Suriname: the impact of gold mining

On February 13h we read a publication from the American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) from a working visit to Suriname in South America. The visit took place on 23th and 25th January. From this visit the Commission released a statement on the rights of women and indigenous peoples of continental interest.

During the visit Rapporteurs received information from both the state and non-state individuals and entities. The Rapporteurs acknowledge the steps taken by the State to recognize the right of certain communities maroon i.e. recognition of their traditional territories and the use and enjoyment of the land and the resources necessary for their survival. Yet, the Rapporteurs emphasize the need to increase its efforts.

Some of the information that they received was related to gold mining and its impact. For instance the use mercury on water damages the quality of it in these communities. There is also the issue of forced displacement, child labour and sexual violence perpetrated against women in mining areas. Due to this situation surrounding gold mining, the Rapporteurs stress “the need to hold consultations with affected communities before and during the implementation of these activities, and the State's obligation to take measures to safeguard the economic, social and cultural rights of these communities”.

Another case presented to the Rapporteurs was from the village Brownsweg, where the population feels isolated “with respect to policies, programs and benefits provided by the national government and the lack of an effective response to their needs.” Moreover, the villagers noted “deficiencies in the provision of basic services, such as those related to water and health, and lack of support for the preservation of their language.”

While Suriname is not a member of the ILO Convention No 169, it is indeed one of the countries that voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, it is important to remember some potential articles which Suriname appears to be violating e.g. Art 10 ‘Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.’ Art 17(2) “States shall in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples take specific measures to protect indigenous children from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, taking into account their special vulnerability and the importance of education for their empowerment.”. Art 26 “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired”. Art 29 “Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment” and Art 29(2) “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.” [I am sure there are more]

Source Servindi (Servicios en Comunicación Intercultural).

Call to Action: Violence Against Women Act

This blog had an earlier post on the pending reauthorization of the American federal legislation "The Violence Against Women Act" (VAWA) and the importance of several of its provisions, including one that would give limited jurisdiction for criminal prosecution of some crimes to tribal courts. That jurisdiction is especialy important in the environment that exists in the state and federal courts--where there is little prosecution of crimes that are overwhelmingly commited by non-indigenous men when the target of the crime is an indigenous woman.

The Native News Network highlights a "Call for Action". The Native News network story states:

"Yesterday, Senator Hutchison (R-TX) introduced an alternative Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act bill, S.2338, which would strip the key tribal jurisdiction provisions and replace them with a proposal that undermines current law and, arguably, would exacerbate the problem."

This is not ONLY a debate over tribal sovereignty, autonomy and self-determination. It is also about the well documented failings of the state and federal systems to respond appropriately to violence against indigenous women.

The Native News Network call for action includes important contact details on politicians.

Tribal Self-Government and Violence Against Women

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for a re-authorization vote in the American Congress. Approval of a federal law that provides funding for victims of domestic violence seems like it should be a straight-forward, no brainer kind of decision. But as might be expected in Washington, things have gotten very political about it, and Republican opposition to the bill is seen as causing women to become very disenchanted with that party and throwing their support behind Barack Obama in the presidential election polls.

But beyond the politics which swirl around the re-authorization of this Act is an issue about indigenous self-government. The proposed reauthorization of the Act contains a provision that would give tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute non-tribal members for “domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protective orders that occur on their lands. ”

But as Levi Ricketts, the editor in chief of the Native News Network comments, there is a opposition to giving tribal courts jurisdiction over non-tribal members. There is, in short, resistance to the idea of indigenous self-government and the exercise of those powers against non-tribal members for acts done on indigenous lands. This shows up the paradox of the US position that indigenous nations are sovereign and reveals of course the reality that indigenous nations are as sovereign as the United States government chooses to let them be, which really doesn’t seem like sovereignty at all to me.

But this is a debate that goes far beyond what the exercise of indigenous sovereignty, self-determination and autonomy should be. The need for tribal jurisdiction is a matter of pragmatics. Tribal court prosecution is probably the only way that perpetrators of these acts will face criminal charges. Now, this is not a matter of tribal systems being reluctant to prosecute their own. Far from it. As Mr Ricketts indicates, NINETY PERCENT ( yes NINETY PERCENT) of “perpetrators of violence against Native women are non-Indian men.” That puts the state and federal system failure to prosecute in an entirely different light. Mr Ricketts says that figures in a “2010 GAO Study, United States Attorneys decline to prosecute 67 percent of sexual abuse and related matters that occur in Indian country.”
(Link to GAO report see page 9 of the report for the statistics referred to by Mr Ricketts)

Amnesty International has carried out a study of violence against indigenous women in the United States. It bears out the remarks made by Mr Ricketts, stating in the report summary that “in at least 86 per cent of the reported cases of rape or sexual assault against American Indian and Alaska Native women, survivors report that the perpetrators are non-Native men.”

(link to full Amnesty Report )

As the Amnesty Report comments, the reasons for non-prosecution of these cases are “complex”. Jurisdiction issues are part of the problem, but the GAO report indicates that jurisdictional problem were “cited in only 2 percent of declinations” as the reason for non-prosecution. Clearly something more is at work—both in the high rate of sexual violence against indigenous women by non-indigenous men, and in the failure to prosecute. The Amnesty Report leaves no doubt about what this something else is: “prejudice and discrimination at all stages and levels of federal and state investigations and prosecution.”

The rates at which indigenous women are targeted by non-indigenous men is alarming in itself, as shown in these comments by Mary Annette Pember: “86 percent of rapes reported by Indian women involve a perpetrator outside of their race. This is not typical. For example, in 2004, 65.1 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against white women were white and 89.8 percent of perpetrators against African American women were African American.”

In other words, indigenous women are targeted by non-indigenous men in percentages and numbers that should sound alarm bells. The failure to prosecute these crimes should sound alarm bells. The resistance to tribal court jurisdiction over these acts should sound alarm bells. The Native News Network feature on this urges a call to action, to contact US Congressional representatives to support provisions for tribal jurisdiction over acts of violence against indigenous women. The situation as it is grossly intolerable.