Controlled contact or leave them alone? The self-determination of isolated indigenous peoples

In their recent Science editorial on the subject of isolated indigenous peoples, two anthropologists, Hill and Walker argue for a tectonic shift in policy from ‘leave them alone’ to ‘controlled contact’. They argue that ‘leave them alone’ policies rest on flawed assumptions that these populations are viable in the long term for genetic, immunological and political reasons and that once isolated populations are provided with ‘full information’ and realize they are unlikely to be ‘enslaved or massacred’ they will leap at the chance of contact.

Leaving aside the implausible notion of a perfectly planned and flawlessly engineered ‘first contact’ in which events go to plan and nobody dies we must also suspend our belief that such processes are not co-opted by powerful vested interests. This is a context where oil companies, loggers and governments are desperate to promote contact and access the precious natural resources in the territories of such peoples not to mention those missionary groups eager for access to innocent souls.

Equally illusory is the notion of a ‘first contact’ preceded by provision of ‘full information’. These are people unfamiliar with t-shirts and shorts never mind the complexities of the capitalist and extractive economy which they are about to be integrated into (some might call that slavery) or the agendas of the missionaries, oil companies, academics, local elites or state bureaucrats who will become their interlocutors with an exotic new world.

The editorial was duly slammed by a platform of indigenous federations in Peru which has been established to monitor and denounce threats to the lives and territories of isolated indigenous peoples.

“We reject any presumption or act, whoever it comes from, which seeks to impose a way of life rejected by our brothers in isolation and initial contact and which would only aggravate their already delicate state of vulnerability. We consider such presumptions as arrogant and irresponsible, and made by people who think they should have the final say on how we should live or what we should or should not do as indigenous peoples.”*

Where Hill and Walker are right is that ‘unless protection efforts against external threats and accidental encounters are drastically increased, the chances that these tribes will survive are slim’. They cite the Peruvian government as adopting a ‘leave them alone’ policy but the reality is very different. On paper the government has demarcated certain areas as isolated peoples’ territories, strictly off limits to settlement and extractive industries. In practice, as is the case of the Kugapakori, Nahua Nanti reserve, home to the Yora or Nahua people cited in Hill’s article approximately a third of the protected area has been opened up for gas exploitation. Three wells are already operational and Peru’s Government approved a further twenty one in January 2014, disregarding its own legal obligations. If these rights are so routinely trampled on even in countries with ‘leave them alone’ policies such as Peru, what would happen in a context where ‘controlled contact’ was not only permitted but even promoted? Hill and Walker should be demanding that these standards are upheld instead of promoting contact, a process that will always escape our control and opens the door to yet more abuse from governments and corporations with powerful vested interests in their lands and resources.

Peru’s indigenous organisations also highlighted the longstanding failures of the State to protect areas inhabited by isolated indigenous peoples, including the failure to establish protected Reserves applied for over 20 years ago.

“Meanwhile, the State continues to grant rights to exploit natural resources to logging and oil companies in these areas. At the same time, illegal loggers and drug traffickers occupy these areas…and are attacking and killing our brothers. We demand that the state revoke these licenses, establish the areas that have been applied for and implements effective measures to prevent incursions of outsiders and the resulting devastating consequences.” **

However well meaning and intentioned the proposal of ‘controlled contact’ it is not the place of others on ethical or legal grounds, be they academics or governments to determine the future of peoples who, for their own reasons, have decided at the moment to hold the rest of the world at arm’s length. Yes, this strategy comes with its own consequences but it is up to the people themselves to assume this weighty responsibility and to decide if, when and how they establish relationships with strangers. This is called self determination and is a right of all peoples including indigenous peoples.

It is the job of wider society to safeguard this right, to protect their rights to lands by not designating them for logging or mining and to protect their lives by improving the public health in surrounding areas and resourcing and training emergency response teams in the local area to intervene if and when contact is initiated.  In this way we can provide them with the space and time to decide their own future.

====

*The platform incorporates AIDESEP, FENAMAD, COMARU, CORPIAA, ORAU and ORPIO. www.aidesep.org.pe/plataforma-piaci-se-pronuncia-frente-a-intento-de-contacto-forzado-e-ineficiencia-del-estado/

**http://www.aidesep.org.pe/plataforma-piaci-se-pronuncia-frente-a-intento-de-contacto-forzado-e-ineficiencia-del-estado/