RIGHTS-PERU: Activists Urge Obama to Use Trade Pact as Leverage

• by Haider Rizvi (new york)
• Tuesday, June 16, 2009
• Inter Press Service

'Whether or not the U.S. intended it, the reality is that the U.S.-Peru Trade Agreement gave license to the [Alan] Garcia administration to roll back indigenous rights and has contributed to increasing social conflict and human rights abuses in Peru,' said Andrew Miller of Amazon Watch.

On Monday, Miller’s group joined a broad coalition of 14 other organisations in sending a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high-level officials calling for immediate U.S. action regarding the ongoing political conflict in Peru between the state authorities and indigenous rights movement.

Recently, Peruvian President Alan Garcia issued two decrees to implement the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Many critics describe the decrees as controversial because they are designed to regulate investment in the Amazon, which is a source of concern for environmental organisations as well as the indigenous population.

On Jun. 5, indigenous activists took to the streets in northern Bagua against the government’s policy to let foreign investors use indigenous lands in the Amazon. The security forces reportedly opened fire on the crowds, as a result of which more than 50 people were killed.

Analysts of U.S. policy towards Latin America describe the bloody incident in Bagua as the latest rendition of the discord that exists between the United States, Latin American governments and the indigenous people of the region.

'The increase in foreign direct investment since the 1980s has ignited countless humanitarian and environmental crises throughout Latin America as the leaders of developing world are being forced to choose between the perceived economic benefits of free trade,' note researchers Arienna Grody and Lincoln Wheeler.

In a report for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington-based think tank, they describe Garcia as 'a robust ally of foreign investors and multinational corporations' who has strongly defended Peru’s development initiatives by claiming that it was in the benefit of the poor.

But, to Grody and Wheeler, such an assertion is highly questionable.

'This grand scheme to uplift the poor, cynical it may seem, has significantly increased the disenfranchisement of the already underrepresented native people who have now seen themselves [of having been] stripped of basic ownership rights of their traditional lands,' they wrote.

The ownership rights to traditional lands are fully recognised by the majority of the international community. The U.N. General Assembly endorsed that principle in a resolution approving the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The resolution was passed in September 2007.

Since the adoption of the declaration, which is not legally binding, indigenous peoples all over the world have been joining hands with environmental organisations and calling upon governments to respect their way of life and protect their resources from commercial concerns.

Since Peru is rich in copper, silver, lead, zinc, oil and gold, many foreign corporations are keen to explore such commodities for profit. The indigenous communities have been resisting such attempts for decades and have often had violent clashes with the authorities of Spanish descent that support the use of indigenous lands for private use.

Numerous studies show that between the 1980 and 2000 some 70,000 people were killed in clashes between the security forces and armed political groups fighting for economic ad social justice and rights of the indigenous people.

Although the Peruvian Congress has temporarily suspended Garcia’s decrees on land use, leaders of the indigenous movement say that is not enough and that their resistance would not come to an end unless the government agrees that their lands would not be used by foreign companies.

The U.N. declaration demands that government and corporations must seek the 'informed consent' of indigenous communities before embarking on any kind of commercial venture on indigenous territories.

Many non-native civil society groups, particularly environmental activists,' support the indigenous peoples’ assertion and hold that the new legislative decrees could have detrimental consequences for the Amazon rainforest and indigenous land rights.

Critics note that the legislative decrees were passed without transparency or genuine consultation with indigenous communities. According to Oxfam International, a British anti-poverty organisation, the decrees are not only in contradiction to the U.S.-Peru pact, but also violate ILO Convention 169, which Peru ratified in 1993.

The ILO Convention grants indigenous communities the right to be consulted on issues affecting them.

'The Peruvian Congress has taken an important first step by suspending these decrees, but much more needs to be done to bring an end to this conflict,' said Raymond C Offenheiser of Oxfam America.

He thinks that the U.S. government 'can help by fostering a solution through dialogue, not force.'

Concerned about the fact that the Peruvian government intends to clear protesters in other areas of the Amazon, he said the U.S. government must act quickly to work with Peru to address the issue of legislative decrees, and to clarify what relation, if any, these decrees have to compliance with the trade pact.

'We strongly urge the U.S. government to help bring an end to this crisis by supporting a dialogue that includes views of indigenous communities and protects the human rights of these citizens as guaranteed by national and international law,' said Offenheiser.

© Inter Press Service (2009) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement