In diplomacy, the proverbial binary is painted by the non-binding and binding agreement. The line between nodding one's head and sending troops has been straddled by many countries particularly those flexing soft power muscles like the United States and China. This Thursday, the United States was applauded for finally signing a non-binding treaty on the rights of nearly 370 million indigenous peoples. The United States barely recognizes its own Native Americans while China simply refuses to accept that it has any indigenous peoples (being 80% Han casts an enormous shadow over Uyghurs and others).
When you swing to the non-binding spectrum in politics, a kind of hegemony emerges; powerful nations lead plenary sessions in the UN to draft resolutions but barely take up the cause in the own countries. Native American water rights, as a stand alone issue, are progressing but despite existing as sovereign nations many Native American tribes find themselves literally downstream of American interests (paper mills, recycling plants, waste disposal plants, etc). Their geo-spatial rights are second-class at best.
Now, I am not saying that indigenous peoples should revolt or be afforded the full binding rights of sovereign nations. The central problem is enfranchisement. Most indigenous peoples remain the invisible minority - gerrymandered to a fate not unlike our racial minorities under any Section 8. Greater rhetorical demons veiled in the mask of integration (I am looking at you, Europe), diversity (the US), sovereignty (Africa), and non-binding progress scream down any kind of substantive political enfranchisement for indigenous peoples. India tackled the issue of political enfranchisement by reserving parliamentary seating but this kind of binding resolution draws almost universal criticism.
My concern is that with the economic rise of Southeast Asia or China, the preponderance of human rights resolutions will tip towards issues approved by those nations and in turn lead to the cultural, linguistic - or identity - assimilation of indigenous peoples. It is no surprise that indigenous peoples tend to be labeled by the moniker "other"; there is little room for the backward heathen in a growing nation. The rights of indigenous peoples complicate the idea of modernization: employment, entitlements, clean water (look at any MDG and try to achieve it without modern technology). I personally applaud any indigenous group for forcing this kind of conversation: humanity in preservation.
Now, usually, I look to the reader to decide what is what but I do want to offer a few ideas. Some nations, like Moldova (I cannot believe I will be using the country as positive example), reserve non-voting seats in their parliament for indigenous populations (the Christian Turks) that maintain their own economic sovereignty not like Native Americans. Additionally, many nations subsidize cultural preservation. But, I am struggling with how indigenous peoples can leverage the binding - or in my mind, the economic - to essentially guarantee cultural sustainability in a constantly evolving world. Otherwise, my central concern is that economic power threatens to creatively destroy indigenous peoples.
I am a little confused by the energy in this post - it seems that you take 'non-binding' resolutions, or declarations, like the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to be less than laudable. If you mean also to point out with your example of India that 'binding' enfranchisement is also problematic, and that a middle ground needs to be found for intra-state groups whose cultures are sufficiently at odds with modern governance, then I agree with you. Is there a problem with the UN Declaration itself, or does this merely shed light on one of the more troubling issues with 'progress' and the 'modern world'?
ReplyDeleteGood observation; I really didn't organize my thoughts well at all. I suppose posting at 6:43am was not a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI can't find the article, but 2 years ago it was documented that the world lost nearly half of its spoken languages in a decade. This loss happened due to a number of reasons - most languages were steeped in oral tradition - but demand for integration (centrally, the rapidity of) was key.
Indigenous peoples, by virtue that they are not ordinarily major economic or political actors in their countries, are widely pressured to assimilate (linguistically, religiously, etc). On top of that, their assimilation is demanded "immediately" to make way for growth, modernization, what-have-you. The only protection of indigenous peoples tend to be non-binding resolutions (which is indeed a step forward) are also, in my mind, a kind of expression of soft power. China, the US, Europe, and others have the economic/political power to grow "slowly" and pick and choose the rate of conformity to resolutions. Indigenous peoples do not.
India is a great example of political enfranchisement for minority groups but few applaud the parliamentary reservation effort. I believe the displeasure had to do with "speed" of implementation. That's where my frustration lies. It's a reality of this world, but those in power get to chose pace while indigenous peoples do not. By the time the non-binding resolution becomes binding, I am afraid we will lose many more languages because we spent all of our attention on "rights" rather than "preservation".
Brought to you by Hal:
ReplyDeleteAs a China follower, I was a bit perturbed by the other chap's statement that China refuses to acknowledge its ethnic minorities.
1. When people talk about China's minority groups, they almost always talk about the Tibetans and the Uighurs. Probably because these are the people who get most visibly stepped on.
2. L seems to ignore the policies that favor the minorities; ex. in the Bai Autonomous Prefecture in which I currently reside, Bai people are allowed to have two children, and a third cost less than 200 yuan in the 80s (not sure what it is now). I'm pretty sure that's true for all minorities and many Han who live in the country. One could argue (feebly, I admit) that permitting increased procreation among the minorities gives the opportunity for more people to be raised according to the practices of that culture.
Hm...that's interesting Hal. I am not entirely sure if you agree or disagree with me especially since you move from "visibly stepped on" to pro-minority policies.
ReplyDeleteRegarding, Bai population rates: it appears that the Bai only represent 32% of Dali and are only second again to the Han.
I also don't think that "permission" for procreation by a government is any sign of cultural preservation. It is the exact opposite, it is an expression of hard power over the very physical culture of the minority group.
But, it strikes me that you aren't entirely sold by your own argument. And, to my defense, I was not ignoring policies that affect non-mainstream minority groups, I simply have not read about them.