TRIBES, THE EVOLUTION OF STATES AND THE CONCEPT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES COLONIALISM AND ITS APPLICATION IN ASIA IN ASIA Christian Erni DISCUSSION PAPER 2014 TRIBES, STATES AND COLONIALISM IN ASIA THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND ITS APPLICATION IN ASIA Christian Erni Discussion Paper 2014 TRIBES,STATES AND COLONIALISM IN ASIA THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND ITS APPLICATION IN ASIA Copyright: © IWGIA 2014 The contents of this article may be reproduced and distributed for non-commercial purposes if prior notice is given to the copyright holders and the source and authors are duly acknowledged. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect those of IWGIA. The reproduction of the engraving on page 18 is a public domain file (http://www. battle-of-qurman.com.cn/e/hist.htm) Front cover: 19th century murals in Wat Phumin, Nan, Thailand All photos by the author INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Classensgade 11 E, DK 2100 - Copenhagen, Denmark Tel: (45) 35 27 05 00 - Fax: (45) 35 27 05 07 - E-mail: [email protected] - Web: www.iwgia.org TRIBES, STATES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ASIA: THE EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND ITS APPLICATION IN ASIA Christian Erni n 13 September 2007, after 8 years of ne- Asian governments and Ogotiations in the UN Working Group on In- the debate on a definition digenous Populations (UNWGIP) and another 12 years in the open-ended Working Group on Asian countries remained silent in all this and, the Draft Declaration, the UN General Assembly with the exception of Bangladesh and Bhutan, adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indig- which abstained, all Asian countries voted in enous Peoples (UNDRIP) with a vast majority of favour of the Declaration. This may have come 144 votes.1 That it sailed through the General As- as a surprise to some, for others it was rather sembly so smoothly was only possible because predictable. At least for one Asian country, the of a few last-minute changes in the text – some Philippines, voting in support of the UNDRIP was minor, others decisive – and intensive lobbying consistent with its national policy: it has officially and negotiation during the weeks before it was recognized indigenous peoples and has passed taken up in the General Assembly. In fact, at one a comprehensive law for the protection of their point, it looked as if the Declaration would not rights.2 For most other Asian governments, how- make it to the General Assembly in time. After ever, it seems that the UNDRIP was not a prob- the draft text was adopted with an overwhelm- lem simply because they deny the existence of ing majority in the Human Rights Council, the indigenous peoples in - and thus the applicability USA, Australia and New Zealand, which were of the UNDRIP to - their countries. at that time not members of the Human Rights Council, raised objections and successfully lob- In their comments immediately after the adop- bied, above all, African countries to join in their tion of the Declaration, representatives of sev- opposition (Eide 2009: 39). They thus succeeded eral Asian countries such as Bangladesh, India, in mobilizing a majority in the Third Committee to Indonesia and Pakistan pointed at the lack of a reject the Declaration. As Eide (ibid.:40) points definition as a major obstacle to the implementa- out, African delegates’ sudden change cannot tion of the Declaration. Indonesia’s representa- by explained only by the pressure and cajol- tive Muhammad Anshor, for example, said ing of the “CANZAUS countries” (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, USA; Merlan 2009: 317). As “[ ] that several aspects of the Declara- comparably young, independent nations one of tion remained unresolved, in particular their main concerns was that the Declaration what constituted indigenous peoples. might jeopardize their nation-building project The absence of that definition prevented (see also Barume 2009). a clear understanding of the peoples to TRIBES, STATES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ASIA 5 whom the Declaration applied. In that (Daes 1996: para 21). Although Martínez Cobo context, the Declaration used the defini- included a definition in his final report of 1986, tion contained in the International Labour the “Study of the Problem of Discrimination Organization Convention, according to against Indigenous Populations”, no consensus which indigenous people were distinct was reached in the Working Group and it hence- from tribal people. Given the fact that forth and in line with the indigenous participants’ Indonesia’s entire population at the time recommendations adopted “a flexible approach of colonization remained unchanged, to determining eligibility to participate in its annu- the rights in the Declaration accorded al sessions, relying upon organizations of indig- exclusively to indigenous people and enous peoples themselves to draw attention to did not apply in the context of Indonesia. any improper assertions of the right to participate Indonesia would continue to promote as ‘indigenous’ peoples” (Daes 1996: para 21). the collective rights of indigenous peo- ples.” (United Nations General Assembly According to Tauli-Corpuz (2008: 92), the main 2007)3 arguments put forward by indigenous represent- atives against the inclusion of a global definition It had already become obvious during the delib- are: erations on the Draft Declaration by the UNWGIP that behind these governments’ insistence on a • “Having a global definition will risk exclusion definition stood their unwillingness to recognize of some indigenous peoples because it can indigenous peoples in their own countries. As never adequately capture the diversity of in- Sami lawyer John Henriksen observed: digenous peoples; “The concept of ‘indigenous peoples’ • A definition will write in stone indigenous was a significant hurdle for many govern- peoples’ characteristics, thereby not taking ments to overcome in the early stages of into account that these are constantly evolv- the negotiations. African and Asian gov- ing and developing; and ernments generally held the view that a definition of the term ‘indigenous peoples’ • The insistence on a definition itself is an act should be included in the text in order to of discrimination. The terms “peoples” and identify the beneficiaries. It was clear that “minorities” were not defined by the other some of these states were more inter- instruments of the UN. Why is it that when it ested in obtaining a definition which would comes to “indigenous peoples” states insist exclude indigenous peoples in their own that a definition be made?” countries from becoming beneficiaries of the Declaration.” (2009: 79). Indigenous representatives also emphasized that a definition of indigenous peoples was not The issue of the definition was discussed dur- necessary,4 and insisted on self-identification as ing the second and third sessions of the Work- part of their right to self-determination (ibid.). The ing Group on Indigenous Populations in 1983 members of the UNWGIP also concluded that it and 1984, taking the work of Special Rapporteur was neither realistic nor useful to try and adopt a José Martínez Cobo as a point of departure definition and, according to Daes (1996: 4, para. TRIBES, STATES AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ASIA 6 6), “the Working Group itself had been a success enous populations, on the one hand, and ethnic despite not having adopted any formal definition minorities in certain countries and regions, on of ‘indigenous peoples’”. the other. Issues relating to multinational states with populations of different origin should be Even though the position that a definition was dealt with in other fora” (Daes 2009: 55). not desirable eventually prevailed within the UN- WGIP, Asian governments continued to express Asian indigenous activists involved in the drafting their reservations with regard to the application of the UNDRIP made efforts to convince Asian of the concept of indigenous peoples to their governments to reconsider their position regard- countries. Speaking at the 53rd session of the ing the definition. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, former United Nations Commission on Human Rights chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous in 1997, the adviser of the Chinese delegation, Issues and one of the leading Asian indigenous Long Xuequn, for example, argued: negotiators during the drafting of the UNDRIP recalls: “The indigenous issues are a product of special historical circumstances. By and “We, the few Asian indigenous repre- large, they are the result of the colonial- sentatives present in the negotiations, ist policy carried out in modern history by held several meetings with member- European countries in other regions of states from Asia to explain why a global the world, especially on the continents of definition of indigenous peoples cannot America and Oceania.” “As in the case of be done. Our main point has been that other Asian countries, the Chinese peo- it is more feasible to make such a defi- ple of all ethnic groups have lived on our nition at the national level, while having own land for generations. We suffered one at the global level will risk excluding from invasion and occupation of colonial- other indigenous peoples, as one defini- ists and foreign aggressors,” said Long. tion cannot capture the diversity of indig- “Fortunately, after arduous struggles of enous peoples. Obviously, this worked all ethnic groups, we drove away those because we finally got most of them to colonialists and aggressors. In China, vote for the adoption of the Declaration. there are no indigenous people and However, some of them still insist that therefore no indigenous issues.” (Em- there are no indigenous peoples in their bassy of the People’s Republic of China countries or that the whole population is in Switzerland 1997) indigenous.” (2008: 78) Relegating the issue of the definition to the na- At the 4th session in of the Working Group in tional level,5 Tauli-Corpuz argues, has helped to 1985 the Chinese member for the WGIP, Mrs Gu convince Asian governments to give up insisting Yijie, was already of the opinion that “historically on a definition.