AAA Committee for Human Rights (CfHR HR) Annual Report Year 2002

AAA Committee for Human Rights (CfHR HR) Annual Report Year 2002
Prepared by Janet Chernela, CfHR Chair

Members Janet Chernela, Chair Sheila Dauer (retiring 2002) Paul Magnarella (retiring 2002) Ruben Mendoza Linda Green (retiring 2002) Kathleen Williamson Leni Silverstein Sam Martinez

Incoming CfHR members December 2002 David Nugent (Undes. #1) Marco Jacquemet (Undes, #6) David Velentine (Undes. #8)

CfHR ex-officio members: Don Brenneis, AAA President Elizabeth Brumfiel, AAA President-elect

AAA Staff: Richard Thomas, Membership Officer

Introduction: Committee Background, Mission and Objectives The AAA's permanent Committee for Human Rights (CfHR), established in 1995, is composed of 10 members, 8 of which are elected by the AAA membership and serve three-year terms, with 2 ex-officio members (AAA President and President-elect). The committee chair is elected by its members. The Committee had been staffed by the AAA Director of Government Relations; that has recently shifted to the Membership Officer. Paul Magnarella has served as both member and its pro bono counsel.

The Committee's internal mission is to stimulate informed involvement in human rights among professional anthropologists through publications, panels, and other outreach. The Committee's external mission is to gather information on selected, anthropologically relevant cases of human rights abuse and to propose appropriate related action. CfHR efforts occur at the biannual meetings and throughout the year through Committee Task Forces and case-specific actions. This report briefly describes actions and activities taken by the CfHR between Nov. 2001 and Nov. 2002.

PART ONE: INTERNAL ACTIVITIES

At its Spring 2002 meetings the CfHR discussed case development procedures, case action efficacy, education and outreach. It was agreed that there is a strong need to improve efficacy through closer association with non-governmental human rights organizations and academic societies in order to 1) participate in alliances, 2) learn from, and 3) extend expertise to, organizations with similar purposes and goals. We recognize that the CfHR does not have the resources, infrastructure, and, at times, the mandate, to act alone and efficiently on a case of human rights abuse. For these reasons, working synergetically with associations dedicated specifically to human rights advocacy should advance the goals of the AAA and the CfHR.

Several examples illustrate the potential in collaborations. In the case of Guatemala, the CfHR joined the Latin American Studies Association in participating in a delegation of experts to attend trials, disseminate information, and propose actions. In the case of forced resettlement of former slave communities in Brazil, the CfHR worked together with the Brazilian Anthropology Association, ABA. In the case of displaced persons and health risks resulting from Plan Colombia, the CfHR worked with the Washington-based advocacy network, Amazon Alliance. In the case of CEDAW, a treaty for human rights of women, the CfHR worked closely with Amnesty International.

In addition, the CfHR may have linkages to expertise badly needed by action-oriented NGOs whose goals and resources are aimed exclusively at human rights advocacy.

It was therefore decided by the members of CfHR that alliance building with human rights NGOs would significantly improve the Committee's efficacy and avoid unnecessary redundancies. To increase the productivity of the CfHR, provide rights advocacy training to anthropology students, and to increase interactions with the NGO community, the CfHR creaded in 2002 two Fellow positions, one to serve as a link between the CfHR and Washington-based or international NGOs; the other dedicated to research.

CfHR Human Rights Fellow Program, initiated 2002 In 2002 the Committee for Human Rights initiated a Fellows Program in the Anthropology of Human Rights. Positions carry no stipends but provide recipients with strong experience in human rights work, possibilities for publication, as well as the opportunity to work closely with the Committee, government agencies, and human rights-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the first year of its implementation the Committee named and defined two positions. The first, the Committee Liason Fellow, is responsible for establishing and maintaining links between the CfHR and other entities in the human rights community. The second position, known as the CfHR Research Fellow, entails researching, documenting, and writing a human rights report on a matter of concern to both the Committee and the recipient (see Appendix A).

Our first Committee Liason Fellow is Nicole Nowak, a graduate student in anthropology and policy studies at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Nicole came to the position with a strong background in the legal profession. During the summer of 2002 Nicole was located in Washington DC, where she held meetings with members of governmental and nongovernmental sectors to increase AAA's efficacy in human rights advocacy. Among other accomplishments, Nicole was active in bringing the CfHR into the coalition of member organizations that signed CEDAW, a treaty for women's rights. Nicole is currently furthering a project to match the needs of human rights organizations with the expertise of anthropologists. Nicole expects to return to Washington this spring where she will resume her role as CfHR liason.

CfHR Research Fellow Helen Robbins recently received her PhD in anthropology from the University of Arizona. Helen's dissertation explored the way historical processes and local traditions contribute to legal formations in the Northern Mariana Islands. As a CfHR fellow, Helen has chosen to research labor-related trafficking in Sri Lanka. In selecting this topic, Helen linked one of the Committee's priority areas, trafficking in persons, with her own research interests. (In 2001 the CfHR received a request to consider the case of trafficking in Sri Lanka; then member Megan Biesle initiated research.) Upon completion, all Fellows' reports will be published on the AAA website.

Communication, Outreach, and Education

Listserve

The CfHR listserve, humanrights-request@lists.aaanet.org, established in 2000, provides members with news of CfHR activities. It disseminates information regarding human rights cases, teaching materials, and conference plans. The list is self-moderated.
E-mail In the summer of 2002 the CfHR established a new e-mail address at cfhrofaaa@yahoo.com, through which AAA members or collaborators might reach the Committee.

Web-based outreach

A syllabus and bibliographic service for teaching courses in Anthropology and Human Rights has been developed through the listserve and placed on the website. Coordinated by Sam Martinez, materials are supplied by members of the Association, internally distributed through Committee, edited, dated, and posted. Material is reviewed regularly.

Human Rights events at the 2002 Annual Meeting

In addition to the Business Meeting (Nov. 20, 2002), the CfHR sponsored the following events at the New Orleans meeting of the AAA in November 2002:

1. AAA Public Policy Forum: "Violences legitimate and illegitimate: Terrorism, the Word," Organizer/Chair Janet Chernela, Nov. 21, 2002; 2. Invited Session (with Society for Latin American Anthropology), "The Yanomami People: Advocacy Research on their Present Status, Concerns and Future," Organizer/Chair Leslie Sponsel, Nov. 20, 2002;

Members of the Committee also organized the following Sessions: 3. "The Future of Scientific Research on the Amazon: Perspectives Post-Yanomami Controversy," (AAA Presidential Session), Organizers Janet Chernela and Leda Martins, Nov. 22, 2002 4., "Anthropology and Women's Human Rights: Cross-Cutting Interests and Complementary Agendas - Stimulating the Dialogue" (AAA Executive Program Committee) Organizer Leni Silverstein, Chair Sheila Dauer, Nov. 23, 2002

PART TWO: External Human Rights Initiatives: CfHR Case Involvement

CfHR continues to develop statements and procedures related to the following concerns:

Task Force on Violence and Human Rights Abuse related to Plan Colombia Plan Colombia is a US initiative to dedicate US$1.3 billion to the government of Colombia to eradicate coca cultivation and combat violence by non-state entities. Since its inception, however, land dedicated to coca growing and violence by illicit armed forces have both increased rather than decreased. Furthermore, aerial spraying of herbicides seriously threatens the well-being of rural populations (among them, fifty-eight indigenous peoples) inhabiting the lowlands of Colombia. Thousands have been forcibly removed to urban areas in Colombia and neighboring Ecuador. The result is social and economic disruption as well as cultural and personal chaos. CfHR Task Force co-chairs Jean Jackson and Janet Chernela proposed a letter be sent by AAA Pres. Brenneis to members of US Congress and State Department questioning the impacts of militarization and chemical fumigations related to Plan Colombia. A letter was sent in Sept. (Appendix B).

Task Force on Resettlement of Quilombos in NE Brazil: AAA/ABA collaboration

In 2001 the CfHR received a case briefing by AAA member Louise Siberling and CfHR emeritus Linda Rabben regarding a U.S.-Brazil Agreement to expand a satellite base in Alcântara (Maranhão), Brazil. Subsequent investigation by the CfHR with collaborators in the Brazilian anthropologicial community showed plans for the involuntary removal of over 3,000 traditional Afro-Brazilian residents, known as Quilombos. Quilombo communities, whose residents are descended from slaves, are protected by Article 68 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution which grants them title to the lands on which they live. Their displacement constitutes a breach of human rights, since involuntary relocation would constitute the destruction of a culturally unique community, whose traditions could be lost if involuntarily relocated. The involvement of US funds in the project justifies a written expression of concern by our professional association to the US State Department. In collaboration with the Brazilian Anthropology Association (Associação Brasileira de Antropología, ABA, pres., Rubens Oliveira), the Committee drafted a letter of concern to be signed by President Don Brenneis (see Appendix C)

Task Force on Human Rights and Violent Conflict: Terrorism, Genocide, and Ethnic Cleansing

The Task Force on Human Rights and Violent Conflict, initiated by former Chair Barbara Rose Johnston, and headed by Paul Magnarella, has published a series of reports on ethnic cleansing and genocide. Most recently the Committee developed a AAA Public Policy Forum for the annual meetings entitled, "Violences legitimate and illegitimate: Terrorism, the Word," organized by Janet Chernela. Panelists included Paul Magnarella, CfHR member and its pro bono lawyer, and Herbert Larsen, Professor of Law, Tulane University. Participants are preparing a column on the subject of terrorism for the AN.

Task Force on Human Rights Concerns in Guatemala

On behalf of the CfHR/AAA, and at the invitation of CfHR member Linda Green, anthropologist June Nash participated in the delegation to Guatemala organized by the Latin American Studies Association to attend the October 2002 trial of former Guatemalan military officials accused in the murder of anthropologist Myrna Mack. Killed in 1990 while investigating military atrocities, Mack was an internationally respected anthropologist who co-founded the Association for the Advancement of the Social Sciences in Guatemala (AVANCSO). The court judgment marked the first conviction holding a military leader accountable for crimes committed during the country's 36 year civil war. During her visit to Guatemala, Nash interviewed government officials, researchers, forensic teams from the Center of Forensic Anthropology and Applied Sciences (CAFCA) and the Guatemalan Foundation of Forensic Anthropology (FAFG), as well as representatives of Guatemalan peasant and Church coalitions. At the 2002 fall CfHR meetings Linda Green reported on continuing threats to the Guatemalan Center for Forensic Anthropology. In response to reports by Nash and Green, a letter of concern regarding the safety of anthropologists was sent by the Association. In addition, Nash proposed a resolution to the Association aimed at exposing dangers to Guatemalan researchers and promoting greater interchange with them. The Resolution is to be voted upon by the Association (see Appendix D).

Task Force on Women's Rights: CEDAW, a treaty for the rights of women In July 2002 the CfHR joined a coalition of over 100 organizations calling for the US ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, known by its acronym CEDAW. A treaty that provides an international standard for protecting and promoting women's rights, CEDAW is the first international instrument that comprehensively addresses women's rights within political, civil, cultural, economic, and social life. It was adopted by the United Nations in 1979 and subsequently ratified by 170 countries. As of July 2002, the United States was the only industrialized democracy that had not ratified CEDAW.

The principals espoused in the treaty are consistent with those in US law. Moreover, the Human Rights declaration of the AAA, endorsed by its members, states that, "As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights, where "human" is understood in its full range of cultural, social, linguistic, psychological and biological senses.... stand[ing] firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women;... equal justice; and religious tolerance." Endorsement by the American Anthropological Association should strengthen the impact of the ratification coalition. Sheila Dauer, member of the CfHR, and Director of the Women's Human Rights Program of Amnesty International USA, drafted a letter to the AAA Executive Committee urging the AAA to endorse CEDAW. The Executive Committee approved the addition of the voice of the AAA to the coalition. On July 25, 2002, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended vote by the Senate (see AN, Oct. 2002).

Additional Actions In addition to the above activitiesof ongoing Task Forces, the CfHR requested two letters be sent by President Brenneis: 1. Letter addressing CfHR concerns over death threats to Xavante spokespersons and anthropologists working among them in central Brazil; 2. Letter to BBCof London, expressing disappointment about language used in interview to refer to the Yanomami

ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS: Budgetary Constraints The work of the Committee is limited by budget constraints. Recently, an already short budget was cut back to reduce number of face-to-face meetings from two to one. In addition to lacking sufficient funds for meetings the Committee also lacks adequate funding for publication and outreach, as well as panel participation.. Without adequate budget allocations, we are dependent upon other units of the AAA as well as outside funders. For the 2002 meetings, we appealed to the AAA to fund travel for indigenous spokespersons, based upon decisions made to the Task Force on El Dorado, headed by Jane Hill. To these funds, Chernela raised an additional $1200 through IWGIA, an international indigenous rights organization located in Copenhagen. With a total of $5200 we were able to provide travel for two indigenous leaders and a Brazilian medical anthropologist. In the case of the Silverstein/Dauer panel, CfHR members raised $5000 through Ford Foundation travel grants. In both cases the sessions were enriched by the diversity and expertise of speakers, including medical professionals, indigenous leaders, and legal specialists, who otherwise would not have been able to participate in the annual meetings of the Association. Moreover, the CfHR Fellow's Positions may be considered in-kind contributions to the Association by the Fellows. The strong record of our Committee in obtaining outside funding testifies to the strength of CfHR projects in drawing outside interest and financial commitment. To discuss possibilities for AAA fundraising directly for CfHR projects, we met with Larry Rzepka, Development Director, at our Nov. 2002 meeting. We remain optimistic that our forming funding will be restored, and that future sources will bring our funding into a range more adequate to the needs of the Committee and commensurate with its importance within the Association.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

APPENDIX

Appendix A

Human Rights Fellow of the AAA: Position 1

The Committee for Human rights of the American Anthropological Association invites applications for the position of Human Rights Research Fellow for the year 2002-2003. The applicant should have a strong commitment to human rights and a record of excellence in research. The Fellow may be located anywhere in North America. Tasks involved include searching and researching international electronic resources and contributing to Committee deliberations when appropriate. The expectations will be appropriately flexible depending upon the student's commitments to graduate studies. The position offers a wide range of experiences in international and rights-related activities and a close working relationship with a AAA Committee.

Human Rights Fellow of the AAA: Position 2

The Committee for Human rights of the American Anthropological Association invites applications for the position of Human Rights Liason Fellow for the year 2002-2003. The Committee seeks a graduate student located in or near Washington DC to serve as a liason between the Committee and DC-based federal and non-governmental agencies (NGOs). The candidate should have a demonstrated commitment to human rights, strong communication skills, and some experience in policy processes. The Fellow may participate in Committee deliberations when appropriate. The position offers a wide range of experience in international and national human rights arenas.

Washington position: Among other things, the person should work with the Human Rights advocacy organizations in writing up lists of principles and then operational steps so that the expertise of both the HR community and the AAA can be used in a synergetic manner -- improving the work of both organizations. For example the so-called "experts list" may come out of this larger objective. The person should get to know how we can work in campaigns supporting the work of the HRs NGO. The person should work on the "Hill" getting to learn which offices are most relevant, such as the Senate Appropriations office. The person could find out the status of certain legislative items that are relevant to our own "cases". The person could find out where, WITHIN the branches of government, efforts are already underway to further some of our own human rights goals. We could then support those contingents. As an exercise, the student-Fellow should write up "strategies" appropriate to the CFHR of the AAA and evaluate the uses of these strategies by other groups.

APPENDIX B

TO: Honorable Members of Congress
FROM: Donald Brenneis, President, American Anthropological Association
DATE: September 16, 2002
SUBJECT: Comments on "Report on Issues Related to the Aerial Eradication of Illicit Coca in Colombia," US Department of State, September 4, 2002

On September 4, 2002 the U.S. Department of State submitted to Congress a report on the U.S.-supported aerial eradication programs in Colombia. According to the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002, this report is required to demonstrate that the "chemicals used in the aerial fumigation program, in the manner they are applied, do not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans...." It appears that this report does not consider the full range of adverse health impacts from the aerial eradication program. Furthermore, the report does not appear to consider the unique adverse social and cultural effects of this program on indigenous peoples. These effects should be considered as they fall well within the scope of "adverse effects to humans." The eighty-four distinct indigenous nations living in Colombia represent an incredible cultural diversity and occupy a unique historical, cultural and socio-economic position. Therefore, these indigenous peoples must be respected and the distinctive impacts on these peoples and their cultures must be fully considered in any analyses of potential human impacts from the aerial eradication program. We therefore urge you to request a more complete assessment from the U.S. State Department of the potential health and cultural impacts of the aerial eradication program in Colombia, specifically on indigenous communities in the affected region.

Specific Comments on the Assessment of Adverse Human Effects from the Aerial Eradication Program in Colombia To fully assess the potential human impacts of the aerial eradication program in Colombia, it is essential that the State Department analysis consider adverse effects that may result from decreased food supplies resulting from the aerial spraying. The State Department report suggests that damage to legal food crops is minimal and does not merit consideration. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of potential drift resulting from the aerial spraying suggests that spray drift could cause significant damage to neighboring non-target vegetation. Moreover, recent evidence of damage to the legal food crops, livestock, and pasture land of indigenous communities, reported by the Colombian Public Ombudsman in September 2002, as well as numerous reports from indigenous communities in the region, confirm that this collateral damage is extensive. Based on this evidence of damage, we suggest that decreased food supplies should certainly be considered in any analysis of potential health impacts.

Most Colombian indigenous farmers affected by this program grow their own food to sustain their families and have limited resources to purchase additional food supplies. Access to other sources of food and game is further restricted in cases where indigenous communities are surrounded by armed actors that restrict their movement. Therefore, damage to food crops and livestock from aerial spraying could result in serious malnutrition. As the food production cycle is closely intertwined with indigenous cosmological and ritual practices, significant agricultural disruption from aerial eradication would also limit the ability of indigenous peoples to practice historically derived ways of life. This forced cultural and socio-economic change could produce social disruption and cultural dislocation within indigenous communities. The State Department analysis [should] also consider the adverse effects to human health and indigenous cultures that can result from the displacement of communities from their territories as a result of food scarcity or concerns about water contamination resulting from the spraying. Displaced persons fleeing the areas being sprayed are spilling over into nearby nations, including Panama, Brazil, and especially, Ecuador. A substantial number of these people in the Putumayo department are indigenous, belonging to the Cofán, Andoke, Awa (formerly Cuaiker), Embera, Inga, Kamsa, Nasa, Siona, and Witoto peoples. These peoples represent unique ways of living, both in tropical forest environments (and at the higher elevations occupied by the Nasa, Guambiano and Kokonuko peoples in the departments of Cauca and Nariño). The fifty-eight indigenous peoples living in the tropical lowlands affected by the spraying have lived in their territories for hundreds of years. Displacement seriously threatens their ability to survive as distinct cultures. Indigenous culture is tied to territory - it constitutes not only the means for subsistence, but represents ancestral origins, a sacred space within which rituals and other activities must take place. Specific features of the landscape hold extreme importance for indigenous peoples. Therefore, loss of territory results in more than a simple loss of economic resources; when land and identity are inextricably bound together through cosmological, social, political and economic practices and beliefs, the loss of ownership of lands will result in the breakdown of cultural identity. Forced migration, therefore, not only affects these people because of socio-economic disruption - the dismal destinations awaiting them in urban areas and Ecuador, and the further impoverishment of already poor people - it affects their entire lives - physical, cultural and spiritual. Specifically in the case of indigenous peoples, any program [prose cut] that increases these forced migrations and subsequent cultural ruptures should be considered to be producing "adverse effects to humans." Finally, an analysis should include a discussion of the following factors in its assessment of potential adverse impacts to humans from the aerial eradication program. (1) Many Colombian indigenous communities depend primarily on the use of medicinal plants for their medical care. They have little access to formal medical treatments. Indigenous communities have reported that the spraying has destroyed medicinal and sacred plants. (2) Many Colombian indigenous communities, particularly in tropical lowlands, obtain their drinking water from small streams and rivers, not from wells. Those families with wells often leave them uncovered. These indigenous communities also bathe and wash their clothes in streams. It is likely that planes flying at high speeds and up to 100 feet in altitude may inadvertently spray these water sources. (3) Many Colombian indigenous families do not own radios and consequently will fail to hear announcements about when the spraying will take place. Furthermore, many indigenous families in isolated rural areas primarily speak their native language and have limited understanding of announcements in Spanish.

Conclusions

In closing, the disintegration of the environment from which indigenous peoples largely subsist not only endangers physical health but also jeopardizes cultural continuity. Consequently, the aerial eradication program threatens to damage the very fabric of indigenous community life. I urge that] that all of these potential and actual "adverse effects on humans" be taken into account in the deliberations as to the adequacy of the State Department assessment of the human effects of the aerial eradication program. We also urge you to consider the voice of indigenous organizations, local, regional and national, that have criticized the harms caused by the aerial eradication program and presented alternative proposals for manual eradication and economic development, among them ONIC (National indigenous Organization of Colombia), OPIAC (Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon), CRIC (Regional indigenous Council of Cauca), and OZIP (Indigenous Organization of the Putumayo Zone). In particular, we encourage the Congress to recognize the demonstrated commitment of hundreds of indigenous communities to manually eradicate their coca crops. Their success has been heralded by the Director of the National Program of Alternative Development (PLANTE) and documented by civil society partners and the Colombian Public Ombudsman. The resolve of Colombian indigenous peoples to protect their cultures, their lands, and the future of their peoples is tremendous and clearly indicates a great capacity to engage in alternative economic development projects.

APPENDIC C: Alcantara

Pending human rights violations in Brazil that will be due in part to the effects of a United States-Brazil bilateral accord, the "Technical Safeguards Agreement" signed on April 18, 2000. The Agreement provides for United States leasing of a launch base in Alcântara, state of Maranhão, Brazil, and it has just been modified by the Brazilian Congress; the Agreement is now due to be renegotiated with the United States prior to final approval and implementation. Once approved, the U.S. military will operate on-site in Brazil so that commercial companies based in the U.S. may use the Alcântara Launch Center for satellite and other launchings.. The U.S.-Brazil Agreement will contribute to the expansion of and increased restriction of access to the current launch base area in Alcântara, Maranhão, Brazil, which is an area that is also the ancestral home of thousands of rural families of Afro-Brazilian traditional peoples, called "quilombos." The Brazilian government (Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazilian Space Agency, INFRAERO, and Ministry of Defense) has announced plans for involuntary removal of over 3,000 traditional quilombo residents of the area. The residents are refusing to move, claiming rights under the 1988 Brazilian Constitution's Article 68 which grants title to their quilombo communities; residents also note that the site was initially expropriated during the military government of Brazil in 1980 for public use, but that current uses (by the U.S. and others) will be for commercial purposes; and, in order for the launch base to operate legally under Brazilian law, it must have a permit that requires an approved Environmental Impact Assessment; the current EIA has not been approved since it omits mention of any residents of the area, including the traditional quilombo communities. Tensions are rising in the area between the quilombo communities and the Brazilian government agencies attempting to remove them to make way for the U.S. use of the launch base.

The Brazilian Attorney General's office has investigations underway regarding the irregularities of the occupation by the Alcântara Launch Center due to the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment, as well as based on the claims of the quilombo communities. Recently the Brazilian Attorney General's office, which has an official agreement with the Brazilian Anthropological Association (ABA) regarding legal cases involving native populations and quilombo communities, has asked the ABA to appoint one of their members to prepare an expert's report on the quilombo communities of Alcântara. The ABA has appointed Dr. Alfredo Wagner Berno de Almeida, a Brazilian anthropologist who has been working in the Alcântara area for over twenty years.

During the General Assembly of the Brazilian Anthropological Association (ABA) that took place in Brasilia on July 2000, the Brazilian Anthropological Association voted a repudiatory motion over the accord and the pending removal of the quilombo communities. The Brazilian Anthropological Association supports the claims of the communities to the immediate demarcation of a contiguous area of quilombos, which are interdependent and interconnected socially, economically and culturally. The quilombo families resettled in 1987 were removed from their cultural milieu and were settled in pre-built "agrovilas" which are extensions of barracks, owned by the Brazilian Ministry of Defense, and to which the residents do not have title; the dwellings are located far from agricultural plots (which are substandard in size for resettled families in the state) and from areas of traditional fishing and gathering, the subsistence activities of quilombos; the children of residents of the agrovilas are not allowed to build new homes, which impedes the social and cultural reproduction of these communities; improvements to agrovila houses or traditional buildings including use of palm thatch are forbidden; and monetary compensation was never paid to most families, and was extremely inadequate in those few cases when it was paid. Many of the resettled quilombo people have moved to the slums of neighboring cities as a result. The 3,000 people of Alcântara's remaining quilombos now slated to be located to more "agrovilas" fear the same poor treatment and cultural disintegration. In addition, the resettlement of these 3,000 people will affect over 12,000 others who live in the micro-region, an area which is ecologically fragile and the sustainable use of which depends on the current level of occupation and use by current residents, rather than increased intensity of use resulting from plots to be given to resettled families.

Last year residents of Alcântara and local activists filed a petition through the non-governmental organization Centro de Justiça Global (Center for Global Justice), against the Brazilian government, with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). The case was accepted by the OAS Commission and opened on August 28, 2001. According to OAS Commission regulations, the Brazilian government had two months to respond to the issues raised in the petition, but the Brazilian government has not yet done so. The OAS Commission regulations establish that facts not responded to may be presumed to be true.

The Human Rights Commission of the Brazilian House of Representatives visited the Alcântara area on November 5, 2001 to investigate the case of the quilombo communities and it is currently considering the Technical Safeguards Agreement as a last step before it is sent back to the United States. The Brazilian Anthropological Association stands in solidarity with this action, and considers that the involuntary relocation of the quilombo communities would mean the deliberate act of destruction of a culturally unique community, whose cultural and identity elements will be lost if involuntarily relocated.

APPENDIX D: Resolution on Guatemala

Proposed Resolution on Guatemalan Anthropologists, June Nash, Professor of Anthropology, CUNY

Anthropologists from many countries are assisting their Guatemalan colleagues in documenting the state terror unleashed against indigenous citizens. Forensic teams linked to the Center for Forensic Anthropology and Applied Sciences (CAFCA), and the Guatemalan Foundation for Forensic Anthropology (FAFG) are exhuming and identifying bodies of victims of state terror unleashed against Guatemalan civilians, the majority of whom were indigenous, in the thirty year civil war.... A delegation of scholars from the Latin American Studies Association that included Charles Hale, Amy Ross, Carol Smith, Beatriz Manz of the Guatemalan Scholars Network, Patrick Ball of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and June Nash as authorized representative of the Committee for Human Rights of the American Anthropological Association, attended the trials and interviewed high level government officials and anthropological investigators September 8 to l3. Their report concluded that the failure on the part of the Attorney General and other government official to follow up on the reported death threats to the anthropologists merited the attention of concerned scholarly associations and individuals.

Be it resolved that:

* the American Anthropological Association will assist the ad-hoc Latin American Studies Association delegates in supporting follow-up visits to Guatemala, * Scholarly activities with invited researchers from Guatemala will be promoted on U.S. campuses; * Reports on findings of the delegates and news of attacks on our Guatemala colleagues will be published in Anthropology News

About AAA / Join AAA / Jobs & Careers / AAA Meetings / AAA Publications
Sections & Interest Groups / Staff Directory / Anthro Links / Support AAA

Questions or comments? We want to hear from you!
Contact us / AAA Privacy Policy