Andrea Bustos C.
In conversation with Radio Universidad de Chile, the werkén of the Mapuche
Council of All Lands expressed the council’s intent to carry out a
decolonization process in order to achieve autonomy and operate as a form of
self-government independent of the Chilean State.
During the course of his visit as part of a Mapuche delegation to the
XI Session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the
United Nations in Geneva, the werkén of the Mapuche Council of All Lands, Aucán
Huilcamán, analyzed the current situation of the Mapuche people in our country
and the possibility of becoming independent from the Chilean State.
*********************
Senator Huenchumilla has proposed a constitutional pluri-nationality. What is your opinion?
In general terms, it appears to me as a good initiative. However, there are fundamental issues that should not have to be treated in the same manner. I think there is tendency to group things as similar when they are not, for example, the inclusion the issue of self-determination in a legislative proposal. It seems to me that this proposal is out of place, and produces confusion, because the right to self-determination is already an internationally recognized right, and in that context there are two established international norms of recognition. I was part of the proceedings in the venues of international law that elaborated the legislation for 20 years of my life. The right of Indigenous Self-Determination is not a debate or discussion for the Chilean Congress. At best, what should happen is that the Congress or the State of Chile would formally act to recognize the right of Indigenous Self Determination. But in the end, where this right lies is within the political will of the Mapuche people themselves.
The Mapuche have been working on this idea of vindicating and
uplifting the right to self-determination. Does this lead to introducing the
Mapuche demand in the UN Decolonization Committee?
The Decolonization Committee is
one option. I have been in the Committee several times trying to see if this is
a route or not, because ultimately the Mapuche people have to decide through
their institutions which is the route to be applied, whether it is via the decolonization
processes or by the right of self-determination.
Ultimately, in the UN decolonization
proceedings the colonizer enters the process.
However, in the process of self-determination exercised as a right, self-determination
is defined by the holders of that right, in this case the Mapuche. I have been
involved in both of these two processes and we have decided to take the path of
self-determination because the concept of colonialism that is operative in the
UN Decolonization Committee is the salt-water concept of ultra-mar colonialism
and what we have here with Chile is a form of internal colonialism at the
country level that has other characteristics.
In any of the scenarios, is your personal consideration that the
Mapuche people should move towards a process of independence from the Chilean
nation state?
The right to self-determination
does not establish a prescribed limit, it can be a process of independence or
as a process relative to the framework of relationship with the Chilean state, or
in the internal sphere of the states. So far there is no set practice of what
would be the way, because ultimately this right was exercised historically by the
Indigenous Peoples, in the Mapuche case until 1881 with the pacification of the
Araucanía. Subsequently it was violated, and today international law returns to
reestablish it. So, there is no single experience of what form indigenous self-determination
could be like, but our intent is to realize our Mapuche self-determination in a
broad sense within a framework of global multilateralism.
In short, forming a Mapuche government
and entering into relations in the multilateral world, which would not simply be
intra-community, nor would it be a domestic internal project. As a political process it does not only apply
to the Araucanía, nor only to Chile. The Chilean State is but another
institution with which we are going to relate, that is why the Mapuche are deploying
an international strategy, because when we form a government in the south of
Chile we have to relate to the multilateral world, and that is why we are
working and interacting with different governments of the world so that the
Mapuche government will be recognized formally at some time.
Then, the idea of independence seems a possible idea ...
We think it is an entirely
possible idea because it is not limited in the right to self-determination. The
Mapuche people possess this right and the way in which it will be implemented
depends on the organic capacity and political will of the Mapuche.
Just to clarify the point, what is your political will and your
personal desire?
My personal desire is to form a
government and operate in the multilateral world as all governments in the
world operate. No doubt that will cause a great complexity for Chile, but that
is what is coming and it will be a great event.
The fact is that we will produce in the Mapuche territory the forming of
a government at some point. That's what I'm dedicated to, to have a political
preparation of Mapuche that act with the mentality and capacity of self-governance,
because presently there is not. So far what we have is that we have been the
object of a colonialism, of a domestication as Chilean subjects and we must
produce a process of decolonization.
A government independent of the Chilean State?
A Mapuche government independent of
the Chilean state. The statute to be adopted will establish the way of relating
to the Chilean State. The provisions of the statute will determine how we are
going to inter-relate, even with institutions established within the Mapuche
territory. Are we going to have a relationship or not with the future regional
governor, who is the mayor today? Which would it be? All these issues will be
part of the statute once we enter the proceedings to design the system of
government that we want to establish.
There are other relevant issues
that are part of the agenda that is at work there. For example, it is assumed
that in 2019 Chile must submit a report to the UN Human Rights Council. There,
obviously, the relationship between the Chilean State and the Mapuche people
becomes fundamental. In what sense are you working with this important human
rights authority?
This report that is to be
submitted by the State of Chile before the Human Rights Council will be public
and we, as Mapuche people, will have the opportunity to submit our own report
and comment regarding that of the state.
Two distinct versions of testimony on the current situation regarding
human rights will be recounted: That of the State and the indigenous voice of
the Mapuche. For example, whether or not there is compliance with international
standards of international law, whether or not the international norms that are
in force are being implemented, and whether Convention 169 is in reality being
enforced or instead is there the deployment of government efforts to
effectively prevent compliance.
Second, Chile has commitments in
environmental matters. There is the UN Convention on Climate Change, there is
the Paris Agreement, there is the agreement on biological diversity. All of
these agreements have reference with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Mapuche
will review in this context how these commitments are being fulfilled. The session with the UN Human Rights Council will
be a good opportunity to universalize the situation facing the Mapuche so that
the almost 200 governments of the world that make up the Council can comprehend
the Mapuche situation in Chile.
It is going to be a good
opportunity also to dialogue with the Government of Chile, and we hope that the
current government will assume a constructive position. We could dialogue
previous to the session in Geneva, and not arrive there to reproduce in full
the tensions and controversies that exist in the Araucanía. But as things are,
it seems that we are going to arrive in Geneva, transferring all the tensions
and controversies that now exist here in Chile.
In this context there is also the issue of Operation Hurricane...
The gravity of the Human Rights
issues involving Operation Hurricane will require the government of Chile to
report to the international community on what has occurred. Possibly in the domestic context the issue is
heavily politicized, but at the UN level we will have to see how the “rule of
law” of the state has operated in all practical sense against the Indigenous
Rights of the Mapuche.
All in all, the executive branch of
the federal government at the time led by President Bachelet was directly involved
in Operation Hurricane, as well as the undersecretary Mahmud Aleuy, the
institution of the police, and the judiciary that authorized the interception
of communications. For example, my phone
was intercepted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Public Ministry. Chile
has to inform and cannot pretend to place the responsibility to Alex Smith of
whom it is claimed that he exaggerates. That explanation will not hold up in the
international arena of the global community.
It will be a great opportunity to
talk about Operation Hurricane. Likewise, during my stay in Geneva, we will
also speak to the need to establish a Commission of Historical Clarification for
the Araucanía. A commission that tackles from the historical point of view what
actually happened in the Araucanía, and not that of the narrative of the
successive governments, each establishing its own parameters on the region and
definitions regarding its discourse. For us it is essential to know the truth
of what happened and coincidentally on the agenda with experts with whom I will
meeting along with a delegation of Mapuche, discussions are planned regarding reparations
and compensation to the Indigenous Peoples for the damage caused. To do this,
we must know the truth, and in that sense I will make a presentation on the
essential need for a Commission of Historical Clarification in Araucanía. I
have raised this issue with the government of Bachelet and the new government
of President Piñera, but I have not had a response. We hope that we can now challenge the State
of Chile from Geneva to address our situation in Araucanía.
How would such a commission be integrated? How do you conceive it?
A commission must have a clear
mandate and it has to define two things: First, what is going to be clarified
and secondly what period is under review, that of the colonial era or
republican. We are obviously more interested in the republican era. That is,
how did the state of Chile become positioned in our Mapuche territory and what actually
happened, how have the rights of the Mapuche been systematically violated. And then
there are crimes against humanity as well that were committed and which are not
prescribed. These then, are fundamental issues that will be addressed in such a
commission and should carry a mandate on par with the state, with a mandate in
time, with issues to clarify and with people who will guide their actions in
the commission on the basis of that mandate and not on personal opinions or
fantasies as has been the case so far.
To complement what we have
discussed, another important issue is the application of the ILO Convention 169
and in particular in those aspects that protect the participation of Indigenous
Peoples in matters that concern them. There Chile has a serious debt, there are
many development projects that have been processed and despite the need to
apply the principles of Consultation under Convention 169, it has not been
done. What is your position and how will you advance this issue at the United
Nations?
It should be noted that
Convention 169 has 46 provisions and regrettably all of the national governments
of Chile, beginning with the first of term of Piñera, then Bachelet and followed
by again by the second term of President Piñera have gravitated towards only
two of the provisions in the agreement, consultation and land issues. The other
44 provisions of rights articulated in Convention 169 have been neglected. I do
not know what the report of Chile will be, because it has not been implemented
in Chile. There is no program of implementation regarding intercultural
education, in substantive measures, in application of the penalties that affect
the Mapuche people. There is nothing that addresses social security issues,
issues of cross-border relations, there is no application of Indigenous Rights on
the execution and planning of the projects that derive from the agreement,
because such policies would require the State, when the Convention comes into
force, to appoint a person to execute such projects and in Chile there is no state
official, no one to talk to regarding the agreement.
In short, the State of Chile has
formally adopted Convention 169 but has abandoned its implementation and that
is why this situation will be very controversial. Coincidentally this occurs with the present government,
but the administration of the New Majority completely omitted carrying forward the
implementation of the agreement. So it will be a very controversial issue
because I do not know how they will attempt to explain their position, what will
be the reason they will give. And in the
areas where they have acted, as in the area of consultation, they have acted
fraudulently, they have tried to diminish its scope, they have deformed the
principle of consent into something that is very different from what a
legitimate process of acquiring free, prior, and informed consent must be: a
right of consent granted or denied by the Indigenous Peoples for every project
that affects their rights. They have deliberately reduced the consultation process
to a social survey, and that was done by the New Majority government, not by
President Piñera. It was President Bachelet.
With regard to indigenous peoples, is ILO Convention 169 a dead letter?
It is almost dead letter, I cannot
say totally dead but almost, because they have distorted the concept of
consultation and also deformed its true meaning. But yes, in implementation,
Convention 169 could be acknowledged as a dead letter, and the reality of how
the Convention 169 came to be a dead letter must be exposed, with an informed
report to the ILO at the session regarding this mandate next year.
Translation:TONATIERRA
Genocide and Territorial Occupation in the Araucania
Continental Commission Abya Yala
Temuco, Wallmapuche [Chile]
What is the distinction between a moral sin and the
admission of guilt and complicity in a crime of international character such as
a crime against humanity, such as is codified in the international legal system
since 1948 as the crime of GENOCIDE?
The Continental Commission Abya Yala, installed in the
Territories of the Lenape Nation [Philadelphia, USA] on September 21, 2015,
before the visit of Pope Francis to that North American city, has arrived in
Temuco, Wallmapuche [Chile]in diplomatic liaison with the Mapuche Commission of
Historical Clarification with the motive of advancing strategically and
systematically in the process of DISMANTLING the DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY of
Christianity (October 12, 1492) that was promulgated through the Papal Bulls
Inter Caetera (1493) , and then standardized in the legal systems of the states
of the Americas to politically perfume with an imperialist theology the genocide
and colonization of the Original Nations of Abya Yala [Americas].
No comments:
Post a Comment