of the 30x30 proposal. Yes, everyone should have the right to self-determination, but if people are determined to be Capitalists they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. We cannot set up yet another segment of the human population that "exceptional," such that it overrides rules to protect endangered species (such as the whaling by "Indigenous" Japan) or build reactors exempt from UN nuclear inspection, or carry out genocide or invade other countries contrary to UN Charter (I'm just giving some examples of exceptionalism already in play on this planet). Setting up sections of the population to be "special" is like having your own set of "pet" humans. But yes, if Indigenous Peoples wish to carry on with their traditional life, they should not be disturbed.