Survival International answers to Martin Horwood MP

| Friday November 30, 2007 00:00

It also supported the groundbreaking court case which resulted in the Bushmen's rights being upheld, and which saw the legal concept of 'native title' recognised for the first time by an African court.

Applauded by many, particularly by the Bushmen themselves and other tribal peoples, Survival has also been subject to fierce criticism: by the Botswana government and De Beers, which was inevitable, but also by some NGOs and their allies, anthropologists, and even UK parliamentarians.

Survival rejects these attacks, seeing them as an inevitable result of upsetting the status quo and challenging those who gain from sustaining it. It claims its critics either stand to profit from the exploitation of Bushman land and/or think they know better than the Bushmen themselves what they need and want.

Survival believes this debate has wider ramifications than the future of Botswana Bushmen, claiming it has important implications for the way tribal and indigenous peoples in Africa will be viewed for decades. It goes further, and asserts that the campaign shows how governments and corporations are increasingly using NGOs to further their own agendas, which in many areas is rendering the NGO sector largely ineffective. In this sense, Survival claims the Bushman issue has important implications about the way the world views all human rights issues.

Martin Horwood is the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham and is also the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Tribal Peoples. In conversation with the director of Survival International, Stephen Corry, he asks Survival to respond to the criticisms.

Martin Horwood MP: Why do you use the old term, 'Bushman'?

Stephen Corry: It's not a good word at all, but it's universally understood and there isn't a better one. Like 'Indians' for the Americas, it covers what were once the hundreds of different indigenous tribes of southern Africa. Only a few dozen have survived. The word 'San' is an anthropologists' invention, it's from a non-Bushman language and is rather derogatory. The word used in Botswana, 'Basarwa', is also an insult.

Martin Horwood MP: Some claim that Survival waded into Botswana without proper research: it didn't know what it was doing and hadn't even visited the area.

Stephen Corry: This was something the government pretended. In fact, we had followed the case for years, meeting with government officials as early as 1989, before most of the NGOs who now criticise us were founded. We made no less than 24 separate representations to the government before the 2002 evictions. A Survival researcher attempted to visit the Bushmen in 1988, but was killed by a South African bomb before he got there. We first visited the reserve in 1993 and made several further trips before the 2002 evictions. We went to every affected community and met virtually every single Bushman many times.

Martin Horwood MP: It's also claimed that Survival refused to support the softly-softly approach favoured by Ditshwanelo, the local human rights organisation.

Stephen Corry: In fact we supported it at first. After several years, it was evident it was going nowhere. It failed to prevent the 1997 evictions, and failed in 2001 to stop the government saying it would stop the Bushmen's water supply. We escalated the campaign only after this happened, when we adopted the strong public campaign favoured by the Bushmen. Before that, when local NGOs asked us to do nothing, we did nothing. It didn't work.

Martin Horwood MP: There's also an allegation that the 'management plan', negotiated by local NGOs, would have given the Bushmen rights to live in the reserve, yet Survival opposed it.

Stephen Corry: The 'plan' acknowledged no Bushman rights. It said that they could live in the reserve and hunt, but only at the discretion of the Wildlife Department. Even this never came near to government approval. In the court case, officials confirmed under oath that at no stage did they ever discuss granting rights to the Bushmen.

Martin Horwood MP: But some local NGOs say that Survival's actions - linking diamonds to the evictions, or possibly something else - were the cause of the break down of negotiations between the NGOs and the government.

Stephen Corry: All commentators in the 1990s cited diamonds as a factor in the policy to remove Bushmen, as did Survival. Government officials admitted it. Nevertheless, owing to the sensitivity of government, we did not bring diamonds to the forefront of the campaign until some four weeks after the 2002 evictions: we launched the diamond campaign on 27 February. Nothing that we did could have caused the breakdown in the so-called 'negotiations' in 2001, for we weren't doing anything new then that we hadn't done for years.

Martin Horwood MP: But critics nevertheless insist that something you did caused the breakdown of the talks in 2001.

Stephen Corry: Then why, after six years, don't they say what it was? They've been asked, but they have never responded. If there really were something, they'd have said. The truth is there was nothing: the escalation of government oppression wasn't prompted by Survival.

Martin Horwood MP: So what did cause the government to announce the withdrawal of 'services' to the Bushmen, such as its capping of the water borehole?

Stephen Corry: The government had wanted the Bushmen out since the diamond discoveries. But the most likely explanation for the timing is that the ministry concerned finally found out about the NGO proposals which ran contrary to its policy of removing the people. It didn't want the Bushmen there, so it acted by closing the borehole.

Martin Horwood MP: So why do some NGOs blame Survival?

Stephen Corry: To mask the failure of their strategy. They never wanted international attention on Botswana, just international money for their projects. After the talks stopped, Botswana NGOs needed a scapegoat. They had received a great deal of international money for their 'negotiations', even charging for having meetings with Bushmen.

Martin Horwood MP:: But local NGOs insist that they were conducting negotiations with government which really were getting somewhere.

Stephen Corry: The talks were never significant. The Bushmen asked for ministers to be invited, but the local NGOs refused. I repeat, government witnesses confirmed under oath that there were never negotiations to arrive at agreements with the Bushmen.

Martin Horwood MP: Then perhaps in more general terms it could still be argued that Survival nevertheless adopted a belligerent stance which made things worse. Many say the local culture favours negotiation over criticism.

Stephen Corry: We begin every action with polite requests and, as I've said, made dozens of representations to the government before even starting to campaign. We escalated our actions following, and as a response to, increasingly violent Botswana government actions. We didn't lead the government into belligerence, we responded to it. That's our job. Of course there's a time and place for quiet diplomacy. But when it doesn't work, those who fail to expose oppression are failing the oppressed. The supposed 'local culture' of government-supported NGOs talking, rather than challenging, achieved nothing. The NGOs made only one request for land rights which the government ignored: it won't talk about Bushman rights. Faced with that, what should we do: give up, or take the fight to a wider audience? The main point of Survival is to internationalise the struggle faced by tribal peoples today, to connect them with powerful allies they never had in the past. It works, and has saved many tribes' lands.

Martin Horwood MP: So what are these local NGOs which you claim were ineffective?
Stephen Corry: It's important to remember that the most important local NGO is the one run by the Bushmen themselves - First People of the Kalahari - which has consistently supported Survival and begged us to act with as much strength as we can muster. Other organisations are different. Ditshwanelo is the only human rights NGO in Botswana. But it's extremely close to government: it has actually represented the government at the UN.

Martin Horwood MP: Is this a case of the GONGO (Government Organised NGO) phenomenon?

Stephen Corry: Yes, it's a global problem. Many governments increasingly use NGOs to support their agendas. It's a dangerous trend, often dressed up with fine concepts such as 'cooperation' and 'consultancy'. Local NGOs, those which are not truly representative of the affected people, are rarely the best advocates for them: they tend to accept the status quo, believing it to be unchangeable. The purpose of international NGOs, at least those concerned with human rights, is precisely to challenge the status quo, not to accept it, not to work within its boundaries. Our job is to listen to what tribal peoples actually want and ask for, not to tell them they're being unrealistic. What's the point of that? The movement against slavery wasn't trying to get better conditions for slaves; it was fighting to end slavery.

Martin Horwood MP: That's easy to say from the safety and comfort of Europe.

Stephen Corry: That's exactly why we have to say it. If I were in Botswana now, I'd be thrown out or worse. Ministers have called me a terrorist, liar and so forth. I've been told my passport would be taken and I'd be beaten. Survival workers are now on a special 'visa list', so it's unlikely we'll be allowed in. We, in the 'west', are privileged because we can say these things, and that means we must say them, because the people there can't.

Martin Horwood MP: Let's look at other criticisms. The government said that your allegations of officials torturing Bushmen for hunting were false.

Stephen Corry: I'm afraid they are all too true. Wildlife guards routinely beat and torture Bushmen they think have been hunting. They do it to intimidate others. Although there have been countless cases reported, the government has never properly investigated a single one.

Martin Horwood MP: It's also said that Survival's use of the term 'genocide' was an unhelpful overreaction.

Stephen Corry: The Bushman tribes suffered a historic genocide, at the hands of both white and black, on the same level as Aboriginals in Australia or North American Indians. We refer to this frequently. We used 'genocide' in a contemporary context when the Botswana police shot at Bushmen in 2005. Shooting was a new and alarming development. We immediately switched our objective from securing land rights to stopping the shooting. There's not a lot of point in land rights if you're being shot! Our studied use of 'genocide' pointed to how badly things were deteriorating. It was justified and it worked, at least to the extent that there have been no shooting incidents since.
Martin Horwood MP: But people say that genocide means killing a very large number of people, Survival shouldn't have used it.

Stephen Corry: This is not correct and is an attack on the concept of minority rights. Genocide has nothing to do with numbers; it's a question of destroying a people, or trying to. If the crime were confined only to large numbers dying, it would exclude all small tribes, some of which number only a few dozen individuals, or even less. The Botswana judge said that preventing the Bushmen hunting was the equivalent of condemning them to death by starvation: the Gana and Gwi peoples are being destroyed by government action.

Martin Horwood MP: Aren't there Bushmen who are hostile to Survival?

Stephen Corry: Peoples everywhere in the world who face a similar predicament to the Bushmen are divided by the interests which want to control them. There are a handful of Bushmen in the relocation camps who are paid government salaries and who are critical of Survival. This is expected, it's the same everywhere, and has no effect on our work. If those Bushmen are content with their lot, that's fine, but we exist to press for the rights of those many who are far from happy.

Martin Horwood MP: But it's said that even the 'largest Bushman organisation' in Botswana is hostile to Survival.

Stephen Corry: The group which claims this position is Kuru or Letloa, an organisation which has evolved from a Dutch Reformed Church Mission and has government people on its board. Kuru assists largely dispossessed Bushmen with developments like schools and so forth. After Survival's campaign began in earnest, Kuru was rescued from bankruptcy and given several million dollars by De Beers. Kuru has no influence over the reserve Bushmen, though it would like to have. It has an essentially developmentalist approach and, like the government, doesn't believe the Bushmen have a future in the reserve.
Martin Horwood MP: Why don't more Botswana organisations support Survival?

Stephen Corry: Though it's changing, Botswana is a hierarchical society where authority is unquestioned and where the opinions of the marginalised are not heeded by the powerful. Most local organisations receive help from the government or De Beers and are close to, often indistinguishable from, the governing elite. There are plenty of Botswana citizens who are critical of government in private, but fear that if they go public their careers will suffer. Non-citizens who criticise are deported. Having said that, in fact there is more and more criticism coming from people in Botswana, especially over government handling of the Bushman issue. Our actions are continually encouraged and welcomed by many in Botswana, not just by the Bushmen.

Martin Horwood MP: There are some hundreds of Bushmen who want to return to the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Why does Survival concentrate on those, rather than the thousands who have no connection with the reserve and who live in poverty?

Stephen Corry: The whole point of Survival is to support minorities: it is they who have the most to lose. There are dozens of development organisations, with budgets hundreds of times larger than ours, helping those who need aid. 

Martin Horwood MP: Let's look at how the government and De Beers described the 'relocations'. The government said that it was too expensive to provide services inside the reserve, and that Bushmen were no longer hunter-gatherers as such, they were apparently hunting with rifles from trucks. They had to leave for conservation reasons.

Stephen Corry: It's important to remember that the government's case is rooted in fabrications. For example, it consistently claimed that the Bushmen had voluntarily relocated, and has even now never admitted they were forced out, though its own court has ruled that is exactly what happened. In its attempts to negate the role diamonds played, it gave lots of different reasons for the supposed 'relocations'. One of the earliest was that it was too expensive to provide the water services, another was the conservation argument. Both the government and De Beers said the Bushmen were hunting from vehicles. Not a word of any of this is true. Government officials confirmed under oath that there was no evidence that the Bushmen had guns. They don't. The Bushmen largely depend on hunting and gathering but they are good conservationists and don't over-hunt. The idea that it was too expensive to provide the 'services' is rubbish. The cost of the so-called 'relocations', and the maintenance of the 'relocation' camps, would have paid for the in-reserve 'services' for hundreds of years. The EU offered to foot the bill anyway. If the root cause is not diamonds, the government has yet to come up with a single plausible reason why it's still so determined to get the Bushmen out.
Martin Horwood MP: But both De Beers and the government say the diamond find in the reserve is 'subeconomic'?

Stephen Corry: That's not true either. We always said that it was an important find (that's what the mining literature asserted) and that De Beers intended to mine. It was Survival's campaign that prevented it. The new company, which bought the rights from De Beers, Gem Diamonds, now wants to mine as soon as possible: there is no more talk of the find being subeconomic. At least that's an honest position and we can move away from De Beers's fabrication. Gem Diamonds says it will consult with the Bushmen - something that De Beers never did - but how can the Bushmen talk to the company as equals if they are still prevented from living on their land?

Martin Horwood MP: A diamond mine would take up only very little space in a vast area, so why do you say it was necessary to remove the Bushmen?

Stephen Corry: The mine area is not nearly as small as De Beers pretended. For example, the security fencing of the largest diamond mine in Botswana would stretch from Balham to Islington and cover most of London. The find on Bushman land is smaller but will still need the removal of over 500 million tonnes of sand and rock and form a huge pit 400 metres deep. But that's the least consideration: as well as fencing and 24-hour lighting, roads for heavy machinery, crushing plants, water pipelines, a landing strip, offices and so on, a mine needs workers and they bring alcohol, prostitutes, and all of that. It's nonsense to claim that a mine will have little impact on the largest conservation area in southern Africa. Besides, there is exploration going on all over the reserve. Once one mine's in place, others are likely to follow. The Bushmen were removed well before this, not because of the space they were taking up, but in order to prevent them claiming any rights to the area, any royalties or anything like that, and to avoid international attention when the time did come to mine. The government and De Beers obviously thought the campaign would last only a year or so and that it would fade away, allowing them to mine when the time was right. Of course, we can understand why they might have thought this: many human rights campaigns are sustained for only a short time before the NGO concerned moves on to other things. It's a great pity.

Martin Horwood MP: Yet, apart from the state, no one in Botswana has any rights to diamonds or minerals.

Stephen Corry: True, but that doesn't mean that people can be pushed off their land and destroyed. They should be treated with respect, with proper explanation and consultation. Now, ten years after the first evictions, that has still not even started.

Maybe it will now with Gem Diamonds, whose attitude to the Bushmen seems much more respectful than De Beers's.

Martin Horwood MP: According to De Beers, the court ruled that diamonds were not the cause of the evictions, so perhaps Survival was wrong after all?

Stephen Corry: Although De Beers pretended that was the court's ruling, in fact it wasn't. The motive behind the evictions was never part of the Bushmen's legal case. It was the government which dragged in diamonds, and even made the court visit the site to see that De Beers had taken down its drilling rig - a waste of time and money, as everyone knew it had. Of course, we can now see just how dishonest that was: it's exactly the same place that Gem Diamonds now wants to mine.

Martin Horwood MP: Shouldn't they mine? Haven't diamonds brought immense wealth to Botswana?

Stephen Corry: Botswana is one of the richest countries in Africa and it's all from diamonds. Unfortunately, 40 years after the first finds, half the people are still in poverty with one of the shortest life expectancies in the world, less than 34 years. Does it really need more if it means digging up the central Kalahari? Maybe it does, but there's been no national debate about it. In any event, Survival's role is simply to ensure that the Bushmen's rights to their lands are upheld. If they want mines, that's their choice, but they must be able to talk about it on a fair and level playing field: they must be allowed back on their lands first.

Martin Horwood MP: Can people stay inside protected zones? Is there a case for removing them to help nature conservation which surely benefits us all?

Stephen Corry: What protected zone? Remember, there are plans to explore and mine all over the reserve. People live inside real conservation areas in many countries. When local people are thrown out, it's not only a human rights' abuse, but also the people start hating what the zone stands for. That brings poaching and over-hunting, and people who think 'conservation' is just a smokescreen for oppression and land theft which it can all too easily become. There is never real conservation unless people locally believe it and want it. The best conservationists are usually the people who have always lived there. That sounds obvious, but there are still many in the conservation movement who want people removed. It's an old and very destructive idea which must be challenged.

Martin Horwood MP: But overall, isn't there still the impression that Survival somehow messed up and got things wrong?

Stephen Corry: That's a result of the sustained and expensive public relations campaign which the government has launched against Survival. The fact they've needed to do this shows how effective our work has been. Of course they're going to fight back. We know that many want to destroy Survival and that this is also the position of a few anthropologists who say they don't believe in indigenous peoples. These enemies of tribal peoples are well funded. We expect the hostility to increase, as we are now forced to renew the campaign. We will doubtless be told, yet again, that local NGOs are on the verge of some imaginary breakthrough which our campaign has messed up.

Martin Horwood MP: Might that not be true?
Stephen Corry: Well, they've had ten years since the first evictions and many months since the end of the court case. All they have ever said is, 'Do nothing!' When we do wait, as we have recently - not for the first time, and at their request - absolutely nothing results. Meanwhile, the Bushmen continue to suffer massive social breakdown in the relocation camps. That is of course what the government wants. It thinks that if it can all be dragged on long enough, the Bushmen and Survival will give up.

Martin Horwood MP: Is this row just a difference of opinion which is getting in the way of the real issues?

Stephen Corry: It's not a question of opinion but of fact: all my points can be backed up by irrefutable documentation. Far from getting in the way, this debate is the real issue: it will determine the future of Bushman rights in Botswana, even of tribal peoples more widely in Africa. Whether they thrive or wither will partly depend on how these issues are resolved. 

Martin Horwood MP: Isn't the government now abiding by the court ruling?
Stephen Corry: No. It only allows a few Bushmen onto their land without a permit, it forbids all hunting and it won't let them use their own water or return their goats. It is still determined to keep them off their land. This is destroying them.

Martin Horwood MP: Won't you have to give up in the end?
Stephen Corry: No, we are here to work on cases which last decades. Our pursuit of Yanomami land rights in Brazil went on for over 20 years before the Brazilian government made the Yanomami Park, now the biggest area of protected rainforest in the world, one which never needed money or arguments about carbon trading. The answer is simply to accept indigenous peoples are as much in charge of their own land as anyone. It's simple and cheap. Of course, the Botswana government may still destroy the Gana and Gwi.

Only it can choose if it's going to let them live or die; only world opinion, especially in Botswana of course, can decide if it cares enough to stop the crime. Survival would be pointless if it just gave up: we won't do that. Aren't tens of thousands of years of human heritage worth a few decades' work? The movement against slavery took over 100 years to come to fruition. I've always seen this struggle in similar terms.

Martin Horwood MP: But isn't it inevitable that the Bushmen will have to change?
Stephen Corry: Of course, all societies change all the time. It's nothing to do with the myth of 'progress' or keeping the Bushmen in isolation. They were never in that imaginary state: the Gana and Gwi Bushmen came and went from their lands as they wished. Even when some left, it was vital for their survival as peoples that they had the right to return. The reserve is the place they can live well, in their own communities, without money if they don't have it.

Martin Horwood MP: Many would argue that everyone wants money.
Stephen Corry: Taking tribes' lands forces them into a cash economy, but their pockets remain empty. It brings immense poverty and suffering. Any idea that it's their first step on a road to becoming middle-class citizens is pie in the sky. The proof of that lies in every native and aboriginal cemetery from Australia to Canada.

Martin Horwood MP: What happens next?
Stephen Corry: We expect the attacks on Survival to increase. Our view, that tribal people know best what they want and need, will attract more criticism from NGOs pursuing their own well-funded agendas. Any serious pursuit of human rights will always call down a fierce retaliation from those with vested interests - power, money, or both. This is the lesson of both anti-slavery and anti-apartheid. To oppose these crimes is not particularly difficult, but it requires conviction and patience. Survival has both. We are now forced to reinstate the campaign and carry on until the government allows the Bushmen back, and allows them to hunt and access their own water. If that happens, they'll be in a fairer position to talk to the mining company.

Martin Horwood MP: What do you think you've achieved?
Stephen Corry: I am one of many who have had the privilege to play a small role in this extraordinary cause; it's achieved far more than we thought possible. It's been immensely empowering for the Bushmen and has really put them on the map. They confronted the state and won, and attracted many supporters along the way, including many in Botswana. The general view of Bushmen has changed immeasurably for the better: many Botswana citizens now know about their problems and are far more understanding than they were before. Together with the Bushmen, we have effectively challenged the old colonial ideology that everyone strives to become like us, or is stupid or childish if they don't want to. More concretely, the Bushmen now have the legal right to live on their ancestral land. This is far more than the local NGOs ever thought possible. I might add that we've also prevented mining in one of the wildest parts of the planet, though that has never been our goal and isn't now. The new company, Gem Diamonds, accepts that it can only mine with the Bushmen behind it. That's a first for Africa and more old-fashioned diamond companies will have no alternative but to follow suit. It's also the first time that the legal concept of 'native title' has ever been recognised by an African court. This campaign has advanced the debate about indigenous peoples' rights in Africa by decades. It's changed everything. 

Timeline
1981 - Diamonds are discovered on Gana and Gwi Bushman land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana.

1986 - Government announces its policy of removing Bushmen from the reserve. It says it will not use force. (A claim astonishingly still held to by the government in spite of its own court's findings).

1988 - Survival begins asking government to change its policy (representations continue to the present).

1989 - Survival produces its first action bulletin on the situation.
1996 - Formal evaluation of diamond find.

1997 (May) - First evictions of Bushmen from the reserve.
1997 (June) - Survival reacts with its second action bulletin.
2000 - Local NGO, Ditshwanelo, begins talks with wildlife department to try to agree a 'management plan' for the reserve. Survival supports it.

2001 (30 March) - Local council says it will stop all 'services' in the reserve (principally, drawing water from a borehole on Bushman land).

2001 (11 April) - Survival reacts with a press announcement.
2001 (20 April) - The pressure works: government reverses local council's decision and says services will not be cut after all.

2001 (13 August) - Government nevertheless announces termination of services.
2001 (31 August) - Ditshwanelo and/or its colleagues leak to the press an account of the 'management plan', which has taken four years to draw up. It falsely claims government has agreed to Bushman rights in the reserve.

2002 (February) - Government caps water borehole and forcibly trucks almost all Bushmen out of the reserve (some for the second time), mostly to two 'relocation camps'.

2002 - (27 February) Survival reacts by escalating its campaign. De Beers's local managing director welcomes the evictions. Survival focuses its campaign for the first time on De Beers and the role of diamonds.

2002 - Bushmen take the government to court.
2002 (April) - A minister reports on the number of Bushmen removed and says she will, 'do what it takes to remove the others.'

2005 - The government attempts to block information coming out of the reserve. Those going in are not allowed cameras.

2005 (24 September) - During a court adjournment, the government's lawyer escorts police to a relocation camp to stop Bushmen returning to the reserve. Bushmen, including women and children, are shot at with baton rounds, beaten and arrested. In two other separate incidents, guards shoot and wound a Bushman child and another Bushman man. Government evicts Bushmen who have returned (some for third time).

2005 (5 October) - Survival reacts by placing adverts about the shooting. The use of firearms stops.

2006 (November) - With the court's ruling just weeks away, diamond explorations increase in reserve.

2006 (13 December) - Botswana's High Court rules in favour of the Bushmen. On the same day, Survival phases down its campaign and waits for government response. Rejecting any hint of triumph, Survival declares the judgement, 'an immense victory for Botswana - its peoples and its government.'

2007 (March) - Government places UN special rapporteur, senior journalists and Survival employees on 'visa list'; they now cannot enter Botswana without a permit.
2007 - Government fails to apply the court's ruling and refuses to allow Bushmen in the reserve to access any water or hunt. It allows only a few back without permits.

2007 (September) - After waiting nine months, with no positive signs whatsoever from the government, Survival reinstates campaign.