Issue XX.3: Print Winter Issue

Letter From the Editor

Sunday, March 24th, 2024

Dear Readers,

I would like to welcome you to our third issue of volume 20 of The Observer: Rotating the Map: Stories fromATruly International Context.The Print team has once again worked to bring you an issue that attempts to disentangle constructed and real dichotomies within the international sphere. I cannot wait for you to join me in reading their poignant and striking reflections on this issue’s theme!

Our writers and editors have worked to deconstruct and analyze mainstream presentations of regions of the world that are too often underrepresented in a meaningful way. FromAlexander Ezquerra, we have an article regarding environmentalism in SouthAmerica related to climate action and the sustainability of lithium mining. From Lauren Hood we have an article about North Korea’s policy in the Global South. Caitlin Elrick discusses global imperialist medicine, and Eli Lang then discusses the impacts of migration in Ecuador and the rhetoric surrounding migration more broadly. FromAlyshaAhmad, we have a piece about the evolution of mainstream perceptions surrounding terrorism from the past to the present. Finally, an article written by me regarding Indigenous rights in Bolivia.

For the final time, I would like to extend my immense gratitude and thanks to my team of writers and editors, without whom this issue would not be possible. I would not be able to say that The Observer’s Print Branch published three thought-provoking issues during the 2023-24 academic year without their hard work, dedication, and diligence in their pursuit of scholarship. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank our readers for continuing to follow our academic efforts this year.Your readership means the world to The Observer’s team, and QIAAmore broadly.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact The Observer at theobserver@qiaa.org. If you would like to contribute to future issues or join our team, follow us on X (formerlyTwitter) (@observerqiaa) or Linkedin (The Observer) for further updates, as well as our organization’s Instagram (@queens.iaa).

Now, there is nothing more to say beyond enjoy the third and final issue of volume XX!

Giuliana Iacobucci Print Editor-in-Chief, The Observer

04

Table of Contents

Unveiling the Disparity:The Overlooked Environmental

Narratives of the Global South

• Alexander Ezquerra, Assistant Editor North Korean Policy in the Global South

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

07

• Lauren Hood, Staff Writer

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Imperial Medicine:Analyzing Global Inequalities in Healthcare

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

• Caitlin Elrick, Staff Writer

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Lorem Ium dolor sit..........................##

09 12

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

Wealth and Health to Frustration and Migration: Ecuador’s Five-Year Descent

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

• Eli Lang, Staff Writer

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##

TerroristsToday, HeroesTomorrow?

• AlyshaAhmad, Assistant Editor

Autonomy and Self-Determination: Indigenous Rights in a Post-Morales Bolivia

• Giuliana Iacobucci, Editor-in-Chief

Unveiling the Disparity: The Overlooked Environmental Narratives of the Global South

By:Alexander Ezquerra

The ecological crisis has brought global inequalities between the South and North to the forefront.Those most impacted by the climate crisis are predominantly located in the Global South and according to a recent report by the World Bank, could push up to 135 million people in poverty by 2030.As the climate crisis rages on, those that experience the most visible effects have been communities in the Global South. It is exactly their perspectives that have been missing in many mainstream policymaking circles and environmental activism. Current climate action has reinvigorated debates about the divide between the Global South and Global North, allowing scholars, activists, policymakers and citizens to deconstruct the current binary between South and

North as well as uncover instances of hypocrisy.

The disproportionate impact that has been inflicted upon the Global South d due to climate change is well documented. However, what is deeply troubling, and less considered, is how current environmental policies and activism can ignore the conditions of the Global South and at worse reproduce what many scholars are calling ‘climate colonialism’. Climate colonialism refers to how current climate action and environmental governance such as the focus on lithium-ion batteries and emissions trading systems can reproduce harmful social hierarchies associated with the colonial and neocolonial order. Often, climate solutions designed by and for the Global North ignore the concerns of the Global South, even worsening

Fridays for Future Protest. Stefan Muller.

environmental conditions. In the current fight against climate change, the Global South is withstanding the most sacrifices despite the Global North being chiefly responsible for overall historical carbon emissions, as industrialized nations. One especially, poignant example of this binary inaction is current climate action surrounding electric vehicles (EVs) powered by lithium-ion batteries.

Lithium and Cobalt mining in the Global South reveal the dark underbelly of the quickly electrifying Global North. In the push for more EVs in the Global North, communities and local ecology in countries in the Global South like Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are suffering a great toll. Lithium in Chile, one of the three South American countries making up the ‘LithiumTriangle’, the largest reserve of lithium in the world, is being exploited at a growing rate to be used for the production of batteries which power EVs drove on the roads of countries like Canada. Lithium is extracted through a brine evaporation method in Chile which takes years but is the most cost-effective, and unfortunately for local wildlife and Indigenous communities it drains the scarce water resources of the Atacama Desert and damages wetlands. Meanwhile, the benefits of lithium extraction are seldom found in Chile, let alone in the communities of theAtacama Desert. Upon extraction, lithium is quickly exported and the EVs are produced for consumers most in the Global North, meaning while the green energy goes North the contaminated water remains, for Indigenous communities in theAtacama which hold a deep spiritual connection to water,

lithium mining could mean the extermination of their culture.Across the Atlantic Ocean in the DRC, cobalt, a mineral used in EV batteries has become the center of human rights abuses.The vast majority of cobalt extraction is done by artisanal miners, thousands of whom are children, in hazardous working conditions which cause deaths and injuries to the miners who work in small-scale, hand-dug mines which commonly collapse as reported byAmnesty International and the Congolese organizationAfrewatch. Since the world has become aware of the atrocities associated with cobalt and EVs, demand has only grown, and 90 percent of the cobalt extracted is used in the batteries of EVs, driven primarily in the Global North. Perhaps instead of pursuing EVs the Global North must reorient its consumption patterns and consider investing in a more green social structure-including public transport and sustainable city planning.As it currently stands, the same social relations which brought about industrialization in the Global North continue in the pursuit of decarbonizing. Climate action in the global north should not come at a human toll in the Global South, alternatives must be pursued, and the perspective of the Global South needs to be spotlighted.

The push for climate action allows the world to mend the divide and inequalities between the Global North and south. For issues such as cobalt and lithium mining, policymakers in the South and North must look to ensure energy transitions are just, through enforcing safe working conditions, fair compensation, a more just distribution of

benefits globally and safeguarding local ecology and communities from the onset. Beyond these practical policies, perhaps it is time for the Global North to reconsider its focus on economic growth and unsustainable consumption lifestyles. In the centers of decision-making, decolonial environmentalism must be promoted; this means engaging with Indigenous communities and their outlook and sustainable practices. Indigenous knowledge such as Buen Vivir which emerges from the Global South could bolster our collective efforts of climate action. Indigenous epistemologies such as Buen Vivir centre community, ecology and culture for a form of collective development. Rather than focusing on growth and competition, Buen Vivir promotes harmony between humans, nations and the environment making it an important alternative to current Eurocentric worldviews. Undoubtedly, some of these efforts may face resistance from those who most profit from industries such as fossil fuels, but addressing the climate crisis justly is necessary.

The current binary between Global North and South must be considered and challenged through holistic and equitable climate action. Communities, policymakers, academics, and activists through addressing the existential threat of the climate crisis could also lead the movement for a more sustainable and just world. Rather than reproducing the very same unequal

relations between the Global South and North, policy must be oriented to address the concerns of all. If anything, climate action is the perfect opportunity to complete this shift in thinking and break down unequal social relations, as after all, the fight against the climate crisis is one in which all humans have a stake.

North Korean Policy in the Global South

By: Lauren Hood

Legitimately, our world leaders and institutions crave one thing: power.As seen in his writings in Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes recognized the necessity of having an absolute monarchy and powerful sovereign as the “ideal form of government.” One may question, however, if what Hobbes advocated for was a dictatorship, and if this “higher power” truly is imperative.

The division of North and South Korea has been a subject of intrigue, as the regime led by the Kim family is one that many follow. North Korea’s policy in Asia and the rest of the Global South plays a significant role in understanding how Kim’s ruling has a domino effect.The diplomatic efforts that North Korea

makes, alongside their economic engagements and geopolitical tensions can easily be observed, drawing the conclusion that North Korea is stronger than we really think.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, referred to as the DPRK, is one of the most authoritarian and repressive countries in the world, having the ability to restrict the universal rights of its people.To date, the DPRK government has attempted to insulate itself from the scrutiny of global engagement and has refused to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms.

The diplomatic efforts undertaken by North Korea are characterized by a combination of outreach and isolation.

Korean Protest. APPhoto/AhnYoung-joon.

While engaging in dialogue with certain nations, the regime adopts an isolationist stance, limiting external influence on its internal affairs.The emphasis on self-reliance, encapsulated in the Juche ideology, reinforced North Korea’s commitment to maintaining control over its destiny without significant external interference.

Economically, North Korea's engagements are marked by challenges and limited cooperation due to international sanctions and its own economic constraints.The dependence on a few allies, such as China, for trade and support, underscores the intricacies of its economic relationships. However, despite these challenges, North Korea's ability to sustain itself and resist external pressures reflects the resilience of the regime. Moreover, taking a geopolitical lens, North Korea's tensions with South Korea, the United States, and other regional powers contribute to a delicate balance in theAsia-Pacific region.The pursuit of nuclear weapons and the development of its military capabilities have heightened concerns globally. North Korea's military ties with certain countries further amplify the geopolitical complexities surrounding the regime.

In considering whether North Korea's government aligns with the concept of dictatorship, one must recognize the pervasive control exercised by the ruling Kim family and the single-party system.

The regime's authority extends into nearly every aspect of its citizens' lives, from information access to daily activities.The suppression of dissent and the absence of political pluralism characterize a system where power is highly concentrated.

In conclusion, the North Korean government's policies and actions reflect a regime that prioritizes centralized control, authoritative rule, and insulation from external influences. While not explicitly labelled as a dictatorship, the characteristics of the regime, echoing Hobbesian ideas, align with aspects commonly associated with dictatorial governance.The impact of North Korea's policies extends beyond its borders, contributing to regional dynamics and global concerns over security and human rights.

Understanding the intricacies of North Korea's approach is essential for navigating the complexities of international relations in the Asia-Pacific region

Imperial Medicine:Analyzing Global Inequalities in Healthcare

By: Caitlin Elrick

As society becomes more globalized and people continue to migrate more freely, increased attention is being paid to how diseases are spread and even more so, the different ways in which healthcare is provided. It is in particularly vulnerable times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that healthcare inequalities are brought to the forefront of the conversation. However, despite the fact that more awareness has been brought to healthcare inequalities, the recent discourse often fails to recognize the crucial role that historical colonialism has played in the disparities within the field of medicine between the “global North” and the “global South”.

The differentiation between the so-called global North and South has been perpetuated by historical imperial dynamics, popular culture, academia,

and news media.

The idea of a global South, consisting of a vague definition with blurred lines, yet always ensuring the exclusion of Western countries, is still applied in the modern day to justify and perpetuate the dehumanization of people who happen to live there. Positioning the world as intrinsically divided between a North and South has allowed the North to reproduce forms of colonial domination with the goal of capitalizing and exploiting people in the South under the guise of “development”.As Semara Esmeir argues, these distinctions “reproduce a particular conviction that humanity is a status to be recognized and conferred, or seized and taken away.”

For instance, the concept of “medical colonialism” has been used by

Medicines background with multicolored pills and medicine bottles. Marco Verch.

scholars to describe the mistreatment and abuse of citizens in countries in the global South by using them for medical research, vaccine trials, and other scientific inquiries. While to some, the idea of using humans in medical trials without their informed consent might sound like an evil of the past. In reality, medicine as a field continues to be plagued by the dehumanization of people within the global South. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the persisting inequalities within the field of healthcare as well as the broader and more insidious narrative that a hierarchy exists in the value of human life—a legacy left behind by colonialism. During the COVID-19 pandemic, two French doctors made headlines when they suggested that people inAfrican countries would make the ideal test-subjects for the COVID-19 vaccine, stating: “Should we not do this study inAfrica where there are no masks, no treatment or intensive care…we try things, because we know that they are highly exposed and don’t protect themselves…”.At the time, these comments sparked backlash, with the leader of France’s Socialist Party tweeting “Africa is not the laboratory of Europe”. Not only were the comments racist and dehumanizing, but also indicative of a much larger idea amongst Western professionals that certain lives can be deemed a necessary sacrifice. While the French doctors ultimately apologized for their statements, they still shed light on the reality of the positioning of the global North as arbiters of whose life has value.

This kind of rhetoric reflects a long-standing history of medical colonialism perpetuated by members of the global North. In the 19th century,

the expansion of British imperialists throughout India facilitated the spread of cholera, which is estimated to have resulted in 20 million deaths in India alone. When cholera first began to spread in Bengal in 1817, the British East India Company was amidst a sixty-year occupation of the region. Since European troops often travelled in unsanitary conditions and in close proximity to one another, it did not take long for cholera to become the leading cause of sickness and death amongst the soldiers. While the spread of cholera affected people of all classes and people of both Indian and European background, serious illness and death disproportionately impacted lower-class Indians. However, in many modern accounts of the cholera epidemic in India, rural citizens are used as scapegoats and the spread is attributed to their social class and hygiene.The suggestion that the victims of the British colonial conquest were to blame for the spread of cholera throughout India, neglects the significant role that European troops played in the deaths of millions in 19th century India.

Modern examples of medical colonialism demonstrate that the global North’s imperial past laid the foundation for systemic inequality that is often neglected in mainstream academic thought within the global North.According to data from a study of eighty-two scientific journals, conducted by Nature Index, from the years 2015 to 2022 “there were just 24 articles in the index that involved only collaborations between global-south

countries. The equivalent figure for north–north collaborations was almost 200,000”.These figures reflect the disparities in whose perspectives are frequently uplifted and echoed by mainstream publishers, and in turn demonstrates the domination of ideas and voices from the global North in scientific thought.

Although there has been a shift within some postcolonial and decolonial schools of thought to address the role that colonialism has played in shaping the development of medicine in both the global North and South, these ideas have still struggled to permeate mainstream literature on the topic. The trajectory of the traditional rhetoric has typically framed the global South in a manner that further perpetuates harmful stereotypes or ignores them altogether. Going forward, it is crucial to recognize historical inequalities and systems of oppression in a manner that reflects the agency and humanity of the individuals living in the “global South”, which can bring us closer to dismantling the neo-colonial nature of the relationship between the global North and South.

Wealth and Health to Frustration and Migration: Ecuador’s Five-Year Descent

By: Eli Lang

Do you know that DonaldTrump called LatinAmerican immigrants “rapists and murderers” during his first election campaign? Do you know that Ron Desantis flew a plane of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard in 2022? Do you know thatAmerica’s border crisis is the worst it has ever been? If you have looked at major headlines in the last few years, you probably do. Do you know that Ecuadorian presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio was shot dead two weeks before Ecuador’s 2023 election? Maybe not if you were not tuned in to the news the day it happened. Mainstream North American news outlets provide much more content and analysis of U.S. politicians’ stunts and rhetoric surrounding the migration crisis than they do of its roots. This article will briefly discuss the dramatic cartel violence which took place in Ecuador this past January, which will most certainly contribute to a spike in

emigration from the country.

Ecuador has maintained stability relative to its region throughout recent history, having had one of the very lowest homicide rates in Latin America for over half a decade.This reputation crashed when Ecuador’s rate jumped from approximately 5 cases per 100,000 people in 2019, to almost 27 in 2022.Although Ecuador’s shocking rate surpassed those of nearly all other countries in the region, its violence only continued to balloon throughout 2023 and into this year. Until quite recently, Ecuador’s low murder rate was also accompanied by a strong economy, but all of this began to change with an uptick in European demand for cocaine and among the consequences of COVID-19.

Ecuador is prime real estate for the export of cocaine, and between

Bus with soldiers. IndiaToday

recent instability within neighbouring narco-states and unprecedented Ecuadorian unemployment following the pandemic, the country has been dealt a losing hand.

By the time of Fernando Villavicencio’s murder in 2023, drug trafficking from neighbouring states had thoroughly permeated Ecuador. Columbia and Peru are among the highest cocaine producers in the world, and the increase in demand for the drug, on top of new territorial jockeying between the region’s criminal organizations, led to smuggling routes appearing right through Ecuador.The gang violence which these new cocaine routes brought with them further destabilized Ecuador’s economy, and these issues continuously compounded one another.This downward spiral only exacerbated Ecuadorians' infuriation with their authorities’ inability to combat the gangs. Two weeks after Villavicencio's murder, Ecuadorians elected his competitor Daniel Noboa as their president. Noboa immediately declared a 60-day state of emergency, he also announced that Ecuador was in a "state of internal armed conflict". So far, Noboa’s military response to Ecuador’s crime problem has done little to curb homicides in the country and has most notably spurred more theatrical crime. Noboa’s election was followed by a string of prison riots, car bombings, street fighting and a news station hostage-taking broadcast on live air. Ecuador has become a dangerous place to live since 2019, but 2024 seems to be a year for new psychological warfare in the country.This type of violence will likely prompt an increase in the mass emigration the country has already seen throughout the past few years.

U.S. authorities apprehended 99,000 Ecuadorians attempting to cross the U.S. southern border in the first 11 months of 2023, this represented an annual record and a 312% increase from the previous year. CBS reported these statistics in a piece on President Biden’s 2023 policy in response toAmerica’s ongoing border crisis; the article devoted only two sentences to these migrants' motivations for leaving Ecuador. CBS is only one of many examples of major news outlets whose reports concerning the LatinAmerican migration crisis display structures like this. Mainstream media outlets devote an overwhelming amount of time to updates which reflect common knowledge, that the migration crisis is getting worse. Ecuador’s story has now caught some press attention as its violence has become more dramatic, but what is rarely noted is that this country, from which some of the highest numbers of illegal migrants to the U.S. originate, was quite safe only five years ago. Stories like Ecuador’s warrant further mainstream press attention because they illustrate the complexity of the issues fueling the migration crisis. Fox News’Kyra Colah did write an article on the effects of Ecuador’s most recent wave of violence, but the headline reflects the generalized sentiment that seems to prevail among coverage of the topic: “Chaos and Violence in SouthAmerican Country Fuels Massive Rise in Illegal Migration toThe U.S.”.

Terrorists Today, Heroes Tomorrow?

By:AlyshaAhmad

Nelson Mandela, the iconic freedom fighter from apartheid in SouthAfrica, was on the United States’terrorist watchlist until 2008.The United States FBI targeted Black liberation leaders and groups, which are now regarded as integral in the fight for civil rights, through a project titled Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO).There is a clear difference in the framing of resistance groups during a conflict, when they are actively resisting an oppressive force, compared to after they have successfully liberated themselves from the oppressive force. It makes us question what the reasons for this are – do geopolitical interests weigh so heavily that they trump support for the development of human rights?This article focuses on South Africa and the United States, and pulls on

movements that were framed as dangerous during the peak of its operations but are now regarded as integral to obtaining rights. It also compares these groups to a case of the inverse: theAfghanTaliban, which during its development, received assistance from the United States; then, briefly ponders on the relation today.

The Case of Nelson Mandela

TheAfrican National Congress (ANC) is a political party in SouthAfrica that developed to advocate for the rights of Black SouthAfricans in 1912. During the 1940s, theANC became a liberation movement from apartheid in which there was a racial separation

Nelson Mandela. Momaa.

incited by the white SouthAfrican government.According toTIME magazine, theANC used non-violent means to fight against apartheid, including boycotts and labour strikes. From 1960 to 1990, theANC was banned by the same white SouthAfrican government; forcing the organization to operate outside of SouthAfrica.This ban was followed by whatTIME described as “low-level guerilla war”.Accordingly, Nelson Mandela was put on the terrorist watch list until 2008. Nonetheless, this method was proven successful as apartheid was then eliminated and Black SouthAfricans were granted more rights.

The geopolitical influences of the US’ choice in positing Mandela as a terrorist informs us of how this decision was made. During the 1960s, when Mandela was arrested and its operations had to be removed from the public eye, the ANC sought assistance from external groups, including the Soviet Union.This was during the Cold War, and theANC was deemed as being on the wrong side of the Cold War by the United States, due to their assistance from the Soviet Union. For this reason, Nelson Mandela’s plight for racial equity in South Africa through the liberatory organization ofANC was viewed as anti-American; subsequently resulting in its leader being put on a terrorist watchlist.

It is clear that theANC was forced to resort to a violent means of obtaining liberation as they had completely exhausted the non-violent efforts of doing so. Being banned from public operations by the white SouthAfrican government, they sought support from those who were willing to support their plight of racial equity; leading to receiving assistance from the Soviet Union.The US is not justified in opposing a movement calling for racial equity simply because that group is allied with another group that does not share the same ideology.

Today, Nelson Mandela is heralded as an important civil rights figure that NorthAmericans learn about.

The Case of the Black Panther Party

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary group that was part of the Black Power Movement, which was established in 1966. Generally, the party’s platform, comprising 10-points, was for the liberation of all Black and poor people. Specifically, the BPPfought for Black Americans to gain the right to obtain weapons and receive financial compensation for the many years of racial exploitation.The BPPalso provided access to medical clinics and free breakfasts for children.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated that “the Black Panther Party, without question, represents the greatest threat to internal security of the country”, demonstrating how the FBI viewed the BPPas a threat and enemy of the United States’government, for simply protesting for their rights.The BPPbeing painted as a threat resulted in relentless surveillance and targeting by the FBI through an FBI program called the COINTELPRO, which had the aim of surveilling and discrediting political organizations inAmerica. For this reason, the COINTELPRO, in an attempt to stifle the BPP’s traction in the United States, spread misinformation and participated in sabotage against the movement.The COINTELPRO reached its peak when a Chicago police raid killed Fred Hampton, a BPPleader, after the FBI placed a spy within the Illinois chapter of the BPP. Later, it was made clear that the FBI and the Chicago police planned to execute Fred Hampton since they worried he would allow for the BPPto flourish.After this, there was more resistance to the FBI’s operations and COINTELPRO ceased in 1971.

According to the FBI’s archives site, the COINTELPRO was established to disrupt the activities of the Communist Party in the United States.This demonstrates how, once again, there

is a connection to geopolitical interests when it comes to the framing of a political organization and whether or not it will be designated a terrorist group. Due to the Cold War, the United States labeled anything related to communism as a threat by the Soviet Union, and the BPPwas no exception to this.

Now, the Black Panther Party is viewed in a more positive manner than before, with the Party having influence on the Black Lives Matter Movement.

The Case of the Inverse: the Afghan Taliban

TheTaliban was formed in the early 1990s, by Islamic guerilla fighters who resisted the Soviet occupation ofAfghanistan at the time and had the backing of the American CIA.The decision to support theAfghan resistance came from the 1980 Carter administration, which allocated $30 million to the group.The US’ efforts to support theAfghan Taliban increased after the presence of the SovietArmy swelled inAfghanistan, to try to drive the group out of the country. This included providing weapons to theTaliban.

Similar to the previous cases, the Cold War played a role in the decision to offer support to a resistance group. In this case, theTaliban was not viewed as a threat to the United States, rather it was viewed as another method of winning the Cold War and defeating communism.This demonstrates that during the initial stages of theAfghan resistance, it was viewed in a positive manner, despite being a very dangerous group today. It was only after the 9/11 attacks that theTaliban was designated a terrorist group.

What do these cases have in common?

Accordingly, geopolitical interests play a major role in how a resistance group is portrayed and the kind of support the group receives; the Cold War in particular played a major role in the mentioned cases. Both theANC and BPPwere put on a terrorist watchlist, and members of the BPPwere subject to rigid FBI surveillance and death. Now, both movements and members of each liberation group are remembered as being integral to the plight for civil rights. Conversely, the AfghanTaliban, in its initial stages, received immense monetary support from the United States, even though it is now rightfully recognized as a terrorist group worldwide.

The framing of a group indicates the level of support that it will receive.TheANC and Black Panther Party movements should have received support instead of being demonized, while theAfghan Taliban should not have received any support whatsoever. For this reason, it is important to listen to the oppressed peoples that operate in the presence of resistance groups in order to determine whether the dominant framing of a group is accurate.

Autonomy and Self-Determination: Indigenous Rights in a Post-Morales Bolivia

By: Giuliana Iacobucci

dissidents from the margins for a seat at the table.

“His ways of thinking and his actions aren’t Indigenous.” For Gualberto Cusi, former Bolivian president Evo Moralesa trailblazing Indigenous politician hailing from theAymara tribe in the Andes - does not follow Bolivian Indigeneity in a way that is conducive to the practices of many Bolivian national communities. Seen as integrative of Indigenous rights and a trailblazer for self-determination and autonomy, the Bolivian case is an example of how complex state relations can be with Indigeneity, despite on the surface looking relatively cooperative.Although much has been done in the country to further Indigenous rights, there’s still a long way to go - and it starts with implementing true Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies, and bringing

Indigenous land claims are unique based on location, and the functions of Indigenous identity based on claims-making is contextually different in Latin American contexts due to national composition and structures based on Indigenous understandings of identity. While much progress has been made in the Bolivian context, there will always be an inherent limit to the approach of self-determination because of the use of Indigenous frameworks within colonial structures.The path dependency of coloniality is a limitation despite the use of Indigenous ways of knowing, which

Bolivian Wiphala. Flickr.

is shown through marginalization of certain groups and economic structures imposed colonially.

Bolivia has one of the largest Indigenous populations in Latin America, not only being home to a plethora of Indigenous nationalities but also peasant farmers in the Altiplano andAndean valley.The 2012 census indicates that 41% of Bolivians self-identify as members of an Indigenous nation, ranking as the country with the highest number of Indigenous peoples in South America.

Indigenous rights have long been a subject of contention in the country, but this struggle became one that bore important results for the many Indigenous peoples in Bolivia, starting with the election of Evo Morales in the early 2000s. While balancing cultural and national liberation claims, Morales managed to ratify the the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights (UNDRIP) in 2007, building on the success of the country’s ratification of International Labour Convention (ILO) 169 in 1989.Arguably Morales’greatest achievement was the ratification of a new constitution, which defined Bolivia as a plurinational state, creating special representation systems for Indigenous peoples, respecting

Indigenous forms of justice and tradition, and even adhering to notions of “vivir bien”, a popular environmental ontology. Earlier successes by the Morales administration soured near the end of his reign, where his Patriotic Agenda, despite alluding to vivir bien and respect for Mother Earth, actually sidelined peasant sectors and bolstered the production of agricultural commodities at the detriment of many Indigenous communities. Morales eventually sought re-election for a third time after the constitutional court abolished term limits in 2017, but claims of fraud during the election led to his resignation and eventually he fled the country.

The claims of many Indigenous groups in the country were actually undermined by the institutionalization of Indigenous rights. Because of the homogenization of a plurinational identity, the state controls understandings and conceptions of what Indigeneity is, privileging certain groups and deeming some groups as dissidents, further isolating already marginalized groups. Identity recognition by the state also unequally allocates resources, stoking conflict between Indigenous and peasant groups, institutionally shaping relations from the top-down.

Much progress has been made in Bolivia concerning Indigenous rights,

allowing for the expression of Indigenous rights not only on a national but also mainstream scale.The ratification of both ILO Convention 169 and UNDRIPallows for international cooperation and surveillance to ensure Indigenous rights are protected and upheld in a way that is dictated by the country itself rather than externally, in an imperialist way. However, the mainstream nature of Indigenous discourses still misses the critical and crucial parts of much of what is being said by Indigenous actors themselves.The use of state discourses imposed from above ignores many minority Indigenous groups by privileging one idea of Indigeneityalmost like an ideal type - which further reinforces marginality.The Bolivian case shows that despite Indigenous actors being integral to processes of constitutionalism like Morales, a top-down approach is still one that is impositional. While much headway has been made for recognition of diversity and Indigeneity, this recognition is not one that is negotiated, but imposed by the state.

Progress in Bolivia is negotiated, but it is done by the state and on its terms. Morales as an Indigenous actor still continued his political path informed by Indigenous ways of knowing, but this ultimately was distorted by state processes. Because the state is constructed in favour of colonial processes and practices, any attempt to fit Indigeneity into these pathways will

lead to recognition in a way that is not entirely Indigenous. While this may not necessarily seem like a problem, it manifests in the way that groups are recognized - or not recognized - in land claims, agricultural rights, and the simple recognition as majority actors in state processes. Further, Morales’ attempts to create reforms that favoured Indigenous groups economically failed to create harmony between rural peasants and tribes because of the use of colonial capitalist systems to solve problems that are uniquely Indigenous. Despite having good intentions, state frameworks cannot adhere to and advocate for Indigenous rights if the system is built not by or for their privilege, but their oppression.That marginalizing nature will always follow, even if accommodations and recognition is made.

As a case in the international context, Bolivia is making incredible strides in terms of recognizing and actually distributing resources and land to Indigenous peoples in the country. One could argue that these moves are unprecedented globally, and provide an example for other countries in accommodating the needs of Indigenous peoples. On the other hand, criticism could still be mounted against the country for its colonial path dependencies despite efforts to include Indigeneity in constitutional and

economic structures.The balance of the matter is one that I can make as an outsider looking in. But ultimately, unless every Indigenous voice is represented and every person has a seat at the table, reforms may never succeed. Justice is an incredibly noble pursuit, but it has to be done in the right way - one that does not marginalize, but uplifts perspectives and ways of knowing that have stayed in the shadows for far too long.