The silent killings

Freddy Batundi, MRG Africa’s Capacity Building Officer, raises the alarm about a dangerous pattern of discrimination towards the Hunde in his hometown of Kitshanga, in the beleaguered eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Aerial view of Kitshanga after the killings at the beginning of March 2013

The situation in Kitshanga today is “apparently calm”. However, the situation is far from being peaceful; people are struggling to live with the consequences of the killings that were perpetrated on them. More than 202 people were killed during March, more than 227 houses set on fire, and hundreds of families displaced.

The political wars in the DRC which started in 1996 have overshadowed the ethnic killings that are ongoing. I believe something worse is happening behind the scenes, silently. Widespread violence against the Hunde people is taking place, while the whole world is focussed on the recurrent “rebellions against the government” and “looting of minerals in the eastern DRC.”

The MONUSCO camp is on a hill 2 kms away from Kitshanga…they could do better to protect civilian from the killings and from massive property destruction.

Kitshanga is the main town in the Bashali Mokoto sector. It is located in the Masisi territory, North Kivu province, in the eastern part of the DRC. The city is built on the border of two territories (Masisi in the west and Rutshuru in the east) and is located 90 km north-east from the town of Goma, which is the capital of the province.

Kitshanga has an estimated population of about 200,000 households. Until recent events, the Hunde were cohabiting in full harmony with other ethnic groups including Hutu, Tutsi, Nyanga and Nande. The main activity of the town is small businesses, but inhabitants also practice agriculture and livestock keeping.

The incident that happened in Kitshanga at the beginning of March is similar to many others that happened between 1993 and 1998, targeting the Hunde tribe who are mainly located in the Masisi territory. Most Hunde live in Kitshanga because they have left their villages due to atrocities committed against them since the 1990s.

This is my parents’ home, where I was born. This house was once occupied by the rebel Laurent Nkunda’s troops (2004-2006).

We need to remember that in my country, the rights and the identity of a people are defined in relation to their land, historical origins (native or non-natives), culture, language and membership of a traditional authority (kingdom); and, possibly, to their number (majority or minority).

It is becoming apparent that the recent incident in Kitshanga is not “isolated”, but is part of a larger plan which aims to exterminate the Hunde.

Villagers at the MONUSCO camp, which is just 2km from Kitshanga.

There have been migratory flows (of Tutsi and Hutu from Rwanda) into the Masisi territory, gradually transforming the Hunde people, once a majority, into a fragile minority (as their land it taken with no compensation). Refugees from Rwanda are never relocated elsewhere, in spite of the space available in other provinces or territories in DRC.

There have been a number of mass killing incidents and systematic threats in order to forcibly displace the Hunde from their lands.

There is a systematic pattern of discrimination against the Hunde:

• Identity alienation: e.g. names of villages changed into Rwandan names, prohibition of the Hunde language in public spheres such as schools while other languages are tolerated and cultural groups are banned.
• Political discrimination: the Masisi territory is represented by Hutu and Tutsi at the national assembly. During the elections of November 2011, elections in the Masisi were contentious. Under pressure from the M23/CNDP, the president ordered to co-opt some Hutu and Tutsis to cool down the pressure. No single Hunde was named in spite of the Hunde having the right to political representation.
• Forced internal displacement or exile: as I said earlier, Kitshanga is the only remaining Hunde agglomeration. Most people are forced (by threat, wars and atrocities) to live in Goma as IDPs where they do not have access to schools and other social services and live in severe poverty due to lost livelihoods. The most fortunate go into exile in other provinces or out of DRC.

This was the Médecins Sans Frontières base in Kitshanga

I am convinced that the Hunde ethnic community is in peril if nothing is done. For the last 20 years, the Hunde have been struggling for their survival. But the battle seems to be more or less lost.

What can international organisations do?

1. Lobby international institutions and the UN for protection for the Hunde community, for their increased participation in public life and viable socio-economic stability, and security on their own land.
2. Conduct research to ascertain facts on the ongoing killings against the Hunde people in the eastern DRC.
3. Advocate for an effective UN mission in DRC to protect lives. As it stands now, people are being killed while the UN troops are watching. It is painful to see how people are being snatched from the IDP camps and killed under the UN’s watch.

Lessons learned in community spirit – a Moldovan visits Kenya

Victoria Apostol, of Promo-LEX Association from the Republic of Moldova, recently visited Kenya on a study exchange organized through MRG’s Global Advocacy Programme. Here she reports back on the minority communities she visited and the valuable lessons learned during her trip.

Learning from others could become a universally recognized solution for the problems faced by many minorities around the world. Exchanging thoughts, ideas, opinions, and even business cards, represents an important and necessary step in promoting and maintaining diversity in this modern world.

Not as simple as it sounds. But learning and exchanging are two processes which require attention, passion and good intentions. Over seven days, myself and four other friends from European organizations had the pleasure to be involved in such a process through a study visit to Kenya, organised by Minority Rights Group International.

Kenya is an amazing and interesting country from a social and cultural point of view; home to a rich diversity of minority communities, all trying to build a democratic country through involving themselves in promoting and protecting minority rights. Additionally, the new Kenyan constitution represents a myriad of new opportunities for the inclusion of the country’s citizens, and in particular for minorities.

Victoria visits Kenya

It all sounds good, however in practice to realise their rights provided for in the new Constitution minority communities need first of all to be involved in elections, not only as voters, but also as electoral candidates. In this sense, we were lucky enough to have the opportunity to observe and participate in preparatory meetings during our trip, which aimed to inform minority communities about their rights according to the new constitution, and how they should take part in the election process.

We visited three communities: Endorois, Ogiek and Maasai. Each of them is unique, but on the other hand, all of them are minorities and have common needs as such.

Endorois land was originally appropriated by the Kenyian government in the 1970s to create the Lake Bogoria National Reserve. The fact that they were evicted from their land affected their life-style and livelihood. Therefore, the main issue for this community is land rights. However, they try to improve their own situation through different socio-economic initiatives and are not waiting around for the state to help them. For example we visited an Endorois honey factory which has double importance for the community. On the one hand it is a source of employment, and on the other it provides an income for all 15 members of the community involved.

The Ogiek community, who live in the Mau forest, near to Nakuru, was the second place we visited. Ogiek are a traditional forest dwelling people, who were also driven from their homes by both the British colonial and Kenyan governments, in order to log the forests and make way for agricultural projects.

We visited two Ogiek schools, both of which are financially supported by parents who farm for a living, whilst most of the teachers work voluntarily. The school buildings are small and rudimentary, but this aspect doesn’t stop the children going to school. Education is of great importance for the Ogiek community, but still there are things which need to be improved. The schools do not have a proper libary, nor enough books, whilst space for school activities is limited.

Victoria with a Maasai woman

The Maasai from Magadi live in one of the hottest places in Kenya, meaning access to water is a real issue for them. This community is distant from any towns which also creates some difficulties in terms of access to health and other services. What struck me most about the visit to the Maasai was how the community endeavours to empower women through community-based activities. For example, women are organized as a distinct group, addressing issues concerning them directly. One of them was even appointed as a community leader, a major breakthrough in this male-dominated traditional culture, while the majority of women are no longer afraid to speak out about their problems.

All these things impressed me in a special way. I enjoyed discovering Kenya and learning from minorities what it means to work in a community; to share the spirit of collectivity; to find the power and strength to fight against cruel injustices; to be optimistic and to exercise democracy together by knowing our rights as minorities and claiming those rights.

The experience was incomparable for me. I realised how wrong it is to assume something about another culture before fully understanding it. Most of all the study visit brought to my attention the many things which we Europeans could learn from African communities, not least for instance how we should appreciate more the education we receive, despite the conditions under which we sometimes study.

I left Kenya wishing to be back as soon as possible to discover more about this country, and more importantly, it set my mind to thinking how I can do something concrete in support of its minority communities.

‘Don’t be vague, go to The Hague’

MRG’s Head of Programmes, Shobha Das, is in Nairobi helping to set up our new Somalia Gender Project. Along with what seems like the rest of the country’s electorate, she tuned into the first televised presidential debate ahead of Kenya’s hotly anticipated March 4 elections.

Kenya had its first televised presidential debate this evening and the whole country seemed to be watching; for over 3 hours…

An impromptu gathering of voters discusses the elections while shielding from the afternoon sun

It was an impressively organised event. All candidates got equal chances to speak, the moderators did a very competent job of maintaining the pace and flow, and they even managed a discussion about the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictments (Uhuru Kenyatta and his running mate William Ruto will face trial in The Hague in April for planning and funding the 2008 post-election violence) without any outbursts.

Kenyatta insisted he wasn’t going to change his mind about running for office. He said he was confident that if he won, the case would not ‘interrupt the business of government’. Raila Odinga asked wittily that he didn’t understand exactly how a country could be run by Skype from The Hague. He added that there had been such chaotic discussions leading up to the indictment that finally someone had thrown their hands in the air and said, ‘Don’t be vague, go to The Hague.’

Ironically, just as Kenyatta was getting heat for being indicted, Odinga was also getting the heat for NOT being indicted. Many seem to believe that he too was responsible directly, in some measure, for the deaths that resulted in the post-election violence. Neither of them rose to the occasion brilliantly, but Odinga seems to have come off a little better, going by Facebook postings, media sound bites, and the reactions in the bar I was sitting in.

Many foreign diplomats in Kenya are saying that if Kenyatta wins, it will affect the country’s relationship with the international community. Britain has echoed Obama’s statement that it’s not about who wins, but the process. However, in a slightly self-contradictory manner, the British envoy to Kenya said that it is the policy of Britain and other European countries not to have contact with ICC indictees. Kenyan officials have formally written to the EU to seek clarification of what exactly this means.

Some Kenyan NGOs have expressed fears about Kenyatta and Ruto contesting the elections. They argue that the country will be leaderless if the two have to head off to The Hague in April to face trial. There is a fear that the president may then defy the ICC, which will bring a whole different set of consequences.

There were many references in the debate by all candidates to the new constitution and the importance of implementing it fully and immediately. They all spoke of the need to make Kenya a country for all its citizens. Though there was some time spent on discussing the question of ethnicity and politics, this seemed mostly about ethnic voting patterns. All candidates said citizens should not vote by ethnicity of candidates, but their campaigns appear to be highly ethnicised. Almost everyone I’ve spoken to in Nairobi has said they will vote according to ethnicity.

The loudspeakers on this campaign van blare political messages to the streets

The debate on ethnicity turned for a moment to the question of inequality. One candidate, Martha Karua, addressed this but not in a very positive way. Her position was that there were poor in every community and that there were no structural or systemic connections between ethnicity and marginalisation. Karua is the only woman candidate and while many women I spoke to said she would be good for the country, they said they’d nevertheless vote for someone from their own community; partly because they felt Karua has no chance of winning, but also because they said that was what was ‘expected’ of them.

The issue of corruption came up in the debate but apart from the predictable platitudes on how it should be rooted out, nothing substantive emerged. People on the street were, in conversation with me, comparing candidates for their levels of corruption to decide whom to vote for if they were undecided. One was 50% corrupt, but the other was only 25% corrupt. One had grabbed a lot of land to make his millions, the other had grabbed only a little land and made fewer millions. So the one with less corruption and land-grabbing would get their vote (usually if they were of the right ethnicity).

Sadly, very little direct reference was made to minorities or indigenous peoples in the debate. Resource-based conflicts were mentioned a few times, and one candidate seemed interested in giving pastoralists better access to water and grazing land – that was as close as it got to the issues MRG is working on in Kenya.

There will be a second debate in 2 weeks, perhaps minority issues and land rights will feature more in that. MRG will be following the situation closely. In the meantime why not check out our most recent publication on the upcoming elections: Taking diversity seriously: minorities and political participation in Kenya.

Alternative State of Nature: at the crossroads of economic growth and indigenous-sensitive development

In response to the publication of MRG’s State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, which in 2012 focused on natural resources and land rights, Elvira Nurieva, a recent intern with MRG’s Europe Office, reflects on how business is affecting vulnerable communities around the world.

In the ‘state of nature’, without a ‘common power’ or government, people are doomed to a life ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’, according to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679). In the absence of laws designed to restrain individual behavior, human beings are likely to regress to the ‘natural condition of mankind’ and attack each other.

With the creation of local, regional and international human rights institutions, has humankind significantly progressed from the ‘state of nature’? Indeed, is it possible to clearly identify a line between the ‘state of nature’ and societies with the ‘rule of law’?

One might point to some incremental progress: less arms, and more communication in conflict resolution, perhaps. Anything else? The development of international and domestic standards, recognizing the rights of marginalized and vulnerable communities? Surely! But experts point out that their proper implementation is still lacking.

Perhaps someone could simply dismiss this question by focusing on its philosophical dimension. However, the hard evidence of compelling case studies easily brings it back to reality. The examples given in this post, and also captured in a recent MRG report, State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2012, reflect how short-term thinking and profit-obsession are taking over the longer-term benefits of empowerment through development.

A young girl in Papua New Guinea. Credit: Stephan Bachenheimer/World Ban SB-PNG02

Despite international treaties and UN declarations, indigenous and tribal peoples continue to not fully exercise their right to internal self-determination, nor participate in decision-making in the natural resource development that affects their livelihoods, culture and identity. With a few exceptions (for instance, in Canada, the Environmental Stewardship Unit of the Assembly of First Nation and in Russia the Sakhalin Energy company agreement), indigenous communities are often not consulted at all on development projects and their impacts.

Due to aggressive natural resource exploitation on traditional and ancestral lands, all too often justified in the name of ‘national interest’, indigenous and tribal peoples are subject to evictions and involuntary migrations that damage their spiritual, cultural and physical wellbeing (see Survival International’s report, Progress Can Kill).

In the article Natural Resource Development and the Rights of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples, Dr. Corinne Lennox reiterates that such policies constitute grave violations of the human rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. To illustrate the ugly side of the current reality, let me present two geographically different, but similarly harrowing case studies from Kenya and India.

In Kenya, the Endorois, a semi-nomadic pastoralist community who have inhabited the shores of Lake Bogoria and the Monchongoi forest for centuries, were evicted from their land in 1973 to make way for a Game Reserve. And it is only with the case of the 2010 Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International (on behalf of the Endorois Welfare Council) v. Kenya, that the violations of Kenya’s government were condemned and the property rights of the Endorois to their land were upheld.

Importantly, Kenya’s key argument at the hearing of the African Commission on Human People’s Rights (ACHPR) was formulated on the principles of a so-called participatory democracy, which gives supremacy to the benefit of the national interest rather than the demands of a single community. The Endorois community and their advocates won the case by contending that the right to development involves the community on an equal footing, which leads to the empowerment of its members by increasing their choices and improves their welfare. However, the Endorois people are still waiting for the implementation of the ACHPR decision.

Likewise in India, there have been numerous cases where tribal peoples, numerically and politically weak (constituting 8 per cent of the Indian population) were displaced from their lands due to dam construction, despite their persistent non-violent protests and meetings with local authorities.

A documentary film, A Narmada Diary, captures the years of such a struggle to prevent the drowning of 37,000 hectares of fertile land and forced eviction of over 200,000 Adivasis, the area’s indigenous peoples. The film shows the pain of each member of the community during days of hunger strikes, and the proactive attitude of steadfast female representatives of the community at the official meetings. Though sad, the documentary underlines the enduring spirit of this community, standing tall like their sacred tree on the flooded traditional land.

Lessons for international development

The lesson that government officials, policy makers and private sector representatives all over the world perhaps may learn from these stories is underscored in Richard Cronin’s and Amit Pandya’s assessment for Washington security think-tank, The Stimson Centre. ‘Fishermen are relocated to areas without fisheries, forest people must leave entirely or take insecure jobs as plantation workers, and farmers often have to learn to grow new crops on less fertile land.’

Facing such irreversible damage, it is hard to see how natural resource exploitation can claim its main objective to be generating more funds for anti-poverty programs. When such programmes subject rural inhabitants and politically marginalized groups to death - cultural or physical - then the toolkit for stable economic development should be reconsidered and disproved approaches to natural resource exploitation recast.

In today’s industrialized world, life can indeed mirror Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ and show us as ‘poore’ (with finite resources), nasty (with myopic policy makers) and brutish (with an aggressive development agenda). The international laws and rights instruments designed to protect the most vulnerable lack the ‘common power’ to enforce the protection they might give. Hobbes lived in a time when very little was known in European societies about the ways of life practiced by indigenous communities; incredibly, the assumed superiority of national ‘development’ over the rights of minorities continues today, with indigenous and fringe groups facing violence and eviction over land and resources.

The good news is that there is a silver lining. With the recognition of alternative, indigenous-sensitive development policies, and development of proper environmental impact assessment, humankind can make a breakthrough from the bondage of the single development paradigm and short-term thinking.

Development with identity

Beth Walker, MRG’s Commissioning Editor, looks at the increasing impact of natural resource exploitation on minority and indigenous peoples, and champions their resistance to, and right to benefit from, development projects on their lands

Over the past weeks, Tibetan villagers stopped a Chinese company from mining a holy mountain on the Tibetan Plateau, pushing $300,000 worth of equipment into the Nu River after negotiations with the local government collapsed; in the Philippines, an alliance of indigenous groups took to the streets to protest the recent rush of gold mining, after the government handed 60 per cent of Cordilleras province over to companies as mining concessions; and in Namibia, Himba and Zwemba indigenous groups are demanding their government ends forced land grabs to make way for the construction of the Orokawe Dam, and respects their rights under international law.

These incidents are indicative of large-scale resistance against governments and companies who are increasingly ignoring community rights in the rush to secure natural resources on their lands. These communities are not necessarily “against development”, but they demand the right to benefit from development projects, and also to determine their path. As indigenous protestors in the Philippines are chanting, they are ‘not anti-mining’ but want ‘mining for the people.’

Testimony from MRG’s partners, and reports trickling through from community organisations, show that far too often, minority and indigenous groups reap few of the benefits and suffer more of the negative impacts of such projects. Last week, I attended the launch of a new report produced by the Gaia Foundation at the UK Houses of Parliament that reinforced this. The report warns that the rapid growth of mining, oil and gas activities is leading to large scale “land grabbing”, threatening communities and destroying local food and water systems.

Speaking at the event, Teresa Anderson from the Gaia Foundation said, “The catalogue of devastation is growing. We are no longer talking about isolated pockets of destruction and pollution. In just 10 years, iron ore production has more than doubled, coal has risen 45% and metals like lithium by 125%. Across Africa, Latin America and Asia, more and more lands, rivers and aquifers are being devoured by mining activities.”

The surge in mining worldwide is fuelled by the rising price of metals and oil, and by foreign investment and commodity speculation. This has acted as an incentive to exploit new areas and less pure deposits, says the report. Companies are now moving into remote areas of the Amazon rainforests for oil and gold, into South Africa for coal, and combing India’s forested tribal belt for bauxite. More aggressive technologies are now being used to extract materials from areas which were previously inaccessible, as seen with the Alberta tar sands in Canada.

“Land grabs for mining, tourism, biofuels, dam construction, infrastructure projects, timber and now carbon trading are all part of the same process, turning farmers into refugees on their own land,” said Henk Hobbelink, co-founder of GRAIN International, an organisation that supports community farmers and social movements.

While there was agreement among the MPs, activists, economists and lawyers gathered at Westminster that communities should have the rights to control decisions about development projects on their land, there was less consensus on how this should be achieved. How can communities hold international companies and the governments they collaborate with to account?

Improving the transparency standards of companies that extract natural resources can reduce corporate corruption and conflict, argued a representative from Global Witness, pointing to the example of initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Index. But for many, voluntary initiatives are not enough.

“Experience has shown that light touch regulation of companies results in large-scale human rights abuses,” argued Richard Solly, coordinator of London Mining Network. “There needs to be stricter government oversight over the activities of such companies operating abroad.” “We need a tribunal to hold companies to account, an equivalent of the International Criminal Court for companies,” said Deborah Doane, director of the World Development Movement.

These are big questions that need more discussion and debate. The impact of natural resource development on minority and indigenous groups will be the topic of MRG’s 2012 annual report – State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. This publication, due in July, will tell the stories of minorities who are being adversely affected by developments on their lands, and the strategies they are using to secure their right to development.

One concrete example that emerged from the discussions in Parliament was given by Hobbelink from GRAIN international. He has set up a website to document cases of land grabbing by foreign investors for food production; the site now documents more than 400 large land deals totalling nearly 35 million hectares, roughly the size of the Netherlands. This kind of information is a powerful tool that can be used to help communities resist destructive projects and control development on their own land.

Corporate irresponsibility in the Niger Delta

Natasha Horsfield, MRG’s Research/Publications Intern, sees the case brought against oil giant Shell by Nigeria’s Ogoni people as a reflection of wider corporate abuse of minority and indigenous rights around the globe.

On 28th February 2012, the US Supreme Court will rehear a landmark case brought against Royal Dutch Shell by 12 members of the Ogoni minority community of the Niger Delta, in which the Ogoni allege that Shell was complicit in serious human rights abuses committed against them by the Nigerian military regime in the early 1990’s. This case will determine whether corporations can be sued and held legally accountable for their complicity in human rights abuses, and if successful, will have important implications for the future of corporate accountability in the field of human rights.

The Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. case runs in companion to another case brought against the company by the Ogoni community in the name of prominent Ogoni activist and founder of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Ken Saro-Wiwa, and his 8 companions, for Shell’s alleged complicity in their extrajudicial murders in 1995 by the same regime. Shell, whilst denying any complicity, settled the case in 2009 with a ‘humanitarian gesture’ of US$ 15.5 million. Shell has also been named in several other law suits relating to the impact of the company’s extractive activities on the rights of minority and indigenous communities, including the Tar Sands project in Canada, termed a ‘slow industrial genocide’ by the first nation communities affected.

Site of the first oil well in the Niger Delta, drilled by Shell in 1956. Credit: Rhys Thom.

The Ogoni people are no stranger to run-ins with this oil giant. In addition to the company’s connection to the abuses suffered by the Ogoni at the hands of the former military regime, the ongoing pollution in Ogoniland caused by Shell’s oil extraction activities have had disastrous impacts on the environment and health of the Ogoni for decades.

In August 2011, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report on the effects of oil pollution in Ogoniland in the Niger Delta, home to the Ogoni people. The report concluded that Shell had consistently failed to clean up oil pollution effectively in the area, severely affecting the health and livelihoods of the Ogoni people. At the same time last year, Shell admitted liability in a court case for two major oil spills which occurred near the Delta town of Bodo, Ogoniland in 2008, and which have since destroyed the livelihoods of many locals. UNEP also reported that the scale of pollution in Ogoniland is so extensive that it will take at least a quarter of a century to reverse its effects, and consequently recommended the creation by the Nigerian government of an Environmental Restoration Fund of US$ 1 Billion to begin the clean up process.

Oil pollution in the Niger Delta has destroyed the livelihoods of minority groups across the oil-rich region. Credit: Sosialistisk Ungdom - SU

The Ogoni people have been opposed to the devastation which the oil industry has brought to their land and livelihoods for decades, and in 1993 Shell was expelled from Ogoniland following protests by Ogoni communities over the disastrous impact which oil extraction had on their land. Although Shell has not directly extracted oil from Ogoniland since the expulsion, its infrastructure remains and continues to be used to transport oil across Ogoniland, resulting in the continued suffering for the Ogoni people.

The level of oil pollution in Ogoniland and the resulting rights violations inflicted on the Ogoni people is also synonymous with the situation faced by the various minority groups across the oil-rich Niger Delta. In an area where over 60 per cent of the population relies on the environment for its livelihood, oil pollution has continued to destroy the means of survival of individuals and minority communities for many years.

However, despite Shell’s acceptance of liability and the findings of the UNEP report, the people of Bodo and wider Ogoniland are still awaiting the clean-up of oil pollution, or indeed the funding necessary for it to begin. Although the Nigerian government should not escape blame for its failure to regulate Shell’s activities in the area and protect the rights of the Ogoni people, Shell must bear a large portion of responsibility for its failure to prevent and respond satisfactorily to oil pollution, and is thus facing demands spearheaded by Amnesty International that it pay the full US$ 1 Billion needed to establish the clean-up fund.

The suffering the Ogoni people have experienced as a result of Shell’s interests and activities in their oil-rich land highlights the battle which many minority communities and indigenous people are currently facing with extractive industries around the world. As MRG’s 2012 annual report State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples will report later this year, minorities and indigenous peoples on every continent are having their rights violated or their way of life destroyed at the hands of rapacious companies, often working in cahoots with the state. In many instances, both seek to profit from natural resource extraction but all too often escape accountability for their activities, which damage the lives of some of the most marginalised communities. In recognition of this, the theme of MRG’s 2012 publication will be natural resources with a focus on the role of extractive industries in human rights abuses.

It waits to be seen if Shell will answer international calls to fund the cleanup of the damage it has caused in Ogoniland and if the company is held accountable for the violations it has inflicted on the Ogoni people. If this is the case, then the implications this could have on corporate responsibility to respect the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples around the world who are adversely affected by extractive industries will be ever more pertinent.

A journey of firsts for Endorois women

Giulia di Mattia, MRG’s Programme Assistant, reports back from a trip to the African Commission in The Gambia with a group of indigenous women from Kenya.

In a landmark decision in February 2010, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights declared the expulsion of Endorois from their ancestral lands illegal and found that the Kenyan government had violated certain fundamental rights of the indigenous community, protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Since the adoption of the decision, representatives of the Endorois community have attended African Commission sessions to pressure for the implementation of the ruling. At the 50^th session in October 2011 five Endorois representatives, four women and one man, travelled to Banjul, The Gambia.

For the women it was a journey of firsts. The first time they had ever had a passport, boarded a plane, travelled outside of Kenya and left their families behind. Sarah, Elizabeth, Christine Chebii and Christine Kandie, in traditional Endorois costume and jewellery, were embarking on a brand new adventure.

Christine Kandie and Sarah

The women gave out an incredible energy. Excited to be outside of Kenya for the first time, they expressed how proud they were to represent their community and how thankful they were to have obtained passports. They were eager to take pictures to take back to the community and spoke about the need to provide the same kind of opportunities for other women in the community.

Interestingly they pushed MRG to search for funds for a gender project, about education, FGM and early marriage, which would allow them to become more independent. If the project is for the whole community, then men will always be prioritized, they said candidly. For example, one of the women was told that if women travel they are sexually assaulted, so men travel to protect women.

During the session, Fatuma Zullo, from the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights, addressed the African Commission specifically mentioning the need for implementing the Endorois decision. During the break, where the real advocacy work takes place, the women thanked Commissioner Zullo for her intervention on the Endorois case. Zullo, who has been working closely with the community, was happily surprised to see that the Endorois representatives were women.

Christina Kandie delivering the Endorois statement

On 25 October, Christine Kandie delivered the Endorois statement to the Commission. Kandie addressed the Commission about efforts made by the community to negotiate with the Government of Kenya on the implementation of the decision but stressed that the community did not want the case to be passed to the African Court, but wanted instead to give the Government more time. The Chair replied directly to Kandie (a rare sight in itself) that the Endorois case is a priority for the Commission and that they will work to see implementation.

This work was carried out under an MRG’s project funded by the Baring Foundation, which aims to build the capacity of the Endorois community and implement the decision of the African Commission.

Together in the same pot

Zulema Cadenas, MRG’s Street Theatre Project Officer, reports on a correlation between a popular Kenyan recipe and the rich ethnic diversity of the country.

There is a very popular nourishing dish throughout Kenya called githeri. The combination of beans and corn cooked together make it a simple but complete meal.

During my week in Mombasa working with SAFE Pwani (Sponsored Arts For Education) I will get to better understand the challenges faced by different ethnic groups in the coastal region of Kenya. Fifteen actors, who are part of this organization aiming to address social issues through street theatre, gathered for one week to research ethnic-related issues in the region and start putting together the play that will be part of MRG’s Street Theatre Project.

Zulema (front row second from left) and the cast

During the community research process prior to the performance SAFE found that racist attitudes and negative stereotyping between the Pwani (mainly Mijikenda people originally from the coast) and the Wabaara (people from inland who migrated to the coast) communities were common. Both groups are seen to be undermining each other and there is a palpable lack of trust, cohesion and integration between the communities. Suspicions and rumours about negative behaviours are common and have exploded into violence on previous occasions, especially during the post-election violence in 2007-2008. The two communities both express disillusionment that they blame on failed leadership, as well as a lack of mutual respect.

The performance

As in the githeri recipe, diversity is a key part of the richness of Kenyan society. Tribalism and corrupted politics, unfair distribution of resources and stereotypes are a big threat to this national treasure. The street performances that will take place at the beginning of next year in the coastal region will confront these issues in an effort to promote understanding and cooperation amongst the different communities.

“Maharague na mahindi, yapikwe chunsu kiimoja” (Beans and corn should be cooked in the same pot) recites Mwikali, one of the actors, at the end of our workshop on stereotypes and discrimination.

God does not discriminate

Arun Storrs is the consultant for MRG’s Street Theatre Project who recently travelled to Botswana to monitor and develop the programme. Arun runs a non-profit organization called The Kumari Project, which provides support services to orphans from the orphanage where she was adopted in Nepal. She is also currently acting in film and theatre and directs, choreographs and performs her original work.

We gather, the actors, Mpho, the Director, Vanessa, the Project Officer and I, in the parking lot outside our hotel bungalows. The actors are changing into their costumes – bright colored shirts and black slacks, snacking on take-out from nearby fast food joints, and taking turns dancing and singing along with the music blaring from a portable speaker while they load up the car with props – a giant trash can, metal poles, a black curtain that hides the backstage, and tins of colored paint.

We pile into a large white van and another car for the spillover. We arrive at Molepolole Community Hall, a church about 45 minutes outside of the capital Gaborone, as the service is ending. The actors start to load the set and props as the church band clears its instruments from the narrow stage.

The stage is set; a black curtain with all the names of all the individual tribes in Botswana covers the background. The protagonist, a young woman named Induana, squats downstage center by a large trashcan. The rest of the cast enters singing and dancing to pull down the names of each of the tribes and throw them into the trashcan. They leave only the names of the eight indigenous tribes that are recognised by the government.

The play then flashes to a village celebrating a birth. It is Induana. She is a child. The play’s action stops, and Mpho enters the stage to ask what advice the audience would give to Induana to be successful in life. Audience members raise their hands, men and women, although more men than women usually, and advise her to work hard, study hard, and do well in school.

The play continues, and as Induana is playing jump rope with two friends, she makes a mistake and trips on the rope. Her friends immediately begin to yell racial slurs at her. At this point, Mpho returns to the stage and engages the audience members who spoke before to ask further advice on what Induana should do in this situation. In doing this, he exposes the assumptions people made earlier about Induana (that she was a majority member and would not have to deal with racism growing up) and asks the audience to step into her shoes and face the ugliness of prejudice.

He not only engages the audience members one-on-one, but also opens it up to a show of hands, asking, ‘Who has experienced or witnessed something like this before’” About two-thirds of the audience raises their hands. And following up with, ‘If you saw something like this happen in the future, would you intervene?’ Almost the entire congregation raises their hands.

Again the play resumes, and Induana is surrounded by the company of actors, who continue to assault her with racial slurs and then begin to cover her with paint. She is left by herself on the stage, trembling and crying. The members of the company re-enter, asking forgiveness, having seen the error of their ways, and bathe her, washing away the hate they have inflicted upon her. The play concludes as the cast parades Induana around the stage, as she declares her pride in herself and her ethnicity, the audience singing and dancing in their seats along with the actors.

At the end of the performance, the head of the church thanks the actors for coming. He explains his reluctance when he was first approached because the church had never hosted an event like this, but he expresses his joy that the entire congregation stayed and that even the kids from Sunday school got to watch this play; for, the play’s message is fitting for the setting. God does not discriminate.

Nubians in Kenya have right to nationality. Time to implement the African Union decision

Mohamed Matovu, from MRG’s Africa Office in Kampala, Uganda, reflects on an historic decision to end statelessness for some of Kenya’s most vulnerable children.

The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child in an historic decision, has found the Kenya government in violation of the rights of Nubian children when it denied them citizenship.

This decision is ground-breaking on a number of fronts; it’s the very first decision by the Committee and it’s also a first in Kenya with regard to minority children’s’ rights.

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) and Open Society Institute, who lodged the case on behalf of Nubian children in Kenya, should be applauded for this landmark achievement.

Even when the facts of this case seemed all too crystal clear to warrant any third-party intervention, the Kenya government was not willing to negotiate with the Nubian community.

Credit: UNHCR/Greg Constantine

Picture this. A community is forcibly relocated from their ancestral land, against their own volition, to a foreign land, and settles in the new land for decades to come. But when they want to make legal their stay in their new-found ‘home’ they are asked questions about their ‘origin’ or are referred to as ‘foreigners’. What can best describe such action if not utter discrimination?

The very first Nubians are said to have arrived in Kenya, from the Nuba Mountains in Sudan, in the 19^th Century after forced evictions by the British colonial administrators. In fact, some Nubians participated in the anti-colonial struggles that eventually saw Kenya attain independence.

Since then, subsequent Nubian generations have been born and bred in Kenya and know not of any other place as home. But the government, for reasons best known to them, has denied Nubians their right to nationality and has failed to protect them against statelessness.

As a result of this blatant government action, an estimated 13 per cent of Nubian adults are still stateless in Kenya, according to Open Society Institute, with average household income at a paltry US$4 per day and unemployment at about 70 per cent.

The world is not short of national, regional and international legal frameworks protecting the right to nationality, and yet we continue to see governments abusing or selectively applying it for political reasons.

From using the right to nationality to purge political opponents, as has often been the case in several southern African countries, including Zambia and Botswana, to disenfranchising communities, as is the case of Nubians in Kenya, over 12 million people around the world continue to have their movement restricted due to lack of identification, whilst others may suffer detention without trial.

The situation becomes worse for minority and indigenous groups who, on top of missing out on all the basic indicators of human development, like access to health and education, also suffer social exclusion and exploitation.

Minority Rights Group International, through its internationally acclaimed global ranking, Peoples Under Threat, has identified Nubians as amongst the minority groups facing a real threat of internal displacement. They are also likely to suffer discrimination based on religious lines as the majority of Nubians are Muslims – who constitute a religious minority in Kenya.

The decision may have been handed down but it is early days to celebrate as governments that perpetuate these rights violations are not always in any hurry to implement decisions from other legal entities, be they regional or international.

Over a year ago, the African Commission of Human and Peoples Rights found the Kenyan government in violation of the rights of Endorois community, a semi-nomadic indigenous group, when it evicted them from their ancestral land around Lake Bogoria, Rift Valley province. To date, the government is reluctant to implement the decision.

The African Union should devise mechanisms to ensure that states respect their decisions and fully implement them to the letter, otherwise it will be very difficult for it to shed the accusation that it’s a ‘toothless pet dog’.

Read the Committee’s decision: http://www.ihrda.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/002-09-Nubian-children-v-Kenya-Eng.pdf.

Read more about Nubian people in MRG’s report Kenya: Minorities, Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Diversity.