France plans the ethnocide of three indigenous ... - naturvoelker.org

France violatesa) Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversityb) Directive 76/464/EWG and Directive 80/86/EWG of the EuropeanEnvironmental Law.c) Articles 1, 5 and 7 of the International Declaration about the Rightsof Persons belonging to National or Ethnical, Religious or LinguisticMinorities.d) Article 1 of the International Agreement on economic, social andcultural rights ande) Acknowledgement of Minorities1. Preamble / Preface ........................................................................................32. A national park in Europe............................................................................43. The systematic ethnocide..............................................................................54. The indigenous ..............................................................................................75. Gold Rush and Genocide ..............................................................................86. The claim .....................................................................................................107. References ...................................................................................................112

seekers. In April 2004, an interview with Viviane Thierron revealed that even the WorldWildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) accepted to give in to the pressure exerted by the MiningLobby. It is even considered to accept the gold mining explicitly as integral part of a futurenational park. 43. The systematic ethnocideBut the situation is more serious. A national park in the South of French-Guyana would belocated right in the heart of an Indian sanctuary, which was established by the FrenchGovernment in the 1970ies. There, the three last indigenous tribes of southern FG are living,the Wayampi, the Teko and the Wayana people, counting together 3.600 individuals.The political status of this Indian sanctuary was then - in 1970 - classifiedas “restricted area”. Thus, in order to protect the Indian culture, foreignerscould only enter with a special permit issued by the French Prefect inCayenne, the Capital of French-Guyana. Of the 30 indigenous tribes thatexisted in the whole of FG before the colonisation of 1604, only sixremained. The seventh, the Akulio, disappeared in the 1980ies as a result ofthe deportation forced upon them by the missionaries of the SummerInstitute of Linguistics. Ethnologists such as Thierry Sallantin and Pierre Francoise Grenandbelieve that within this Indian sanctuary at least four un-contacted indigenous groups stillexist.Added to this, it must be feared that with the establishment of a national park additional roadswill be build which will then be used as additional gateways for the gold seekers.The implementation of the national park in the south as planned by France would equal aethnocide and violates the International Declaration about the Rights of Persons belonging toNational or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. (Resolution 47/137 of the UN GeneralAssembly) 5 :“States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious andlinguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourageconditions for the promotion of that identity” (Art. 1, §1).4 Fréderic Farine, in ‘La Croix’ from 27. April 2004, page 16, and in the Guinean MagazineMenMoMag, June 2004, p 2-55http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm5

“National policies and programs shall be planned and implemented with due regard forthe legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.” (Art. 5, §1)“States should cooperate in order to promote respect for the rights setforth in the present Declaration.” (Art. 7).The attitude of the French Government and of the WWF, to establish a national park within anIndian sanctuary, is in contradiction to a new scientific study of “Forest Trends” (Whoconserves the world’s forest’s?), which confirms that indigenous people are the bestconservationists. A co-operation between conservationists and anthropologists regarding anyfuture planning of such projects should be set as minimum requirement. 6Last but not least - until today, the French Government refuses the acknowledgement of theindigenous as a ‘minority’ in FG. Multiple rights could be derived from this status for theIndigenous.In his report to the UN about nature preserves Markus Colchester of the World RainforestMovement even goes one step further and declares that a national park may never beestablished within the habitat of indigenous people as the presence of visitors wouldinevitably lead to the destruction of the indigenous culture (Colchester 2003: 151). Besides,there’s the immediate danger of lethal diseases introduced by tourists.The non-acknowledgement of the indigenous as minority and the influence of the gold lobbyare probably two of the reasons for the fact that all preparations on the part of Franceregarding the establishment of the national park in the South were - and are being - heldbehind closed doors. There are neither any official meeting on EU-level, nor do the Frenchofficials try to obtain the co-operation of scientists (biologists as well as anthropologists) ofthe European universities.On the other hand, France uses funds of the European Union (71% of the budget of FG, afterall) for a policy, which is detrimental to the tropical nature as well as to the inhabitingindigenous. Therefore, France avoids with good reason to include representatives, taxpayersand other members of the EU in its decision making process.6Contact: www.forest-trends.org6

4. The indigenousFrance intends to establish a national park inthe rain forest of FG before the middle of2005, without any public announcement, andthus to sacrifice an area which is reserved forthe Indian population since 1970. The formerIndian territory with its 30.000 squarekilometres would be lost. If the park wereopened for visitors, the Indians would turninto objects of tourist curiosity, which willinevitably lead to their ethnocide. The Minister in charge in French-Guyana, Leon Bertrand,has already announced first steps to get the national park open for tourists. But that sameminister has admitted in a letter from May 2003, addressed to Thierry Sallantin, that theIndians object to tourists. A statement of the Indian representative of the Teko people(Emerillion), Mrs. Ti”iwan, confirms the objections of the Indians concerning tourists (Michel2002: 278ff):“If we talk about the inherent principle of the national park, we want to makeclear that the Indians do not want any tourists in that area, neither in theirvillages, nor in the – as the brochure describes – “centres to formulate firstproposals concerning the project of a tropical rain forest national park Guyana.”You have to interpret this as to mean that the “villages Maripa Soula, Saül andCamopi will become (open?) Gates into the park specially designed for thereception of visitors.”At present, the indigenous try hard to maintain the status quo of a “restricted area”. Thiswould mean that large parts in the inside of the planned park would only be open for peoplewith special authorisation.The press release of the Wayana of Twenke of June 1998, which was signed by the GrandMan Amaipoti (Silberstein 2002: 275):“Hunting, Fishing, the harvesting and the gentle utilization of the forest resourcesare part of our life, harmonizing with the forest. The Establishment of a nationalpark and the anticipated rules resulting of this national park directly contradictthis symbiotic way of life and the freedom. Thus, the Wayana definitely object to7

this project. Likewise, as indigenous, they resolutely refuse to be presented astourist attraction in such a park.”The two indigenous representations of French-Guyana “Villages de Guiana” 7 and “Federationdes Organisations Autochthones de Guyane” (F.O.A.G.) 8 have expressed their positionagainst the establishment of a national park several times, e.g. in their magazine OKA-MAG. 9In the Declaration of Twenké of June 1998, signed as well by the indigenous and by theNoirs-Marrons (Aluku), a people of the adjacent region Maripa Soula, they refused to be putunder the French legislation from 1960, concerning national parks. Instead, the indigenousrepresentatives demand the application of the amended “statute about the explicitacknowledgement of the territorial sovereignty of indigenous and forest peoples.”Referring to this, the world community committed itself in Article 1 of the 'InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights' of 19.12.1966: 10Abs. 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right theyfreely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social andcultural development.Abs. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those havingresponsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories,shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect thatright, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.With its intentions, France violates this internationally anchored right, too.5. Gold Rush and GenocideThe documentary of Philippe Lafaix “The right of the jungle, the history of a lawless zone:French-Guyana” tells the story of the present invasion of French-Guyana through gold seekersand the resulting mercury contamination. 11 The French Secretary of Commerce seems to workas accomplice of the mining industry, namely for Cambior and Golden Star from Canada.Those two companies lease their own legally licensed concessions to small gold seekers in7Contact: aruacay@nplus.gf8Contact: chefcoutumier.kourou@ifrance.com9Contact: oka.mag@wanadoo.fr10http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm11English Version „The law of the jungle“ can be order by fdn@fpcn-global.org8

order to gain larger profits. (Mackay 2000: 52ff.) 12 . (The costs of the extraction of one ounceof gold in FG is one of the lowest worldwide, just 180 Dollars, thanks to the mercury methodand to the illegally employed Brazilian workers). The French newspaper Liberation reportedon October 16 th 2004 that every single year, 10 tons of gold are won legally in French-Guyana, another 35 tons illegally. 13Scientists found out that in FG the concentration of mercury in the near vicinity of gold mineslies at 0,6 microgram/gram in fresh fish. In other parts of the country, without gold mines, theconcentration is much lower, at about 0,1 microgram/gram.By their passiveness towards the gold mines the French Government is partly responsible forthe excessive discharges of mercury resulting in contaminations that by far exceed thresholdsset by the EU Directive 76/464/EWG (discharge of certain hazardous substances into waterbodies, Article 2, list 1, appendix 1) and for the violation of Directive 80/86/EWG(conservation of groundwater, Article 4, List 1). More information about this topic may befound in the Greenpeace document “Environmental crimes of multi-national corporations” 14 .By its passive attitude against illegal gold mines in the indigenous territory, the FrenchGovernment is just as responsible for the rapid increase of miscarriages and deformation ofnew-borns (Minamata-Illness) among the indigenous. Without instant intervention, this willlead to the genocide of the affected Wayana and Teko Indians, who still follow the traditionalfishing. Not to be forgotten in this place are the people of the Noirs-Marrons (former slaves),the Aluku (Boni), Ndjuka (Djuka) and Paramaka, living along the Maroni River and affectedby mercury contamination as well.Even the German-French research station of Nouragues (with co-operation of Prof. G.Gottsberger, University of Ulm) was attacked and plundered by gold seekers on May 7 th 2004,although sited right in the heart of a small nature protection area. At present, more thantwenty illegal gold seeker camps are counted in that area. Up to now, France has notundertaken any measures to provide protection. Thus it is absurd to claim that theestablishment of a national park in the south would protect the indigenous from the goldseekers.12 Contact: www.drire.gouv.fr13http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=24667414 archiv.greenpeace.de/wssd/umweltverbrechenmultis.pdf S.106ff9

6. The claimEverything points to the fact that the interest of France towards FG are limited to theEuropean space centre in Kourou (start base of the Ariane missile) whereas the rainforest isleft to the armed mob of the “far west”. It would be a challenge worth our European values forFrance to conserve and protect the northern rain forest as a whole.The Eco-Tourism in this part of FG could become a second source of incomebeside the space industry. But the gold mines are per se incompatible with theconcept of sustainable development. The protection of the northern rainforestcould facilitate the creation of short- and long-term jobs in the frame of apermanent, ecologically sustainable growth.We demand that the European Community of States takes instant action topersuade the president of the French Republic, M. Jacques Chirac, to create anautonomous territory for the inhabiting indigenous in the south of FG. This would becomparable to the “Nunavut” territory, which was established in 1999 for the Inuit, anindependent people in the north of Canada. With its committal to the Inuit, the rights of theindigenous were accepted according to the ILO convention 169.Furthermore, we demand to create a large national park of 50.000 square kilometres in the restof FG, ranging from the central highlands to the moor lands along the coast. With funds of theEuropean Union and with rigorous compliance to the conservation aspect, this can function asa positive example for other countries to conserve their own rain forests in a similar way.Currently the focus is to prevent the French Government with all urgency to establish anillegitimate national park by the middle of 2005 in an area that was classified as “restrictedarea” in 1970 in order to protect the inhabiting indigenous.France is called upon to respect the will of the indigenous (Free, Prior and informed Consent)and to finally take action against the mercury contamination of the tropical rain forest.Furthermore, we demand of France to request the involvement of European NGO´sconcerning the preparation of this plan. Amongst those there should be conservationistorganisations as well as representatives of NGO´s dealing with the problems of indigenouspeople.10

7. ReferencesBRYANT, D., NIELSEN D. (1997): The last Frontier ForestsCATZEFLIS, F., GERAUX, H., LE GUEN, R. (2002): Lòrpaillage en Guyane – Un mal incurable,in: Le Courier de la Nature, March/ April 2002, p. 25COLCHESTER, M. (2003): U.N.R.I.S.D.-report, Geneva, p. 151HALLÉ, F. (1998): „Protection and administration of the rainforest in Guiana“, MagazineJATBA from the ethno-botanical national museum in Paris Nr. 40, MNHN Paris.MACKAY, F. (2000): „French Guiana“, in: Forest peoples Programme Report, „Underminingthe forests“, January 2000, p. 52ff., 89SILBERSTEIN, J. (2002): Kali´na, an Indian family in French Guiana, Albin Michel ed. p: 275,278-281PONCY, O., FLEURY, M. (1998): report in the special edition Guiana of the Magazine JATBAfrom the ethno-botanical of the national museum, MNHN Paris.Please take active part in the campaign against the plannedethnocide and the ongoing genocide and write to the ministerof environment in Franceministere@ecologie.gouv.fr11