Читать книгу Dividing Divided States - Gregory F. Treverton - Страница 12

CHAPTER 3

Pastoralists

The third of the people issues in secessions—how to deal with pastoralist populations who migrate seasonally in search of pasture and water but who, with secession, will now have to cross international borders—probably will be an issue only in African secessions. But it is likely to be an issue there, all the more so as global warming and desertification increase the length of seasonal migrations. It was crucial issue for Sudan. Indeed, the cycle of the civil war often turned on the migration cycle: when the pastoralists, especially the Misseriyya, were in the south, there was no war, and war came only after they returned with their cattle to the north. However, other secession cases will also have to deal with migration cycles, internal to the original state but international once secession occurs.

This chapter is slightly different from the others. It draws on cases—the Sámi people in the Nordic region, and Native Americans who migrate across both the U.S.-Canada border and the U.S.-Mexico border—where people move but the borders do not. These are not cases of secession involving poor or shattered states but of migration involving relatively prosperous ones; they are cases that shed light on issues posed by secession, not cases of secession itself.

Those best documented cases about how to handle pastoralists deal with wealthy, stable countries and perhaps are not easily adaptable to other, poorer contexts. Nonetheless, some useful lessons and ideas can be identified on key elements of any potential mechanism. These include questions of citizenship, taxation, and administration. Because published information is in short supply, the chapter’s policy suggestions also draw on conversations and correspondence with a number of specialists and on a review of what experience has been recorded, especially in dealing with pastoralist issues in other regions that bear some resemblance to Sudan.

Policy Suggestions

Sámi of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia

The Sámi (aka Saami, Lapps, Sápmi) are an indigenous reindeer-herding people living in Scandinavia. The 1751 Lapp Codicil, signed between Dano-Norway and Sweden, officially recognized the need for the Sámi to retain access to land and their right to cross borders during seasonal migrations. It gave them citizenship rights in one home country, where they also pay taxes. Thus cross-border rights are granted without extending new citizenship rights, and Sámi are taxed only once by their home country. Problems have emerged in modern times, as the divergence between modern state practice and traditional livelihoods has grown. The Sámi concept of territoriality is essentially communal, and has been difficult to account for or incorporate into law. Today there are Sámi Parliaments in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which hold administrative powers and seem largely concerned with issues of cultural preservation. However, they do provide a valuable voice for incorporating Sámi perspectives into state policy.

Native American Tribes of the United States and Canada

The 1794 Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain (later Canada) allowed for Native American indigenous peoples living along the border free passage across the U.S.-Canada border without paying duties on personal goods and granted the right to engage in commerce. U.S. and Canadian Native Indians are given government-issued identification cards that are used for cross-border movements. However, Washington and Ottawa disagree over aspects of the legal interpretation of the agreement, differences that have caused continuous problems with implementation.

In addition, the two governments hold different legal interpretations of who is covered by the treaty, and what rights and responsibilities accrue to visiting indigenous peoples. For example, the United States recognizes all Indian tribes in Canada and provides public benefits—for instance, health care, food stamps, and disability insurance. The Canadian government requires that U.S.-based Indian groups prove they descend from persons the Canadian government recognizes as members of an Indian tribe in Canada. If they do, they receive grants equal to those of a Canadian citizen. Ottawa has generally held a higher threshold to grant claims to free passage than has Washington.

Native Americans of the United States and Mexico

Two tribes, the Tohono O’odham and the Texas band of Kickapoo Indians, reside in Mexico yet retain the right of free passage into the United States. The U.S.-Mexico border was set by a series of treaties and agreements in the 1800s, and it cut through the land of the tribes. The O’odham traditionally moved across the border frequently and with ease, but growing U.S. security concerns since the 1980s have made this more difficult. Traditional crossing points have not meshed easily with the new international border, making the process for crossing burdensome for the O’odham. Efforts to grant the O’odham U.S. citizenship have not yet succeeded.

The Kickapoo fled south from the northeastern United States as a result of colonization, with some resettling in Mexico. Beginning in the 1940s, Kickapoo began migrating to the United States as seasonal labor, a practice that has become solidified over time. In 1983, U.S. legislation granted Kickapoos the right to enter and work in the United States using government-issued tribal membership cards. It also granted Kickapoos the option of gaining U.S. citizenship and receiving permanent border crossing rights.

The lack of much formal experience in dealing with migratory populations across international borders is striking. As one expert summed up tersely, “If the migrating group is strong enough, or the recipient state weak enough, it simply moves across the border; if it isn’t, it doesn’t.” This chapter is based on the proposition that this terse guidance cannot be the last word. What is striking about such accounts of experience as have been documented is how varied the responses to pastoral populations have been—from nonresponse, basically letting local dynamics take their course, to the use of considerable force to coerce or repress pastoral populations

The cases, along with experience in Africa, suggest a few touchstones for policy:

Sponsor Face-to-Face Talks

This may not be as easy as it sounds, for the questions of how and among whom arise. In the words of one recent study of Sudan, “Traditional mechanisms for conflict resolution can no longer be relied upon in negotiating with the Dinka for access to the South. With the Native Administration so politicized, the old ways would now require the involvement of senior NCP [National Congress Party, the governing party in Khartoum] and GoSS [government of South Sudan] representatives. The Native Administration would not be accepted as a credible mediator.”¹

Or as a close observer put it,

Whatever the customary patterns of north-south migration may have been, and whatever the customary institutions which regulated those migrations, they will have been [irrevocably] changed by the war and the raiding. The only hope the northerners have of regaining the sorts of passage and grazing rights they used to have would be through face to face negotiation with the traditional southern receiving populations, pastoralists or farmers. This is something that could be facilitated for them by outsiders, but in the end they will have to do it themselves.

The challenge for governments is to play that facilitating role, while letting the populations talk face-to-face. In effect, the government would set up a forum where pastoralists and those affected by them could negotiate a new set of rights and conflict-resolution mechanisms based on the old ones but reflecting the new realities. Specifically, there would need to be discussion of livestock routes, watering places, resting places, normal grazing areas, reserve grazing areas, as well as emergency routes and grazing areas. These provisions should be negotiated specific subclan area by specific subclan area.

Imagine Several Agreements

If the peoples concerned negotiate face-to-face, agreements may well differ somewhat from one locality to another, reflecting differences in context and relations between pastoralists and receiving populations. In principle, some variation is to be expected, as a reflection of differing local circumstances. To be sure, though, if agreements are very different, the relatively “generous” ones may spur grievances from those on both sides who came out far less well. The key is lots of talks to try to defuse the sense that “referendum day” or “arbitration day” is a day of doom, another form of a drop-dead date. What might be possible to negotiate at the local level becomes harder when national politics interferes, frightening local groups or manipulating them.

Gather Data

One relatively unthreatening way to start would be to begin by collecting data. What are the numbers of migrants at various stages in the migration process? That data gathering might become a simple survey, trying to determine how many people would like to migrate but didn’t, why or why not, and the like. It would also ask about the adequacy of services as various stages in the migratory process. It would be important to structure the data gathering as participatory, involving both the pastoralists and the receiving populations.