Diversity and Discrimination

 
            The story of human diversity is as old as humanity itself. However, diversity, both linguistic and cultural, is on the retreat, especially in areas of South and Central America where native populations are being forced out of their traditional and secluded homes and being forced to either assimilate with the larger national culture or have no future. Before European colonization of America began, it is estimated that there were around 300 indigenous languages spoken in North America. That number is now somewhere closer to 150, and it is estimated that by 2050 only 20 languages will remain. It is currently estimated that around the world, there 750 languages that are either on the verge of extinction, or recently extinct. This decrease in linguistic diversity is merely a symptom of a growing challenge to the traditional cultures of indigenous peoples throughout the world.

            There a variety of reasons causing this sudden decrease in languages, most of them economic. As modern economics spread throughout the world, and into areas previously still using traditional economic systems, there is a significant pressure to conform to ‘modern civilization’. However, there are two areas in which the risk of large scale cultural loss is possible, South America and Africa. Both areas still have distinct indigenous populations. In South America especially, there are large issues that need to be addressed involving the relationship between Native Tribes and the State. The current situation allows for the State to seize native soil and subsoil if they deem it necessary, as outlined in the Proposed American Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples, passed by the OAS in 1997. Similar provisions exist in many South American constitutions.

            This obviously presents a substantial question-is economic development worth sacrificing the linguistic and cultural diversity of South America? This issue is compounded by the existing racism against indigenous peoples, which is still quite a factor in the region. There is still bias and discrimination against native peoples, especially in nations in which the governments derive their power from the Latin populations of their nations. The 1984 United Nations Report on The Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations looked in depth at the issue. The report found that some governments denied that indigenous peoples existed within their borders. Others denied the existence of any kind of discrimination - in contradiction to the reality encountered. It described cases where the governmental authorities, when reporting on the situation of indigenous peoples, unwittingly betrayed their baldly discriminatory thinking. For example, a governmental official in the Americas replied to Mr. Cobo's request for information on "protective measures" by stating: "In our civil legislation, the Indians are not even included among the incapable persons.”

         These issues all tie together to paint a dreary picture. The linguistic and cultural diversity of indigenous peoples is at risk, because of a growing pressure to assimilate into Latin culture, created as natives are pushed off their land and faced with heavy discrimination based solely on their race.

Committee Mission:

            This committee is charged with creating a statement outlining the goals for protecting the cultural and linguistic diversity of indigenous peoples.  Following that, it is to prescribe specific guidelines for members states in fulfilling those goals. 

Questions to consider:

1. Should states be able to privatize Native lands to increase economic development?

2. How can this committee protect the culture and languages of Natives, without infringing upon national sovereignty?

3. Is the decline in worldwide linguistic diversity an issue worth addressing? How can this committee address this issue?

Sources:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/elr/natlang.html

http://www.yourdictionary.com/elr/nextinct.html

http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/ddir.html

http://www.usask.ca/nativelaw/IITC.html

http://www.cidh.org/Indigenous.htm

http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/indigenous.htm

Combating Terrorism While Protecting Human Rights

Introduction:

            Terrorism around the world has always been a pressing matter to human rights, and since September 11^th, 2001, the concern over terrorist acts has risen dramatically. Along with this increased emphasis on combating terrorism, the issue of simultaneously protecting human rights has become critical. The “War on Terror” and other such focused attempts at stopping terrorist acts, has lead to measures which are detrimental to the overall goal of ensuring essential human rights around the globe.

Terrorist suspects are knowingly being held without trial in prisons across the world. Torture and general mistreatment of terrorist suspects is prevalent. Racial profiling of middle easterners is on an up rise. Some nations have even been denying civil rights to their citizens, presenting it as “counter-terrorist” measures. To stop terrorism around the world is an important cause, but having liberties sacrificed as a result is unnecessary and needs to be brought to an end.

            The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights (UNHCHR) has repeatedly expressed concern over the treatment of terrorist suspects, and the concern continues to grow. In 2001, the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) provided a monitoring system of the actions states take in combating terrorism. The CTC and the UN Human Rights Committee have been working together to keep human rights violations in check, but more needs to be done. In addition, there are a number of organizations and agreements that deal with the broader issues of torture, discrimination, and the human rights violations that are being seen with regards to fighting terrorism. The Geneva Convention, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Committee Against Torture (CAT) are a just a few. However, despite the work of these groups, the denial of human rights continues still today.

            Some governments have been using counter-terrorism as a way to validate actions against groups they oppose within their country. China for example has begun “to blur the distinctions between terrorism and calls for independence by the ethnic Uighur community.”   In India, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has been shown to be used by the Indian government as a way to “target minorities and political opponents.” In the United States, the controversial USA PATRIOT Act allows for wire tapping, non-citizen suspects to be held without charge, and the monitoring of personal information.

            How far should a government be allowed to go in the name of fighting terrorism? Is the restriction of civil liberties justifiable in the greater cause of international security? The definition of terrorism is a debate in and of itself, but shouldn’t distract from this committee’s goal of protecting human rights. "Our responses to terrorism, as well as our efforts to thwart it and prevent it, should uphold the human rights that terrorists aim to destroy. Respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are essential tools in the effort to combat terrorism - not privileges to be sacrificed at a time of tension." – Secretary-General Kofi Annan

Focus Questions:

Links

http://www.hrw.org/un/chr59/counter-terrorism-bck.pdf

http://www.unhchr.ch/terrorism/index.html

http://www.hrw.org/un/chr59/counter-terrorism-bck.pdf

http://www.hrw.org/un/chr59/counter-terrorism-bck.htm

http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/patriotact/