martedì 6 marzo 2018

The disappearance of Santiago Maldonado in 'Benetton’s stolen lands'

The disappearance of Santiago Maldonado in 'Benetton’s stolen lands'

https://theecologist.org/2017/oct/01/disappearance-santiago-maldonado-benettons-stolen-lands

Two months after the disappearance of Santiago Maldonado it is becoming increasingly clear that the 28-year-old, who was participating in a protest with indigenous Mapuche people in the province of Chubut, was taken by the Gendarmerie. Eyewitnesses have stated that they saw members of the security force beating and carrying a person away in one of their vehicles.

The Macri government has consistently defamed and refused to meet his family. They have even gone so far as to claim that he has likely gone into hiding to make the police look bad, and launched raids on Mapuche communities on the pretext that he may be hiding there, which he was not

Worryingly, in a country where the military dictatorship killed around 30,000 people from 1976-1983, the Argentinian government has refused to call this case what it is: a forced disappearance by the military police. Instead, they have done their upmost to resist conducting a proper independent investigation, and have chosen to invest in criminalising and further defaming both the Mapuche community and Santiago’s family.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and a United Nations committee, have all called for urgent action from Argentine President, Mauricio Macri. And on 1st September tens of thousands of people marched on the Argentinian capital to demanding to know the whereabouts of Santiago Maldonado. This marked the first disappearance of Macri’s premiership.

A minister with an agenda
Disturbingly, Security Minster Bullrich has persistently refused to hold the police to account. Indeed, it has been a feature of her tenure to place the police as beyond reproach, and ignore all evidence of misconduct against them.

Patricia Bullrich has said that the unrest in the South of Argentina is due primarily to an organisation called the Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (RAM). She has claimed that the security forces have “completely confirmed” that RAM is being financed by an English organisation.

We have found ourselves in a storm of controversy over this, as Argentinian media outlets have astutely identified our organisation, Mapuche International Link (MIL), as the only plausible candidate that Bullrich could have been referring to. The accusation that we are funding a group that Argentina labels a terrorist organisation is as serious as they come.

And yet it is also completely laughable, as our organisation is run entirely by volunteers who have been affected by, or are sympathetic to, the repression that Mapuche people continue to face in Chile and Argentina. And yet despite our repeated requests, Patricia Bullrich, has failed to either produce evidence against us or retract her accusation.

From our perspective, Bullrich’s accusations are not particularly harmful to us. They have given us an opportunity to explain to sympathetic sections of the Argentinian media outlets the work that we do, and draw further attention to the historical injustices that shape indigenous people’s experiences in Argentina to this day. However, while we are ostensibly the targets of Bullrich’s claims, the real victims are the indigenous Mapuche who live in Argentina.
Bullrich has used these allegations to fuel anti-British sentiment among Argentines, who still recall the Falkland Islands conflict. 

These accusations have served as a way of inciting racism towards indigenous Mapuche people, who have now been painted by sections of the far right as collaborating with foreign powers in 
order to undermine Argentine sovereignty.

Instead of addressing the structural, historical and political causes of unrest in Argentina, the far-right, with Bullrich as their new icon, have been able to conveniently explain away unrest as simply the result of foreign interference. The political tactic of blaming outsiders for internal strife is as old as they come, and Bullrich likely has one eye on Argentina’s upcoming elections later this month.

The missing color of Benetton
Santiago Maldonado was taking part in a protest with the indigenous Mapuche Pu Lof community of Cushamen on the day that he was disappeared. The Pu Lof community has been in dispute with the Benetton company, which owns large swathes of indigenous ancestral land. Benetton is the largest land owner in 
Argentina, owning around 2 million acres. 

Much of the land was acquired in 1991 when the government sold off large amounts of state-owned and indigenous land to multi-national companies. The sell-off was done without consultation of indigenous people, in direct contravention of article 17, section 2 of ILO Convention 169, which Argentina delayed ratifying until 2000.
Benetton claim that they have been reluctantly dragged into this conflict, however they have been quick to employ the services of the local Gendarmerie to violently remove families from land under dispute. Land that the Mapuche have lived on for centuries.

The Mapuche conflict with Benetton has been long and is ongoing. However, the violence towards the Mapuche has been escalating in recent months. On January 10th, 2017 Argentinian armed forces opened fire on Mapuche in the Chubut region, who were reclaiming ancestral lands currently in the hands of Benetton. Around 200 Gendarmes attacked the community of Lof en Resistencia, Cushamen, which comprises fewer than two dozen adults and five children.

The attack left many community residents injured, two seriously. The armed forces then ransacked the main house, and arrested at least ten members of the community. There have been reports of harassment and physical abuse of women and children. Amnesty International have condemned the police actions.

The hypocrisy in Benetton’s business practices is hugely dispiriting. On the one hand, they cynically exploit the notion of a world of multicultural and ethnic harmony for profit, as reflected in their ‘United Colors of Benetton’ tagline.

Yet while profiteering on this image, they are simultaneously investing in land that was illegally and immorally seized from indigenous communities – depriving them of the basic means of subsistence and their ancestral homes. Their political and economic power has given tacit support to the violent evictions of Mapuche families from disputed lands, the latest incident resulting in the sinister disappearance of Santiago Maldonado.
From these actions, it is clear that the Mapuche are the missing colour of Benetton.

Looking forward
Patricia Bullrich’s contempt in neglecting indigenous people’s legitimate land claims by dismissing their resistance as instigated by foreign agitators and terrorists may well prove fatal to her party’s chances at the upcoming elections. Her slow and lacklustre response to the disappearance of Santiago Maldonado has generated outrage and may well bolster opposition parties, some of whom have reacted with the sense of urgency that his disappearance quite rightly requires.

On the two-month anniversary of his disappearance, it is important to continue the fight for Santiago’s return. And international pressure is building on this issue.

While we keep up this struggle, it is of upmost importance to remember the cause he was campaigning for when he was taken away: the disenfranchised Mapuche in Argentina. If we are to move forward in addressing the unrest in Argentina, then we must to look backwards with honesty to the causes of that unrest.

Mapuche people have long been the victims of the Argentinian state violence. In 1879 thousands of Mapuche were massacred in the ‘Conquest of the Desert’. The land that they had resided on and defended for centuries was violently seized. This is but one of a series of atrocities that have characterised the Argentinian and Chilean states relationship with Mapuche people.

The colonial history of the region has yet to be put to rest. It is only through engaging in consultation with Mapuche self-organised structures, and recognising the legitimacy of their claims to ancestral lands, that Argentina can move forward. Politicians behaving in the way that Patricia Bullrich has done do nothing to further that reconciliation.

This Author
Atus Mariqueo-Russell is the public relations officer of Mapuche International Link. He is a postgraduate philosophy student at Birkbeck University, and a former Green Party of England and Wales council candidate. He tweets at: @AtusMariqueo

Carole Concha Bell is the press officer of Mapuche International Link. She is a postgraduate creative writing student at Anglia Ruskin University.

Mapuche: Chile Responds To UN Concerns Over Indigenous Land Rights

Mapuche: Chile Responds To UN Concerns Over Indigenous Land Rights

http://www.unpo.org/article/16811
 Chilean justice minister Juan Ignacio Piña states that the repatriation of Mapuche land will be done within two years, but experts and activists remain wary of the proposed solution.  
Below is a press release published by The Santiago Times
Chile has confronted concerns from a U.N. working group on human rights regarding its treatment of indigenous people by pledging to return “100 percent” of disputed land to Mapuche communities, according to La Tercera.
Justice Minister Juan Ignacio Piña said that the government aims to resolve the ongoing problems of land patriation — a core issue for indigenous Mapuche activists — within the next two years.
However several indigenous experts contacted by The Santiago Times raised concerns about the wording of the proposed solution.
Since the Chilean state invaded the area south of Bío Bío River in the late 19th century — overriding the long-standing treaty with imperial Spain — successive governments have alternately seized land from and, to a lesser extent, returned property to Mapuche communities. The result is a patchwork of land ownership in the region with indigenous communities living alongside large estate owners who benefitted from forfeitures decades previously.
Hernando Silva, indigenous law expert, said that the disputed land referred to by the Chilean government was that which is registered with the National Indigenous Development Service (Conadi), set up in 1993 to deal with the land exchange. That land reflects only a fraction of the ancestral land claimed by many indigenous communities.
Silva also said that only the Mapuche people were referenced, while nothing was said of Chile’s other indigenous groups.
“The Atacameños also have land claims, as do the Rapa Nui,” he said.
Pedro Mariman, director of the human rights activist group Liwen Mapuche Research and Documentation Center (CEDM Liwen) said the proposed land — cited by Piña as more than 120,000 acres — was a far cry from the total contested by much of the community.
“The demand for land greatly surpasses what is registered by Conadi,” said Mariman, adding that any return of territory must also be accompanied by greater political autonomy for the indigenous community.

L'Afrique du Sud ouvre la voie à une déflagration foncière

Le Parlement sud-africain a donné le coup d'envoi d'une réforme de la Constitution pour autoriser l'expropriation sans compensation des terres agricoles au profit de la majorité noire.

Publié le 28/02/2018 à 16:11 | Le Point Afrique
http://afrique.lepoint.fr/economie/l-afrique-du-sud-ouvre-la-voie-a-une-deflagration-fonciere-28-02-2018-2198580_2258.php

Mardi 27 février : à une très large majorité, l'Assemblée nationale a voté en faveur d'un processus visant à modifier la Constitution pour autoriser l'expropriation des terres sans compensation. 324 des 400 députés étaient présents et 241 ont voté en faveur d'une motion mettant en place une commission chargée de réviser à cette fin l'article 25 de la loi fondamentale d'Afrique du Sud. Ce texte était défendu par le bouillant chef des Combattants pour la liberté économique (EFF, gauche radicale) Julius Malema.  La séance de mardi à l'Assemblée nationale a été marquée par un débat féroce entre les députés. Au cœur de leurs vifs échanges : l'article 25 de la Constitution qui exige une indemnisation juste et équitable en cas d'expropriation.

Réparer les injustices du passé

« Le temps de la réconciliation est fini. L'heure de la justice a sonné », a lancé le trublion Julius Malema dans l'hémicycle, « nous ne cherchons pas la vengeance (...) nous voulons retrouver notre dignité ». Près d'un quart de siècle après la chute de l'apartheid, la question de la redistribution des terres reste très controversée. Comme le reste de l'économie, l'agriculture reste largement aux mains des Blancs, qui détiennent 73 % des terres contre 85 % à la fin du régime raciste, selon une récente étude.
L'Afrique du Sud a connu trois transitions démocratiques depuis la fin de l'Apartheid, mais les conditions de vie n'ont pas beaucoup changé. Bien que certains progrès aient été réalisés, les hiérarchies qui existaient pendant l'apartheid n'ont pas été modifiées. Contrairement au Zimbabwe, qui a procédé à une redistribution autoritaire des terres confisquées à des fermiers blancs, l'Afrique du Sud de Nelson Mandela et Thabo Mbeki a opté pour un compromis politique à travers une réforme agraire «  assistée par le marché  ». 

La motion a été adoptée avec le soutien de l'ANC. Le nouveau président Cyril Ramaphosa a promis une réforme agraire destinée à « panser les plaies du passé et à accélérer la redistribution de la terre aux Sud-Africains noirs ». « Nous gérerons ce problème (...) d'une manière qui ne portera pas atteinte à l'économie », a-t-il précisé la semaine dernière, « nous n'autoriserons pas des interventions s'apparentant à du vol (...) nous ne ferons pas les erreurs que les autres ont commises ».

Les menaces politiques et sociales réelles

Le principal parti de l'opposition, l'Alliance démocratique, cependant, s'est opposé à la motion et, après son adoption, a expliqué pourquoi avoir voté contre. « Nous voulons faire clairement comprendre que le DA est totalement engagé à redresser l'histoire de la dépossession violente des terres en Afrique du Sud », a déclaré le parti dans un communiqué. « L'approche actuelle du gouvernement de l'ANC considère l'État comme des gardiens bienveillants de toutes les terres, avec des fermiers noirs privés de la possibilité de posséder des terres. Ceci, nous le soutenons, n'est pas une véritable réforme agraire. » « En plaidant pour l'expropriation sans compensation, l'ANC justifie son propre échec. L'expropriation sans compensation minerait gravement l'économie nationale, ne faisant qu'affaiblir encore plus les Noirs pauvres. Nous ne pouvons donc pas soutenir une telle approche. »

L'Association bancaire de SA (BASA) est également opposée à l'expropriation sans compensation. Son directeur général a déclaré que « les banques souhaitaient promouvoir la réforme agraire en fournissant des financements et en aidant les bénéficiaires à acquérir les compétences et l'équipement dont ils ont besoin, mais la question de la terre doit être abordée différemment. »

« Tout le domaine de la réforme agraire est une question légitime. En fin de compte, les gens ont été privés de leurs terres et la terre est à la fois un problème émotionnel et économique et nous devons le faire correctement... Si nous menaçons cette sécurité, il y aura de graves problèmes systémiques pour l'industrie. »

Quelques heures à peine après le vote, la monnaie sud-africaine, le rand s'est affaibli à 11,75 rands pour 1 dollar. Depuis plusieurs années, Julius Malema exhorte régulièrement ses troupes à « s'emparer des terres ». Ces propos lui ont valu autant de poursuites devant les tribunaux pour « incitation à l'effraction ». Il n'a toutefois pour l'heure pas été condamné.

Ce que dit la loi internationale

En 2009, l'Organisation des Nations unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) a publié un guide sur les meilleures pratiques internationales en matière d'expropriation. Le guide exige des procédures claires et transparentes pour l'acquisition forcée de biens, et une indemnisation qui garantira que les personnes affectées ne soient pas moins bien loties après l'expropriation qu'elles ne l'étaient auparavant.

Why Land Seizure Is Back in News in South Africa


Why Land Seizure Is Back in News in South Africa
By Arabile Gumede and Amogelang Mbatha
1 marzo 2018

From: 

More than two decades after white-minority rule ended in South Africa, most of its profitable farms and estates are still owned by white people, and about 95 percent of the country’s wealth is in the hands of 10 percent of the population. The ruling African National Congress has vowed to step up wealth distribution and promised “radical economic transformation,” including constitutional changes to allow the government to expropriate land without paying for it.

1. Why is land ownership an issue?
Under the rule of European colonists, South Africa’s Natives Land Act of 1913 stripped most black people of their right to own property, a policy reinforced decades later by the National Party and its system of apartheid, or apartness. A government land audit released in February showed that farms and agricultural holdings comprise 97 percent of the 121.9 million hectares of the nation’s area, and that whites own 72 percent of the 37 million hectares held by individuals. This tallies with the results of a separate audit released Nov. 1 by Agri Development Solutions and farm lobby group AGRI SA, which found non-whites own 27 percent of the nation’s farmland compared with 14 percent in 1994.

2. What’s been done until now?
Since 1994, when the ANC became the nation’s dominant post-apartheid party, the state has bought 4.9 million hectares -- about 4 percent of the country’s total territory -- for land redistribution, with about 3.4 million hectares assigned to new owners, according to former Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti. Those who didn’t want the land allocated to them opted for money instead, with 11.6 billion rand ($910 million) paid out from 1994 until January 2017. A separate initiative known as the 50-50 program, meant to encourage joint black-white land management, uses government funds to buy half a farmer’s land and give it to laborers working there. It started in 2016.

3. What changes are on the table?
Parliament had proposed legislation that would allow the government to pay “just and equitable” compensation -- meaning, less than market prices -- for land it expropriates. Former President Jacob Zuma sent the bill back to lawmakers, saying it wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Another bill, offered for public comment in March 2017 by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, would ban foreigners from buying agricultural land and require them instead to enter into long-term leases. It also calls for creating a commission that will set up a register of land ownership that will include race and the size of the holding. On Dec. 20, the ANC, under newly elected party president Cyril Ramaphosa, said expropriating land without compensation should be among mechanisms to effect land reform, as long as it doesn’t undermine the economy, agricultural production and food security.

4. What is the party’s plan?
On Feb. 27, lawmakers agreed to the principle of land expropriation without compensation, and parliament’s Constitutional Review Committee will report back to lawmakers on changes to section 25 of the Constitution by Aug. 30. The opposition Economic Freedom Fighters party proposed a motion to allow land seizures to the legislature, while the ANC proposed amendments. Zuma has also called for a precolonial audit of land ownership, use and occupation patterns.

5. Is taking land without compensation legal?
Not at the moment. AGRI SA, the biggest organization representing the country’s farmers, says the constitution doesn’t provide for expropriation without “just and equitable” compensation. Deprivation of property without compensation “constitutes a very serious breach of an individual’s rights," it said.

6. Why is the ANC doing this now?

The party was initially reticent to allow expropriation without paying. Under Zuma, it came under pressure as economic growth stagnated, and there were calls for his resignation from the opposition, civic leaders and senior officials in his own party, following a series of scandals and an unpopular cabinet reshuffle. He left as the nation’s president in February and was replaced by Ramaphosa. The ANC lost voters in 2016 local elections to parties including the EFF, and Zuma’s reputation eroded the party’s standing to such an extent that it was at risk of losing its majority in 2019 elections. The party needs policies that will gain traction among the nation’s poor, who make up the majority of the electorate.

7. What’s the outlook in parliament?

Two-thirds of lawmakers would have to assent to change the constitution. The ANC holds 62 percent of the seats. The EFF, South Africa’s third-biggest political party, has 6.4 percent .