Indeed, the existence of contrasting visions inside Awajun politics must not lead us to conclude that a certain plurality of indigenous politics entails a renunciation of indigenous principles. Themes such as self-determination, territoriality and a strong environmental concern still are crucial in the general indigenous agenda. Most discussions are not directed to deny those principles but to define if the engagement with the capitalist political economy and liberal legality would end up (or not) affecting them. In any case, there is a different ontology within the Awajun, which is strongly connected to the idea of collective autonomy that has been denied by the legal and ontological violence exerted since colonial times. In the next section, I discuss the way in which Amazonian indigenous peoples have reacted to confront this violence.
6.4.3. Amazonian political articulations
The institutional and ontological violence observed in the Baguazo appeared in different political projects during the Republic. However, the indigenous political articulation against this violence is located in the formation of indigenous organisations from the mid of the last century.
In the sixties President Belaunde promoted the most cynical project of internal colonisation, his plan (and later book): La Conquista del Peru por los peruanos (The conquest of Peru by Peruvians) expresses “the elite desire to finish the project of civilisation by extending it to Peruvian Amazonia, where it had never been fully realised” (Greene, 2009: p. 138). The Plan viewed the Amazon as “lands without men for men without lands” (Trapnell, 1982; cited by Espinosa, 2009: p. 143), so it sought to construct a highway to connect the region from South to North, to diffuse the
138 conservative civilisation ideology and at the same time to reconstruct and reduce the physical space of indigenous peoples (Chirif and García Hierro, 2007).
This neo-colonial project generated the displacements of many indigenous peoples, but some of them defended their territory with bows and arrows. Thus, the Matsés in the Amazon of Requena attacked a government commission in 1964 and the government responded by bombing the Matsés territory with napalm (Erikson 1994, cited by Espinosa, 2009). It was clear that bows and arrows were not sufficient means to repeal an invasion in the mid XX century, so this event obliged indigenous peoples to change their mechanism of struggle. Since then, the Amazonian indigenous claims have been channelled through the creation of political organisations (Espinosa, 2009; Davis and Wali, 1994).
By that time, international indigenous movements were emerging in other places of Latin America, influenced by two foreign social movements: Black movements in the U.S., the Caribbean and parts of Africa, and the American Indian movements founded by Indians who lived in marginal towns in the U.S. (Smith, 2003). From then, Smith (2003) identifies three different international movements in Latin America: An Indian movement consolidated with the creation of the Indian Council of South America (CISA) in 1980, lead by the Bolivian Movimiento Indio Tupac Katari; Ethnic Federations that emerged in the seventies in areas where indigenous peoples with a strong feeling of ethnic identity lived (in the Central Andes of Colombia, South of Chile and Bolivia; the Orinoco and Amazon basin, the Ecuadorian Andes and the Gran Chaco); and Peasant unions promoted by Left parties from the fifties.
A notable example of an ethnic movement in Peru was The Consejo Aguaruna-Wambisa, born in 1977 in the native community Mamayaque (near to Cenepa River).
The Consejo sought to institutionalise a Jivarian organisation led by the Awajun leader Evaristo Nugkuag (Greene, 2009). This organisation (and others similar) was established to defend indigenous territories against the expansion of settlers, cattlemen, lumber and oil companies (Rénique, 2009).
Peruvian anthropologists who supported the movement founded their own organisation:
the Centro de Investigaciones y Promoción Amazónica (CIPA). CIPA had connections to foreign organisations and universities, so it provided not only consultancy but also funds to native organisations. However, for indigenous peoples the emerging structure of international indigenous activism through NGOs and universities networks reflected a pattern of dependency. To achieve more autonomy from non-indigenous friends, the Amazonian indigenous people created AIDESEP. Since the eighties CIPA and AIDESEP started to compete for international funding (Greene, 2009).
AIDESEP became the most important indigenous organisation in Peru with national, regional and local presence (see 5.2.2). The competing Amazonian indigenous organisation is the Confederation of Amazonian Nationalities (CONAP) which emerged with a different orientation by accepting social and economic integration within national structures, and extractive activities, parcelling of land, massive use of Spanish and other similar issues (Chirif and García Hierro, 2007).
Since its creation, AIDESEP has played an important role in international advocacy initiatives on both environmental and indigenous issues. It was one of the founder
139 members of the Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazonian Basin (COICA) formed by organisations from the eight Amazon basin countries in 1984.
AIDESEP and COICA have been effective in raising international awareness about the connection between indigenous and environmental issues and have helped to place indigenous issues on the agenda of important international organisations as the ILO, UN, World Bank and IDB (Hughes, 2010; Davis and Wali, 1994).
In spite of this success, indigenous movements in Peru are usually characterised as weak unlike such movements in Bolivia and Ecuador (Green, 2006). The main reasons for this situation are: 1) the Marxist government policies of the late sixties and seventies which organised highland populations with class-based labels (identifying them as peasants, not as indigenous); and 2) The political violence, repression, and persecution on the part of both the state and the terrorist group Sendero Luminoso (García, 2003;
Lee, 2010; Green, 2006; Seligmann, 1993). But these explanations only focus on Andean indigenous peoples. Green has correctly asserted that Amazonian indigeneity has been ignored even when Amazonians propose openly ethnic politics. Thus, the Peruvian Amazon is triply marginalised: “Marginal to the Peruvian Andes, which is marginal to the Peruvian coast, which is marginal to the great world power of the north”
(Green, 2006: p. 338).
In fact, Amazonian indigenous organisations have been articulating coherent political claims in the last decades, related to titling of communal land and recognition of reserves for indigenous in voluntary isolation, amongst others. However, within this process have appeared many problems, even situations of crisis derived from internal factors (lack of efficient administration and institutionality; lack of coordination between local, regional and national offices; different views on the political agenda;
personalist leadership and corruption) and external factors (economic division by companies; government policies or strategies to weaken the organisations; introduction of foreign social codes of conducts by migrants, NGOs and the Church). These problems have been identified by activists and the indigenous peoples.
According to Alberto Chirif and Diego García (2007), two early supporters of the Amazonian indigenous movement, these crises occur because of the weaknesses of internal relations between national, regional and local political leadership, and lack of strategic vision to take advantage of the opportunities that the system offers. According to them, the first problem emerges because the actors are involved in different realities.
National and regional actors easily reproduce an image of how the indigenous must be or ‘good indigenous’ fostered by nationals and foreign activists looking for alternatives to world crisis. However, the dynamics of the locals are different since they are the most affected by companies and market actors: they have been divided by the creation of ghost organisations funded by companies, and inside the communities daily life is often altered by prostitution, alcoholism, drug consumption, etc. brought by foreign people (Chirif and García Hierro, 2007).
Another founder of the movement, Richard Smith (Smith, 2003), highlights other important problems, such as the strong personalism of indigenous organisations and the lack of institutionality. According to him these issues led to situations in which some leaders (influenced by international conference invitations, meetings with authorities and so forth) act as traditional politicians led by material interests. Besides, the change of presidencies take place in a deficient administrative context with no historical
140 archives and no permanent institutional members, which makes it difficult to maintain a vision, strategy and working plans for long periods.
Another important issue is that indigenous communities have their own internal conflicts. There are tensions between hierarchical and egalitarian models of leadership, and periodic questioning of traditional rituals and political systems (Brown, 1991).
During my fieldwork I found that indigenous peoples admit some of these problems.
For example, some of them argue that the crisis of indigenous organisations is because some leaders have internalised the economic logic, and use politics for their economic benefits. So today in the communities many people don’t consider them as leaders but as liars and robbers (Indigenous interview 3, 04-04-2013; Indigenous interview 17, 11-04-2013). In that sense, it is said that the leaders have learnt Western life and then just seek money and divisions (Indigenous interview 16, 11-04-2013); “some indigenous leaders behave as Western people” (Indigenous interview 26, 14-04-13).
This perception has been deepened by a Convention signed between Petrobras and AIDESEP, which has been strongly criticised by indigenous peoples (Servindi, 2012) and historical activists (Chirif, 2012). A young Awajun writer (Indigenous interview 3, 04-04-2013) says that is not possible to talk of Buen Vivir when you agree with an extractive company that you cannot claim judicially against it if they pollute your territory12. AIDESEP is also criticised because according to Gil Inoach (Indigenous interview 1, 17-10-12) it has changed the movement’s vision for another vision that is not collective. He argues that the first mobilisation of August 2008 had a vision because the people protested for the respect of their rights, but the second mobilisation of April 2009 was used for the political aims of AIDESEP president, who wanted popularity to run in the national presidential contest.
Apart from the problems originating inside the organisation, indigenous peoples identify problems originating in governments and companies. Most of them agree that many organisational crises emerge because companies give monthly stipends to indigenous who accept the money because of their poor situation. Thus, companies divide the group producing strong confrontations inside the community: “it is economic power that divides the people” (Indigenous interview 9, 09-04-13).
But political power also divides the people. An important Awajun leader (Indigenous interview 7, 08-04-13) argues that sometimes the government promotes fake organisations to destabilise the movement. According to many indigenous interviewed this practice has been recently used by the ‘Coordinadora Awajun’, an organisation created by President Garcia in order to ‘incentivise’ the companies’ view inside the communities. In general, according to the historical activist Diego Garcia (Activist interview 12, 12-06-13), the main problem of indigenous political aims is the
12According to a high functionary of AIDESEP (Indigenous interview 30, 26-04-13), the period in which the convention was in force has finished and during that time AIDESEP did not negotiate the rights of indigenous peoples. The functionary also said that perhaps it would have been better not to sign the convention, but it was a political decision of the Directive Council and they assured that the agreement was directed only to organise some events with NGOs.
141 appearance of many organisations that break the unity of the movement as a fundamental strategy.
The fracture inside the indigenous organisation can be observed in the case of ORPIAN.
ORPIAN is a regional committee of AIDESEP but there are two secretaries that claim leadership of this committee. On the one hand, Francisco Shajian, a historical leader, accuses the official leader Edwin Montenegro of corruption. Shajian argues that Montenegro wants to remain in charge to take advantage of it as a Western politician.
He emphasises the necessity of ‘negotiations’ and ‘coordination’ with the state, not confrontation. He also emphasises the necessity to implement production chains and companies networks. Edwin Montenegro, on the contrary, argues that Shajian has usurped his position and is supported by oil companies. One can observe two main narratives of the reasons for these problems: individual corruption on the one hand, and company support on the other; and these two narratives are exposed by two contrasting visions around Amazonian indigenous identities: radical denial of extractive industries and acceptance of some extractive industries.
However, as explained by a state official in charge of indigenous affairs, the tensions and dis-articulations inside indigenous movements must not lead us to conclude that there is no valuable indigenous politics, since in any society there are political tensions and dis-articulations: “we cannot blame indigenous peoples for not having clear representatives because it is also the case in the national society… If you see the political parties, any of them seem to properly exert political representation” (State official interview 8, 13-06-2013).
It is important to ask if these contrasting narratives are denying the possibilities of indigenous self-determination and territorial rights. What it is interesting to note is that the two competing indigenous organisations (AIDESEP and CONAP) and the two committees which struggle for the regional AIDESEP office equally defend the idea of self-determination and territorial rights. For instance, even though CONAP is usually seen as containing contradictory aims and principles in relation to AIDESEP, in its Declaration of Principles (1997) asserts that “due to our fighting spirit and self-determination we decide to undertake a process of vindication of our lands and natural resources…” In addition, almost all the Awajun interviewed emphasise the respect of these rights. Then, the possibilities of assimilation or negation of extractivist activities inside indigenous organisations is indeed a question of degree and negotiation in the context of a primary right of self-determination and territoriality and respect of the indigenous ontology. These aspects are indeed located at the basis of the indigenous movements and have been denied by the ontological and institutional/legal violence uncovered dramatically by the Baguazo, but in force since colonial times.