The Promise of Progress
The origins of this book can be traced to our long journey, both individual and shared, studying indigenous peoplesā position in international politics . In the course of that research, we have reflected on the meaning of progress and mustered the courage to speak out on some of the ignored or silenced issues in the prevailing political system as it invites its āOthersā to join. Originally, as scholars in international relations , we were drawn to the much-celebrated advances taken within two international political forums, the United Nations and the Arctic Council , steps that signaled greater attention to indigenous peoples ā contributions and agendas. For a long time, the relations between states and indigenous peoples in international politics had remained static, with no real events signaling progress or a shift in the power positions. Now there was an air of hope and anticipation. It seemed that indigenous peoples and their situations would finally gain the political and legal attention that they deserved and that the position of the peoples in pursuing their causes had significantly improved. This being the case, the surge in indigenous peoplesā engagement and inclusion in what was a relatively short time-spanāfrom the late 1980s to the end of millenniumāsparked interest and anticipation that, indeed, global politics was changing.
As we started our respective studies on the political participation of indigenous peoples in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Arctic Council in the early 2000s, we were eager to reveal the dimensions of the anticipated progress. In particular, we wanted to identify the various ways in which indigenous representatives took part in these political forums and how their newly gained presence might influence the politics carried on there. At the early stages of our research, we were enthusiastic about the prospect of international politics āmoving onā and rearranging itself to be more inclusive of those whom the traditional state-based system had excluded, indigenous peoples being the premier example. The studies that we read, the people that we interviewed and the documents that we pored over were full of appreciative and congratulatory words on this moment of success in global politics . The new ethos of inclusion highlighted the novel possibilities, forms of political cooperation and leverage that the peoples had gained, a development contrasting sharply with the fact that international politics, the UN especially, had in many cases disillusioned the peoples in (not) addressing their needs. In short, our interest in politics and indigenous peoples was piqued by this period when something actually happened in global politics: indigenous peoples gained institutional access and a political platform of their own.
As years went by and piles of data accumulated, both of us in our respective research contexts became increasingly puzzled by the notion of change. It did look like some structural progress might have taken place, but in the end there was more talk about the change than a detailed analysis of the data suggested. The decision of the UN to establish the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the inclusion of indigenous representatives in the regional political cooperation in the newly established Arctic Council had opened up avenues for the peoples. However, after the eye-catching event of inviting the peoples in, very little had happened in terms of political substance, enhancing participation that was genuinely equal or taking the issues raised by indigenous representatives further. It was at this point, when both of us were struggling to articulate our critical findings, that our respective studies morphed into a joint endeavor. Over a cup of coffee, we came to realize that our respective sets of data pointed toward the same conclusion to an astonishing degree. We discovered a striking similarity in the two political spacesāArctic politics and the UNāas regards the phrases used, the understandings of what indigenous peoples were to represent and the prevailing air of progress. From the wording of policy documents to the statements delivered, there was a tangible consensus over the significance of indigeneity and indigenous peoplesā political representation in global politics. The inclusion of indigenous peoples seemed to signal an epic moment of change in politics, one giving the peoples some of the power that had previously belonged to states and genuinely valuing the peoplesā knowledge, experience and worldview.
It is true that when one looks back in history, global politics and its treatment of indigenous peoples have undergone a rather significant change. It was back in the 1920s that indigenous leaders first approached the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations (Indigenous Peoplesā Center for Documentation, Research and Information 2017). In 1923, Chief Deskaheh, representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois, submitted a petition to the League of Nations challenging Canadaās control over Iroquois lands and resources. The impetus for the petition was the violation of the peoplesā rights as sovereign nations. It stated:
We have exhausted every other recourse for gaining protection of our sovereignty by peaceful means before making this appeal to secure protection through the League of Nations. If this effort on our part shall fail we shall be compelled to resist by defensive action upon our part this British invasion of our Home-land for we are determined to live the free people that we were born. (Petition to the League of Nations, cited in Corntassel 2008, p. 110)
What the Six Nations were petitioning for was recognition of their rights, protection and just distribution of resourcesāthe very same claims that the indigenous peoples of today pursue in and through national and global politics. Unfortunately, Chief Deskaheh was never able to take the petition to the Assembly of the League of Nations in his time, for the peoplesā cause was deemed to be a domestic Canadian matter (Corntassel 2008, p. 110). In other words, indigenous issues were considered domestic concerns, and international politics was not willing, or able, to address them.
Some 80 years later, in 2002, global politics seemed to be on the verge of a new era when Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, gave a speech at the first session of the recently established Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues . Mr. Annan welcomed the indigenous representatives by saying āyou have a home at the United Nationsā (UN Secretary-General 2002). It looked as if international politics had taken the indigenous cause to heart; the international community seemed conscious of, and responsive to, the peoples requiring international protection and their being valid claimants for such protection. The very same politics that had previously turned its back on the peoples was now taking them under its wing. The welcoming of indigenous peoples and their issues into international politicsāa forum from which they were previously explicitly excludedāhas been seen as a breakthrough, a significant shift and milestone marking progress in, and of, politics.
Indeed, when it comes to indigenous peoples and international politics, there is a tendency to think that significant steps have been taken and a great deal has happened. This perception of change resonates with the idea(l) of liberal and modern politics as a politics that is assumed to be more equal, more righteous and more inclusive. Indeed, progress is the premise of liberal politics , which is thought of as improving itself and ābecoming betterā (e.g. Barnett and Finnemore 2005). Plainly, the ethos of progress and promise of something better is embedded in politics, for without such an ethos, it would lose its purpose and logic. Accordingly, the inclusion of indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups has been interpreted as a signal that politics is moving forward. The extent to which progress actually takes place in politics is another question.
This book delves into global politics and the alleged change for the better in its treatment of indigenous peoples and their causes. At the core of the work is a critical discussion of power relations as well as whether, to what extent and how these relations have been (re)arranged over time. The key themes of the book, in addition to global politics and indigeneity, are contemporary colonialism , neoliberal power and the governing of life. Drawing on our individual and joint research, we argue that, despite the seemingly radical reorganization of the relations between indigenous peoples and their (previous) colonizers, what we see today is no more than the emperorās new clothes. In elaborating our argument, we undress the emperor, as it were, by scrutinizing the contemporary drive of politics to include indigenous peoples , to solicit indigenous resilience and to care for indigeneity . Our discussion reveals how, despite the current, more subtle operations of international politics, the emperor continues to rule, that is, colonial rationality prevails.
Sites for Indigeneity in International Politics
The much-touted progress in indigenous issues in global politics is not without basis. The often cited milestones in the welcoming of indigenous peoples and their issues in what has previously been the sole domain of states include fresh interest on the part of the United Nations in indigenous issues starting from the 1970s, the establishment of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations in 1982, the approval of ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal peoples in Independent Countries in 1989, the establishment of a political organization for Arctic cooperation in 1996, the forming of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2000 and the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. These and other developments have sought to improve the peoplesā abilities to be heard in international politics in order to put moral, political and legal pressure on the nation-states concerned. In addition to safeguarding the peoplesā rights of political participation, the aim has been to secure their cultural, economic and social rights, on both the individual and collective levels.
At the heart of these milestones is the recognition of the continuing existence of indigenous peoples and their causes and of their role as stakeholders and claimants in global politics. In keeping with the more general transition in international relations toward a more inclusive and consultative politics, the mechanisms to include indigenous issues have relied on declaratory maneuvers that remain in the domain of soft law. The mechanisms chosen have enabled indigenous peoples to be heard and, as such, to have a footing in contemporary global politics. The UN, in particular, as a key platform for most of the events referred to as milestones, has had major significance for the global indigenous movement in its raising awareness and facilitating developments at the regional level (Dahl 2012).
The ILO Convention No. 169 is the only legally binding instrument that deals with indigenous peoples on the international level. Among other things, the Convention safeguards the peoplesā rights to their lands and participation in decision-making and development. However, altogether only 22 countries have ratified the Convention to date, and in a number of othersāpro-human rights countries with indigenous populationsāratification is still either only under consideration or a non-issue altogether (International Labour Organization 2017). For example, of the Nordic countries with Saami population , forming a people whose traditional homeland covers Northwest Russia and the northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway, only Norway has ratified the Convention; it did so back in 1990. Another case is that of the Inuit. They are an indigenous people living in northern Canada, Alaska (USA), Russia and Greenland (Denmark), yet only Denmark has ratified the Convention, in 1996. As the critical literature on the challenges encountered at the national level in getting the Convention ratified has shown (e.g. Larsen 2016; HeinƤmƤki et al. 2017), international political developments that would have any legally binding effect in indigenous issues are yet...