In the light of the current crisis concerning the Awás in Brazil, the Indy went out to get local opinions concerning the situation of indigenous people everywhere. We asked interested passersby to share with us their thoughts on the role that state governments play in protecting indigenous communities and their lands in South America.

In their comments, the locals we talked to seem to think that in Argentina and in general across the region state governments do address (or at least recognise) indigenous issues. However, most people added that they felt that governmental intervention too often falls short of providing any real form of protection for indigenous communities and that state meddling in indigenous affairs is often driven by broader political agendas and ulterior motives. Their answers seem to reflect the harsh reality of the status of indigenous people with respect to state protection in Brazil, a status that is often also lived in other parts of South America and all over the world.

Photos by Simon Guerra

Héctor Romero, 49, businessman, San Telmo.

I don’t think that the government is really concerned with indigenous people. They are not interested in the subject. The government doesn’t do much to protect them because that idea is not part of its political agenda. Furthermore, in general I think that the idea of the ‘Indian’ is changing -we live in a world that is changing. The image of those people today is not what it was in the past. They are now involved and integrated in schools, work, city life. So their issues are changing too.

 

Nahuel López, 23, factory employee, Mataderos.

From what I see in the papers, it seems like yes, the government is concerned with these issues and it does what it can to protect them; but in other papers, no, they don’t even report on that sort of thing. But yeah, I think they are doing at least some things to protect them in Argentina. And in Latin America, Evo Morales is doing a lot for the people. [Ecuadorian president Rafael] Correa as well, and with [Venezuelan president Nicolás] Maduro we’ll see what he does there in Venzuela. I don’t know too much about the issue but from what I see I don’t think that what the governments are doing is really sufficient [to protect indigenous people and their lands] but they at least do a little bit. Like here in Argentina they have land laws in place that help.

Matias Matison, 26, unemployed, Villa Lugano.

No, I don’t think what the governments are doing [in the region] is sufficient at all. Those people are basically ignored. I don’t know about in other countries but here it seems like the concern [the government] does give to those issues is superficial and it doesn’t give them a lot of importance. But what is it that they could or should do? I have no idea. That’s why I’m not involved in government. But I know that there are a lot of NGOs that work to do what they can for them, but in general, I mean you don’t see campaigns or anything that concern indigenous people -I believe they are ignored. I don’t know how it is in other provinces either, but here they are ignored.

Mariano Ferro, 26, systems analyst, Recoleta.

Well, I’m really not an expert on the issue, you know? But I think a lot of things are happening -like with the Qom community here in Argentina for example. And I don’t know how it is like in other countries with relatively large reservations with state lands so that the people are protected enough to live and develop their lives; but here, they create parks and areas for really small groups that survive generally by means of exporting goods and artisan crafts that they make themselves, especially in the north and northeast of the country. I think sometimes the situations [of indigenous peoples] are pretty poorly attended to. And although it seems like nowadays indigenous people have no problem integrating into society in general, I don’t know if they necessarily want to integrate themselves in this way. What the governments are doing in terms of protection of indigenous peoples is not sufficient. At least from what I know, there is no sort of state plan or program coordinated with the provinces to help with protection of such groups or to help these communities develop. Here in Argentina the indigenous groups are pretty marginalised, but in Central America where their populations are bigger, there are tremendous efforts being done to protect their rights. And in these countries where the indigenous populations are bigger their issues are more visible and I think they receive much more attention and help.

Florencia Piluso, 28, publishing editor, Palermo.

I think that [the state protection of indigenous people] is false and unreal in a sense. The attention given to these issues is not truly for the sake of helping or of integration of these groups, but rather a question of control. Everything [the government] does is to look for ways to approach these groups and draw them near into a sort of enclosure. And furthermore, indigenous communities are not included in daily societal activities. What happens, for instance, here [in Argentina] in the countryside of Chaco, such groups receive funds from the government but also serve as instruments for governmental use. In general I don’t think that a form of state protection in this sense really exists, nor does a genuine motive for helping them.

An investigation as part of the Observatory of Human Rights of Indigenous peoples reports several problems facing indigenous communities in Patagonia.

The annual study focused this year on the provinces of Neuquén, Chubut and Río Negro. The report is directly related to territorial disputes, and it denounces the complicity of political and judicial authorities. The study cites advances on indigenous territories by oil companies, mining companies, and ranchers for the high number of cases. It found that there are 347 Mapuche people in the Patagonia province of Neuquén in Argentina processing or involved in court cases for defending their territories.

The Observatory of Human Rights of the Indigenous challenges exploitative developmental industries and businesses that strip ancestral territories of their resources in the south of the country. “In Patagonia, territorial dispossession continues to be cited as the principal obstacle to the subsistence of indigenous populations and their development into autonomous populations,” the study said.

The report also warns that changes to the national civil code will provoke more evictions and prosecution. It says “state and private actions continue to take action typical to the colonisation of democracy.”

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar, the AMARC-ALC news agency.

More than 300 indigenous leaders stormed the Chamber of Deputies to protest against proposed changes to laws governing the demarcation of ancestral lands.

The protest took place on Tuesday morning when a group of indigenous people of varying ethnicities entered the office of the Committee on Constitution and Justice, where they remained for more than ten hours.

They sought to demonstrate their rejection of proposed changes to the laws which would see their rights to territorial claims severely restricted. At present, the Brazilian constitution establishes that officially recognised indigenous territories are property of the state, but that the indigenous people have the right to live there.

The protesters said that they would remain where they were until the president of the lower chamber, Henrique Eduardo Alves, suspended the decision to form a committee charged with carrying out the proposed constitutional amendments. The protest largely succeeded – the project has been suspended for six months. The indigenous leaders were also promised the opportunity to formally present their complaints to Congress as a means to arrive at a more favourable solution for both parties.

It is held that the changes will see the powers of the government’s National Indian Foundation, the agency currently charged with settling territorial claims and establishing the boundaries of ancestral lands, vastly reduced. The changes, proposed by a powerful sector of rural legislators, would give Congress the power to decide the limits and demarcation of indigenous lands.

Sonia Guajajara, head of the Coordination of Indigenous People of Brazil said: “we will not accept any kind of negotiation or dialogue relating to (the proposed constitutional amendment) what we want to do is to get rid of the committee.” The project was abandoned in 2000, and, according to Guajajara, is only now being re-addressed thanks to the interests of “large landowners”.

One indigenous leader explained how Congress is: “taking decisions which endanger our villages and mother earth; they are burying our rights, we want to be consulted.”

Ancestral lands are thought to make up 12% of Brazilian territory, although there are numerous plots of land awaiting official recognition. This is particularly pertinent in areas where agricultural advances threaten the homes of many indigenous populations, and where non-indigenous settlers have claimed said land. Many congressmen who support the interests of the agricultural sector have come out in defense of the changes, claiming that the demarcation of indigenous territories limits agricultural productivity.

In recent years, land disputes have been a source of violence in the country.

The Brazilian government suspended the eviction of the Guaraní-Kaiowá people in the state of Mato Grosso del Sur on Tuesday until new territorial boundaries are drawn. Justice Minister José Eduardo Cardozo made the decision after meeting with indigenous leaders from the 170-person tribe.

Last week, the Guaraní-Koiowá issued a letter mistakenly interpreted to threaten the collective suicide of all the community’s men, women, and children. Rather, they had declared they were willing to die on their land if confronted by hired hitmen, alluding to alleged assassinations of indigenous people by large landowners in land disputes. It is unclear how much the letter, or its incorrect interpretation, contributed to the government’s intervention.

Cardozo also dispatched police units to protect inhabitants, explaining, “We are sending personnel and vehicular reinforcements from the National Force. The Federal Police will also reinforce the area’s vigilance. Will are not going to release the number of troops for security reasons, but it is sufficient to keep the peace.” He also revoked the penalty fee of US$250 per day levied against the National Indian Foundation (FUNDAI) in violation of the ruling that required the tribe’s eviction.

The Guaraní-Kariowá’s 170 members will be permitted to remain on the land until a new agreement is reached. Representative Solano Pires said happily that the decision reaffirmed his people’s ancestral right to the land. “This sacred land is ours; my grandfather and great grandfather are buried in it.”

Human Rights Secretary of the Presidency, María del Rosario, who also met with tribal leaders, indicated that the government would likely simplify the territory demarcation system

Like many parallel situations throughout the Amazon, agricultural companies had claimed the land the Guaraní-Kaiowá inhabits for cultivation purposes. In 2002, the Public Federal Ministry (MPF) allocated 40 hectares to the community, but the land proprietor disputed the decision in court. A ruling two weeks ago mandating the community’s eviction sparked the government’s involvement.

Residents of the Panamanian state of Colón will also sit down with their government to discuss land allocation, in this case alternatives to privatisation. In Paraguay, 800 landless farmers and indigenous people of the Caazapá region continue roadblocks, demanding the return of their land and greater government support.

The National League of  Landless Farmers (known as ‘carperos‘) has warned the Paraguayan government that it will begin mass occupations of land that has been illegally obtained by the state. The warning comes after  the group’s march on Asunción to address land rights on Tuesday.

The league, considered one of the largest groups of landless Paraguayans who live with their families in tents, has declared that it is preparing to recover 8,000 hectares of land that spans over 16 districts, in order to resolve a land crisis that has affected thousands in the eastern area of the country.

The league also remarked about the 28,000 public hectares that are controlled by Brazilian companies and demanded for decent housing.

Recently, the leader of the association, Jose Rodriguez, met with the newly appointed president, Federico Franco, who this year replaced Fernando Lugo as he was ousted before the end of his term. The meeting was requested by Franco who asked the farmers to submit a written request of the land that they claim will resolve the existing disputes.

The conflict over land has extended for over 50 years, and has been made worse as increasing evictions of farmers have occurred through court orders and police actions. Between the years 1950 and 2000, 12 million hectares were given over to private ownership, claimed former president of the National Rural and Land Development Institute, Alberto Alderete Prieto.

Since then, organisations for land reform, like the League of Landless Farmers and the Struggle for Land Organisation, have been created. The director of the latter group, Ramon Medina, said that the struggles are for land reform and to stop the advance of agri-business which are the main threats to farmers. “We continue with a government that defends the interests of the large landholders, of the big soy producers,” said Medina.

A 2008 farming census showed that only 2% of landowners hold 85.5% of Paraguay’s land and that, at the time, there were 300,000 landless farming families. Of arable land, 80% belongs to 1% of landowners and 6%  to small-scale farmers, approximating 20 hectares per farmer.

“What are we asking for?” repeats Eulogio Frites. “Respect for the rights of the indigenous communities. One. Second, also, we do not want them to deprioritise the law of indigenous communities…that we have a pre-existing right, pre-dating the creation of the Argentine state, to the territory.”

Frites is the first indigenous lawyer in Argentina and an instrumental figure in the on-going struggle for the recognition of the rights of indigenous communities in the country.

Amongst Latin American countries, Argentina is known for having a relatively small indigenous population. Still, 35 indigenous communities were recognised in the 2010 national census, and a 2005 study at the University of Buenos Aires estimated that up to 56% of Argentines may have traces of indigenous blood.

Pending Concerns

Frites outlines the most important concerns for the indigenous communities today as the respect of the rights of “legal personhood [of the indigenous communities], territoriality, biodiversity and multiculturalism”.

The activist observes that representatives of the indigenous communities have been vocally advocating for these rights on the global level for more than 40 years.

Frites remembers the first world conference on indigenous rights, which took place in 1974 in Mexico. He recalls that the representatives of the indigenous communities “for the first time proposed that we want to practise our own culture with the support of universal science, within a reciprocal framework of respect for the cultures of other peoples, that we should recover territory as is due to us, that we should teach and learn in our own languages, without neglecting the official languages in each country”.

While many of these rights are now formally codified in law, Frites states, “we are toiling so that they might fulfil the requirements of the law, the laws and the constitution.”

The lawyer comments that another important topic of concern continues to be a lack of understanding about indigenous rights. “Therefore,” he states, “we have to seek greater awareness. This awareness will exist if we disseminate the law.”

Indigenous Community Property Rights

One of the most highly contested topics with regards to indigenous rights in recent years has been property rights pertaining to lands occupied by indigenous communities.

Few indigenous communities in Argentina hold community-based titles to the land that they currently occupy, although they have been living on this land for centuries. Instead, communities may occupy land that is public territory or that is the private property of an individual or business.

The Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) observes in ‘La lucha por el derecho’, “Despite the progressive recognition of the rights of indigenous communities in the legislation, land rights continue to be subject to violations.”

In its 2012 Report on Human Rights in Argentina, the same organisation stressed, “the grave effects on the indigenous community and small farmers that come with the expansion of the industrial agricultural frontier, the lack of recognition of the peasant farming communities’ rights to the land that they occupy…and the institutional obstacles to advance the implementation of the rights specific to indigenous communities, particularly the right to land and territory.”

The conflict over territory is also closely intertwined with natural resources in Argentina. Frites observes, “they constantly come…to mine gold, to mine silver, to drill oil, to harvest the wood…and they leave us tossed to the side, with whatever pretext. This cannot be allowed.”

CELS also observed in its 2012 report that this “indiscriminate extraction” of natural resources has raised concerns both for the environment and for the health of surrounding communities, including concerns about communities’ access to potable water and adequate nutrition.

Frites questions, “this mentality…that you must make money in whatever way possible, what does it cost?”

He argues: “You do not have to treat the small farmers like animals” and insists that if a move is necessary, “they have to pay us and not run us off the land as if we were not people”.

Current Instruments Regulating Indigenous Rights

Frites argues that in many ways, “that all the laws exist”; that the necessary framework is present. Normatively, “it is a task that has already been completed,” he states.

Indigenous rights are recognised at several levels in Argentina. The most important instruments on the federal level are the 1994 revision of the constitution, the Law 23.302, and the Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) to which Argentina is a party.

On the provincial level, constitutions also recognise indigenous rights, and many provinces have separate legislation to address the concerns of indigenous communities.

Indigenous rights are encoded in the constitution under Article 75, but only recently. Frites observes that in the 1994 revision of the constitution, “the Argentine state…recognises the pre-existing cultural and ethnic right of the indigenous communities in Argentina.”

He underscores, “This means that in the constitution, the right that we have pre-dates the creation of the Argentine state.”

The Law 23.302, Indigenous Policy and Support to the Aboriginal Communities, is also significant. The law was passed in 1985, but the chief concerns in its creation were similar to those Frites echoes today, “legal personhood, land rights, biodiversity and multiculturalism.”

Frites observes that the creation of the law was not easy, and had to be done largely by an “indirect route”.

Finally, Argentina is a party to the ILO Convention 169, which is particularly significant with regards to debates about property rights. The convention requires that when a state seeks to seize land for public works, it must have the “prior, free and informed consent of indigenous communities.”

This convention has been in effect since 3rd July 2001. Frites notes that the law was very difficult to pass in Argentina and grants the indigenous communities some rights that “Argentina has to respect”.

With regards to the debate about property ownership, Frites emphasises that in the ILO Convention 169, indigenous property rights are seen “as a recognition, not as a positive prescription.”

‘Positive prescription’ is the legal process by which a person acquires the title to a property on the basis of uninterrupted possession of that property.

Frites argues that ‘positive prescription’ is not appropriate for the case of community land rights because the indigenous communities “cannot request that they transfer a property to us when the property is ours, they have to recognise what they have taken from us.”

Still, in ‘La lucha por el derecho’, CELS observes that there is still, “no federal regulation that permits the communities to access their territorial rights.”

Indigenous Communities in Argentina

From 2004 to 2005, the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INDEC) launched the Complementary Survey of Indigenous Communities (ECPI). The survey was extended to those households who in the 2001 national census had registered at least one member pertaining to or descending from an indigenous community.

This survey – the first attempt by the government to survey the ethnic background of the population in over a century – estimated that 600,329 people in Argentina self-identify as indigenous or first-generation descendants of members of the indigenous community. This figure represented about 1.5% of the national population in 2005.

A 2005 study conducted by the UBA Service of Digital Genetic Fingertips suggested that the true percentage could be even higher. The study, which lasted more than a decade, analysed samples from more than 12,000 people across eleven provinces. The results showed that more than half of the subjects – a full 56% – carried traces of indigenous genes in their DNA. What’s more, 10% of the sample was found to have pure indigenous ancestry, without evidence of European heritage.

The vast majority of the indigenous population is concentrated in provinces to the north and south of the country. The north-western province of Jujuy and the southern provinces of Neuquén and Chubut have the highest proportions of indigenous persons.

While Russia drills for 20million-year-old water on Lake Vostok, Captain Osvaldo Mauro and the crew of the Antarktikos are also making a trip seemingly back in time, and not just in space: A time when human relations were simpler and camaraderie—the simple pleasure in seeing another human being, no matter his/her nationality or race—was the norm. A time when nature still held us spellbound by its ineffable beauty, flexibility, and diversity, where certain values held in common were thought to be more important than any personal or national interests. But where is this place, this Utopia, where peaceful human relations are preserved as perfectly as the fossils?

Meet Antarctica

Sometime during the Mezozoic era, an isthmus connecting the last two parts of Gondwanaland broke apart, and two new continents, South America and Antarctica, began to slowly drift apart. The northern end of the isthmus is now an archipelago called Tierra de Fuego, including Cape Horn, the southernmost tip of South America. Antarctica, completely isolated from the rest of the world by the Southern Ocean and exposed to the strongest wind speeds and most extreme temperatures on the planet, became a barren ice sheet, a remote frozen desert. It was, literally, out of sight and out of mind until the 19th century, when commercial interests brought it back from oblivion.

On 3rd June 1769, while wintering in Tahiti, Captain James Cook broke the seal on the secret orders from the British crown and read the following: “Proceed southward to 40th parallel and search for Terra Australis Incognita.”

Terra Australis Incognita was the name given to the land mass theoreticized since the ancient Greeks to exist at the southern end of the world. Later geographers confirmed that there should be something there, in order to explain the missing parts in their reconstructions of Gondwanaland. Captain Cook, as well-versed in the travels of other seamen as any, was aware of previous mariners’ claims to have landed on a ‘mist-shrouded continent’ somewhere around 60th parallel, and wished to confirm or rebut them.

Unfortunately, his crew’s encounter with malaria brought an end to the ambitions of his first journey south. A second journey, under the auspices of the Royal Society, was made to find the elusive continent, but to Cook’s chagrin, and having sailed “…as far south as any man has ever sailed and is ever likely to sail (beyond the 70th parallel)…” he landed on one of the South Georgia islands. He did, however, find an incentive to continue travel to the far south: the Antarctic fur seal.

The Antarctic fur seal was superior to whale blubber for the purposes of the late 18th and early 19th century mainly in that it was safer to hunt seals than whales. “…When they were first visited, they had no apprehension of danger; in fact, they would lie still while their neighbors were killed and skinned.” The relative abundance and ease of hunting seals encouraged many nations to send ships to the southern seas to seek out this interesting fuel source with the result that within 50 years, the fur seal population was annihilated. US and British sealers, seeking seal breeding grounds further south, happened upon the Antarctic peninsula, and disputed its discovery for decades, but in reality it was an Estonian captain, von Bellingshausen, sailing for the Russian czar, that discovered the continent. Subsequent voyages to the South Georgia islands, with whaling in mind, ignored mainland Antarctica as being bereft of lucrative commercial interests, too dangerous for safe mooring and having too hostile a climate.

The Search for the Magnetic South Pole

In 1836, pundit Jeremiah Reynolds burned the ears of the US Congress with the following declarations: “[It is in the] interests of the United States to establish propriety in the hemisphere…A British vessel touched at a single spot in 1832 taking from it an American and giving it a British name…American discoveries and commercial interests must be protected…” The irritating habit the British had of renaming their ‘discoveries’ did not go unnoticed by the French who, free of the political fanfare, and for the glory of France and science, secretly sent one of their top naturalists, Jules Dumont d’Urville, to explore (and claim) Antarctica.

But the British, not to be outdone, rallied support for an expedition to Antarctica with the following anonymous propaganda: “How could England just stand by and watch a foreign and in some points rival nation…step in and bear away the palm of glory…[England] must not allow a nation in her infamy to snatch laurels planted and watered by the toils of our seamen…”

The race was on, culminating in Anglo-Irish explorer Ernest Shackleton’s Nimrod expedition, which reached the magnetic south pole in 1907, and then the Roald Amundsen (Norweigan) expedition which arrived at the geographic south pole in 1911. The famous competition between Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott (British), which eventually claimed Scott’s life, was in effect to claim ‘the last important geographical conquest’.

Who’s Who in Antarctica

Attempts to survey the continent were fraught with difficulties. William Speirs Bruce, who led the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (1902-1904) set up a meteorological station on Laurie island while wintering there in 1903. Quick to understand the importance meteorological data could have in the future, Bruce offered the station to Britain, who rejected the offer on financial grounds. He then offered it to Argentina, who has manned the station (now called Base Orcadas) since then, making Argentine presence the longest-standing in the Antarctic circle in world history.

In 1908, Great Britain claimed sovereignty over more than 2/3 of Antarctic lands and islands discovered since 1775 ostensibly to secure whaling rights in the area. In a move that would have made Sigmund Freud proud, the maps submitted for this claim included huge parcels of what is now called the Southern Cone, i.e. Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and parts of Brazil and Paraguay. Despite their proclaimed ‘embarrassment’, the error was not corrected until 1917.

Other nations swiftly followed with their own claims: France claimed the lands discovered by d’Urville in 1840, Australia and New Zealand hastened to include their claims alongside the UK’s. Norway was not far behind. But it was the US that set the stage for the legitimacy of the claims with its foreign policy: “…the discovery of lands unknown to civilisation does not support a valid claim of sovereignty unless the discovery is followed by actual settlement of the discovered country.” (emphasis my own)

In 1928, Richard Byrd began his trip to Antarctica with an intention to occupy and claim sovereignty. His base, used for a period of two years to collect scientific data, was called Little America. On November 28, 1929, he flew over the south pole and dropped a weighted U.S. flag on the spot. When he returned home in 1930, he was hailed a hero. He manned four more long-term expeditions to Antarctica, effectively establishing US presence on the continent, the first attempts at living in Antarctica.

Over the next decades, other nations hurried to drop claim markers, usually bronze plaques with the flag embossed on it. Nazi Germany for example, would drop swastika-emblazoned plaques throughout the continent.

While WWII raged in the rest of the world, Chile and Argentina made their own move. Both claimed part of the peninsula, overlapping the UK’s claim. Argentina sent out expeditions during the years 1942-1943, dropping their own brass plaques. The UK, having blasted the moorings on Deception Island, supposedly to block the Nazi’s from using their harbours (although German presence in the southern seas was at all times during the war negligible) retaliated. With nothing better to do, the British battalion focused on Argentina, collected all Argentine plaques and returned them to their ambassador in Buenos Aires who in turn, presented them to President Juan Domingo Peron.

The insult couldn’t be ignored and the Argentine ship 1o de Mayo soon sailed for Antarctica for ‘survey’ work. The crew effectively ‘surveyed’ as many British claim markers, removing them or painting the Argentine flag over the Union Jack whenever possible. After that, things got sillier: “Huts were built, torn down, rebuilt, emblems and slogans from both countries were painted, covered, and repainted on rocks, whale oil storage tanks and buildings…” The competition between Chile, Argentina, and the UK was often solved by “football, rugby matches, or dart games…the winning country reigned over an island, base or hut until the next rematch…”

The Antarctic Treaty System

After WWII, eight nations–UK, Chile, US, Argentina, Norway, France, Australia, New Zealand—met to discuss land rights in Antarctica. Russia, although credited with discovering the continent was excluded from these talks and declared: “[the USSR] cannot recognize any decision affecting territorial claims because it had not participated in the discussions.” Eventually, world scientists led the way.

In preparation for the International Geographical year, members from twelve nations including Belgium, Japan, the USSR and South Africa declared their intentions of carrying out an 18-month study in Antarctica where ‘territorial disputes would not be tolerated.’ The amicable results of this international cooperation led to the Antarctic Treaty where among other things, Antarctica is set aside as a scientific preserve where no mining, no military activity, and no nuclear explosions or waste dumping may take place.

As the Treaty Preamble asserts: “it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord.” Critics of the Treaty say that it is only observed while the cost-efficiency of fuel exploration and transport exceed market prices. In other words, given the ever-growing scarcety of non-renewable fuel sources, there might be a day where the co-signers of the Treaty walk away from it and renew their claims on Antarctic territory. For example, the recent drilling of Lake Vostok increased tensions between Treaty subscribers who questioned Russia’s motives for the exploration.

If and when such a day arrives, Argentina has shown a clear and constant public policy towards their territorial claims in Antarctica. When a crewmember of the Antarktikos asked why the Argentine army was occupying such a remote location as Puerto Parry on the Isla de los Estados (Staten Island), the response was: “Presence and Sovereignty.”

To date, 49 countries have signed the Treaty, making Antarctica (defined as all the lands and waters beneath the 60th parallel) as the only continent on earth where no battle has been met. The only documented military maneuver, albeit without engagement of arms, was in 1965, by the Argentine army, who marched on the South Pole to reaffirm their territorial claims. When received by the US radio operator occupying the base, they were given “the best meal they’d had in weeks.”

Sailing to Antarctica

A map of Antarctica today, depending on where it was published, could have up to five or six different names for the same territory. For example, a British map of the Antarctic peninsula would call it “Palmer’s land”, and Argentine map would call the same land “Saint Martin’s land” and a Chilean map would label it: “O’Higgin’s land.” The most recent treaties have left Chile in control of the Straits of Magellan, the Beagle Canal, and the islands in the archipelago including Cape Horn. For this reason, a vessel wishing to find safe harbor before facing the Drake Passage, would have to do so on Chilean territory, and thus, the last port of call (and the place where one’s course must be registered) before sailing to Antarctica is in Port Williams, Chile–a tacit, bureaucratic confirmation of Chile’s claim on the continent.

Since the realisation of the importance of Antarctica as planetary heritage and the celebration of the Treaty, tourism has increased to the continent of the frozen desert. Nonetheless, despite professional tourist operators who carry tourists in any range of vessels, from revamped navy ships to 40-foot sloops, few make the attempt unsupervised by professionals, and all must comply with the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) requirements in order to ensure that no ecological footprint is left.

Only 40 years ago, in 1972, the first person sailed solo to the frozen continent: New Zealander, David Henry Lewis, in his 10 meter steel hulled Ice Bird. Ten years later, the first Argentine yacht, the Pequod, alighted on the peninsula captained by local sailing legend, Hernan Alvarez Fort. Although Fort admits his primary aims in sailing were “get there and return safe and sound,” he rejoices in the secondary results of sailing to Antarctica in that “two or three thousand Argentines found out that the Antarctica claimed by [Argentina] isn’t just a little triangle drawn out of scale on the bottom of most maps, but a bit of a promising and rich continent that deserves all the efforts we can produce to ensure it forms a definitive part of our national territory.”

On 13th February 2012, the Antarktikos (christened for Fort’s book recounting his travels) the third Argentine yacht to sail to Antarctica, started on its return trip through the perilous Drake Passage, en route to its new home berth in Ushuaia. Now, back at Cape Horn after more than six weeks sailing in the Southern Sea, the risks and fears that loomed so much in their imaginations before sailing, have become fait accompli, including capsizing in the outbound Drake crossing, icebergs, 100 mph winds, and summer temperatures far below freezing.

No captain—and Osvaldo Mauro of the Antarktikos is no exception—has sailed to Antarctica and returned unmarked nor unmoved by the silent continent’s impervious challenge to peace for the rest of the world, despite the grumblings and grousings that come from afar. Antarctica is the only place on earth where “all living organisms are to be treated as a single ecosystem,” according to CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) conventions, an ecological experiment without precedent at this scale in the history of mankind. Perhaps for this reason, howsoever the rest of the planet is broiled in dissension, the mere remoteness and extreme conditions on Antarctica, tempers and cools the hottest of conflicts. In Captain Fort’s words: “Antarctica defends itself.”

Just days after losing their chief and spiritual leader in a deadly attack, members of the Kaiowa Guaraní tribe entrenched themselves in a makeshift camp on their ancestral territory now used for cattle ranching, vowing to uphold the last words of their lost leader.

“Take care of this land,” the 59-year-old chief Nísio Gomes reportedly said, before being shot multiple times by hooded gunmen and dragged away to a truck.

The Kaiowa, from the Mato Grosso do Sul state in south-eastern Brazil, is just one Latin American tribe that has had its land stripped away on the agricultural frontier. The challenge of protecting native groups is growing as food production escalates across the region.

In Argentina last month, security guards allegedly killed Cristian Ferreyra, 23, a leader in the Lule Vilela indigenous community in the province of Santiago del Estero. The tribe is fighting to keep ancestral land under threat from deforestation for soya farming.

Though not all murders are linked to land disputes, tension arises as farmers and ranchers seek to extend holdings for agricultural production, often contracting private security companies to intimidate indigenous communities that are defending their constitutional right to ancestral land, experts say.

Pushed off their land and frustrated with government inaction, tribes return to occupy what was once exclusively theirs, creating strife within the community and with encroaching businesses.

Scenes of Conflict

The Kaiowa had been living in spare roadside homes as they waited for Brazil’s Indigenous Affairs Agency, FUNAI, to complete a survey demarcating the land to be returned to the Guaraní by April, 2010, according to Sarah Shenker, a campaigner at Survival International, an NGO dedicated to worldwide tribal rights.

After FUNAI failed to finish the survey, several Kaiowa returned to their land in early November, where they were met with threats from ranchers now on the territory.

According to eyewitnesses, on 18th November, some 40 armed men burst into the Kaiowa camp, surrounded Gomez, and shot him in front of his community. Two adolescents and a boy were also reported missing after the raid. FUNAI and federal police are investigating the incident.

The Guaraní, with a population of roughly 46,000 in Brazil, are under constant threat in the Mato Grosso do Sul state. A traditionally nomadic tribe, they are forced to live in relative confinement, experience a high suicide rate, and are malnourished, according to Schenker.

Brazil’s minister of human rights, Maria do Rosário, called Mato Grosso do Sul “one of the worst scenes of conflict between indigenous people and ranchers in the country”, and pledged material support for the communities.

Meanwhile, provincial authorities in Argentina have taken five men into custody, including the soya businessman José Ciccioli, in connection with the death of Cristian Ferreyra. Ciccioli allegedly hired three other men to carry out the crime.

The territory in Santiago del Estero is being deforested as soya farming balloons across the province: In 1995, soya cultivation in the province was a mere 94,000 hectares. Today the number is over 1.1m, according to statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture.

“Indigenous land is rich in natural resources, for agriculture but also for mining,” says Mariela Flores, a consultant with Argentina’s Secretariat for Human Rights and a representative of the Diaguita community in Tucumán.

Land Pressures

Just as some communities are beginning to gain political recognition and reclaim territory, new agricultural production and land prices are soaring, making conflicts more intense, she says.

But the recent attacks are not new or isolated incidents. Hundreds of ongoing clashes and the prospect of ramped up agricultural production to meet booming global food demand likely means continued pressure on indigenous groups in Latin America.

Worldwide cultivable land is expected to expand by 5% – or 70m hectares – by 2050. Production will decline in developed countries and expand greatly in developing countries, especially sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, according to the Food and Agricultural Organization.

In addition, new technology has had an undeniable effect on the outward expansion of farmland. The conversion of Brazil’s Cerrado region – a once unproductive savannah slightly bigger than Mexico – and the use of transgenic crops and precision agronomy have allowed planting in areas not previously thought possible.

And while the new contours of the global economy put pressures on land, political powers often do little to relieve them.

The recognition of indigenous territory requires an agreement between the communal, provincial, and national authorities, says Flores, “which is complicated, because provincial governments tend to be feudal, favouring business interests and providing little representation for native communities.”

The constitutions of both Brazil and Argentina, as well as international statutes from the United Nations and the International Labour Organization, affirm the right of indigenous tribes to their native soil.

However, many tribes, such as the Qom de La Primavera, from the northern Argentine province of Formosa, continue to wait for action from the federal government. Last year, the Qom drew attention by camping at 9 de Julio and Avenida de Mayo – one of the busiest intersections in Buenos Aires – in protest at land usurpations and police repression in their province.

They eventually reached an agreement for access to health care and potable water. But threats against the tribe continue. The son and grandson of Felix Díaz, the Qom’s leader, were shot at last month while walking through their territory. No one was injured.

Cane Cutters

In Mato Grosso do Sul, sugarcane plantations are spreading to meet demand for ethanol-based fuels. The state’s governor, André Puccinelli, claimed in 2008 that “Mato Grosso do Sul will be the biggest producer of ethanol in seven years’ time”.

In 2008, there were 50 new ethanol projects seeking funding in the state, which would occupy roughly 800,000 hectares in coming years, according a report by Survival International.

Many Guaraní end up doing the gruelling work of sugarcane cutters, with a work-life expectancy of just 15 years, according to the report.

“The completion of the survey and land recognition is paramount,” says Egon Heck in a telephone interview from Mato Grosso do Sul. Heck is a coordinator for the Indigenous Pastoral Council (CIMI) in Brazil, a group tied to the Catholic Church in defence of indigenous rights.

The government has been postponing the survey “for decades”, and has received strong opposition from agribusiness groups, he claims, leading to the desperate situation that tribes like the Kaiowa find themselves in.

Similarly, Argentina’s land survey, signed into law in 2006 and to be completed by 2010, was postponed until 2013.

“The killing of Nisio Gomes had surprising repercussions,” says Heck, noting that international media is starting to pay attention. “So hopefully we can raise awareness of the circumstances facing indigenous tribes, and those responsible for violence won’t be met with impunity.”

The afternoon was grey and warm for autumn in Buenos Aires. Many locals were out shopping, having a coffee, or trying to get through the workday, when sounds of music – flutes, bells, drums, and voices – rang through the downtown streets. They paused, perhaps momentarily forgetting where they were going or what they were doing, and watched a procession of faces, colorful flags and clapping hands. A few stepped out into the street to join, while others added their applause, as others stood in awe, their eyes tearing up with emotion at the sight before them.

It was the Mapuche of Patagonia, the Wichi and Toba of the central and northern plains, the Diaguita and Huarpe of the Cuyo region, the Coya of the North, and the Guaraní of the Northeast. These were the Argentines, though rarely recognised as such, who descended on Buenos Aires on 20th May in a March of Indigenous Peoples just days before Argentina celebrated its 200 years of nationhood.

For eight days, thousands of native Argentines travelled over 2,000km to the capital in three caravans from the Northern, Northeastern, and the Southern regions of the country. Along each route, they made stops in major towns, rallied in plazas and picked up more to join them for the rest of the journey. Arranged by the National Gathering of Indigenous Peoples, the Tupac Amaru Movement, and many regional indigenous groups such as the Confederation of Mapuche in Neuquén and the Peoples Union of the Diaguita Nation, the march arrived in Buenos Aires to demand recognition of an Argentina that is “plurinational” and “pluricultural”.

“The trip was beautiful,” says Amani Asusena, a young Coya from the northern province of Jujuy in Buenos Aires for the first time. “A little tiring but an unforgettable experience.”

After rallying in the historic Plaza de Mayo, leaders of the march delivered the ‘Pact of the State with the Indigenous Peoples for the Creation of a Pluricultural State’ to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The document included a list of proposals that highlighted the key issues facing the indigenous in Argentina. Among them were territorial recognition and access to land titles, environmental protection of glaciers and forests, a halt to mining and the expansion of soya monoculture, the inclusion of Quechua and Aymara as official languages and an incorporation of indigenous history into education curricula.

Part of this history is the often-ignored reality that Argentina and its 23 provinces were founded precisely through violent territorial battles with indigenous communities that ultimately ended in the murder, enslavement and imprisonment of thousands. One of the most well known military campaigns against the indigenous was led by General Julio A Roca in 1878 which pushed soldiers from the Pampas region into Patagonia. It was ironically named the ‘Conquest of the Desert’, as if the area was previously uninhabited.

Rather than celebrating, 200 years ago the over 30 indigenous nations that had pre-existed Argentina (some for 6-8,000 years) were fighting for their lives while the world around them changed dramatically.

“We are alive”

Though two centuries have passed, native communities find themselves in similar struggles for life and against invisibility. Many have worked in slave-like conditions on land that used to belong to their parents and grandparents, or have been displaced altogether by the expansion of the mining and agricultural industries, forced to look for work in urban areas.

“We have been silent for 518 years,” says Lidia Manqueo, a Mapuche from the province of Río Negro. “They have done everything to the Mapuche people and to the indigenous … We read the books that don’t tell the truth and won’t tell it. They never tell children that they killed so many people, so many ‘Indians’ as they say vulgarly. So many Mapuches, so many Diaguitas, so many Calchaquies.”

She says that the water in the valley of Río Negro is polluted, that the area has been deforested, and that pesticides from nearby apple crops have been harming her community’s health.

“We left with a proposal to request from the government that we all be equal,” she says. ”We are not conflictive, we want a solution.”

With chants of “La tierra no se venda/La tierra se defiende” (You don’t sell earth, you defend it) and doctored songs by the rock band Fabulosos Cadillacs, the march’s spirit was upbeat despite the critical situation the indigenous communities face.

Juana Valdivieso, a Coya from the town of San Pedro in Jujuy talks about the land grab in the north of the country, often by foreigners looking to start up tourist ventures.

“[They] come offering their money and since we are silent, timid, and humble, they want to take away all of our land, our culture, our roots,” she says. “That’s why we fight. To make them see that we exist too, we are alive and we have our roots and our customs.”

Those visual customs were on full display as different sections of the march were outfitted in the llama wool ponchos of the North or the silver jewellery and colourful ribbons of the South, yet all carrying the rainbow checkered indigenous flag.

“Each of us represents a community,” says Juana. “And there are many people who are much poorer than us who can’t defend themselves and don’t know how to read and write.”

This vulnerability of indigenous communities, many of whom are entitled to – but do not possess – legal land titles, is taken advantage of by local politicians and businessmen alike looking to acquire land.

In writing, Article 75 of the Constitution of Argentina explicitly states the “pre-existence” of indigenous nations and cultures and recognises the “legal personality of the communities and the possession and common ownership of the lands traditionally occupied by them”. However in practice, local authorities – politicians, police, and judges – have a miserable track record of implementation.

When asked whether provincial governments were doing anything in the way of indigenous rights, Amari Asusena stated bluntly: “They are the first to take away land.”

‘Part of us’

According to government estimates, 2% of the Argentine population and 25% of the rural population is indigenous. However a large majority of the country is mestizo, or mixed, as 56% of Argentines have indigenous heritage.

Still, Argentina has long given cultural priority to its European – mostly Spanish and Italian – heritage, and the indigenous or “Indians” have been historically depicted as lazy or stupid. Stories of struggle and repression against indigenous people in rural areas of the country rarely reach the capital or make national headlines. When they do, indigenous communities are often portrayed as violent, and major newspapers like La Nación have even made claims about Mapuches having ties to organisations like the FARC in Colombia.

Despite this, and despite being in a city where marches are a regular occurrence, people on the streets of Buenos Aires greeted the Indigenous People’s March with solidarity and applause.

“I applaud because they are my brothers and I see that they are very down-trodden,” says Carlos, a native-born Italian who moved to Buenos Aires as a child.

“This country opened its arms to me, a foreigner,” he says, “and it has to open its arms to those who are the natives and the owners of this country. I am very pleased and happy that they are here represented on this historic occasion.”

Onlookers Fernando and Claudia ask for a moment before speaking with me as they watch the march with tearful eyes.

“I think it’s the first time that something like this has been done and it’s very emotional for me that they have gathered here,” says Fernando. “‘These people are very forgotten and to have them closer makes them more real.”

“It’s like remembering ourselves,” adds Claudia. “There is a part of us that we have forgotten.”

Just the beginning

Mario Quinteros is a member of the indigenous community of Amanche de Valle, a town the province Tucumán, which makes up one of 18 groups that form People’s Union of the Diaguita Nation. He says politicians, including the national government, “look the other way” when it comes to indigenous rights.

Hence the significant amount of skepticism within the movement about the national government’s commitment to the issues proposed in the Pact. Quinteros explains that often the government meets with indigenous leaders or adopts policies as a strategy of “containment” more than anything else. Still, he sees the march overall as a step forward.

“Beyond the criticism and the meetings with the government, I see the possibilities for a future that this movement can construct,” he says, explaining that there is more work ahead.

“We still need to discuss what we want to do and how to do it,” he says, and notes the progress of indigenous and social movements as a whole, remarking that in previous times there was a “division between social groups and indigenous groups”, and that sponsoring groups like the Tupac Amaru Movement used to not include indigenous issues within its political framework of organising.

“My big hope is that this movement, that has held together for eight days touring the country, can articulate a political project for the future that will go beyond the politics that precisely this government is doing that is mostly to contain social demands,” he says.

I ask him about the reactions from locals in Buenos Aires. He says he feels a lot of sympathy and emotion coming from the city, and wonders if it is “historical guilt” or if  “maybe they are really sincerely emotional seeing such a movement arise”.

“They should see us. We should see ourselves,” he says. “We should see ourselves as different, and we should come to terms with that way of living.

“Society has a promise, not just to the indigenous people but with itself,” he continues, “to break from imperialism that is seen every day and return to solidarity.” This he says will help everyone to “live with less stress” and learn to “stop distrusting each other.”

“We should fight for democracy and the future. Today is the beginning.”