Transnational Networking and the Social Production

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 343

Transnational Networking and the Social Production of Representations of Identities by Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of Latin America Daniel Mato Universidad Central de Venezuela abstract: This article discusses how some current transnational relations between global agents and indigenous peoples’ organizations in Latin America impress the representations of identities and associated ideas of these organizations in combination with being useful in the achievement of these organizations’ goals for their peoples. Such a discussion serves two main purposes: (1) to contribute to the development of a theory of social change in the current age of globalization through criticizing the established scholarly practice of studying ‘local’ cases as if they actually exist, or as if they may at least be detached from the world orders in which they take part without any significant consequence; and (2) to criticize the colonial legacy of area studies, anthropology and other academic disciplines of studying ‘the Other’ – very often indigenous peoples – which, independently of researchers’ intentions, contribute to informing agents of the colonial or post-colonial powers and trying instead to produce knowledge that is potentially useful to ‘local’ agents about ‘global’ agents, their practices and the impact they may have on ‘local’ agents’ practices. A few illustrative examples taken from the author’s field and documentary research about some current experiences in Latin America are used to show how transnational networks of ‘local’ grassroots organizations and diverse kinds of ‘local’ intermediary nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and ‘global agents’ (i.e. international agencies, bilateral cooperation agencies, the multilateral banks, transnational foundations, as well as transnational social movements and NGOs) play significant roles in the social making of representations of indigenous peoples’ identities and associated ideas. International Sociology ✦ June 2000 ✦ Vol 15(2): 343–360 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) [0268-5809(200006)15:2;343–360;012891]

343

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 344

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 keywords: globalization ✦ identity ✦ indigenous peoples ✦ Latin America ✦ transnational networks

Ongoing globalization processes1 challenge indigenous peoples’ lives in diverse ways. Nevertheless, beyond such a diversity there are some significant commonalities. These processes seem to be, to a significant extent, fueled by ‘global’ agents whose practices are in one way or another informed by the systems of representation, values and beliefs of so-called ‘developed’ western societies – those of the USA, Canada and Western Europe. Most of us are already conscious that a number of ‘mainstream’ national and transnational economic and political forces are avidly seeking to gain control over indigenous peoples’ territories, resources and knowledge. But we rarely pay attention to the fact that, at the same time, numerous self-considered ‘alternative’ organizations from the ‘developed’ world (some of which actually advance agendas that may be in certain ways ‘alternative’ to those of mainstream agencies) are also actively exposing indigenous peoples to their systems of representation. Not surprisingly, at least some of these values, beliefs and representations become part of these peoples’ experiences and, therefore, are more or less critically appropriated or, at the very least, become unavoidable references from which to differentiate themselves in the social processes of producing their representations of both their collective selves and their diverse aspects of experience. Among these more or less alternative organizations are, for example, conservationist and other ‘green’ organizations, indigenous peoples’ advocacy organizations, museums, anthropologists, journalists, musicians, film-makers and others. According to statistics elaborated by the Inter-American Development Bank, there are about 400 differentiable Amerindian groups in ‘Latin’ America, and the total Amerindian population is usually estimated at about 40 million. Amerindians represent about 10 percent of the region’s total population, but in Bolivia and Guatemala they constitute more than half of the population, in Peru and Ecuador almost half of the population, in Mexico and Honduras about 15 percent, in Chile about 8 percent and in the rest of the region’s countries between 1 and 7 percent, except in Brazil where they constitute 0.2 percent of the population (PAHO, 1993, Annex II: 7). The figures of indigenous population in various ‘Latin’ American countries are subjects of dispute particularly between governments and indigenous peoples’ organizations. Assertions as to the relative significance of these populations play a key role in legitimizing the claims and policies of both sides. 344

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 345

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples

Images of Transnational Networking To begin, it may be significant to quote a sarcastic comment made to me by Felipe Tsenkush, at that moment the leader of the Federation of the Shuar and Achuar peoples, from Ecuador, in the course of a personal conversation. He said: Most people don’t know, but it takes a lot of work to be an indigenous leader these days. One has to send and receive a lot of faxes, attend numerous international meetings; and now, one also has to learn how to handle email. (my translation)

I see his words as an eloquent statement about the importance that transnational networking has acquired for the practices of indigenous peoples’ organizations. Nevertheless, these words do not tell us yet about the significance of these transnational relations in the social making of representations of these peoples’ identities and/or of other concepts that play critical roles in the formulation of their sociopolitical agendas.

Indigenous Peoples in a Transnational Festival It may be useful to consider the declarations of Manuel Ortega, a leader of the Embera people, from the region of Darien in Panama, during an interview I had with him in July 1994. He said: . . . we are requesting support from any international body . . . because there are two steps of the mapping process that we have been advancing that still need to be completed. Because of this we hope that somebody may give us financial support to complete this process. Because if we suspend this mapping, too many things will be lost for the indigenous peoples: the botanic, the wild animal life, the biosphere, the biodiversity, the environment, the ecology; there is much to be lost in these matters. It is because of this that we want . . . a support . . . because we are poor in financial terms, but rich in intelligence and rich in natural resources. (my translation)2

It is worth noting how many critical words Ortega used in a single and brief statement. By ‘critical words’ I mean those words that in recent times have become politically significant in indigenous peoples’ struggles to recover and/or keep control of their ancestral territories. The particular words he used should also be noticed. Notably, he has not only used those that are more broadly disseminated but also some of those that are part of more specialized vocabularies as, for example, the ‘biosphere’ and ‘biodiversity’ – two words that are not at all common for lay people and even less so for a person whose first language was not Spanish, but his indigenous language. As I came to learn through our conversations, Ortega had incorporated those expressions into his vocabulary from his exchanges with representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from 345

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 346

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 both Panama and abroad. The incorporation of these words is meaningful because they come to provide meaning to certain practices of the Embera people and its organizations in terms that are acceptable to Panamanian and foreign governmental and non-governmental agencies. If Manuel Ortega’s statement is significant by itself, as well as an indicator of the significance of the larger processes from which it comes, it becomes even more significant if we place it in the context in which it was issued: the Culture and Development Program of the 1994 assembly of the Festival of American Folklore. This festival has been organized every year by the Smithsonian Institution since 1967, and it takes place in the so-named National Mall in Washington, DC, a few blocks from both the US Congress and the White House. The 1994 Festival was structured into four programs, one of which was suggestively named ‘Culture and Development’. Significantly, the Culture and Development Program was organized not just by the Smithsonian Institution, which is considered the US national museum, but also, and as a co-organizer, by the Inter-American Foundation, a US agency that directly depends on the US Congress for its budget and policies and whose mission at that time was to support ‘grassroots development’ in Latin America – this mission was changed in 1996 to supporting ‘local development’. Also significant for the purpose of this article is the fact that this Festival program was not only attended by the general public; but also by officers of the US Energy Department, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other US governmental agencies; by officers of the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank; as well as by representatives of NGOs that work in fields like development, environment, human rights and so on. This is the context in which Manuel Ortega told me and others about his expectations of getting support for his organization’s project of mapping the Emberas’ lands as a tool for legitimating this people’s control over their ancestral territory as a means to ‘preserving’ its botanical value and other assets. From the beginning, this mapping process has been implemented with the support of ‘Tierras Nativas/Native Lands’, a US-based NGO. An important point here is that – beyond the specific case of this particular US-based NGO – this kind of global–local link is not unique, but it has also been instrumental in other mapping experiences advanced by the indigenous peoples in Latin America. In other cases technical and financial support for these mapping experiences have come from the Peace Corps and USAID. At this point, I want to state clearly that I am just arguing about the significance for the social making of representations and related sociopolitical agendas of the fact that these indigenous peoples’ organizations and their leadership are involved in diverse symbolic and resource 346

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 347

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples transactions with a variety of ‘global’ agents. I am not implying any denial of the legitimacy of these indigenous peoples’ struggles for their territories or other rights, nor am I implying that they might be serving foreign interests, as has often been stated by Latin American governments and the armed forces. Quite the contrary, I think these peoples have been forced to seek extra-national support because national governments and diverse national groups of power have increasingly encroached their territories and deny them any rights. Another significant contextual accompaniment to Ortega’s words are the statements made by Facundo Sanapí, also an Embera representative, who shared responsibility for the presentations with Ortega. The particular Festival site at which Ortega and Sanapí made their presentations was less visually attractive than other sites. It was an ample tent with two open sides, within which some maps and photographs were displayed on the wall and in a glass showcase. There were no colorful handicrafts displayed at this site, as there were at other Festival sites. The two Embera representatives, along with a representative of the Federación ShuarAchuar from Ecuador, made their presentations wearing contemporary, manufactured clothes. Although the matter presented at this site was strikingly important for the survival of these indigenous peoples it did not typically attract as many visitors as most of the others. Sanapí attributed this difference to the fact that the most visited sections of the Festival were those in which the indigenous peoples’ representatives wore colorful ‘traditional’ costumes, performed their dances, sang their songs, or displayed beautiful handicrafts. He was very worried about this circumstance, and in connection with it he repeatedly said during his daily presentations that: I am here in foreign clothes, because this costume [at this point he indicated the regular, mass-produced pants, shirt and shoes that he was wearing] is not mine. This is not my culture, I am in a foreign culture. I left my culture at home, because, to tell you the truth, in my home I use my culture. Here I am surprised that everyone, every ethnicity [he used the word etnia in Spanish] has its culture while I am in foreign clothes, and this is very painful to me. (emphases added; my translation)3

Facundo Sanapí felt pained by this situation when I privately interviewed him later. He then told me that wearing their own indigenous clothes, the guayuco that only covers men’s genitals, and body-painting would have been very important for them in order to demonstrate . . . that there are also indigenous peoples who truly still conserve their tradition in the Darien [the region of Panama that constitutes their territory]. The work we are presenting here is very important, it is a process and a document that are very important for us. But we should present it as indigenous peoples in order

347

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 348

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 to make the public see that those who present this document are true indigenous individuals. (emphasis added; my translation)4

Sanapí continued, saying that if the Smithsonian invited them again they would come wearing their own costumes. Importantly, this was a matter about which he and Ortega devoted some time to elaborate, and both agreed that this was what they would have to do in the future. Indeed, they came on the last day of the Festival with their bodies painted with some improvised elements, but they were not satisfied with the result and had not bared their skins except for their chests and backs, and this was for only a few hours. It seems that through this experience they had concluded that in order to make their point regarding control of their lands and be more effective in obtaining the needed financing it was necessary that they not only be indigenous people but to appear as such before the eyes of their potential allies; that they had to represent their Indian-ness, or their cultural distinctiveness, in terms that had already been coded by their potential allies, that they had to act up the link between ‘culture’ and ‘development’. The realizations by Ortega and Sanapí tell us, I believe, about the significance of global–local relations in the making of certain social representations. In the current times of globalization their people – as well as other indigenous peoples, and their leaderships and organizations – are involved in diverse symbolic and material transactions with a variety of both global and domestic agents. In order to be heard in their rightful demands they need to negotiate with a variety of such agents. It seems plausible to assume that they have realized that in order to advance their struggles for their territories and other rights they need to negotiate their own codes with the codes of those who hold financial and political power and who, at the same time, are willing to back their demands. I do not think, however, like most Latin American governments often do in relation to situations like this, that the indigenous peoples are serving foreign interests. These peoples have been forced to seek transnational connections precisely because national governments and diverse national groups of power have increasingly encroached upon their territories and denied them any rights, as has been abundantly documented by numerous organizations in several forums and, particularly, before the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the 1990s. But let me return to what may be learned from the experience of the Culture and Development Program of the Smithsonian’s Festival, as a global event organized by global agents. Another interesting point here is that this program, as some others before it, was a manifestation of larger fields of transnational relations and a locus for transnational 348

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 349

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples cultural-political representations, confrontations and negotiations connected with indigenous peoples’ struggles for their rights in Latin American countries. Documents studied and interviews conducted allow me to affirm that not only the two US-based agencies, but also the 18 organizations from Latin America involved in the Culture and Development Program – most of them of indigenous peoples – had had significant experience in developing transnational relations before the Festival. Nevertheless, there are qualitative differences in both the extent of transnational experience and the knowledge about regional and global tendencies managed by diverse agents and, particularly, when comparing ‘global’ vis-a-vis ‘local’ agents. Global agents usually have notable advantage in regard to both the amount of their transnational experience and in managing information about the other end of the relation and its circumstances – that is, those of the ‘local agents’. Strikingly, this advantage is assured not only through the very involved global agents’ direct experience and research, but also through privileged access to archives, libraries and other documentation sources that store the products of both other global agents and scholarly research. I highlight this last point because I think that the roles played in these processes by academic institutions, as well as those played by the institutions that support that scholarly research, deserve our attention and must become an issue of debate. With this remark I am obviously pointing to the colonial legacy of anthropology, but this discipline is not the only problematic case, so-called ‘area studies’ also involve much matter for critical thinking and debate (see Mato, 1996b, 1997c). The fact that small and local indigenous peoples’ and peasants’ organizations as well as small service-provider NGOs have important experience in maintaining transnational relations and developing global strategies should not surprise anyone. These have been part of their institutional practices, in some cases even since their very inception and in some others at least for many years. The creation of many of the Festival’s participating organizations, like that of many others in the region, has been significantly linked to the practices of a variety of ‘global’ agents (see Mato, 1997c). Developing transnational relations has been necessary for them, particularly since the 1970s, due to political repression and difficult economic conditions that have been diversely but strongly associated not only with domestic but also with global factors, like US government-supported coups-d’etat and military regimes, external debt crises, so-called structural adjustment programs and associated compensatory social programs involving local organizations and NGOs, and so on. Developing global strategies and transnational relations has been even more imperative and significant for most indigenous peoples’ organizations in the region than for other kinds of grassroots organizations and diverse kinds of NGOs. 349

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 350

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 They have gained notable experience in acting globally and networking transnationally in recent years (see Brysk, 1994; Mato, 1996c, 1997c). Transnational networking is an important motive for the leadership’s participation in events organized by global agents – both for developing their own projects and/or raising support for ongoing conflicts with the governments of the countries in which indigenous peoples live – as I learned through interviews with representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations participating in the Festival, as well as in other global events. Their statements in these interviews referred not only to the Festival but also to other events in which they had participated before such as, for example, the New York Amazon Week that is annually celebrated in New York, and the UN Conference on Environment and Development that was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, also named ‘the Earth Summit’. The networks in which they participate and that become visible during the Festival are large and stable and are informed by representations of a large universe of such so-called ‘culture and development’ issues as: ‘Indian-ness’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘indigenous knowledge’, ‘ethnodevelopment’, ‘ethnotourism’, ‘ethnic arts and crafts’, ‘organic agriculture’, ‘rural communications’, ‘human rights’, ‘environmental conservation’ and others. In other words, in terms of the importance of transnational connections, what I observed at the Festival was merely something like ‘the tip of the iceberg’ that is constituted by many large processes involving transnational articulations of social agents worldwide. The fact is that transnational connections have linked indigenous peoples’ organizations not only with global agents but also among themselves. The ‘modern’ inter-local organizing of indigenous communities within nation-states’ borders became visible in Latin America in the early 1960s and rapidly increased in the 1970s–1980s, but today, only about 30 years after those first steps, there are several hundred indigenous peoples’ local, regional (subnational), national and transnational organizations. This organizing is closely connected to numerous globalizing factors, and it has also been a significant globalizing factor itself due to this social movement’s practices toward building transnational connections, even beyond Latin America. This organizing has been a response not only to the long-lasting exclusions and inequalities noted above but also (and especially) to more recent factors that are intimately related to various current global processes. I cannot elaborate on these factors in this article, but I have analyzed some of them in former publications (Mato, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b). For this article I limit myself to a summary of that discussion, as follows. These new factors include renewed encroachment into indigenous 350

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 351

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples territories by transnational corporations, national and transnational agribusinesses and cattle-ranchers, and specific national governments’ policies and practices such as mining and oil licensing; as well as the application of ‘structural adjustment programs’, land colonization and other state programs that were implemented to diminish fiscal deficits and to ‘alleviate’ (according to the official vocabulary) the growing poverty of certain population groups – a poverty resulting largely from the very ‘adjustment’ programs – that have been internationally and transnationally negotiated by ‘Latin’ American governments in recent years. These factors have forced the territorial displacement of indigenous populations often to urban settings, which results in their separation from the natural resources from which they had made their living and sometimes also their transformation into peasants, household servants, workers, street vendors and so forth. These phenomena have favored the relations between different ethnic groups, as well as their relations with national and transnational NGOs dedicated to diverse kinds of issues (environment, human rights, etc.), international and bilateral agencies’ personnel, journalists, intellectuals and others. At the same time, globalizing factors of other kinds have also stimulated and enabled representatives of diverse indigenous peoples to meet each other and begin to develop regular relationships, representations of identity, organizational forms and associated sociopolitical agendas. The adoption of Convention 169 on Tribal and Indigenous Peoples by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1989 was particularly significant. This Convention was the first international instrument to attempt to define what kinds of populations may be recognized as indigenous peoples by the international system, as well as to establish their rights within this system. Also important has been the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations – from ‘Latin’ America and other regions of the world – in the annual meetings of the UNWGIP, as well as their incorporation into the World Bank’s consultative meetings, which have resulted to a good extent from the lobbying and public campaigns developed by environmentalist transnational NGOs. Travel to these and other meetings has often been supported by transnational foundations and NGOs. The UN declaration of 1993 as the Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples and the subsequent establishment of the Decade of Indigenous Peoples have not only been important symbolic advancements, but they also have provided further opportunities for representatives of these peoples to meet and develop their representations of a shared identity and to organize and promote their agendas at national and transnational levels. This has also happened on a more specific Latin American level, as consultations with indigenous peoples’ organizations by the Inter-American Development Bank and the Inter-American 351

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 352

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 Commission on Human Rights have also been significant. In addition, since 1993 representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations have been part of the tripartite board of directors of a recently created international mechanism, the Indigenous Peoples’ Fund, where they constitute the only stateless bloc of the three parts of the board (see Mato, 1998b). These activities have not only enabled indigenous people to voice their positions in international forums and gain international legitimacy for their agendas vis-a-vis their respective national governments, but they have also provided them with opportunities to meet and network among themselves and with key global agents. Some of these global agents have indeed been instrumental in making it possible for indigenous peoples’ representatives to gain access to these forums. The participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in most of these meetings and networks has been logistically and financially supported by a number of ‘global agents’ (e.g. religious organizations, foundations and environmentalist and human rights advocacy NGOs, that operate at global levels) with which they have developed diverse relationships. It is not possible to offer an account of the numerous transnational connections with both peer and global agents of the indigenous peoples’ organizations from Latin America. Discussions of some of these significant relations have been offered in numerous publications (e.g. Albó, 1991; Adams, 1993; Brysk, 1994; Mato, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b; Stavenhagen, 1994), and they illustrate the fact that the examples, or partial images, offered here are not exceptional cases but part of larger dynamics.

Amazon Basin Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations, Environmentalist NGOs and the Declaration of Iquitos In May 1990, the first Amazonian Summit of Indigenous Peoples’ and Environmentalist Organizations took place in Iquitos (Peru). This summit, which resulted in the signing of the Declaration of Iquitos, was organized by the Coordinating Body for the Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), which links together indigenous peoples’ organizations from Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Surinam and Guyana. Before discussing the summit itself, it may be significant to comment briefly on the creation of COICA and the relevance of both international and transnational relations in its experiences. In 1981 the Inter-American Indigenist Institute, an official agency of the Organization of American States, sponsored the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives in the context of an official meeting of the Amazon Basin Cooperation Treaty held in Puyo (Ecuador). This treaty is an intergovernmental mechanism that involves eight South American countries. The agenda was to create a Treaty Commission of Indigenous Affairs, which would 352

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 353

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples be constituted by governments’ representatives. As Miguel Tankamash, a leader of the Shuar and Achuar peoples’ Federation from Ecuador and one of the indigenous peoples’ representatives at that meeting, recently told me: ‘They wanted our consent to name their own commission, but we talked among ourselves and refused to give them that consent’ (interview 7 February 1994). The indigenous participants met again among themselves in Lima (Peru) in 1982 and, once again, in Puerto Ayacucho (Venezuela) in 1983 during a new official meeting of the Treaty. According to Tankamash declarations, these meetings contributed to increasing relations among indigenous leaders at a personal level and to their learning about the commonality of their peoples’ problems, but they did not lead to the creation of any institutional body. Then, in 1984, ‘several northern NGOs funded a meeting of delegates from the national indigenous peoples’ organizations of five Amazonian countries along with their advocates and advisors’ (Smith, 1994: 24), which was held in Lima (Peru). The main results of the meeting were the preparation of a common presentation for the 1984 sessions of the UNWGIP in Geneva and the creation of COICA. COICA’s presentation at the 1984 meeting in Geneva was very successful, and its representatives have participated in that forum since then. These travels have also served for networking with European Green parties, labor movements and ecological and indigenous peoples’ advocacy organizations. In 1986 the president of COICA was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, made a press tour through Stockholm, London, Boston and Washington, and was received by the president of the World Bank. COICA presently has a consultant status with the World Bank, which resulted, in part, from the lobbying of certain transnational environmental NGOs – as I learned through interviews. In 1991, after the 1990 Summit held in Iquitos, COICA signed an alliance for the protection of the Amazon with several dozen major cities from Germany, Austria and Holland. This alliance was possible thanks to the support of the European Greens, and it provided COICA great press coverage in consolidating a relationship with the European Economic Community (Smith, 1994: 28). But this was not the only transnational activity that COICA held in 1991. The same year, COICA also participated in an effort promoted by the World Rainforest Movement of London that finally led to a conference held in Penang (Malaysia) that was attended by representatives of African, Asian and American indigenous peoples who signed an alliance and declaration, the Declaration of the Tropical Forest Tribal-Indigenous Peoples. It is remarkable that the Declaration itself states that indigenous peoples will use it as a basis for promoting local strategies of action (Smith, 1994: 28–9; Orinoco Indígena, 1992: 1, 6–7). These transnational alliances have been useful to the indigenous 353

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 354

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 peoples’ organizations for two purposes. They have counterbalanced the transnational threat that states and transnational corporations pose, and they have been a strategy for contending and making proposals at the national level, something that is explicit not only in the Declaration of Penang, but also in several of COICA’s leadership statements. It is significant to take into account the following declaration of Valerio Grefa, a Quichua from Napo province in Ecuador, who at the time he spoke was the head of COICA, and who was formerly the head of CONFENAIE – the confederation of the Amazon indigenous peoples from Ecuador, that is the Ecuadorian member of COICA – for three consecutive terms. Grefa said: We have established as one of our basic objectives that the Amazon basin be considered a universal unit, a global unit, which calls on its protagonists – the Indigenous people – to raise our voice of attention, our voice of protest to the world, because the Amazon basin is the last frontier of tropical forest and of biodiversity in which the basic rights of the first nations are involved. (SAIIC, 1993: 13; my emphases)

COICA’s leadership addresses the concerns of Amazonian indigenous peoples and speaks on their behalf with external social agents. In order to exist and develop its mission COICA’s leadership – which is constituted from and overlaps with the leadership of diverse countries’ Amazonian indigenous peoples’ organizations – assumes, postulates and participates in the social making of representations of an Amazon indigenous peoples’ collective identity. The rhetoric of COICA’s positions reveals a high level of exchanges with the rhetoric of transnational environmentalist organizations, as shown in a vocabulary that often talks in terms of ‘biodiversity’ and ‘global’ concerns. Of course, I do not imply that this positioning is bad, nor do I suggest that this positioning and vocabulary results from the subordination of the indigenous peoples’ leadership to the environmentalist discourse. I just show that the relationship exists and that this leadership, as any social agent, learns from experience, and that, in this case, experience contributes to resignify their previous perception of their environmentally related problems. The declared objective of the summit held in Iquitos in 1990 was to discuss and produce alternative development strategies to counter the deterioration of the Amazonian ‘biosphere’. The Declaration was signed by representatives of COICA and all of its constitutive country organizations, as well as by representatives of Greenpeace, Survival International, Cultural Survival, Conservation International, Oxfam America, the Ford Foundation, the Inter-American Foundation and 17 other global organizations based in Europe and the USA, as well as one Peruvian conservationist organization. The Declaration established a formal alliance for ‘an 354

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 355

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples Amazon basin for humanity’. This alliance framed significant programmatic agreements to struggle for among other things: the establishment of indigenous peoples’ territories in which these peoples can develop management and conservation programs, the guarantee of international assistance for those programs, the recognition of indigenous peoples’ proposals for the management and conservation of the Amazon Basin, advances in land and social rights and cultural affirmation of indigenous peoples. The Declaration also established a formal coordinating committee to work in defense of ‘an indigenous Amazon basin’. I think that the double characterization of the Amazon basin as ‘indigenous’ and ‘for humanity’ is significant. It expresses both convergences and differences between the two sides of the alliance: the indigenous organizations and the global agents.

Final Remarks Transnational networks of ‘local’ grassroots organizations, diverse kinds of ‘local’ intermediary NGOs and certain ‘global agents’ (foreign and international cooperation agencies, multilateral banking, transnational foundations and transnational NGOs) affect with their own representations and agendas the social processes through which indigenous peoples’ organizations produce representations of their own identities and associated political agendas. Though still fragmentary images, the examples cited in this article illustrate the existence of a certain diversity of the transnational relations that are involved in some current transnational and ‘local’ cultural processes and related political agendas in Latin America, as well as significant interrelations between some of these processes. They also teach us about the roles played in these processes by what I call ‘global agents’. The cases explored in this article make questionable any assumptions that ‘global’ and ‘local’ agents exist as separate realities, since both kinds of agents have become increasingly interconnected. The support given by global organizations to local agents and/or to local–local transnational networks is not a conspiratorial, secret activity, as Latin American governments almost invariably state in order to delegitimize the indigenous peoples’ and other grassroots organizations that maintain relations with these global agents. The support these ‘global’ organizations give to ‘local’ agents and local–local transnational networks is public and part of the institutional rationale, policies and practices of those organizations. Why is it so important to include global agents’ practices in the study of cases that are usually constructed as ‘local’, ‘domestic’, or transnationally ‘local’ to ‘local’? Because they do take part in these processes, and 355

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 356

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 they do it with certain characteristics that are not only politically – which is almost obvious – but also theoretically significant. The systematic consideration of global agents’ practices is imperative in order to explain social change in the age of globalization, because global agents do bring into assumedly ‘local’ or ‘domestic’ contexts social representations, conflicts and agendas from other societies. These agents’ institutional rationales, policies and specific agendas are informed by the particular systems of representations of their societies of origin and/or of those of their constituencies, mainly the USA and Western European countries – including conflicts between different social agents that rest on particular social representations. This is not to say that the large variety of NGOs that I include under the label of ‘global agents’ – jointly with international and bilateral cooperation agencies – represent the interests of the national governments of their country of origin, although we must note that they must keep accountable to their governments and observe national laws and specific restrictions on their activities. But if they do not necessarily represent the perspectives of their countries’ governments, they must at the very least be attentive to public opinion in their countries of origin (cf. Carroll, 1992: 153; Moseley-Williams, 1994: 55). Besides, we cannot ignore that some global agents effectively are foreign government agencies like USAID and its equivalents for Canadian and Western European countries, whose missions and restrictions are politically established by these respective governments. Moreover, the influence of ‘northern’ governments goes beyond the direct activities of their own agencies (both official and unofficial), because some of them also grant monies that are an important part of some transnational NGOs’ budgets, and these monies can only be disbursed for certain purposes and in accordance with certain rules and restrictions posed by these governments. Similarly, many transnational NGOs have now become mere subcontractors of USAID and the World Bank. Project agendas which are informed by certain global agents’ representations and reinforce certain social representations in the field are defined by these bilateral cooperation or multilateral banking agents, not by the subcontracted NGOs and even less by ‘local’ agents, although the latters’ views are supposedly taken into account in the design of the project – the strong limitations of this ‘participation’ have been recognized even in World Bank documents (e.g. Clark, 1991; Mato, 1998c, in press; Salmen and Eaves, 1989; Tendler, 1982). From what I have discussed in this article we can draw just a few generalizations: (1) that global agents’ practices affect the practices of local and domestic agents worldwide in diverse ways; (2) that one important way in which global agents affect the practices of local and domestic 356

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 357

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples agents is by exposing the latter to their institutional systems of representation which inform their policies and practices and are supported by their financial and political power; (3) that there is no reason why one might disqualify a priori these systems of representation, but that an elementary fact is that they are related to the particular systems of values and conflicts of their societies of origin or of specific social groups within their societies of origin; but, also, (4) that the particular outcomes produced by the articulations between the practices of these global agents and domestic and local agents depend on numerous circumstances; and that (5) each global agent and its policies and practices constitutes a unique case, and that we cannot make generalizations in this particular regard. It is particularly because of the latter that research on global agents is much needed; each global agent must be considered a potential case study. Global agents do investigate every part of the planet they want to, but they resist being investigated themselves.

Notes This article has benefited from the valuable feedback offered to me by Anibal Quijano, Atilio Borón and, particularly, by Göran Therborn. 1. I have studied aspects of several current global processes, discussed theoretically the idea of globalization and proposed the idea of the ‘age of globalization’ through a series of publications (Mato, 1994, 1995, 1996a, 1997c, 1999b). 2. His statement in Spanish was: ‘nosotros estamos pidiendo un apoyo a cualquier organismo internacional . . . porque a ese proceso de mapeo le falta dos etapas para terminar. Por eso nosotros esperamos alguien que financie, que alguien nos ayude a nosotros en ese sentido. Porque si nosotros dejamos eso, se van a perder muchas cosas en sectores indígenas, primero la botánica, la fauna silvestre, la biósfera, la biodiversidad, el medio ambiente, la ecología, ahi se va a perder mucho. Por eso nosotros queremos . . . un apoyo . . . porque la verdad es que somos pobres en ese sentido [financiero] pero ricos en inteligencia y ricos en recursos naturales.’ 3. His statement in Spanish was: ‘Bueno yo estoy en cueros ajenos porque este vestido [refiriéndose a los pantalones y camisa de producción industrial que llevaba puestos, D.M.] no es mío. Esta no es mi cultura, yo estoy en cultura ajena. Mi cultura la dejé en mi casa, porque la verdad es que yo, en mi casa, yo uso mi cultura. Aquí yo, me han sorprendido, que todo el mundo, las etnias tienen su cultura, vestimenta, y yo estoy en cueros ajenos, vestido ajeno, eso me ha sorprendio bastante, me mortifica eso.’ 4. His statement in Spanish was: ‘que en el Darien también hay indígenas que todavía verdaderamente conservan su tradición. . . . El trabajo que estamos presentando en este momento es un proceso que verdaderamente para nosotros

357

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 358

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 es un documento importante. Pero debiéramos presentar como indígenas entonces para que el público viera que verdaderamente es un indígena presentando en esa forma.’

Bibliography Adams, Richard (1993) ‘Indian Pueblos in the Global Process’, paper presented at the Annual Congress of the Inter-American Indigenist Institute, Managua, Nicaragua, 23 November. Albó, Xavier (1991) ‘El retorno del indio’, Revista andina 9(2): 299–366. Brysk, Alison (1994) ‘Acting Globally: Indian Rights and International Politics in Latin America’, in Donna Lee Van Cott (ed.) Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin America, pp. 29–53. New York: St Martin’s Press. Carroll, Thomas (1992) Intermediary NGOs: The Supportive Link in Grassroots Development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Clark, John (1991) Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Healy, Kevin (1992) ‘Allies and Opposition Groups to the 1990 Indigenous Political Mobilizations in Ecuador and Bolivia’, paper presented at the XVII International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Los Angeles, 24–27 September. Mato, Daniel (1994) ‘Procesos de construcción de identidades en América Latina en tiempos de globalización’, in Daniel Mato (ed.) Teoría y política de la construcción de identidades y diferencias en América Latina y el Caribe, pp. 251–61. Caracas: UNESCO/Nueva Sociedad. Mato, Daniel (1995) Crítica de la modernidad, globalización y construcción de identidades en América Latina y el Caribe. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela. Mato, Daniel (1996a) ‘Procesos culturales y transformaciones sociopolíticas en América “Latina” en tiempos de globalización’, in D. Mato, M. Montero and E. Amodio (eds) América Latina en tiempos de globalización. Caracas: UNESCO/Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología/Universidad Central de Venezuela. Mato, Daniel (1996b) ‘On the Theory, Epistemology, and Politics of the Social Construction of “Cultural Identities” in the Age of Globalization’, Identities 3(1–2): 61–72. Mato, Daniel (1996c) ‘International and Transnational Relations, the Struggles for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in “Latin” America, and the Transformation of Encompassing Societies’, Sociotam 6(1): 63–80. Mato, Daniel (1996d) ‘The Indigenous Uprising in Chiapas: The Politics of Institutionalized Knowledge and Mexican Perspectives’, Identities 3(1–2): 205–18. Mato, Daniel (1997a) ‘Transformaciones sociopolíticas en tiempos de globalización: las “culturas indígenas” y “populares”’, Nueva Sociedad 149: 100–13. Mato, Daniel (1997b) ‘A Research Based Framework for Analyzing Processes of (Re)Construction of “Civil Societies” in the Age of Globalization’, in J. Servaes and R. Lie (eds) Media and Politics in Transition: Cultural Identity in the Age of Globalization, pp. 127–40. Leuven: Acco.

358

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 359

Mato Transnational Networking by Indigenous Peoples Mato, Daniel (1997c) ‘On Global and Local Agents and the Social Making of Transnational Identities and Related Agendas in “Latin” America’, Identities 4(2): 167–212. Mato, Daniel (1998a) ‘The Transnational Making of Representations of Gender, Ethnicity, and Culture: Indigenous Peoples’ Organizations at the Smithsonian Institution’s Festival’, Cultural Studies 12(2): 193–209. Mato, Daniel (1998b) ‘Pueblos indígenas y democracia en tiempos de globalización: la experiencia del Fondo Indígena’, in Cuadernos del CENDES/Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo, Universidad Central de Venezuela 15(38): 31–44. Mato, Daniel (1998c) ‘Problems of Social Participation in Latin America in the Age of Globalization’, in Thomas Jacobson and Jan Servaes (eds) Theoretical Approaches to Participatory Communication, pp. 51–75. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Mato, Daniel (1999a) ‘Globalización, representaciones sociales y transformaciones sociopolíticas’, Nueva Sociedad 163(Septiembre-Octubre): 152–63. Mato, Daniel (1999b) ‘Sobre la fetichización de la “globalización”’, Revista Venezolana de Análisis de Coyuntura 5(1): 129–48. Mato, Daniel (in press) ‘Global and Local Organizations in the Transnational Making of Social Representations and Related Agendas in Latin America’, in Gwen Kirkpatrick (ed.) Narratives of Globalization in the Americas. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moseley-Williams, Richard (1994) ‘Partners and Beneficiaries: Questioning Donors’, Development in Practice (4)1: 50–7. Orinoco Indígena (1992) ‘Declaración de los pueblos indígenas tribales de los bosques tropicales’, Orinoco Indígena 3(8): 6–7. PAHO (Pan American Health Organization) (1993) Health of Indigenous People, HHS/SILOS-34. Washington, DC: PAHO. SAIIC (South and Meso American Indian Information Center) (1993) ‘Organizing to Save the Amazon: An Interview with Valerio Grefa, new Coordinator of COICA’, Abya Yala News 7(1–2): 12–14. Salmen, Lawrence and Eaves, Paige (1989) ‘World Bank Work with Nongovernmental Organizations’, Working Paper No. 305. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Smith, Richard Chase (1994) ‘The Politics of Diversity: COICA and the Ethnic Federations of Amazonia’, Lima: COICA and OXFAM/America Joint Research Project on Economic Strategies for Indigenous Peoples in Amazonia (photocopy). Stavenhagen, Rodolfo (1994) ‘Indigenous Peoples: Emerging Actors in Latin America’, paper presented at the symposium ‘Ethnic Conflict and Governance in Comparative Perspective’, Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC, 15 November. Tendler, Judith (1982) ‘Turning Private Voluntary Organizations into Development Agencies: Questions for Evaluation’, AID Program Evaluation Discussion Paper No. 12, Washington, DC. Biographical Note: Daniel Mato is the director of the Program on Globalization, Culture and Sociopolitical Transformations at the Universidad Central de

359

12 Mato (to/d) 8/5/00 9:12 am Page 360

International Sociology Vol. 15 No. 2 Venezuela (UCV), where he teaches at the Doctorate in Social Sciences and at the Center for Postdoctoral Studies. His most recent book is Crítica de la modernidad, globalización, y construcción de identidades (Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 1995), and his most recent edited volume is América Latina en tiempos de globalización II (Caracas: UNESCO/Universidad Central de Venezuela, 2000). Address: Apartado Postal 88.551, Caracas-1080, Venezuela. [email: [email protected]]

360