The politics of indigenous identity: neoliberalism, cultural rights, and the Mexican Zapatistas

Social Research, Summer, 2003 by Courtney Jung

The indigenous rights movement played an important role in the development of ILO Convention 169, a revision of Convention 107 that recognizes "the aspirations of [indigenous] peoples to exercise control over their own institutions, ways of life and economic development and to maintain and develop their identifies, languages and religions, within the frameworks of the States in which they live" (Anaya, 1996: 48). In addition to the protection of cultural integrity through the recognition of social, cultural, religious, and spiritual traditions, the convention also recognizes rights in land and resources by introducing a weak but important conception of territory and habitat. Convention 169 enshrines the right of indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities for development in light of the social inequality suffered by indigenous peoples; it also recognizes the systematic violation of their citizenship and human rights. The convention came into force with ratification from Norway and--ironically--Mexico, in 1990. Convention 169 is widely perceived as a fundamental challenge to the individual/state dichotomy that has shaped international standards of justice, and it has opened a space at the international level for indigenous groups to act as legitimate political actors.

The president of the Asociacion Nacional Indigena Plural por la Autonomia (National Plural Indigenous Association for Autonomy, or ANIPA), one of Mexico's most active indigenous rights organizations, describes the importance of this political appeal to Mexican indigenous rights activists. "States themselves put the noose around their necks when they sign these international conventions. Because then there are verification committees, and other things that can be used by indigenous groups, if they know how to use them. These mechanisms are like a tiny door of entry, but if we know how to use it, it can be very successful" (interview with Margarita Gutierrez, May 2001).

In fact, it is the international language of rights and the existence of international meetings and organizations that establish the very condition of indigenous identity. When I met with one indigenous rights activist in August 2000, I was surprised to hear her say that "the Zapatistas are not indigenous." Although the Mexican government has often accused the rebels of taking on a false identity, I did not expect to hear this argument from a fellow member of the left. Instead, she went on to explain that the Zapatistas were not indigenous because they did not attend the Indigenous Peoples Conference annual meetings in Geneva, they were not familiar with the appropriate discourse of indigenous rights, and they were not part of the international community of indigenous rights activists (interview with Araceli Burguete, August 2000). That access to indigenous identity is determined not primarily by bloodline or ancestry but by familiarity with the international discourse and politics of indigenous rights highlights the distinctly political character of indigenous identity.