Baogang He

Abstract A growing literature has examined various issues concerning indigenous rights in Asia. Yet the most urgent question is why, how and under what conditions the state recognizes it. Why do some countries accept the international call for indigenous right but others reject it? Without the state’s recognition, the cause of indigenous peoples and their rights looks dim. This paper examines the politics of the varied Asian responses to the international call for indigenous rights. It discusses reasons and conditions under which states or other actors endorse or deny indigenous people and their rights. The conclusion of the paper raises the issue of human agency in the politics of recognition.

Origin The notion of indigenous rights was developed in the West to address historical injustices perpetrated against indigenous peoples during Western colonialism. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have begun to recognise and negotiate the rights of indigenous people, including rights claims involving traditional lands. This is not so in many parts of Asia.

Definition The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention ( 1989) ‘s definition The initial definition of a group as “indigenous” is often controversial and problematic: the principle of self-identity; two criteria come into play, namely contenders and losers in the formation of the state In Europe Indigenous people=a minority, or =nomadic peoples ?

The Absence of Regional Response the UN’s Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples; the Organization of American States the Council of Europe the ASEAN Charter

National Responses Support: the Philippines, India, Nepal, Taiwan and Japan Ambiguous Cases: Singapore, Malaysia, Fiji Rejection: China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia

Varied Conditions The legacy of long-term history The legacy of colonialism State Building, the Developmental State and the State’s Control over Land Cultures and social attitudes The size of indigenous population

Conclusion (I) the applicability of the category of indigenous rights is problematic in circumstances where the ethnic groups are mixed, or nomadic or late-comers. Nevertheless, there are many clear-cut cases where the notion of indigenous rights is not only applicable but also vital to advance the interests of minority groups.

Conclusion (II) Favourable conditions include the emergence of a rights consciousness, the spread of democracy, the increasing number of NGOs in Asia who support indigenous rights, and the concern and action of the international community. Indigenous groups are now asserting their claims to ancestral lands in many Asian countries.

The main obstacles (a) the stage of economic and political development; (b) the legacy of colonialism and decolonization in creating distinctive patterns of inter-group relations; (c) minorities in a particular Asian country may have different characteristics, in terms of size, history, identity, territorial concentration; (d) differences in underlying cultural values - eg., local cultural or religious traditions may contradict Western liberal principles.

Human agency Citizens or states is capable of modifying and changing the direction of the conditions towards a more just society or conversely of manipulating them for personal or political strategic gain. All depends on how leaders and civil society groups make use of complex conditions.

Human Agency Issue Hassan (2007, p171) poses a sharp question: “must Asian countries ever remain captive to those constraining legacies? Can they not tread a fresh path that ensures citizenship rights?” Asian leaders and civil society groups must challenge the conservative elements of society and exercise moral leadership in changing public opinion and social practices to build up a more decent, inclusive and just society where indigenous people are better off than before.