The Mapuche Nation is situated in what is known as the Southern Cone of South America , in an area now occupied by the Argentine and Chilean states. For over 350 years the Mapuche Nation successfully defended their territory against a European invasion that began with the Spanish arrival in 1540. From 1641-1825, their military strength forced the governments of Spain and Chile to recognise Mapuche territory and independence through a series of parlamentos or treaties. This paper will argue that the parlamentos were not extinguished by the actions of the Chilean state. The war of 1882 that ended Mapuche military resistance, the setting up of reservations and the expropriation of over 22 million acres of Mapuche lands were illegal acts . By continuing to ignore the demands of the Mapuche Nation for self-determination and land restitution, the Chilean state is in contravention of its own civil law and widely accepted principles of international law.

Introduction

Rakgo Mapu [1] is dominated by multi-national resource based industries, particularly logging, agricultural and mining interests. Since the return of Chilean democracy in 1989, the Mapuche have increased their pressure on the state for land redistribution, protection of cultural rights and political and territorial autonomy. In 1993, the Chilean government passed the National Indigenous Law, which aimed at re-distributing land to indigenous communities - approximately 150,000 hectares over a six-year period. However, the glacial pace of implementation combined with the state's continuing procrastination in signing ILO 169 have not satisfied the aspirations of the Mapuche. This paper's objective is therefore twofold: first, to suggest an argument that might support a comprehensive claim to Mapuche self-determination throughout their traditional territory; and second, to establish whether international developments in indigenous rights can offer the Mapuche recourse in their struggle for self-determination. To this end, the paper begins with an historical overview of the Mapuche Nation [2] and the process of dispossession, leading to an examination of the parlamentos , signed between Spain , the Republic of Chile and the Mapuche. It concludes with the provision of some policy recommendations, directed at both the Chilean State [3] and Mapuche Nation.

The Mapuche Nation: Dispossession

The Mapuche Nation is situated in what is known as the Southern Cone of South America, in the area now occupied by the Argentine and Chilean states. Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, their lands bordered the Inca Empire north of the Maule River ( Marhikewun , 2001). The amount of land occupied by the Mapuche once constituted about a quarter of Chile , some 31 million hectares, and stretched from the Maule River on its northern limit all the way to Tierra del Fuego on the continent's southern tip ( Mapuche Foundation, 2001). Their clear sense of nationhood and unquestionable desire to maintain their self-determination and freedom led to armed resistance, first against the Inca Empire and then for over 350 years against the Spanish and later the Chileans. This latter period is known as "la Guerra de Arauco" or "Araucanian War."

One hundred years after their arrival, the Spanish were forced to sign the Parlamento General de Quillín (1641), acknowledging their failure to defeat the Mapuche people. The peace established with this agreement recognized the independence of the Mapuche people and fixed the Bío-Bío River [4] as the boundary between the Spanish colony and Mapuche territory. Nevertheless, wars between the parties continued to take place throughout the eighteenth century, largely in the form of local armed conflicts. In the years following Chilean independence in 1818, the Parlamento General de Quillín (1641) continued to be built upon by subsequent parlamentos between the Republic of Chile and the Mapuche Nation. However, as European immigration increased, pressure to extend Chilean jurisdiction into Mapuche lands undermined these agreements. In 1852 and 1866, a series of land allotment acts unilaterally imposed Chilean sovereignty over Mapuche territory, [5]beginning a process of land re-distribution to non-indigenous settlers; a dispossession of territory consolidated during the "Pacification of Araucania" and the removal of surviving Mapuche onto "reducciones" or reserves. [6]Today, the Mapuche reserved lands cover about six percent of their former territory. Although the word Mapuche means "people of the land," with government land seizure and logging of their traditional territory, approximately 60% of the Mapuche have been forced to migrate to the nation's two largest cities in search of jobs ( Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, 1992).

The Contemporary Mapuche in Chile

The Chilean national constitution acknowledges the existence of one people, the Chileans ( El Diario Oficial, 2002). Until the passage of the National Indigenous Law (1993), the Chilean government had virtually ignored the existence of indigenous peoples, except when dealing with their lands and the means to incorporate them into the individual property system. This denial extended into the Chilean identity, since literature and popular culture promoted the idea of the Chilean people as "the English of South America." [7]Chilean cultural perception of indigenous peoples is largely locked in the mythological past. The historical image of the indomitable Mapuche resisting the Spanish remains socially accepted and promoted ( Aylwin, 1998).

Until recently, there was little awareness amongst non-indigenous Chileans of the contemporary Mapuche Nation and their aspirations and struggles. This situation changed in 1992, when the official population census showed that almost one million Chileans, of a total of thirteen, declared themselves to be Mapuche, the largest etnico [8] group in Chile (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas, 1992). According to the census, fifteen percent of Mapuche live in the Araucania, the heartland of Mapuche traditional territory, where they make up 26% of the total regional population, the highest concentration in Chile . Forty-four percent of Mapuche live in the capital Santiago , where they make up approximately 10% of the population.

The 1992 census testified to the survival of the Mapuche Nation while documenting their Diaspora from Ragko Mapu , an experience that has been compared with the Palestinian exile ( Mapuche Inter-regional Council, 1999 ). According to the Mapuche organization, Consejo de Todas Las Tierras , the Mapuche Diaspora is a direct result of Chile 's illegal occupation of Mapuche land for over 116 years ( Mapuche Inter-regional Council, 1999 ). The solution to overcoming this exile is Mapuche "self-determination" and an end to "the occupation of the Mapuche territory by Chile " (Nuñez and Diaz, 1993 ). However, despite the fact that the Mapuche Nation is the largest indigenous group in Chile , constituting approximately 10% the Chilean population, its political leverage in pursuing self-determination is limited to a single Mapuche congressman. [9]It is therefore important that the Mapuche develop a strong legal argument that can support their aspirations for land rights and self-determination, an argument that might raise the attention of the Chilean government and the international community.

This paper will now continue by providing such an argument, establishing the basis of a Mapuche claim to self-determination over the entire expanse of Ragko Mapu . It is a claim that will be established through three critical points: first, that the parlamentos signed between Spain, Chile and the Mapuche were nation-to-nation agreements; second, that the articles of the parlamentos and Chilean Civil Law fundamentally undermine the legality of Chilean territorial expansion into Ragko Mapu ; and third, that despite assertions to the contrary, these historical treaties remain in effect, are subject to international treaty standards, and uphold Mapuche self-determination within their traditional lands.

1) The Parlamentos: Nation-to-Nation Agreements

In July 1999, the Mapuche Inter-regional Council (MIRC) appeared before the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. [10]They presented evidence of an illegal war and a process of land dispossession levied by the Chilean state against the Mapuche Nation. The report argued:

Chile is occupying the land of a separate nation and has unilaterally violated the 28 parlamentos that were made during the colonial period between the Spanish and the Mapuche people; it has suppressed these international agreements and replaced them with its own legislation .a collection of hybrid measures.which sanction the genocide of the Mapuche people and as such are anathema to the principles of Western culture ( Lincoqueo, 1999).

As this statement suggests, the parlamentos are crucial to Mapuche legal defence of their traditional lands, and have become a lynch pin in the evolving Mapuche struggle for self-determination. They document an historical relationship between Spanish, Chilean and Mapuche peoples based on nation-to-nation agreements.

From the Parlamento General de Quillín in 1641 to the Parlamento de Tapihue in 1823, the treaties signed between Spain , Chile and the Mapuche recognised the independence of the Mapuche Nation. Chilean historians, such as José Bengoa, have documented the crucial role of the parlamentos to Spain 's administration of colonial Chile . In his seminal work, the "History of the Mapuche People," Bengoa refers to letters addressed by Manso de Velasco, governor of Chile , to the Spanish king in 1738. In these correspondences, Velasco acknowledges the importance of the parlamentos in maintaining peace, and noted his resentment of having to negotiate with the Mapuche as an "independent nation" (Bengoa 1985, p. 33 ). Further, Bengoa affirms that since Quillín in 1641, all of these documents acknowledged the existence of the frontier amongst the two peoples. Mapuche lands were a territory independent from the Capitanía General de Chile , and as such the Mapuche were unequivocally "an independent nation" (Bengoa 1985, p. 36 ).

The Parlamentos between Spain and Mapuche Nation

Following the Parlamento General de Quillín (1641), which established the territorial boundaries of colonial Chile and Mapuche Nation, many other parlamentos were held during the eighteenth century, among them those of 1716, 1726, 1738, 1746, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1771, 1774, 1784, 1787 and 1793. The last parlamento between Spain and the Mapuche Nation were agreed to in 1803 and 1816, on the eve of the establishment of the colonial regime. These agreements constituted the Spanish effort to obtain Mapuche support against the revolutionary movement leading to Chile 's initial independence from Spain in 1810, and final independence in 1818.

The most important of these treaties was the Parlamento de Negrete , signed in 1803. The articles of this treaty dealt specifically with issues of national security between colonial Chile and the Mapuche Nation. The Parlamento de Negrete established three requirements worthy of note: first, that a declaration of war was a necessary prerequisite to any aggressive conflict between Chile and the Mapuche Nation, and that the absence of a declaration qualified any aggression by either party as an act of "piracy and banditry" (Fuentes, 1998); second, that all non-indigenous peoples born in Mapuche territory were deemed Spanish, and that only Spanish and Mapuche could live south of the Bío-Bío River, to the exclusion of all other nationalities; and third, that an extradition agreement was to exist between both countries where the Mapuche would remove Spanish delinquentes from their territories to the custody of Spain (Fuentes, 1998).

The Parlamento de Tapihue and Chilean civil law

These 28 parlamentos signed with Spain connect with the contemporary Republic of Chile through the Parlamento General de Tapihue (1825), signed by the Mapuche and Chilean state during the government of Ramon Freire (1823-1826). The treaty ended a fourteen-year guerrilla war between the two peoples, one that had raged throughout the period of Chile 's struggle for independence from Spain . The Parlamento de Tapihue again recognised the Mapuche Nation, clarifying the frontier of the Republic of Chile and Ragko Mapu along the Bío-Bío River . It prohibited any Chilean from living south of the border and stated that any breach of this agreement by either party would be deemed to be a breach of international law (Mapuche International Link, 2001).

The Parlamento General de Tapihue also incorporated the articles of the Parlamento de Negrete (1803). Specifically, the pre-requisite of a declaration of war from the Republic of Chile or the Mapuche Nation before the commencement of hostilities, and the definition of such an act without declaration as "an act of piracy and banditry." The consequences of undeclared aggression were later addressed under Article 641 of the Chilean Civil Code (1857). This legislation stated that any illegal expropriation of property, or "acquisition through banditry, piracy or insurgency does not transfer ownership [and] those subject to such acts have the right to restitution" (Fuentes 1998). Furthermore, according to the Penal Code, Article 24 of the Law of Internal Security of the State, individuals or parties subject to acts of "piracy, banditry or insurgency" had the legitimate right to self-defence (Fuentes, 1998).

The 28 parlamentos signed with Spain and the Parlamento de Tapihue signed with the Republic of Chile alone, recognised Mapuche nationhood and independence. By absorbing the Parlamento de Negrete (1803) into the Parlamento de Tapihue (1825), Spanish colonial law became integrated with Chilean Republican law. As such, the parlamentos find recognition within the contemporary Chilean Constitution in article 5 that states:

The exercise of sovereignty acknowledges the limitations with respect to fundamental human rights. The State respects and promotes these rights, guaranteed in this Constitution, in the same manner that it respects those international treaties signed by Chile , that continue in effect. [11]

2) The Parlamentos: Chile 's illegal occupation of Ragko Mapu

As the legal foundation of an argument supporting Mapuche self-determination, the following assertions can be established. First, according to the Parlamento de Tapihue and the 28 other parlamentos signed with Spain , Chilean jurisdiction does not extend south of the Bío-Bío River . The land appropriation laws under Governor Montt, in 1852, and Governor Perez, in 1866, which parcelled out and sold over 11,000,000 hectares of land in Mapuche territory, were extra-territorial and illegal. Second, the final military campaign against the Mapuche from 1860-1883, known, as the "Pacification of the Araucania," was an undeclared war and in violation of the Parlamento de Negrete and Tapihue . This aggression constituted an act of "piracy and banditry," which, according to Chilean civil law, "does not transfer ownership." Therefore, either claim by the Chilean state to sovereignty based on settlement or military conquest is illegitimate. State assertion of sovereignty south of the Bío-Bío remains merely a "de facto reality but not a right" ( Marhikewun, 2000).

A ccording to José Lincoqueo, a lawyer and Mapuche activist, this argument linking colonial and republican parlamentos with Chilean civil and constitutional law has the potential to stimulate a "social atomic bomb" amongst the Mapuche. It is a legal challenge that could re-invigorate Mapuche opposition to the legitimacy of Chilean sovereignty ( Guzmán, 1998). Indeed, many Mapuche organisations regard the parlamentos as providing the foundation for a future model of self-determination throughout Ragko Mapu . Consejo de Todas las Tierras has stated that:

the rights the Mapuche people as a Nation claim today.[are] explicitly ratified in the Mapuche-Spanish Parlamentos . These documents.remain in effect today despite the fact that the Chilean and Argentinean states deny their validity. They constitute legal protection when it comes to the time of claiming Mapuche ancestral and collective rights, such as self-determination ( Consejo de Todas las Tierras, 1998).

3) The Parlamentos: Living Treaties

In an interview with Mapuche International, José Lincoqueo argued that "the signing of treaties between the Mapuche and Spain constituted a formal recognition of the existence and independence of each nation by the other[,].a solemn pact.irrevocable and unmodifiable, [where] neither party can argue that today we recognise you but tomorrow no "(Mariqueo 1999). The fact that these agreements were signed two hundred years ago does not make them irrelevant, argues Lincoqueo, since "a thousand years could pass and the terms of the parlamentos would remain valid " (Fuentes 1998). This perspective, while controversial, is gaining support within the international legal field. For example, the United Nations has taken up the challenge of examining the status of historical indigenous-settler treaties within the contemporary rule of international law.

According to the 1999 report by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Lincoqueo's argument that the parlamentos remain in effect is in keeping with general principles of international law. Based on pacta sunt servanda , the cornerstone of international treaty law and enshrined in article 26 of the Vienna Convention, treaties signed with indigenous nations, "maintain their original status and continue fully in effect " (Martinez, 1997, p271). More specifically, t he continuing importance of the parlamentos is a view shared by the United Nations Special Rapporteur Miguel A. Martinez in his Final Report of the Study on Treaties . In his findings, Martinez concludes that, taking into consideration their origin, causes and development, the parlamentos can be compared, in some aspects, to certain Indigenous treaties in British and French North America (Martinez, 1997, p107). As such, "there are.juridical obligations.with the 'Indians' through negotiation and legally binding instruments." (Martinez, 1997, note# 108). With regard to the Mapuche Nation's status in the parlamentos vis-à-vis Spain and Chile, a 1992 UN report states that: "whatever present-day notions may be sustained about indigenous 'self-determination,' 'nationhood' and 'sovereignty,' the fact still stands that in the early juridical relations between indigenous and non-indigenous societies, the European parties were very much aware that their indigenous counterparts indeed acted as sovereign nations" (Martinez, 1992).

Two centuries of formal diplomatic relations, from 1641-1825, places the Mapuche in a unique position amongst the indigenous nations of Latin America . It imposes a treaty-based obligation on behalf of the Chilean state to address Mapuche demands for land rights and self-determination. It is an important legal tool, one built upon an historical and contemporary understanding that the parlamentos signed between Spain , Chile and the Mapuche were nation-to-nation agreements, recognising Mapuche self-determination. According to the principle of pact sunt servanda and other tenets of contemporary international law, these treaties continue in effect; the Mapuche remain an "independent nation" whose traditional territories exist, despite land allotment acts and military invasion, recognised and protected under Chilean civil and international law.

Having established that Mapuche nationhood and territorial integrity continue to exist, the paper will now examine whether international developments in indigenous rights, beyond pact sunt servanda , can offer the Mapuche recourse in their struggle for self-determination. Three key initiatives will be examined, the International Labour Organization's Convention 169, the UN Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples and the Organization of American States Proposal on Indigenous People. In reviewing these initiatives, the paper will examine the receptiveness of the Chilean government to these evolving legal standards and determine what impact they may have in relations between the Mapuche Nation and Chilean state.

Chile , the Mapuche and international indigenous rights

In 1997 the Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization (UNPO) [12] passed the "Resolution on the Mapuche of Chile." The declaration called on the Government of Chile to recognise the right of self-determination of the Mapuche Nation, requesting the government to respect and uphold its own and all international laws concerning indigenous peoples (UNPO 1997). Over the last twenty-years, international law concerning indigenous peoples has been evolving, attempting to accommodate indigenous demands for self-determination and autonomy. In 1970, the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities recommended a comprehensive study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous peoples. In 1971, Jose Martinez Cobo was appointed Special Rapporteur for the study. His final report was submitted to the Sub-Commission during the years 1981-1984. It became the foundation for future UN work relating to indigenous peoples. Following his landmark study, the United Nations founded a Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP). [13]Since the establishment of the WGIP in 1982, a growing interest in accommodating indigenous aspirations has led to a number of other important initiatives.

T he International Labour Organisation Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, Convention No. 169 (ILO 169), is international law's most concrete manifestation of the growing responsiveness to indigenous peoples' demands ( Anaya, 1997). Adopted by the ILO in 1989, it requires ratifying states to take "special measures" to protect the rights of indigenous peoples and their territories. For instance, Article 7 (1) promotes the right of indigenous peoples "to exercise control.over their economic, social and cultural development." According to commentator James Anaya, ILO 169 is significant insofar as it creates "treaty obligations among ratifying states in line with current trends in thinking prompted by indigenous peoples' demands" ( Anaya, 1997). These states, Anaya continues, have reached a "certain new common ground about minimum standards that should govern behaviour toward indigenous peoples" ( Anaya, 1997). As such, the ratification of ILO 169 by the Chilean government remains a key issue for Mapuche organizations and their supporters ( International Peace Bureau, 1998).

In 1992, the WGIP issued its Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was developed with substantial indigenous participation. The Declaration would be legally non-binding, even if ratified by the General Assembly. As such, t he UN Draft Declaration goes beyond Convention No. 169, especially in its bold statements in areas of indigenous self-determination, land and resource rights, and rights of political autonomy . The Draft recognises that "indigenous peoples, in agreement with international law, have the right to self-determination, for which they can freely determine their political status and their institutions, as well as decide the economic, social and cultural development they aspire to. This includes, as a fundamental part, their right to autonomy and self-government" ( United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, 1993).

In Latin America , the Organization of American States (OAS) has responded to vigorous indigenous lobbying by developing its own declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (Selverston-Scher, 1998). The OAS Proposed Declaration on Indigenous Peoples, started in 1989, was in part inspired by developments within the United Nations and the adoption of ILO 169. In attempting to redefine political, social and cultural relations between indigenous peoples and states, both the UN Draft and OAS proposal have built upon the standards established by ILO 169. They do so by recognizing rights in three main areas: 1) self-determination, autonomy and self-government; 2) lands, territories and resources; and 3) political participation rights. These rights are all in some way related to fundamental guarantees of non-discrimination and cultural integrity. Initiatives such as ILO 169, the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the OAS Proposed Declaration on Indigenous Peoples are evidence of a growing international respect and recognition for indigenous self-determination.

However, despite the enthusiasm of indigenous organizations, many states remain deeply concerned about the question of self-determination and the limits of indigenous autonomy. The right of indigenous "peoples" to self-determination has been contentious as certain states claim that recognition of this right will lead to secession and territorial dismemberment. The fear of "the Balkanization of the Nation" is a common argument against recognition of indigenous rights and autonomy ( Carlsen, 2002). For their part, indigenous peoples, with few exceptions, have stated that they have no desire to secede from states. In 1998, the Mapuche organization, Consejo de Todas las Tierras, expressed this sentiment: "We cannot deny the existence of Chilean society, nor can it deny our existence as Mapuche ...We are not promoting independence or a sovereign state; it is impossible. There are established towns and a mixing of the two cultures " ( Nuñez and Diaz, 2000). However, despite such assurances from indigenous organisations, Chile remains uncomfortable with any talk of an indigenous right to self-determination as "peoples."

With respect to the textual references to self-determination in the UN Draft Declaration, Chile has argued that some clarification was needed to assuage the "threat" states perceived to their territorial integrity ( Barsh, 1996). This was deemed possible through internal "self-determination.in the context and framework of the States in which indigenous peoples live" ( Barsh, 1996). Chile suggested Article 3 of the Draft be revised to the following: "Indigenous peoples have the right to be recognised and to define themselves as such, with their differences, and to pursue their development in accordance with objectives, aims and methods in keeping with that definition, as part of the plural society that makes up the State to which they belong" ( Barsh, 1996). This suggestion, enthusiastically endorsed by many other state representatives, re-defines self-determination as it applies to indigenous peoples ( Barsh, 1996). The Chilean representatives hoped to by-pass the definition of self-determination established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). [14]Further, Chile 's resistance to any form of settlement based on autonomy and self-determination is clear by the government's failure to ratify ILO 169, and its criticism of the UN Draft Declaration.

According to a 1998 report in Human Rights Quarterly , Chile objects in part, or in whole, to fifteen of the forty-three articles in the Declaration and fails to provide an opinion on another twenty-four articles. Most critical to Mapuche demands, is Chile 's rejection as a whole of Article 3, "the right to self-determination," and Article 26, "the recognition of historical treaties" ( Barsh, 1996). Arguably, while the international community is developing new norms in international recognition of indigenous rights, [15]Chile remains a backwater of 'business as usual.' [16]There is no constitutional decree that recognises the legal, physical and cultural existence of indigenous populations; there has been no ratification of Convention No. 169 of the ILO; there have been no changes in natural resource management policies from those in force under the Pinochet dictatorship; and there has been no attempt to examine Mapuche demands for self-determination, as enshrined in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( National Commission of Indigenous Peoples of Chile, 2001).

While the Chilean government continues to resist developments in international rights, it must be aware that Mapuche aspirations for self-determination and land rights cannot be silenced. The Mapuche people have suffered greatly under colonial occupation. According to a report by the UNPO:

The suffering the Mapuche people have endured due to forced evictions from their lands in the name of the 'common good,' 'development,' industrialization and privatisation, have seriously undermined the Mapuche way of life ( Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization, 1997).

The attitude of the Chilean government is short sighted. The frustration of Mapuche communities at the intransigence of the government and the rampant exploitation of their traditional lands is a "time bomb" ( Cristian, 2000) that without support from the international community and commitment from the Chilean government could lead to another "Chiapas-style conflict" ( Robberson 1999). As the largest "ethnic group" in Chile , the Mapuche voice will only continue to grow in condemnation of state policies. In the words of the Mapuche community of Lumako:

At no time will the development of the struggle be halted. [Our] values are revitalising the assertion of our claims to recovery of our lands. This will be clarified when the Chilean state recognises that we are a multicultural country, which in turn will signify recognition of Mapuche self-determination. In other words, we should share this territory with all equalities and rights, realising the autonomy of the Mapuche people (UNPO, 1999).

Conclusion

This paper has made two critical observations in support of the Mapuche struggle. First, the parlamentos signed between Chile , Spain and the Mapuche remain in effect and Ragko Mapu has never been extinguished, despite settler occupation and military invasion. Second, the Chilean government operates as a reactionary force within the international legal forum, an intransigence that threatens to place the state in direct conflict with over one million of its own citizens.

In light of these findings, a number of interim recommendations should be made to address the present conflict between the Chilean state and Mapuche Nation.

First, the Chilean government must introduce a constitutional amendment that recognises Chile 's indigenous peoples. Second, the Chilean government must ratify Convention No. 169 of the ILO. Third, Mapuche representatives and the Chilean government must establish a forum to discuss the parlamentos and their legal challenge to state resource development policies within Ragko Mapu . Fourth, the Chilean government must enforce its own environmental regulations and limit the destructive practices of the logging industry. Fifth, the Chilean government and Mapuche Nation must work together, in the spirit of creativity, to institute research projects throughout Ragko Mapu , working with communities to develop a model for future Mapuche autonomy. And last, the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Victoria , B.C ought to establish an exchange program with the Indigenous Institute in Temuco , one that aims to exchange expertise and support on indigenous-settler treaties, self-determination and autonomy.

Bibliography

Anaya, S. James. 1997. "Indigenous Peoples in International Law." Cultural Survival Quarterly Issue #21.2 <http://www.cs.org/newpage/index.cfm> Accessed: Feb. 29, 2003 .

Aylwin, José. 1998. "Indigenous Rights in Chile: Progresses and contradictions in a context of economic globalization" presented at the Canadian Association for Latin American and Caribbean Studies (CALACS) XXVIII Congress, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C., March 19-21, 1998

Barsh, Lawrence Russel. "Indigenous Peoples and the UN Commission on Human Rights: A Case of the Immovable Object and the Irresistible Force". Human Rights Quarterly 18.4 (1996) 782-813. p786

Bengoa, José. 1985. Historia del Pueblo Mapuche . Ediciones Sur: Santiago de Chile.

Carlsen Laura. July 18, 2002 . "Self-Determination and Autonomy in Latin America : One Step Forward, Two Steps Back". Foreign Policy Focus #20 p.11

< http://www.selfdetermine.org/regions/indigrights.html > Accessed: Feb.23, 2003

Consejo de Todas las Tierras. Feb. 1998. "Conferencia sobre Parlamentos y Tratados Mapuche." Aukin . February 1998. ( Aukin is the official monthly journal of the Consejo de Todas las Tierras ). Translated by author.

Cristian, Eduardo Sandoval Cabezas. March 31, 2000 . "Ethnic Conflict in Chile : A Time Bomb." La Prensa de San Diego . < http://www.lasculturas.com/lib/sd/blsd033100b.php > Accessed: Feb. 12, 2003

Diaz, Jaqueline and Nuñez, Nancy. "Mapuche of Chile demand self-determination." Green Left Weekly , November 2000.

El Diario Oficial, Chile . 2002. "Constitución Política de la República de Chile de 1980 con Reforma de 2000." <http://www.georgetown.edu/pdba/Constitutions/Chile/chile01.html> Accessed: Feb. 16, 2003

Fuentes, Daniel Ramón. "Ofensiva legal Mapuche. El día del juicio" Diario El Sur en Internet . Reportajes, 6 de Diciembre, 1998. <http://members.aol.com/mapulink5/mapulink-5e/art-13.html> Accessed: Feb. 15, 2003 . Translated by author

Gobierno de Chile. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas. 1992. "Censo de Población y Vivienda." <http://www.ine.cl/> Accessed: Feb. 28, 2003 .

Guzmán, Juan Andrés. 1998. "Mapuches anuncian año de protestas por sus tierras." La Tercera en Internet , Feb. 02, 1998 <http://linux.soc.uu.se/mapuche/lumaco/terc980202.htm> Accessed: Feb. 07, 2003

International Peace Bureau. 1998. "Mapuches denounce the Chilean government at the UN". Commission on Human Rights, United Nations, Fifty-Fourth Session, Item 16: Rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. 16 March - 24 April 1998 .

International Peace Bureau. 1997. "Document presented on behalf of the Mapuche Inter-regional Council." Commission on Human Rights Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Working Group on Indigenous Peoples . 31st July 1997

Langman, James. "Indigenous fight to keep land in Chile ". Washington Times , February 11th 2003 .

Lincoqueo, Jose. 1999. "Document presented by Mr. Lincoqueo on behalf of Mapuche Inter-regional Council Human Rights Commission. Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." Working Group on Indigenous Populations. 17th Session. 26 to 30 July 1999

Mapuche International Link. June 27 2001 . "Lincoqueo interpone recurso de nulidad en contra del juicio oral y de la sentencia contra mapuches." June 27 2001 . < http://www.mapuche-nation.org/espanol/html/articulos/art-13.htm > Accessed: March 1, 2003 . Translated by author.

Mapuche Inter-regional Council. 1999. "The Envoy of the Mapuche Inter-regional Council meets Spanish MPs". <http://members.aol.com/mapulink2/english-2/pr-25.html> Accessed: Feb. 16, 2003 .

Mapuche Foundation. 2001. "Who are the Mapuche?" <http://www.mapuche.nl/> Accessed: 2002, Feb. 19> Accessed: March 1, 2003

Marhikewun, R. 2001. "The History of the Mapuche Nation". <http://www.mapuche-nation.org> Accessed: Feb. 19, 2003

Marhikewun, R. 2000. "Independencia Mapuche Suspendida." < http://www.mapuche-nation.org> Accessed: Feb.27, 2003. Translated by author.

Martinez, Miguel A. 1997. Study on Treaties and Agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples . Unedited Version.

Martinez, Miguel A. 1992. Study on Treaties and Agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples . First Progress Report submitted by Special Rapporteur, Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez. August 1992. Commission on Human Rights. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Forty-Forth Session. Discrimination against Indigenous Peoples.

Mariqueo, Reynaldo. Nov. 15, 1999. "Interview with José Lincoqueo." Mapuche Link . < http://www.mapuche-nation.org> Accessed: Feb. 15, 2003 . Translated by author

Martinez, Miguel A. 1997. Study on Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples . Final Report. Unedited Version. p.271.

National Commission of Indigenous Peoples of Chile . February 3rd 2001 . "Letter from the National Indigenous Commission to the Inter American Development Bank." <http://members.aol.com/mapulink2/english-2/letter-13.html > Accessed: Feb. 22, 2003 .

Nietschmann, Bernard. "The Fourth World : Nations versus States". In Reordering the World , eds. Demko, George J and William B. Wood. Boulder , Westview Press. pp 225-242.

Nuñez,Nancy and Diaz, Jaqueline. 1993. "Mapuche of Chile Demand Self-determination." Green Left Weekly . <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1993/90/90p21.htm> Accessed: Feb 9, 2003 .

Robberson, Tod. "The Mapuche battle for 'their' land." The Dallas Morning News. December 10, 1999

Selverston-Scher, Melina. 1998. "Overview of Self-Determination Issues in Mexico ." Foreign Policy in Focus . < http://www.selfdetermine.org/regions/latam_body.html > Accessed: Feb. 20, 2003

United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples. 1993. United Nations Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. 1993a, Article. 1. <http://www.cwis.org/drft9329.html> Accessed: March 1, 2003 .

Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization. 1997. "Resolution on the Mapuche of Chile ". Fifth General Assembly 5th July 1997 . <http://www.unpo.org/> Accessed: Feb. 1, 2003 .

Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization. March 1999. "Press Release of The Communal Association of the Mapuche Communities of Lumako, following the arrest of our president, Alfonso Reiman." < http://members.aol.com/mapulink2/english-2/press-r-11.html > Accessed: Feb. 1, 2003 .

1. In the Mapuche language, Rakgo Mapu refers to Mapuche traditional territory . In Spanish, this territory is commonly referred to as Araucania.

2. A Nation is a cultural territory made up of communities of individuals who see themselves as "one people" on the basis of a common ancestry, history, society and institutions, ideology, language, territory and often religion. A person is born into a specific nation by being born a Kurd, a Basque, or a Tibetan, for instance. An outsider cannot become Tibetan by moving to Tibet . To be Tibetan is to born Tibetan, to be Basque is to be born Basque. A nation is both the cultural homeland of a people and a people who have a cultural homeland. A nation is a community of self-identifying people who have a common culture and historical territory. See: Nietschmann, Bernard. "The Fourth World : Nations versus States." In Reordering the World, eds . Demko, George J and William B. Wood. Boulder , Westview Press. pp 225-242.

3. The modern state is the outgrowth of European kingdoms and overseas colonialism. The state is a legal creation, with a centralized political system and boundaries recognised by other states. It uses a civilian-military bureaucracy to establish one government and to enforce one set of institutions and laws. It typically has one language, one currency, one flag and sometimes one religion. Most states are created and run by nation cores or "bedrock nations" that have become both the point of expansion and the hegemonic culture. Such examples would be the Han/China, the English/UK, the Castile/Spain the Java/Indonesia. See: Nietschmann, Bernard. "The Fourth World : Nations versus States." In Reordering the World, eds . Demko, George J and William B. Wood. Boulder , Westview Press. pp 225-242.

4. The Bío-Bío River is located approximately 500 km south of the capital Santiago .

5. Law of December 4 th 1866 . Indigenous community leaders must prove occupancy of lands for at least one year. Those lands would be surveyed by a commission and allotted to the community. Any surplus lands were deemed uninhabited and opened for settlement. The 1866 Law was similar in design and effect to the later Dawes Act in the United States .

6. The "Pacification of Araucania" is known as La Ultima Matanza (The Last Massacre) by the Mapuche. In the course of 35 years (1884-1919), approximately 80,000 Mapuche were confined to some 3,000 reservations. During the same period, approximately 22 million acres of Mapuche land were given to Chilean and foreign settlers.

7. The author often found that Chil eans still referred to a sense of cultural kinship with the English. However, this sentiment is largely found within the older generations, as youth tend to relate more with North American culture.

8. The national census uses the word etnico to describe Chileans of non-European descent. This paper acknowledges that indigenous peoples do not regard themselves as an ethnic group or a minority.

9. This contrasts with Ecuador , where Indian rights groups have won special recognition, protection and land rights, through the support of over 100 elected indigenous legislators.

10. Mapuche Inter-regional Council (CIM) is an umbrella organisation located in Temuco city, which is in the heart of Mapuche territory.  CIM comprises of a network of groups and organisations based in various regions of Chile and have the objective of promoting the cultural, social and economic development of the Mapuche Nation.  CIM is a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO).

11. Constitución Política de la República de Chile de 1980 con Reforma de 2000 . Articulo 5: "El ejercicio de la soberanía reconoce como limitación el respeto a los derechos esenciales que emanan de la naturaleza humana. Es deber de los órganos del Estado respetar y promover tales derechos, garantizados por esta Constitución, así como por los tratados internacionales ratificados por Chile y que se encuentren vigentes"

12. The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) is a democratic, international membership organization. Its members are indigenous peoples, occupied nations, minorities and independent states or territories who have joined together to protect their human and cultural rights, preserve their environments, and to find non-violent solutions to conflicts that affect them. UNPO provides a legitimate and established international forum for member aspirations and assists its members in effective participation at an international level. For more information see: <http://www.unpo.org/>

13. The mandate of the WGIP is twofold: To review national developments pertaining to the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the indigenous peoples; and to develop international standards concerning the rights of indigenous peoples, taking account of both the similarities and the differences in their situations and aspirations throughout the world.

14. The term indigenous peoples, as opposed to indigenous populations or people, has been a contentious issue in many international fora because of its implications for the applicability of the right to self-determination, in that "all peoples" have the right to self-determination. Important international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) refer to the right of self-determination, stating that, "all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Most governments fear that granting the right of self-determination to these "peoples" will allow them the right to secede under international law.

15. See: Working Group on Indigenous Peoples Draft Declaration and Organization of American States Proposed Declaration on Indigenous Peoples

16. On February 11th 2003, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights asked the Chilean government to freeze a hydro-development project that threatened to modify the flow of the Bio-Bio River and flood Mapuche land, "until the organs of the inter-American system of human rights has adopted a definitive decision." However, the government has refused, arguing that the 1982 Electricity Law allows for the expropriation of private property to provide for the public good, regardless whether it is indigenous lands. This example, repeated across Mapuche territory , is the greatest barrier to indigenous self-determination. The interests of resource-based industry, the encroachment of modern agriculture, timber industries and hydro-development, continue a process of colonialization that began with the land allotment acts of 1852 and 1866. (Langman, James. "Indigenous fight to keep land in Chile". Washington Times , February 11th 2003)

Ben Morton completed his undergraduate degree in North American Studies at Liverpool University in 1997. He has lived in Belize , Chile and Ecuador and has been, for the last ten years, an adopted member of the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation in Manitoba . His research interests include indigenous self-determination and Dakota language revitalisation.

ĆELÁNEN: A Journal of Indigenous Governance, February/2004, Vol 1, No. 1.
© 2004 -- Ben Morton