Chile’s Senate is the Problem

Stavenhagen’s statements come only two months after the Chilean Senate rejected, for the second time in three years, a proposal backed by President Ricardo Lagos to amend the Constitution to formally recognize the existence of “indigenous peoples” in Chile. The vote, which would have paved the way for greater rights for the country’s indigenous population, is embarrassing to many high-minded Chileans, but not surprising given that Chile is one of only three countries in Latin America that has not ratified the ILO Convention 169. The underlying principles of the Convention, while criticized by activists for their limited scope, provide some measure of self-determination to native “peoples” by granting them limited control over their own political institutions, economic development and territorial rights. The Special Rapporteur’s pointed comments, and the current debate over recognition, both serve to underscore many of the existing conflicts between Chile’s indigenous and the government.

The indigenous population is composed primarily of four groups: the Mapuche, the Atacameño, the Aymara and the Rapa Nui. The Mapuche is by far the largest group, comprising around 90 percent of the nation’s indigenous. By only recognizing one “people”—the “Chilean people”—the Chilean Constitution fails to reflect its heterogeneous society, damaging the country’s well-groomed image as one of Latin America’s more open and democratic societies. The country’s indigenous population, particularly the Mapuche community, has long faced racial, economic and political discrimination at the hands of governments dominated by the descendants of Europeans. This has been the case both under civilian governments and the harsh Pinochet regime, which visited particular affliction upon native peoples during its period of rule, 1973-1990.

Even in modern Chile, the darker one is the lower one’s standard of living—a reality further intensified under the Pinochet dictatorship. In addition, the Mapuche people, approximately half of whom live off subsistence farming in relatively isolated reservations (called “reductions”) in southern Chile, have been given few opportunities to shape the government-backed development policies that have often resulted in environmental destruction and forced displacement from their traditional lands.

Indigenous Protests Against Dam Ignored

The controversy surrounding the construction of a massive hydroelectric dam in southern Chile reflects the latest debate over the degree of control the country’s indigenous population rightfully possesses over the land it has traditionally inhabited. The Ralco Dam is currently under construction in the Bío Bío river basin that is home to the Pehuenche, a group closely related to the Mapuche. The basin is the planned site of six major dams and electricity plants. The Pangue Dam, the first of the projects, was completed in 1996 amid widespread protest. The World Bank, which partially financed the project, later acknowledged its mistakes after the Bank’s own study found that the indigenous population in the area had not benefited from the construction. In light of Chile’s failure to ratify the ILO Convention 169, the 4,000 indigenous inhabitants of the basin affected by the Ralco Dam were prevented from meaningfully participating in the process that led to Santiago’s decision to support the facility’s construction over protests by the indigenous communities.

With construction nearing completion, only a handful of families opposed to the dam remain in their homes. On June 9, 2003, however, a Santiago judge ruled that Endesa, the energy company in charge of construction, may continue its work despite the ongoing disputes with the landowners. In a report released in January 2003, UN envoy Stavenhagen extensively covered the debate over the construction of the Ralco Dam. According to the report, Chile’s authorities have consistently supported business interests over the well-being of the Pehuenche, noting specifically that two directors from the National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) were fired over their opposition to the Ralco project. The report further claimed that the dam creates a threat to the traditional Pehuenche way of life and said that the indigenous communities would “bear the burden of this economic transformation.”

A Turn Toward Violence

In recent years, the Mapuche community has become increasingly militant in its fight against government officials and private-sector representatives who have persistently ignored its interests. As with other indigenous movements in Latin America, the issue of land is central for the Mapuche. Indigenous activists have targeted forestry companies in southern Chile, provoking disputes that for years have attracted a good deal of attention from the Chilean media. While the commercial cultivation of trees provide a tenth of Chile’s total export earnings, this thriving industry has demonstrably caused more harm than good for the Mapuche. Indigenous leaders and environmental groups have charged that the non-native Monterey pines and eucalyptus planted for lumber are responsible for groundwater shortages, because the trees are planted too close together and the species draw excessive amounts of water. Lumber production also has led to the rapid decline of traditional forests. After requests for mediation by local government officials routinely were ignored, Mapuche activists occasionally turned to arson to draw attention to their plight, burning both the foreign trees and the offices of the forestry industry. Militant Mapuche organizations, such as the radical Council of All Lands, have also led campaigns to seize farmland and large estates involved in land disputes. Mapuche groups have also forcibly occupied office buildings in Santiago and other cities in protest of the government’s policies.

Crackdown on the Indigenous

In response to Mapuche protests, Santiago has used draconian anti-terrorism legislation, known as the “Internal Security Law,” which was passed during Pinochet’s rule to permit the indefinite detention without trial of Chileans accused of “terrorist acts,” including arson. On July 2, 2003, the Chilean Supreme Court overturned an April ruling by an appeals court that had acquitted three Mapuche leaders, known as Lonkos, on charges of terrorism. The case has been extremely controversial because the Mapuche leaders were originally convicted largely on the basis of anonymous witnesses called by the government. Mapuche activists have denounced the decision, saying that it is evidence of Chile’s notoriously skewed judicial system and police force and a growing populace that camouflages its racist prerogatives under the country’s alleged enlightened attitudes. A recent article in the U.S. publication NACLA reported that Chilean jails hold more than 100 Mapuche political prisoners, further confirming charges made by international watchdog groups concerning the unfair targeting of the Mapuche. These recent events reflect a longstanding lack of respect by Chilean authorities for Mapuche culture. Stavenhagen specifically expressed concern that the trials under the anti-terrorist laws, which Pinochet used to target leftist groups during his rule, “jeopardize the rights of the accused.” The fact that Santiago continues to use such Pinochet-era decrees long after the country returned to civilian rule is an indictment in itself and is reminiscent of the presentation of Pinochet’s anti-labor regulations.

A Need for Change

Though Chile refused to ratify the ILO Convention 169, its Indigenous Law of 1993, which created the National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI), does provide a framework for interaction between the government and indigenous groups. However, a report by the Institute of Indigenous Studies of Chile’s Universidad de la Frontera claims that the law is far weaker than the ILO Convention. The study contends that the 1993 law permits Santiago not only to control natural resources on indigenous-held land, but also to maintain the right to remove indigenous people from their land without their permission when the utilization of these resources is at stake. Furthermore, the law insists that indigenous Chileans are an ethnic group, rather than a set of “peoples” that exist as a separate social, political and cultural entity apart from Hispanic Chilean society and therefore have limited rights to self-determination. The difference in wording has had important consequences for the indigenous, because the government has used this technicality to deny the Mapuche significant local autonomy.

Those Chilean legislators opposed to the constitutional recognition of the country’s indigenous population argue that Chile’s national sovereignty is at stake, but the argument that such recognition would promote a separatist movement does not even remotely reflect the reality of the situation of Chile’s indigenous people. Furthermore, when other countries in the hemisphere ratified the ILO Convention, no significant movements towards sovereignty on the part of indigenous communities resulted. The emergence of anti-Mapuche self-defense groups and the increasingly violent nature of the confrontation between indigenous groups and the Chilean authorities cry out for Santiago to engage its native population through democratic institutions that permit them to control their own future, not as a target of paternalism, condescension and imposition.

 

This analysis was prepared by Chris Strunk, Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Issued 1 August 2003

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035, or email coha@coha.org