Dmitry Semushin: "Circumpolar Indigenous Peoples" - a tool for expelling Russia from the Russian Arctic
The key position in the ideology of the new ethnopolitics in the Arctic region of the West and Norway, in particular, is occupied by the theory of the so-called. "circumpolar civilization". In our previous article we wrote about this pseudoscientific category. Recall that the theory promoted to us from the West in Russia asserts that, in addition to the modern civilizations of the West and Eurasia (Russia) that came to the Arctic region, its original civilization of the indigenous peoples of the North — the “circumpolar civilization” - functions here. Its principal characteristic is supposedly supra-marginality. The latter feature is very characteristic of the policy of overseas regionalization preached by globalism as a modern alternative to existing national states. Therefore, the description in the most sublime tones of the "circumpolar civilization", in fact, as we noted, of the false category, is in itself already alarming.
On closer examination, it turns out that the theory of "circumpolar civilization" serves as the ideological basis for the "new policy" of the West in relation to the so-called. "indigenous peoples". Ethnopolitologists in the service of globalism argue that the former "traditionalist" and "protectionist" approaches in politics towards "indigenous peoples", including in the case of Russia towards the small peoples of the North, are being replaced by a new so-called. "democratic politics". It will supposedly allow the small peoples of the North to solve their own problems with minimal influence of the outside world, but at the same time, however, with "reasonable care" and maximum favored treatment from the state and non-governmental organizations (sic!). In the case of Russia, a transnational (supranational) new "democratic policy" towards the small peoples of the North would exclude the "subjective factor" in the conduct of regional policy, both by local elites and the federal center. That is, in fact, they explain to us that the Russian state will cease to be the main factor in pursuing a policy towards the small peoples of the North. On this stage, he will be pressed by new "democratic" actors.
The origins of the new "democratic politics" go to the 50-60-ies. Twentieth century. But, in fact, the first impulses to it were given by the anti-imperialist movement of the peoples of the Third World, generated then by the collapse of the world colonial system. Its initiator in the UN and other international organizations was political circles from the Non-Aligned Movement. It was only later that this policy of freeing the Third World was saddled and began to adapt the “golden billion” to its needs.
In the legal aspect, the origins of the current "democratic policy" were laid in 1957 by the Convention of the International Labor Organization No. 107 ("Convention on the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Populations Leading to Tribal and Semi-Tribal Lifestyles in Independent Countries"). Then, for the first time, the concept of "indigenous people" was introduced into international law. A fundamental change in the foundations of a policy in relation to small nations that put it in the service of globalism occurred in the 1980s. last century. In 1982, the United Nations officially recognized the key concept of the current new “democratic policy” - “indigenous people”. In 1982, in Geneva, a Working Group on Indigenous Populations was established, which is a special forum of experts on the then fashionable human rights. The Convention of the International Labor Organization No. 169 ("The Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries) became visible evidence of globalism's interception of policies in this area. Convention No. 169 replaced Convention No. 107, making the latter document invalid. The fundamental difference between the two documents are already visible in the names of the two conventions. If the first 1959 document was about the "indigenous and other population leading the tribal and semi-tribal lifestyle", then convention No. 169 1989 OVOR alone "Indigenous and tribal life", ie. e. in the first part of a fundamentally different nature already.
So, what is the "indigenous people" in the definition of this document of international law?
1. Peoples in independent countries are considered as indigenous because they are descendants of those who inhabited the country or geographical area of which the country is a part, during its conquest or colonization or during the establishment of existing state borders (Art. 1. § 1 b ); (Here the convention turned out to be directly directed against the polyethnic non-Western empire states - the USSR and the PRC, since the colonial empires of the West no longer existed at that moment).
2. The indication of the peoples themselves as belonging to the indigenous people is considered as a fundamental criterion for assigning them to this category (Art. 1. § 2).
An integral part of the concept of "indigenous people" is its connection with the territory. Section 2 of the ILO Convention No. 169 1989, specifically addressed the issue of the ownership of "indigenous peoples" on land:
1. Lands and territories are of particular importance for the culture and spiritual values of indigenous peoples (Art. 13. § 1);
2. Land and territory are understood to mean the entire environment of the areas that occupy or otherwise use the peoples concerned (Art. 13. § 2);
3. Indigenous peoples are recognized as property rights and tenure of land that they traditionally occupy (Art. 14. § 1);
4. Special measures are being taken to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to the natural resources belonging to their lands. These rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use and management of these resources and in their preservation (Art. 15. § 1);
5. In cases where the state retains ownership of mineral resources or subsoil resources or rights to other resources related to land, governments establish procedures through which they consult these peoples to determine whether, and to what extent, damage to the interests of these peoples — prior to the commencement of, or prior to the issuance of, a permit to carry out any programs for the exploration or exploitation of such resources belonging to their lands. As far as possible, the peoples concerned are involved in the results of such activities and receive fair compensation for any damage that may be caused to them as a result of such activities (Art. 15. § 2).
We note the characteristic feature of the new "democratic policy" in relation to the "indigenous peoples." At the moment of the general triumph of liberalism, "democratic politics" rejects the principles of this liberalism, with their abstractly understood economic and political equality, through the establishment of collective rights of ethnic groups related to priorities in the field of environmental management, education, social security, etc. Therefore "democratic politics" immediately finds rejection from the local population, referred to the "non-indigenous" part of it.
In an atmosphere initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev, the campaign of "new political thinking" associated with illusions about the new world order, the USSR in 1989 joined the ILO Convention No. 107 "On the Protection of Indigenous and Other Populations Leading a Tribal and Semi-Tribal Life Style in Independent Countries ". So the concept of "indigenous people" was introduced into the domestic legal field. As for the concept of "indigenous people", in our official documents it was first used in 1992 in decrees of the President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin. Decree No. 118 of February 5 1992 contains a proposal to ratify ILO Convention No. 169 "On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries". Decree No. 397 of 22 of April 1992 contains an order of the President "to prepare 1992 by the end of the year and submit to the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation draft laws" On the legal status of indigenous peoples of the North "and" On the legal status of the national region, the national village and township Council tribal and community councils of the indigenous peoples of the North "". However, the consequences for national relations in the Russian Federation in the event of the adoption of ILO Convention No. 169 were immediately recognized by the leadership of the Russian Federation. According to the meaning of this document, all the peoples, except the Russian, in the Russian Federation became "indigenous", and 80% of the country's territory fell under the category of "conquered" and "colonized". In the specific situation of 1992-1995. The adoption of ILO Convention No. 169 would be another factor contributing to the “parade of sovereignties” going on in the Russian Federation. But Yeltsinists did not find the courage under the prevailing conditions at that time to completely abandon the concept of "indigenous people" and return to traditional Russian definitions. They took the path of synthesis of concepts from international and domestic legal practice - the connection of the “root” with the “small”, which originated from the Soviet “small nation of the North”. The Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993 included a special article 69, in which it was determined that "the Russian Federation guarantees the rights of small indigenous peoples in accordance with generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation." Thus, the rejection of traditional Soviet legal terminology, which defined the arctic ethnic groups of the USSR, as the “small nations of the North” and the transition to “international standards” with their notion of “indigenous people” became a significant mistake of the Russian legislation. Here, in a key legal formulation, ambiguity was laid. For the next 1994 year, ILO Convention No. 169 was not ratified by Russia under the pretext that difficulties arise:
1) in identifying specific beneficiaries of rights;
2) in the definition of inventories of traditional land use areas;
3) in determining the uses of natural resources and their forms of ownership.
Practical collisions in connection with the introduction of the concepts of international law into Russian law were immediately reflected in the federal law "On the basis of state regulation of the socio-economic development of the North of the Russian Federation" from June 19 1996 (No. 78-ФЗ). In this law, in the article 6, the Russian Arctic ethnic groups are defined in full accordance with the Constitution of 1994, as the “indigenous small peoples” of the North. The concept is explained as follows: "Indigenous peoples of the North are peoples living in the territories of traditional residence of their ancestors, retaining their original way of life, numbering less than 50 in Russia thousands of people and realizing themselves as independent ethnic communities." A similar definition of the concept of “indigenous people in small numbers” was repeated in Russian legislation in the article 1 of the 1999 law “On guarantees of the rights of the indigenous minorities of the Russian Federation”. Thus, a partial return to the legal terminology of Soviet law took place - "small peoples of the North" instead of Soviet "minorities of the North", however, with the addition of the concept of "indigenous", which came to us from international law. The definition of the Russian peoples of the North, therefore, laid down another contradiction with the standard of "international law" - the norm of the population. In this regard, it turns out that the Komi and Yakuts, for example, do not belong to the "indigenous peoples of the North." What gives rise to well-known collisions within the ethnos - ethnic fragmentation due to the desire of certain groups to obtain the status of "indigenous minority" - an example of Komi-Izhmians, and additional Komi claims to the federal center. There is a new reason for national movements of the Finno-Ugric peoples in Russia - to demand that Russia accept the international standard of the concept of "indigenous peoples".
We also draw attention to the fact that the federal law No. 78-FZ under consideration, in contrast to the international convention No. 169, does not secure for indigenous minorities the right of ownership of the land of "traditional residence, economic activity and environmental management".
With 2000, the current document is a list of indigenous minorities of the Russian Federation approved by a government decree. Currently, 47 nations are officially considered among them, of which the North, Siberia and the Far East are 40 nations. The latter are settled in compact groups in 28 subjects of the Russian Federation. According to the 2010 census, their total number was 257 895 people. At the same time the number of individual nations varies from 44.640 people. (Nenets) to 227 people. (ents). The census of 2010 did not reveal representatives of the small people of the North - the Alutors. The people of Kereki at the census are represented by all 4 people.
The discrepancy in the interpretation of the concept of “indigenous people” with the international standard in Russian legislation was once again demonstrated at the disposal of the Government of the Russian Federation “Concepts for the Sustainable Development of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation” dated February 4, 2009. The introduction was given the following clarification: “The Russian Federation is one of the largest multinational states in the world with more than 160 peoples, each of which has unique characteristics of material and spiritual culture. The overwhelming majority of the country's peoples have developed over the centuries as ethnic communities in Russia, and this I mean, they are indigenous peoples who played historical role in the formation of the Russian state. ”Recall that under ILO international convention No. 169, indigenous peoples in sovereign states consider descendants of those who inhabited this country during its conquest or colonization.
Last years did not stand still in the interpretation of the rights of "indigenous peoples" and international legislation. The latest document here was the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted at the 107 plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on September 13 on 2007. Note that this document finally mentioned the connection between "indigenous peoples" and the tribal and semi-tribal lifestyle. Speech in the UN declaration is exclusively about "indigenous peoples". New was the fact that the declaration added to the international law in the most decisive expressions the provisions on the political rights of "indigenous peoples":
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely establish their political status and freely carry out their economic, social and cultural development (Art. 3); 2. Indigenous peoples in the exercise of their right to self-determination have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means of financing their autonomous functions (Art. 4) However, Article 46 of the Declaration, however, stipulates that nothing in it "can be interpreted as implying any right of any state, nation, group of persons or individual to engage in any activity or to perform any actions in violation of the Charter of the United Nations or considered rush as sanctioning or encouraging any action that would lead to dismemberment or to a partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign and independent states. " However, in connection with this, we note the provocative declaration 9 in content: "Indigenous peoples and persons belonging to them have the right to belong to an indigenous community or ethnicity in accordance with the traditions and customs of this community or ethnicity." In the original English text it is, in fact, the right to belong to a nation (to belong to the indigenous community or nation). By the latter, one can understand one’s own statehood. Therefore, it is not by chance that Russia abstained from voting on this UN declaration and demanded that a number of changes be made to the Russian text of this document. Note that the declaration was opposed by the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, that is, the states that emerged on the basis of the Anglo-Saxon colonies. But on closer examination, it should be recognized that the "new democratic policy" in relation to "indigenous peoples" does not pose a threat to the United States, since the problem of the territories has long been resolved from a formal legal point of view. The Indians of the North American continent were exterminated, the remaining native population was herded into reservations, and the US government signed treaties about it under the threat of extermination. Note also that more than half of Canadian Indians also live on reservations.
We note the conflict potential of the "new democratic policy" in relation to the Russian Federation and list its factors. The “new democratic policy” approaches the indigenous peoples of the North as a homogeneous object of managerial influence and law. In practice, we are dealing with a motley conglomerate of communities, communities and groups that have their own interests. Therefore, it is very difficult to reconcile them with the interests of the state. It is difficult to solve the problems of ensuring their collective rights, since in the Russian North, small indigenous peoples in their areas of traditional residence generally constitute less than 10% of the population, and in some areas no more than 1%. What is the threat of a “new democratic policy”? In that we are trying to introduce a mechanism for the maintenance and promotion of large transnational business in this delicate sphere of interethnic relations from outside.
“Implanting” these mechanisms into the current Russian reality is where the main risks lie. We are very bad at playing according to the rules set by "them". Further access to these resources will determine the "global market". The "tribal leaders" will give a justifying sanction for this operation. In this regard, the next circumstance to which attention should be paid is the representation of the indigenous and minority peoples of the North. When international organizations or the Russian state have relations with them, they conduct practical affairs with the activists of these peoples. Note that globalists in every way seek to attract an asset to their side. At the same time, flattery and temptation are used. Indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation are considered as something whole, connected by commonality with other indigenous peoples of the Arctic. All this is declared a "circumpolar civilization." The strategy of the struggle of the West in this direction is simple. It comes down to pushing Russia away from the "indigenous and small peoples" that are still under its sovereignty, the actual separation of "circumpolar civilization" from Russia. At the same time, these peoples themselves, in the person of their purchased "tribal leaders", should give a formal legal sanction to this. Globalists lure the latter with the relatively high standard of living of the Arctic indigenous peoples of the Scandinavian countries, Canada and the United States. However, the well-being of these Aboriginal people is not connected with their traditional life activity, but with the fact that they are built into the standard of consumption of the “golden billion”. For the latter, it is easy.
For example, the total number of indigenous people in Canada does not exceed 0,7% of the population. Note that globalists are not interested in the fate and well-being of the natives, they are interested in territories and resources. As for the Russian Federation, in its present state it is unable to provide the standard of consumption and the life of the “golden billion”. It is not only about resources, culture, the state of the state apparatus, but also about the purely practical side of things. Here the most important thing is the absence of a federal land cadastre. Therefore, the federal law “On the Territories of Traditional Nature Use of the Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation” does not apply. Under these conditions, the struggle for territory and resources turns into an endless series of conflicts. What can be recommended as the first measure to overcome them is to return, since we are a self-sufficient civilization, to the traditional Russian legal terminology for the definition of small peoples of the North. So far it is now becoming obvious that the "asset" of the small peoples of the North often disagrees with the Russian state on the essence of the concept of "indigenous people."
The specifics of this conflict in the Barents region and its existing characters will be devoted to the continuation of this article.
Information