In the past few decades Indigenous peoples have made prodigious inroads into re-imagining their political landscape. The global groundswell toward greater collective political economic, social and cultural and legal autonomy is gaining momentum as peoples connect globally to discuss common problems and share experience and knowledge (Alfred, 1999; Berger, 1998; Corntassel, 2007; Deloria, 1973; Dodson, 1994; Henriksen, 1999; Jull, 1998; 1999; 2005; Niezen, 2003; Sanders, 1977; Semali & Kincheloe, 1999; Smith, 1999; Tauli Corpuz, 1999; 2004).
This section examines how Indigenous peoples have created a unified global political
movement with common goals through processes of Indigenous internationalism. I examine the history of the creation of the Declaration, and the collective Indigenous right to self-
determination. I highlight the history of Indigenous internationalism because I believe there are a range of discussions and practical examples of Indigenous self-determination taking place globally that afford opportunities for solidarity and engagement between East Timorese and other Indigenous peoples.
The discourse and definition of self-determination is integral to international law and practice (Anaya, 1994; 1996; Fletcher, 1994; Lâm, 2000; Pritchard, 1998). The principle of self- determination has been recognised internationally since the 1919 League of Nations Charter
and United States’ President Wilson’s 1918 speech to a joint session of Congress. Wilson and other liberal thinkers emphasised the right to self-determination for all nation peoples, and maintained that groups who attain self-determination are considered less likely to agitate toward aggressive territorial expansionism. Lynch (2002, p.419) argues that Wilson’s interpretation of self-determination was limited and relevant only when state concerns of security, politics and economics had been evaluated.
Chief Levi General Deskaheh led the first Indigenous diplomatic foray in 1923 to the League of Nations to request a hearing regarding his peoples’ dispute with the Canadian Government over self-government. The Canadian Government reacted dismissively and Deskaheh and his party were not heard or recognised formally by the League of Nations (Corntassel, 2008, pp. 109-110; Niezen, 2003). In 1924, Maori leader Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana travelled with a delegation to London and Geneva to protest the breaking of the Treaty of Waitangi but was denied access to the League of Nations. Deskaheh and Rātana successfully highlighted the moral and political dilemma of a constituent peoples seeking self-determination within an existing State.
Since the 1920s, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) within the UN system, created a series of treaties incorporating the rights of Indigenous peoples. The most crucial of which was the 1957 Convention Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries (ILO c107) and the updated 1989 ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (ILO c169) which were the only international standards that stated that Indigenous peoples had the right to decide, control and participate in their own development. These treaties emphasised that states have the primary responsibility to develop and implement these rights and neither asserted collective rights for self-determination.
While self-determination is a legal tool, it is not a predetermined set of exact rules. The 1945
UN Charter restricted the term ‘peoples’ to citizens within states, preventing colonised and other assimilated peoples who were the victims of foreign occupation and domination from claiming self-determination (Pellet, 1998, p.105). Nevertheless the concept of self-
determination has experienced an evolution through subsequent UN texts, to be affirmed as jus cogens, a pre-emptory norm or right to prior acquisition (Panzironi, 2006; Pritchard, 1998). Self-determination was initially raised as a right for “all peoples” in the context of
decolonisation in the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Panzironi (2006, p.80) explains that the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN ICCPR) and the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN ICESCR) set out, in legally binding terms, the notion of self-determination beyond its widespread understanding as an anti-colonial principle to that of a universal doctrine (UN General Assembly, 1966a; 1966b).
The formation of international organisations such as the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) (since 1973), the Indian Treaty Council (since 1974) and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (since 1975) provided structures for Indigenous peoples to collectively claim shared rights and goals. The Declaration evolved from this international Indigenous advocacy (Tauli Corpuz, 1999). Jull (1998) highlights the Indigenous power he witnessed when Inuit from Canada and Greenland and Saami from Finland, Norway and Sweden met at the inaugural 1973 ICC meeting. Dodson (cited in Niezen, 2003, p.47) also recalls the tremendous insight he experienced when participating in the 1998 UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UN WGIP):
“I was sitting in a room, 12,000 miles away from home, but if I’d closed my eyes I could just about have been in Maningrida or Doomadgee or Flinders Island…We were all part of a world community of Indigenous peoples spanning the planet; experiencing the same problems and struggling against the same alienation, marginalisation and sense of powerlessness. We had gathered there united by our shared frustration with the dominant systems in our own countries and their consistent failure to deliver justice”. Dodson and Jull’s experiences highlight that while Indigenous peoples have different
knowledge systems and are geographically separated, they are members of a collective global Indigenous movement. This collective is a measure of Indigenous power and while slow moving, gives strength and sustainability to Indigenous assertions of their collective rights to self-determination (Jull, 1995; 1998).
I suggest that East Timorese activists, particularly those who feel the state and co-opted elites are not committed to achieving self-determination could seek to harness the power of this Indigenous solidarity and other global allies. I draw on Corntassel (2007), Churchill (2011), Venne (2011) and Watson (2011a; 2011b; 2014) to warn that there are risks in seeking authority and legitimacy through the same UN’s state-centric system that Indigenous peoples are
simultaneously challenging. Churchill (2011) describes the Declaration as “a travesty of a mockery of a sham” and Corntassel (2007) contends that institutionalising and mainstreaming
Indigenous political movements within the UN system has impacted grassroots mobilisation toward Indigenous self-determination. Indigenous internationalism continues to be critical, but I would posit, should not be restricted to the UN.