In late 1991, 7,000 Gwich'in, working alongside environmentalists and conservationists, won a long battle over the future of 125 miles of pristine Alaskan coast. Waged in Washington, D.C., and small villages of Alaska, the classic David and Goliath fight pit the Gwich'in and their allies against the financial and political power of oil companies and Alaska's political establishment.

The struggle began in 1987 when the U.S. Department of the Interior announced its intention to open for oil exploration Alaska's coastal plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the few remaining wildernesses in the United States. President Eisenhower had protected the area's wildlife and environment by establishing the Arctic Wildlife Range in 1960. Twenty years later, Congress had enlarged the preserve to over 18 million acres and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Left unprotected, however, was Tract 1002, 1.5 million acres of coastal wetlands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has called the refuge's heart, "the center of wildlife activity." For years, oil companies had pressured Congress for permission to explore for and exploit reserves along Tract 1002's coast. The lure was emptying to oil companies and Alaska politicians even though government studies estimate only a 20 percent chance of finding oil there and any likely reserves would contribute just 200 days worth of U.S. fuel needs. Oil and gas fields have pumped almost $2 billion into the Alaska treasury, 85 percent of the state's revenues. In 1987, oil companies reaped some $41 billion in profits from North Slope oil.

For the Indians of the region, the struggle over Tract 1002 has deep cultural and social implications. The Gwich'in inhabit 14 communities bordering the refuge in Alaska and Canada's Northern Yukon National Park. These villages sit alongside the migration paths of the Porcupine caribou. The 180,000 caribou in the herd travel each spring from Canada to the coast, giving birth to their calves within Tract 1002. For thousand of years, the Gwich'in have depended on the caribou for food, cultural identity, sprituality, and a connection to the earth. "Our route to God is through the caribou," says Lincoln Tritt of Arctic Village, 120 miles above the Arctic Circle.

A failed hunt no longer means the Gwich'in go hungry. Food and other supplies are regularly flown in from Fairbanks to Arctic Village and other communities. Log houses have replaced caribou-hide shelters, and jeans are preferred to caribou skins. Still, any threat to the caribou directly challenges the Gwich'in way of life. Caribou remain the main source of protein, and a good hunt means ample food. Perhaps most important, the Gwich'in life passed down from generations is the one they wish to carry forth through their children. Caribou grace Gwich'in stories and songs, and are considered the very center of Gwich'in life.

OIL HUNGER

Since 1968, oil exploration and drilling have turned the nearby Prudhoe Bay area into an ecological nightmare. Over 1,100 miles of pipeline and 350 miles of road crisscross the landscape. Drilling stations and waste pits pockmark the ground; oil residue contaminates the land under the permafrost.

According to a 1991 Natural Resources Defense Council report, the Arctic ecosystems are very sensitive to disruption, with "air and water pollution... of special concern." The impact of oil spills are reportedly more long term and far reaching than in more temperate climates. Noted naturalist and author Peter Matthiessen says in the NRDC report that "millions of gallons of oil industry waste and tens of thousands of air pollutants are pumped each year into the vulnerable arctic environment." The Prudhoe Bay area, "once the heart of the largest unspoiled wilderness in the United States...[is] now an immense industrial facility strewn across hundreds of square miles."

The Prudhoe industrial complex has already destroyed thousands of Arctic acres, leading to a dramatic decline in wolves, birds, and bears. According to a 1990 Alaska Department of Fish and Game study:

Oilfield complexes directly influence the distribution and movement of the CAH (Central Arctic Herd) caribou. Parturient [calving] and post-partum females are particularly sensitive to disturbance and tend to avoid areas of human activity.... Continued expansion and intensification of oil development within the central Arctic region could result in large-scale displacement of caribou with the potential for major impacts on herd productivity.

The Gwich'in closely watched development in Prudhoe Bay, especially as it approached the refuge and threatened the caribou. Gwich'in leader Jonathan Solomon, who has worked diligently to expand the refuge, perceives oil company plans to develop Tract 1002 as the beginning of a time of great trouble.

The fight over Tract 1002 gave the impetus to the first Gwich'in tribal meeting in over 100 years. The idea for this emerged during a 1987 tour of Gwich'in villages organized for the Colorado-based Institute for Resource Management, which actor Robert Redford had created to mediate environmental conflicts. Discussions with IRM on how to respond to oil company plans led to a decision to hold such a traditional Gwich'in gathering.

At first, however, no one knew how to proceed because many Gwich'in customs had been forgotten. Fortunately, Mary Kaye, sick in a Fairbanks hospital, remembered being told as a child some 80 years earlier about the last traditional Gwich'in meeting. She also knew that the traditional way to call for a meeting was to first gather the chiefs. Tribal meetings, she remembered, were called when times of "great trouble lay ahead."

In January 1988, chiefs from the United States and Canada met in Fort Yukon, Alaska, and laid plans for all Gwich'in to come together. IRM input at this planning session was critical, says Gwich'in Steering Committee staff director Bob Childers. Instead of holding a meeting exclusively for the Gwich'in IRM suggested inviting the leaders of major environmental groups as observers. This way, the message would spread beyond northern Alaska. IRM also promised to raise money to help the Gwich'in tell their story.

The Gwich'in rejected another part of IRM's vision, however. IRM wanted to bring oil executives and Indians together to settle the conflict over Tract 1002. The Gwich'in refused, believing they must first strengthen their own awareness and resolve. Eventually, IRM was marginalized from the Gwich'in's plans, as trains arose over such issues as who was in charge, what language to hold the tribal meeting in, and who could speak at it.

Held in June 1988, the seven-day tribal meeting at Arctic Village closely followed tradition. Elders spoke first, with long stories and dire warnings on losing their customs. All discussions, which began at four in the afternoon and often lasted until midnight, were in Gwich'in. Dancing followed until five a.m. Alaska Governor Cowper was the only non-Gwich'in to address the gathering.

While protecting the caribou and the refuge dominated the week, the meeting was valuable for other reasons, too. Some relatives from either side of the U.S.-Canadian border met for the first time, many men publicly swore off alcohol, and a commitment was made to strengthening Gwich'in identity. The meeting covered issues of caribou and the Arctic Refuge, the international border, education and language rights, and alcohol abuse.

The meeting reaffirmed Gwich'in unity as a people and a nation. Two strong resolutions emerged: a united opposition to oil development in Tract 1002 and a decision to establish the Gwich'in Steering Committee. In the words of one of the resolutions, the committee would "tell the world what is at stake" in the refuge struggle.

In the midst of the Gwich'in's cultural reawakening, the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster illuminated the threat of oil development in Alaska and led to wider awareness of and support for the Gwich'in. All summer, journalists from the lower 48 flooded Alaska. After exhausting the Valdez story, they visited Arctic Village, Time, National Geographic, People, and the New York Times all published articles sympathetic to the Gwich'in.

According to Bob Childers, environmental groups had carried the weight of protecting the refuge for 10 years. The Washington-based Alaska Coalition, founded in 1976 to push for the 1980 Alaska Lands Act, had "fought the oil companies to a standstill." Yet, says Childers, the environmentalist analysis lacked an understanding that this was fundamentally a fight for human rights. The issue was about protecting a 1,000-year-old way of life, about "the last chance to do it right the first time."

For the Gwich'in Steering Committee, 1990 was a turning point, as support for protecting Tract 1002 grew. U.S. churches, especially the Episcopal Church, contributed by bringing potential allies together, educating constituents, and lobbying in Washington, D.C. The National Congress of American Indians and Indigenous Survival International reaffirmed their support. And the Gwich'in strengthened their alliance with the Alaska Coalition, the Wilderness Society, and Alaska Friends of the Earth.

According to observers among both the Gwich'in and environmentalists, stress as well as curiosity filled this alliance. Tension arose over definitions of success, suspicion about who defined the issues, and the difficulty Washington-based groups had in knowing how to deal with Native peoples.

GWICH'IN VERSUS INUPIAT

Much deeper tensions were coming up in Alaska. In contrast to the Gwich'in, most coastal residents actually support oil exploration of the Arctic Refuge, and heightened tensions between the Gwich'in and the coastal peoples of Tract 1002 emerged over development plans. The Gwich'in traditionally inhabit the forested interior, while coastal Inupiat are tied to the sea for food and cultural identity. On top of that, Gwich'in and Inupiat had long fought over caribou hunting. Gwich'in came down into Inupiat territory to hunt caribou during the summer, while Inupiat also intruded Gwich'in areas to slay the animals.

Oil companies capitalized on these contrasts, arguing that drilling would take care of northern Alaska's poverty. The companies drew the media's attention to the Inupiat coastal village of Kaktovik, where residents proudly point to the local fire department, a free van for elderly citizens, and a modern medical clinic, all paid for with oil money. The 225 people of Kaktovik still hunt, fish, and boat among the ice floes to kill seal and bowhead whales, but motors power their boats and four-wheel-drive vehicles. The Kaktovik Inupiat Corp., which controls over 92,000 acres adjacent to Tract 1002, strongly supports development. It joined forces with the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which owns the subsurface rights to the land.

Herman Aishanna, vice-president of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corp. and mayor of Kaktovik, says the village could reap a healthy return from service contracts and surface leases, as well as a 2 percent royalty on oil pumped. "We have a lot of young, energetic people here who don't have jobs," he told the Anchorage Daily News. "We need better snow removal, better docking facility for boats. We need natural gas hooked up to every house and better doors and windows. All of these cost lots of money." He dismisses the idea that drilling will harm caribou. "When they were having the first hearings about the [the Arctic Refuge] lease sales, everyone was against them, but it appears the fears aren't valid anymore."

On the other hand, Kaktovik residents strongly oppose offshore drilling. "I don't mind drilling [in the Arctic Refuge] but not in the ocean," remarks Jimmy Soplu, one of Kaktovik's 10 whaling captains. Although their economy is closely tied to oil, like the Gwich'in they can't accept development that threatens their traditions.

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. director Brenda Itta-Lee says the best way to steer oil companies away from the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is to open up the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge. "We are opposed to offshore drilling until all of our oil and gas deposits onshore are depleted, and that includes the Arctic Refuge," she says.

Still, according to the Daily News, some Inupiat fear that massive oil money may push Kaktovik into Alaska's mainstream, with all the attendant problems. "What we don't want to lose is tradition," Mayor Aishanna remarks. "The transition is already underway, and we're trying to deal with it as best as we can."

However, Bob Childers, from the Gwich'in Steering Committee, cynically refers to a fight between the human rights of the Gwich'in and the monied interests of the Kaktovik Inupiat and Arctic Slope corporations. He roots the Kaktovik endorsement of Tract 1002 development in a campaign orchestrated by oil company attorneys and public-relations firms. Until the early 1980s, people in Kaktovik had opposed oil development throughout the Arctic Refuge, but after the companies offered lucrative contracts to the village, Inupiat sentiments were divided.

WINNING IN WASHINGTON

Pressure to exploit the refuge intensified in February 1991, when the Interior Department released a report more than doubling the estimated oil reserves there. In response, the Gwich'in sued U.S. Interior Secretary Manuel Lujan, charging that the report avoided critical points, especially how exploration would affect the caribou. According to Gwich'in Steering Committee head Sarah James, "The Interior Department never had a hearing with the Gwich'in community, never talked to Gwich'in people, and we feel we got left out." In a second suit, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups charged Lujan with filing a deficient Environmental Impact Statement.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, Energy Committee chair J. Bennett Johnson (D-LA) and Malcolm Wallop (R-WY) sponsored a proposal, supported by the Bush Administration, to open up Tract 1002. The bill also proposed streamlining the nuclear power licensing process and partially deregulating the electrical utility industry.

Joining the debate over the energy bill, Gwich'in traveled to Washington "not to lobby but to preach." They knew it would be hard to defeat the Johnston-Wallop bill, in part because the Alaska legislature had allocated $3 million for lobbying. Moreover, hundreds of industry lobbyists were pushing for passage.

Gwich'in concern was also based on having long been ignored in decisions about their homeland. "People come up week after week to visit Prudhoe Bay and the oil companies," James told Congress. "They fly over the refuge and go to Kaktovik, but they never stop in Arctic Village. They say transportation is too complicated, but they fly right by our village. There is never enough time, no matter how long they are in Alaska. Even when they are in Kaktovik, they are only allowed to talk with the people who support development. We are the ones who have everything to lose."

On November 1, 1991, the Senate defeated the Johnston-Wallop energy bill after one of the year's fiercest political fights. The Arctic Refuge had dominated the debate, as environmental groups waged a campaign of letter-writing, telephone calls to Senators, and lobbying, including bringing Gwich'in to Capitol Hill. The Indian testimony was a major factor in the victory, says Alaska Coalition chair Mike Matz. He suggests that Native people speaking for themselves meant more to Congress than white men in suits warning about development.

UNITY, IDENTITY, AND NATIONHOOD

Industrial nations have long sought natural resources on the lands of Native peoples. Perhaps with the growing awareness of the human and ecological devastation oil development has brought, this trend may slow. Sarah James thinks people's awareness has changed as she compares the Gwich'in struggle to that of the Sioux in Dances With Wolves. She values that movie as a tool for educating others about the price Native peoples pay in the name of progress.

Yet indigenous unity is not a given. Animosity between Native people is often deep, sometimes based in cultural differences, sometimes on contrasting agendas. Childers sees no easy resolution to the tensions between the Gwich'in and the Inupiat. Conflict between them could increase if pressures reemerge to develop Tract 1002.

When that may occur is not clear. Matz predicts a breathing space of five years until an energy bill that includes exploring the coastal plain could get through Congress. Changes in the world of international oil politics may place the region in jeopardy sooner.

Bob Childers of the Gwich'in Steering Committee is more hopeful. He sees the Gwich'in position as stronger than at any time in recent years. And time can only help the Gwich'in, he believes, as more is learned about the caribou and the effects of oil development. Moreover, all land disputes among the Gwich'in have been resolved, fostering a greater sense of unity, identity, and nationhood. As a result, political and cultural self-identity evolvong parallel to the fight to protect the caribou could even lead to Indian efforts to protect the entire herd and expand the Arctic Refuge.

Resources: Politics and Policy

Political leaders lead all too rarely these days, but follow they certainly must for change to become institutionalized. Ultimately, initiatives to support and strengthen indigenous rights will demand successful engagements in the halls of political power.

Because the forces disrupting indigenous communities are diverse and entrenched - expansionist governments, growth-hungry corporations, thoughtless consumers, prejudiced members of majority cultures, and so on - concrete policy changes are needed to support indigenous groups in their encounters with the non-indigenous world. Land and resource rights, religious and cultural freedom, effective protection against human-rights abuse, and adequate political representation all depend upon the existence and enforcement of laws and policies that explicitly codify strong minority and tribal rights, even in the face of hostile majority populations.

THE GLOBAL CONTEXT

In March 1992, indigenous leaders from around the world gathered in New York City to advocate for their rights at a planning meeting for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which itself will take place in June in Rio de Janeiro. In presenting their own vision for the Rio conference, the indigenous delegates outlined a series of policy goals for national governments and international institutions. These goals provide supporters of indigenous rights with a broad mandate for political action at all levels of policy making - local, state, national, and international.

The gathering called on the delegates to UNCED:

to ratify and apply the existing international conventions relevant to indigenous peoples (where not yet done), and support the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a declaration on indigenous rights ...[and]

to develop international and national legal instruments and procedures (in conjunction with indigenous peoples) which will: (i) protect indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights; (ii) recognize customary and traditional legal and administrative systems; (iii) execute programs in order to guarantee the demarcation and legalization of the traditional territories of the indigenous peoples and the self-management of their natural resources; (iv) provide adequate territories to those people that have been forcefully relocated from their original homelands.

In other words, the rights of indigenous peoples can only be guaranteed by creating governing institutions that explicitly recognize and enforce such rights, and that actively involve indigenous people in all aspects of decision making.

PREPARING FOR ACTION

Within the framework of supporting and strengthening indigenous rights, activists in the United States and elsewhere can operate within a number of policymaking arenas, and they have a variety of tools at their disposal.

The basis for all political action is information - on both the situation at hand and the people and policymaking dynamics that most influence a situation. Any sustained effort to influence policy should include ongoing research and information-gathering. For local groups, this might mean designating one or more people as a research team and having them assume responsibility for monitoring developments, learning more about key policymakers and political institutions, and interacting with other indigenous and pro-indigenous groups working on similar campaigns.

Cultural Survival provides continuing and detailed information about critical indigenous rights struggles through both Cultural Survival Quarterly, the new monthly Action for Cultural Survival, and the many other publications it distributes. Cultural Survival's research arm, the Center for Cultural Survival, maintains an extensive library on indigenous peoples and politics and can help direct activists toward appropriate information sources and background materials.

LA number of other organizations provide important information and updates on human rights, development, and environmental policy issues relating to indigenous peoples. These include the American Friends Service Committee's Native American Program, Amnesty International, Arctic to Amazonia Alliance, Bank Information Center, Environmental Defense Fund, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends of the Earth, Indian Law Resource Center, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oxfam America, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, South and Meso American Indian Information Center (SAIIC), and World Wildlife Fund.

If you have a computer and modern, the Institute for Global Communications and its EcoNet computer network provide relatively inexpensive access to updates and action alerts from many organizations, as well as dozens of other useful computer "conferences" and news services. IGC brings together activists around the world through the Association for Progressive Communications, which links computer networks in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, Nicaragua, the former Soviet Union, and other countries. EcoNet resources relating to indigenous rights on a given day might include a news story from the global Inter Press Service on indigenous peoples' protests against destructive dam construction in India, an action alert from SAIIC on the imprisonment of an Indian leader in Colombia, and a call from a human-rights group to write letters protesting aid to the government to Indonesia in the wake of the massacre of peaceful protestors in East Timor.

DEVELOPING A STRATEGY

In addition to good information, activists need a plan of action. Although the specifics of any policy-oriented campaign will differ, the fundamentals of successful organizing remain constant. First, define a concrete objective, rather than a vague, ideal goal like "raising awareness" or "improving peoples lives." Next, target key decision makers, rather than faceless institutions like "Congress" or "the World Bank." Emphasize coalition-building and popular empowerment.

A number of organizations provide information as well as consulting services in developing grassroots strategies and planning campaigns - Center for Third World Organizing, Midwest Academy, National Coalition Building Institute, and New Society Publishers.

The Midwest Academy has a checklist for choosing good issues that provides a useful test for assessing proposed campaigns. According to these guideline, a good strategy: * results in a real improvement in people's lives; * gives people a sense of their power; * alters the relations of power; * is winnable; * is widely and deeply felt; * is easy to understand; * has a clear target; and * is consistent with your values and vision

A good strategy must include concrete answers to a number of key questions. What are the goals of the campaign - long-term and short-term? What resources can the organization bring to bear? How can those resources be used most efficiently? How will the campaign strengthen the organization? What potential allies can be approached to lend support? Who are the key opponents? What kind of tactics will be most effective in achieving short-and long-term goals?

SPEAKING YOUR MIND

One of the simplest but most powerful forms of support for indigenous rights is letter writing. Political officials who receive letters from constituents assume the writer speaks for dozens or even hundreds of people, and therefore take such letters more seriously than you might think. As former Rep. Billy Evans (D-GA) has stated, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole, "Anybody who will take the time to write is voicing the fears and desires of thousands more." A number of organizations, such as Amnesty International and 20/20 Vision, a nationwide network of congressional district-based groups, focus their political efforts around letter writing because of its proven effectiveness. For a good pamphlet on letter writing, contact the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

The impact of letter writing can be magnified greatly when organized by local groups as an ongoing activity. Participants can gather regularly for collective writing sessions or to respond to telephone or written suggestions from group leaders.

Keep in mind a few general guidelines; * keep letters short and simple * personalize your letter as much as possible * focus on a very specific issue, action, or piece of legislation * highlight your reasons for concern and your specific request * be as polite and constructive as possible * indicate that you will follow up and monitor their action * ask for a response

Letters to your own political representatives are often the most powerful since you can vote and otherwise directly affect their standing. Still, it is also important to write other government officials nationally and internationally to demonstrate your concerns and promote positive political action. The power of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the regional development banks for Africa, Asia, and Latin America in influencing national policies and supporting (often destructive) development projects makes them important targets for public pressure.

So, too, should the presidents, embassies, and development and environment ministries of most countries hear popular international concerns for the rights of the indigenous peoples within their jurisdictions. The progress the Brazilian government has made of late in supporting indigenous human and land rights is due in large measure to international attention and advocacy.

State and local officials also play important roles in affecting international policy. In March 1992, concerted letter writing and other forms of advocacy paid enormous dividends in New York State. Responding to popular pressure, Governor Mario Cuomo decided to reject a new long-term contract to purchase electrical power from Hydro-Quebec and its James Bay II project. The project could flood and otherwise damage traditional lands of thousands of Cree and Inuit and gravely threatens their health and way of life. New York's decision has lent significant support to the indigenous opposition to James Bay II; if Massachusetts and Vermont follow New York's lead, the project may become too risky for Hydro-Quebec to continue.

Recent technical innovations have made it even easier for activists to send messages to U.S. and foreign leaders. Changewater Letters is a personal computer program that combines a database of world leaders with a simple word-processing program. After writing a letter, the writer can select from a list of U.S. Congress, U.S. Administration, state governments, leaders from from other countries and the United Nations, and major corporate and media leaders. The program will print separate, properly addressed letters to each leader. Similarly, the Institute for Global Communications has created InterACT, a computer program that enables IGC users to quickly and inexpensively send fax messages to members of Congress and the media. Telexes, telegrams; and faxes can also be sent internationally with ease through a number of electronic communications systems, such as MCI Mail, Easylink, and CompuServe. How-to information on these methods can be obtained from Amnesty International's Urgent Action office in Nederland, CO.

IN PERSON

Beyond letter writing, faxing, telegraming, and so on, personal visits to congressional representatives and other government officials are an effective way to get your message across. Such visits are important for many reasons, not least of which is simply to let officials know that you are informed and prepared to hold them accountable for their actions. Moreover, your representatives certainly spend a lot of time with advocates for different, often opposing, interests. Taking the time and making the effort to visit your representative even if you do not have an obvious financial interest makes a powerful statement of commitment that is difficult to ignore.

Meetings designed to raise issues and support or oppose specific legislation should follow the general guidelines of letter writing. Keep them short, simple, to the point, and polite. Often the best way to meet your state or congressional representative is to propose a meeting with a small local group that includes spokespeople from several local constituencies. Be well prepared to support your points, while paying attention to the complexities of the issues.

During the visit, ask about the larger context of the issue as it is debated in Congress or the State House. Who are the primary supporters and opponents of the issue or proposal? What are their motivations? How might a larger coalition be constructed? Delivering letters or petitions from numerous additional constituents can provide additional support for your position. Contact the Friends Committee on National Legislation for a good pamphlet on visiting members of Congress.

Petitions are a time-honered tactic for building support for or opposition to particular policies. Not only does the presentation of hundreds or thousands of signatures demonstrate significant popular concern, but the campaign itself to get signatures can inspire community debate, individual learning, and media attention. As with letters, the petition should make a demand that is actionable and aimed at an appropriate target. Even more important, the campaign must generate enough signatures to demonstrate strong support for your cause.

Another key vehicle for creating and influencing policy debates is the public hearing. There are actually two types of public hearing, those you can sponsor and official hearings sponsored by government agencies or representatives.

Organizing your own public hearing is a good way of gaining media attention and getting public officials on the record on your issue. Of course, you have to convince the appropriate officials to attend. Gaining the support of local or national consponsors can help draw attention to your hearing. If the issue is already popular, you might be able to get local media sponsors as well. Be sure to have a well planned program, including not only hard-hitting and articulate testimony but also attractive surroundings and a full house of supporters.

Attending officially sponsored hearings is another option. Regulatory agencies, such as environmental agencies and utilities commissions, are obliged to hold public hearings before making major decisions. Try to keep aware of scheduling and opportunities for testifying by developing contacts within such agencies. You can also work with sympathetic legislators to help organize public hearings. Bring supporters into the hearings, and prepare a number of "good quotes" to win media coverage.

Working on election campaigns is a necessary component of any long-term strategy for fundamental change. As civil-rights activist and former Georgia State Senator Julian Bond has noted, "If you ever wondered what difference it makes who sits in the White House or whether electoral politics matters in your life, consider the sweeping consequences of Ronald Reagan's narrow victory in 1980."

In many cases, the rascals simply must be thrown out and replaced with better representatives. Often, though, double-pronged efforts to work to change legislators' position while also working on their election campaigns can prove extremely effective.

POLITICS FOR AND AGAINST

Much of the political work in support of indigenous rights is necessarily negative - resisting and condemning destructive behavior on the part of governments, international agencies, and corporations. In recent months alone, governments across Central America attempted to make secret deals with U.S. and Taiwanese corporations to allow logging and oil drilling on indigenous lands in the rain forests of that region, the U.S. government continued to test nuclear weapons on Shoshone land in Nevada, and Malaysian officials and Japanese companies pursued logging in the world's oldest rain forests 24 hours a day, a devastating the homelands of the Penan and other Dayak peoples on the island state of Sarawak. Similarly, India moved ahead with plans to dam the Narada River and permanently displace up to 250,000 indigenous people. At the same time, civil war continues unabated in Somalia - with perhaps 14,000 dead and 27,000 injured between November 1991 and February 1992 - and little U.S. or international effort to end the fighting there.

The most immediate responses must be to protest to the responsible parties and to pressure them to change through public exposure and embarrassment, withdrawal of political and financial support, and other sanctions. Thus, environmental and indigenous rights groups have lobbied the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, and other tropical countries to halt the logging and clearing of forest lands that is so deadly to indigenous forest peoples, while pressing industrialized nations to prohibit imports of tropical timber. Rain-forest Action Network, SAIIC, and other groups continually expose deadly incidents of human rights abuses of indigenous people and organize letter-writing efforts to condemn those responsible. U.S. and international peace groups continue to advocate a comprehensive ban to end all nuclear testing. The Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Bank information Center regularly expose and organize congressional pressure against World Bank and other development bank funding for projects that are likely to destroy indigenous peoples and their lands.

Taking the political offensive is also critical to the support and enhancement of indigenous rights. The struggle against the Hydro-Quebec/James Bay II project is a good example of integrated campaigning. Local and national activist groups from the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, including Cultural Survival Canada, Earth Island Institute, Sierra Club, Student Environmental Action Coalition, Northeast Alliance to Protect James Bay, have lobbied local, state, provincial, and national legislatures and public utilities commissions to reject the project and refuse to purchase electricity from Hydro-Quebec. These efforts have highlighted the destructive impact of the project on the Cree and Inuit cultures and on the surrounding environment. But the campaigners have put as much energy into positive alternatives to Hydero-Quebec, such as energy conservation and smaller scale, renewable sources of power.

At the international level, indigenous groups have struggled for well over a decade to gain official recognition for their basic rights at the United Nations. In 1982, the UN Economic and Social Council agreed to create a Working Group on Indigenous Populations. (The word "populations" was used rather than "peoples" because many states resisted the former as implying too much recognition as independent entities.) By 1985, the Working Group had agreed to move toward a declaration of indigenous rights to put forward in the UN General Assembly. By the end of the Working Group's 1991 session, a draft declaration was almost complete; indigenous activists hope it can be submitted to the General Assembly by 1993, which the UN has designated as the "International Year of the World's Indigenous People."

In its current form, the draft declaration asserts that "indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to own, control and use the lands and territories they have traditionally occupied or otherwise used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their own resources, and the right to effective State measures to prevent any interference with or encroachment upon these rights."

Land and resource rights are key goals of virtually all indigenous organizations, and many such groups look upon the draft UN declaration as an important vehicle toward realizing these goals. Similarly, the relatively enhanced respect and participation that indigenous groups have had during the UNCED process (albeit still marginal) is viewed by many indigenous leaders as an important step forward. As such, an intensified international campaign within and around the UN is likely to become a central aspect of the larger struggle for indigenous rights in the years ahead.

For activists in the United States, such a UN-oriented campaign can fit neatly with related efforts to move toward a more democratic international system, one that could more effectively mediate and resolve inter - and intra-state conflicts, promote truly sustainable development, and further institutionalize the human rights of individuals, minority groups, and threatened cultures. The UN has gained more respect within the United States in the last several years, and many citizens and political leaders look toward its potential to play a much more central role in global problem solving now that the Cold War has ended.

Within their own country, U.S. activists can highlight a number of proposals that positively support indigenous rights. One is reform of U.S. foreign-aid policies and U.S. policy toward World Bank and other international development funding programs. Within the process of setting strict guidelines relating to environment and human rights, the impact of aid and development programs on indigenous peoples can become critical measures in debates over program approval. Cultural Survival has worked for several years toward the adoption of official U.S. reviews of the situation of indigenous peoples in any country that might receive U.S. foreign aid. Such a requirement was successfully incorporated into foreign-aid legislation in 1991, but the legislation as a whole was ultimately voted down.

Several countries, especially in Latin America, have significantly improved their constitutions and laws regarding indigenous peoples. However, implementation and enforcement are proving more difficult. Thus, activists can can push for U.S. government support for stronger global, regional, and national mechanisms to monitor human rights, land rights, and environmental progress, especially with respect to indigenous peoples and their lands. Recommendations for such changes have come from the Worldwatch Institute and the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights. To date, however, the United States has prove a primary obstacle to any such movement during the planning process for UNCED.

Indigenous rights activists in the United States must also put a great deal of effort into domestic policy. The legal status and socioeconomic situation of most Native North Americans remains abysmal. As the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs noted last year, "Indians, the population group which suffers the worst health, education, and the most extreme poverty, are people who, over the past decade, have also suffered the deepest cuts in federal spending for programs designed for their benefit." More generally, the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to widen, the environmental movement - and environmental progress - is increasingly under attack, "multiculturalism" is a dirty word in far too many settings, and cynicism toward Washington continues to grow. Strong political support for international change is unlikely to emerge amid such widespread alienation, so basic political empowerment at home, must constitute a central aspect of working for the empowerment of indigenous peoples around the world.

That makes engaging in political work at the state and local levels doubly important. Not only can change at these levels send important messages to Washington and other national capitals, but participating powerfully in state and local governments is a vital component of rebuilding democracy from the bottom up. In the long run, as indigenous peoples know perhaps best of all, this is the best hope for protecting everyone's rights.

STRATEGY AND ORGANIZING

Center for Third World Organizing

3861 Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, Oakland, CA 94609 (415)654-9601

Changewater Computing

P.O. Box 4468, Warren NJ 07059

Institute for Southern Studies

2009 Chapel Hill Rd., Durham, NC 27702 (919)419-8311

See their classic special issue of Southern Exposure, "Elections: Grassroots Strategies for Change, February 1984.

Midwest Academy

225 W. Ohio, Suite 250, Chicago, IL 60610 (312)645-6010; fax (312)645-6018

National Coalition Building Institute

172 Brattle Street, Arlington, MA, 02174 (617)646-5802

New Society Publishers

1527 Springfield Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143 (215)382-6543

INFORMATION AND CAMPAIGNS

American Friends Service Committee

1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215)241-7000; fax (215)864-0104

Amnesty International

322 8th Ave, New York, NY 10001 (212)807-8400; fax (212)627-1451

Arctic to Amazonia Alliance

P.O. Box 73, Strafford, VT 05072 (802)765-4337; fax (802)765-4262

Conservation International

1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036 (202)429-5660; fax (202)887-5188

Bank Information Center

20251St., NW, Suite 522, Washington, DC 20006 (202)466-8191

Earth Island Institute

300 Broadway, #28, San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 788-3666; fax (415)788-7324

Environmental Defense Fund

1616 Street, NW, #150, Washington, DC, 20036 (202)387-3500

Friends Committee on National Legislation

245 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 (202)547-6000

Friends of the Earth

218 D Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003, (202)544-2600; fax: (202)543-4710

Greenpeace USA

1436 U Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009 (202)462-1177; fax (202)462-4507

Human Rights Watch

485 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10017 (212)972-8400; fax (212)972-0905

Indian Law Resource Center

601 E Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003 (202)547-2800; fax (202)547-2803

Institute for Global Communications (EcoNet)

18 De Boom St., San Francisco, CA 94107 (415)923-0900; fax (415)923-1665

Lawyers Committee on Human Rights

330 Seventh Ave, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10001 (212)629-6170; fax (212)967-0916

National Audobon Society

950 Third Ave, New York, NY 10022 (212)546-9100; fax (212)644-5742

National Wildlife Federation

1400 16th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202)963-1234

Natural Resources Defense Council

1350 New York Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20005 (202)783-7800; fax (202)783-5917

NGO Committee of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People

c/o Office of the Anglican Observe at the UN, 815 Second Ave., New York, NY 10007 (212)922-5164; fax: (212)687-1336

Northeast Alliance to Protect James Bay

139 Antrim St., Cambridge, MA 02139 (617)491-5531

Oxfam America

115 Broadway, Boston, MA 02116 (617)482-1211; fax (617)338-0187

Rainforest Action Network, San Francisco, CA 94133 (415)398-4404; fax (415)398-7232

Rainforest Alliance

270 Lafayette St., #512, New York, NY 10012 (212)941-1900

Refugees International

220 1 St. NE, Suite 240, Washington, DC 20002 (202)547-3785; fax (202)547-3796 Sierra Club

730 Park St, San Francisco, CA 94109 (415)776-2211; fax (415)776-0350

South and Meso-American Indian Information Center (SAIIC)

P.O. Box 28703, Oakland CA 94604 (510)834-4263; fax (510)834-4264

Student Environmental Action Coalition

P.O. Box 1168, Chapel Hill, NC 27514-1168(919)967-4600; fax (919)967-4648

20/20 Vision

30 Cottage St., Amherst, MA 01002 (413)549-4555; fax: (413)549-0544

Worldwatch Institute

1776 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (202)452-1999; fax (202)296-7365

World Wildlife Fund

1250 24th Street, NW, #500, Washington, DC 20037 (202)293-4800

OFFICIAL ADDRESSES AND CONTACTS

President George Bush, The White House, Washington, DC 20500 (202)456-1414

Senator - (Your Senator), U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 (202)224-3121 (switchborad)

Representative - (Your Representative), U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515 (202)224-3121 (switchboard)

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs

838 Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510 (202)224-2251

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

446 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 (202)224-4651 (Sen. Clairborne Pell, chair)

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee

Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, S. 128 Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20510 (202)224-3471 (Sen. Patrick Leahy, chair)

U.S. House Foreign Affair Committee

2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (202)225-5021 (Rep. Dante Fascell, chair)

U.S. House Appropriations Committee

Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, H. 218 Capitol Building, Washington, DC 20515 (202)225-2771 (Rep. David Obey, chair)

U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs

18th and C Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20240 (202)208-7163 (Assistant Secretary, Eddie Frank Brown)

U.S. Department of State - Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

2201 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20520 (202)647-2126 (Assistant Secretary, Richard Schifter)

U.S. Agency for International Development

320 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20523 (202)647-1850 (Administrator, Dr. Ronald Roskens)

INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

African Develoopment Bank

01 B.P. 138, Abidjan 01, Cote D'lvoire 225-32-07-11; fax: 225-22-70-04 (President, Babacar N'Diaye)

Asian Development Bank

P.O. Box 789, 1099 Manila, Philippines 632-711-3851; fax: 632-741-7961 (President, Kimimasa Tarumizu)

Inter-American Development Bank

1300 New York Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20577 (202)623-1000; fax: (202)623-3096 (President, Enrique Iglesias)

Organization of American States

1889 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 (202)458-3000 (Secretary General, Jaoa C. Baena Soares)

UN Commission on Human Rights, Subcommission on Prevention of

Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland

UN Development Program

1 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017 (William Draper, Administrator)

UN Environment Program

P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya (Mostafa Kamal Tolba, executive director)

World Bank

1818 H. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433 (202)477-1234; fax: (202)477-6391 (President, Lewis Preston)

CAMPAIGNING FOR RIGHTS

From March 21 to December 10 of this year, amid the numerous commemorations of the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage to the Americas, Amnesty International USA (AIUSA), the human-rights group, is conducting the Indigenous Peoples in Americas Campaign. The campaign is designed to focus public attention on current human-rights abuses of indigenous peoples.

According to AIUSA, Native Americans are marginalized and treated as inferior by governments and dominant cultural groups because of their insistence on maintaining traditional lands and lifestyles. Throughout the Americas, governments violate basic human rights - such as their right to self-determination, the preservation of their own cultures, and control over traditional homelands. AIUSA is particularly concerned with the torture, imprisonment, "disappearance," and murders of native peoples who attempt to defent those rights.

An introductory packet from the indigenous Peoples in the Americas Campaign includes general information on the situation of indigenous peoples as well as individual cases for which AIUSA urges a letter-writing campaign. In addition, AIUSA's Urgent Action Network on Indigenous People (P.O. Box 1270, Nederland, CO 80466-1270) is supplying Al members with monthly cases for a letter-writing campaign. Contact the AIUSA campaign office in San Francisco or regional offices in New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, and Los Angeles for more information.

THE SEARCH FOR LIMITS

An international campaign to conserve the world's tropical rain forests and to support indigenous communities living there emphasizes limits on the use of tropical timber.

Logging accounts for some 20 percent of the destruction of tropical rain forests around the world, and most of the timber is exported to industrialized countries such as Japan and the United States. By facilitating the destruction of fragile homelands, the consumption of tropical timber from non-sustainable sources seriously threatens the survival of indigenous rainforest communities.

Currently, campaigns are active to ban the use of tropical timber in the United States, Japan, Europe and Australia. Austria, the Netherlands, and Switzerland are forming national policies to end the import of tropical timber from non-sustainable sources. Activists have also been working to ban the use of tropical timber at lower levels, such as by cities, counties, or states. In the United States, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace are among the groups working to limit the use of tropical timber.

New York State and Arizona, as well as San Francisco, CA, Santa Monica, CA, Bellingham, WA, and Baltimore MD, among others, have banned the use of tropical timber in public projects. Similar legislation is under debate in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Houston, Austin, and Ann Arbor. In Washington, DC, Sen. Albert Gore (D-TN) has introduced legislation to require labeling on all imported tropical woods and wood products, thus making it much easier for consumers to avoiding purchasing such wood.

For more information on how to work on banning the use of tropical timber in your city or state, contact Rainforest Action Network, which can provide a Tropical Timber Ban packet that includes step-by-step guidelines, a sample letter to council member, tropical timber fact sheets, a sample community petition and other resources. Contact the Sierra Club International Program for information on the Gore proposal.

Article copyright Cultural Survival, Inc.