Indigenous Population

Grig, Sophie. "Spare the Jarawa from the Deadly Urge to 'Civilise' Them," The Guardian Weekly, September 1, 2000. Vol. 163/No. 16. page 25.

The Jarawa, an indigenous tribal group that dwells on the Andaman islands, faces the threat of encroaching settlers and curious observers who wish to "civilize" them. Anthropologists, although they do not have extensive information about the Jarawa's specific history, are concerned that a move to "settle" these traditionally nomadic people would be disastrous: "Evidence from elsewhere suggests that when nomadic peoples are settled, disease and extinction usually follow. Isolated tribal peoples have no immunity against common diseases such as influenza and measles."

Tuckman, Jo. "Mexico Peasants Fight Political Eviction from Eco Zone," The Guardian Weekly, September 7, 2000, Vol. 163/No. 11, p. 3.

Recent inhabitants (called in the article "irregular communities") of a Mexican rainforest called Montes Azules, are suspicious of officials' claim that moving them is environmentally motivated; rather, they suspect that politics and economics are at the root because of the presence of oil and abundant biological resources. Some communities in the area have vowed that they will never leave the rainforest. Government officials claim that these irregular communities "threaten to break up the unity of the ecosystem" because settlers often "burn off vegetation in preparation for planting, posing the threat of uncontrollable fires."

Gittings, John. "Pollution Casts a Long Shadow over China," The Guardian Weekly, March 7, 1999, Vol. 160/No. 10. p. 7.

"Coal burning and sulphur dioxide emissions will increase by more than half and domestic sewage will treble," reports Gittings. In addition, acid rain and floods triggered by logging are other environmental troubles in China. Despite government's good intentions, environmental degradation continues. Gittings says this is due in part to hesitation on the part of environmental activist to mobilize mass support, "The environmental cause is also hindered by inhibitions about mobilizing on a mass scale, which would alarm the Communist Party authorities."

Barnet, Richard and John Cavanagh. "Empire of the Fun," The Guardian Weekly, July 12-18, 2000, p. 21.

Barnet and Cavanagh consider the impact of globalization upon indigenous cultures, particularly in the areas of music and entertainment, "All over the world people are listening to Western pop music and watching videos that offer a feeling of connectedness to a larger world," they write. Musicians, social critics and politicians in Asia, Africa and Latin America all worry about the impact that the massive penetration of transnational sites and sounds will have on their future generations and culture

07/09/01 - Britain blocks protection for indigenous peoples By ALEX DUVAL SMITH

SUMMARY:

Smith reports that at the World Conference Against Racism, Britain blocked an attempt by the world's 300 million indigenous peoples to have their rights protected under international law. In particular, the clause states: "the use of the term 'indigenous peoples'... cannot be construed as having any implications to rights under international law." Joe Hedger, an Aboriginal representing the Human Rights Council of Australia, remarked that "the move totally undermines the pursuit of self-determination and thus fundamental rights like land ownership, culture, language, fishing and hunting rights. It is a slap in the face to human rights."

FULL ARTICLE:

DURBAN - Britain is blocking an attempt by the world's 300 million indigenous peoples -including Maori, Aborigines and Native Americans -to have their rights protected under international law,
London newspaper The Independent has learnt. At the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, the British Government is backing a clause in the final declaration stating that "the use of the term 'indigenous peoples'... cannot be construed as having any implications to rights under international law".

Political sources said the Britain was acting on behalf of Canada and Australia because those
countries would be in a "politically difficult" position if they tried openly to curtail the rights
of their own minorities. But the move, initiated by America, has been vigorously pursued by Britain since Washington withdrew from the conference on Monday. If passed, the clause will leave indigenous peoples more vulnerable to persecution than they were before the conference began a week ago.

Human rights lawyers said they were "shocked and disgusted" by the Government's role, given
that Britain did not have indigenous minorities. Joe Hedger, an Aboriginal representing the Human
Rights Council of Australia, said: "The move totally undermines the pursuit of self-determination and
thus fundamental rights like land ownership, culture, language, fishing and hunting rights. It is
a slap in the face to human rights."

Chief Violet Pacharos, of Canada's Grand Council of Crees, said self-determination included a
people's right to dispose of its own resources. The Cree people's 400,000 sq km territory on
James Bay, Quebec, was flooded for a hydroelectric development in 1980, forcing 13,000 people to
move on to nine reserves. "We were not consulted then, and this clause will make it more difficult to
demand the right to be consulted in the future," she said.

The draft declaration and action plan likely to emerge from the Durban conference will be crucial
components of future minimum standards for human rights. This is why European Union countries are determined not to use "the A-word" (apology) in references to the transatlantic slave trade, or to accept that it was a crime against humanity. Britain is expected to succeed in its campaign over the term "indigenous people".

But even if it fails, the Government hopes to ensure the passage of another US-drafted clause. It
allows countries engaged in land disputes with indigenous people to respect their right of tenure only
"wherever possible". Mark Lattimer, of the British pressure group Minority Rights International, said: "At the same time as politicians are making noble speeches, their officials are working hard to insert disclaimers.

"Governments are more and more frightened of indigenous groups being given new rights. If this
paragraph stays in, not only will the conference's plan of action not advance, but the clause is in
danger of undermining existing protection for indigenous people enshrined in international
treaties and international customary law."

NEW THREAT TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

SUMMARY:

Genetic engineering is threatening the survival of indigenous people around the world in a variety of ways. Patented, genetically-altered seeds often prevent "seed saving - the ancient indigenous practice of keeping seeds from this year's crop to grow next year's crop." Thus, farmers who are able to purchase GE seeds must sign a contract which requires that they not save seed from one crop to the next. This contractual relationship thus makes the farmers dependent upon GE for new seeds each year, however there are many farmers who can't afford to buy new seeds each year. "In free-market societies, such displaced farmers are free to move to a city where they are free to be unemployed." Other genes, called "terminator genes" prevent a crop from reproducing itself, thus ensuring farmers reliance on companies which produce genetically altered seeds.

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE:

In September, 2001, scientists discovered genetically engineered (GE) corn at 15 locations in the state of Oaxaca, deep in southern Mexico, a country that has outlawed the commercial use of all genetically engineered crops.[1] No one knows how it got there.

In the U.S., genetically engineered corn has been grown commercially since 1996 and 26 percent of all U.S. corn acreage is now genetically engineered. The remote region of Oaxaca where the illegal GE corn was discovered is considered the heartland of corn diversity in the world. Scientists had hoped to keep Oaxaca's rich diversity of corn uncontaminated by GE strains because Oaxaca retains the wealth of genetic varieties developed during 5500 years of indigenous corn cultivation. Scientists now say that aggressive forms of GE corn, let loose in Oaxaca, may drive native species to extinction, causing the loss
of irreplaceable cultivars.

It is unclear whether the GE corn was carried deep into Mexico by birds, or was intentionally spread there by corporations or governments promoting GE crops. All genetically engineered varieties of corn are owned and patented by transnational corporations. The only legal way to acquire such seeds is to purchase them from the corporation holding the patent. Such patents are called "intellectual property" and their enforcement under international law has been a major goal of "free trade" agreements in recent years. The World Trade Organization (WTO) contains strict protections for Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and patented forms of life, such as GE crops, are explicitly covered by TRIPs.

Under WTO rules, national governments are required to protect the intellectual property rights of corporations. In the U.S. and Canada, farmers have complained that they have become victims of gene drift, or genetic pollution, as GE crops have drifted across property lines, contaminating non-GE
crops with patented GE varieties. Genetic drift of GE crops to non-GE fields has, in fact, been well documented and even the GE corporations and their regulators in government acknowledge that
it is a serious problem.

Now, however, Monsanto, a leading supplier of GE seeds, has cleverly turned the tables on the alleged victims of genetic pollution by suing them for stealing Monsanto's patented genes. In the first case that came to trial, in Canada in 2001, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, an organic farmer who complained of genetic pollution. Monsanto said that after 40 years of growing crops organically, Mr. Schmeiser had a change of heart and decided to raise a genetically-engineered crop by stealing Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto won and Schmeiser must pay. With this important victory in the bank, Monsanto now has similar lawsuits pending against farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, and Louisiana.[2] Thus farmers that fall victim to genetic pollution may find themselves sued for violating the intellectual property rights of a corporation and be forced to compensate the genetic polluter.

The purpose of patenting seeds is to prevent seed saving - the ancient indigenous practice of keeping seeds from this year's crop to grow next year's crop. Farmers who purchase GE seeds sign contracts requiring -- under penalty of law -- that they not save seed from one crop to the next. Thus farmers
who employ GE seeds must purchase new seed year after year, making them dependent upon whatever transnational corporation owns the patent. Farmers who can't afford to buy seed each year will simply not be allowed to grow a crop. In free-market societies, such displaced farmers are free to move to a city
where they are free to be unemployed. Today's GE crops can't guarantee that farmers won't save seeds. Corporations intent on preventing seed-saving must hire agents to travel from farm to farm, reporting any unlicensed crops. Such monitoring is expensive.

To avoid the need for monitoring, and to gain 100 percent control over farmers, the GE corporations have
developed a new technology -- terminator genes. Terminator genes prevent a crop from reproducing itself unless certain "protector" chemicals are applied to the crop. Any farmer using terminator seeds must buy
the "protector" chemicals each year. As terminator technology spreads around the world, it will end indigenous agriculture, and much biodiversity as well. An estimated 1.4 billion indigenous people currently grow their own crops for subsistence, worldwide.[3] In many instances, their land is being eyed for corporate "development" and GE crop technology offers a legal way to separate indigenous people from their land.

The ETC Group (www.etcgroup.org) of Winnipeg, Canada, revealed last week that two of the world's largest genetic engineering firms -- DuPont and Syngenta (formerly Astrazeneca) - during 2001 were awarded new patents on "terminator" seeds, engineered for sterility. In 1999, Syngenta's (then
Astrazeneca's) Research and Development Director claimed that all work on terminator technology had ceased in 1992, but the ETC Group found that the Director was either mistaken or dissembling: Syngenta's latest terminator patent was applied for March 22, 1997 and awarded May 8, 2001.

"Terminator [technology] is a real and present danger for global food security and biodiversity - governments and civil society cannot afford to let 'suicide seeds' slip beneath their radar," said Hope Shand, Research Director of the ETC Group.[4] Despite the grim social consequences that seem likely
to follow the widespread adoption of genetically engineered crops, few scientists have questioned the safety of the technology itself. The major GE corporations have insisted for 15 years that their technology is thoroughly understood, reliable, and safe, and government regulators have agreed (or at least
remained silent).

Now a new report, released this month, asserts that the scientific theory underpinning the genetic engineering industry is dangerously outdated and wrong.[5] The new report, by Dr. Barry Commoner of Queens College, City University of New York, says, "The genetically engineered crops now being
grown represent a massive uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic," the report says.

At present, 68 percent of U.S. soybean acreage, 26 percent of our corn acreage, and more than 69 percent of our cotton acreage have been genetically engineered. "[A]ny artificially altered genetic system, given the magnitude of our ignorance, must sooner or later give rise to unintended, potentially disastrous, consequences," says the new report.

The safety assurances of the genetic engineering industry are based on the scientific premise that one gene controls one characteristic. If this is true, then removing a gene from one species and inserting it into a new species will give the new species one new characteristic, no more and no less. Unfortunately the theory that a single gene controls a single characteristic, while it may have seemed true 40 years ago, is known to be wrong today:

1) Genes are composed of segments of DNA, a long molecule coiled up within each cell's nucleus.

2) The 40-year old theory (developed by Francis Crick, who, with James Watson, discovered DNA in 1953), says that DNA strictly controls the production of RNA which in turn strictly controls the creation of proteins which give rise to specific inherited characteristics. Because DNA is the same in all creatures, this theory says that a gene will produce a particular protein (and a particular characteristic) no matter what species it finds itself in -- thus making it possible for the genetic engineering corporations to claim that inserting genes from one species to another will not lead to any surprises or dangerous side effects.

3) It was -- of all things -- the Human Genome Project that revealed most starkly that Crick's theory was wrong. There are about 100,000 different proteins in a human and, if Crick were right, there should be 100,000 genes to produce these proteins. However, the Human Genome Project announced last February
that humans have only about 30,000 genes. (See many articles in SCIENCE Feb. 16, 2001.) Thus there must be something more than mere genes controlling the development of proteins and the resulting characteristics.

4) Actually, scientists had known for many years (since 1981 in the case of human genes) that after DNA creates RNA, the RNA can split into several parts, giving rise to several different proteins and several different characteristics. This is called "alternative splicing." By 1989 more than 200 scientific papers
had been published describing alternative splicing.

5) As cells split and reproduce themselves, their DNA molecule also reproduces itself, but sometimes errors occur in DNA reproduction. Special proteins repair these errors of reproduction, so genetic inheritance is not simply a matter of genes -- it's a matter of interaction between genes and repair
proteins. Will these complex interactions always work reliably and identically when a gene is placed into the entirely new environment of a different species?

6) Proteins function as they do because of two characteristics: they have a specific chemical (molecular) make-up, and they are physically folded into a particular shape. The Crick theory assumes that a particular gene always gives rise to a single protein that is chemically identical and is identically folded.
However, scientists now know that proteins get folded in a particular way by the presence of additional
"chaperone" proteins. More protein-gene interactions.

7) Furthermore, during the 1980s, in searching for the causes of fatal "mad cow" disease, scientists made the startling discovery that some proteins can reproduce themselves without involving any DNA whatever -- an impossibility according to the Crick theory. These proteins are now called "prions" and, as Dr.
Commoner points out, they reveal that processes far removed from the Crick theory are at work in molecular genetics and can give rise to fatal disease.

Thus the basic theory underlying genetic engineering of crops is quite wrong. Single genes are important, but they do not invariably give rise to a single characteristic in an organism. A gene's action is modified by alternative splicing, by proteins that repair errors in reproduction, and by the chaperones that fold the final protein into its active shape. In nature, such a system works reliably within a species because it has
been tested and refined for thousands of years. But when a single gene is removed from its familiar surroundings and transplanted into an alien species, the new host's system is likely to be "disrupted in unspecified, imprecise, and inherently unpredictable ways," the Commoner report concludes. In practice
these disruptions are revealed by the vast number of failures that occur whenever a gene transplant is
attempted.

Most ominously, the report points out, Monsanto Corporation acknowledged in 2000 that its genetically modified soybeans contained some extra fragments of a transferred gene. Despite this, the company announced that it expected "no new proteins" to appear in the GE soybeans. Then during 2001, Belgian
researchers announced that the soybean's own DNA had been scrambled during the insertion of the new gene. "The abnormal DNA was large enough to produce a new protein, a potentially harmful protein," Dr. Commoner concludes. Thus genetically engineered crops threaten not only the agricultural systems and the cultural survival of all indigenous people, but also the food security and safety of all people everywhere.

ON THE RECORD TO PROFILE OIL POLLUTION AND INDIGENOUS RESISTANCE IN ECUADOR'S AMAZON (http://www.advocacynet.org)
Washington DC, February 18, 2002

Summary:

A new series of the online newsletter On the Record will look at the efforts of Ecuador's indigenous people to resist the invasion of their land by oil companies - a struggle that has major implications for civil society in this era of globalization.

Full article:

The series comes as the government of Ecuador is preparing to auction off large chunks of territory, some of it rainforest, to oil companies. It will be the ninth round of "block leasing," as the process is termed, since exploration began in the late 1960's. Construction of a new pipeline has already begun.

On the Record is a product of the Advocacy Project (AP), which supports the advocacy of community-based campaigns. The new series was written by AP associate Peter Lippman, who visited Ecuador in the spring of 2001 at the request of the Centro de Derechos Economicos y Sociales (Center for Social and Economic Rights - CDES), based in
Ecuador.

Lippman's series begins in the town of San Carlos, which has been so badly polluted that cancer rates are many times higher than elsewhere in the region. Here, says Lippman, "shoeless children play on oil-drenched dirt roads and bathe in contaminated streams."

The series makes it clear that Ecuador's dependency on oil has been a disaster for the country. Not only has it polluted the Amazon and pushed some of Ecuador's most fabled indigenous nations - the Shuar, Achuar and Zapara - close to extinction, but it has forced Ecuador to incur massive debts. The government's response has been to impose austerity measures that have hurt the poor and provoked repeated popular uprisings, causing a serious erosion of confidence in democracy.

Making matters worse, Ecuador's legal system is stacked against the country's indigenous people. In theory they won greater legal protection when Ecuador ratified Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization in 1969. This calls for indigenous people to be
fully consulted about any development on their land. The problem, writes Lippman, is that the state still controls the minerals under the ground.

Lippman concludes that Ecuador's indigenous peoples have been fortified and forced to organize by the threat from oil. But, he says, they face a major dilemma in deciding whether to resist or negotiate with the companies. Resistance is difficult and dangerous "because spears, clubs, and the courage of a hunter are no match for the modern corporation." On the other hand, negotiating opens them up to exploitation by the companies, which try to "divide and conquer" by lavishing gifts on individual communities and undercutting the authority of regional indigenous representatives.

The same dilemma faces international partners of the indigenous. In the early 1990s, some international environmental groups tried to negotiate directly with the companies without informing their local partners, causing a disastrous backlash.

Groups like the CDES, in contrast, seek to inform indigenous representatives of the threat from oil and of their legal rights so that they can negotiate from a position of relative strength. They also promote "clean" and sustainable development alternatives.

In some cases this approach has succeeded in forcing the companies to agree to codes of conduct. But, says Lippman, after years of broken promises by the companies, many indigenous groups appear to be moving towards outright resistance.