📰 Article by Dmitry Ryakhovsky, Senior Adviser of the Department for Multilateral Human Rights Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published on the Arctic.ru information portal – Indigenous Peoples in the International Arena: Who Belongs to the Group and How to Protect Their Rights.

Read in full

✍️ The principal reason for disputes over the status of indigenous peoples lies in different national approaches. Each state has its own criteria for determining which peoples should be regarded as indigenous.

In many Asian countries e.g. researchers emphasize centuries of migration and population mixing. As a result, the traditional Western understanding of indigenous peoples is often considered inapplicable, since it is not always possible to determine with certainty which ethnic group originally inhabited the territory in question. The Indian subcontinent is frequently cited as an example, where centuries of migration have made it virtually impossible to identify the first ethnic communities to settle the region.

In Africa, the concept of indigenous peoples is often applied to communities whose traditional way of life is under threat. These include, for example, the San (Bushmen) of the Kalahari Desert, the Mbuti (Pygmies) of the tropical forests of Central Africa, and the Maasai nomadic cattle herders.

There is likewise no uniform approach across Latin America. In Peru, the term “community” is used instead of “indigenous people”. Ecuador recognizes “Indian nationalities”, each of which encompasses several related peoples, whereas Uruguay officially denies the existence of indigenous peoples altogether.

☝️It can therefore be concluded that the concept of indigenous peoples varies across countries, reflecting each state’s historical experience and national specifics.

***

At the international level, there is likewise no universally accepted definition of indigenous peoples, despite repeated attempts to develop one.

As Erica-Irene Daes, Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, observed, it is extremely difficult to come up with a definition that is both accurate and universally applicable across all regions of the world. In her view, definitions that are too broad become vague, while those that are too narrow exclude many communities that are equally in need of protection.

Instead of relying on a rigid definition, international practice generally takes into account a number of identifying characteristics such as historical ties to a particular territory, cultural distinctiveness, continuity across generations, the preservation of a traditional way of life, as well as self-identification.

Nevertheless, none of these characteristics can be regarded as decisive in itself, and international organizations have largely avoided adopting rigid definitions. Despite the absence of a common understanding, the international community has continued its efforts to establish mechanisms for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007 was one of the most significant documents in this regard.

Importantly, the Declaration does not provide a universal definition of indigenous peoples. Instead, it sets out a list of rights that such communities should enjoy, including the rights to preserve their cultural identity, to participate in decision-making on matters affecting their interests, and rights relating to lands, territories and natural resources.

☝️ Thus, international law places greater emphasis on creating mechanisms to protect the rights of communities that meet the characteristics of indigenous peoples, rather than on finding a single universal definition.

***

In conclusion, the concept of “indigenous peoples” remains one of the most complex categories in contemporary international law. The modern international approach focuses on protecting the rights of individuals and communities that preserve their identity.

⚡️ Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation:

The Press Bureau of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation (SVR) reports that, according to information received by the SVR, the June strike on the Museum of the Defence of Sevastopol, which drew broad public attention, was a carefully planned provocation by London and its intelligence services.

Ukrainian servicemen prepared and launched the drones. However, they were most likely unaware of the attack’s true target. The flight missions were uploaded into the weapons systems by British specialists posing as military advisers.

Why did the British choose the panorama depicting the heroic defence of Sevastopol during the Crimean War of 1853-1856? There were, after all, no military facilities near the museum.

☝️ The reason is that London largely views the Ukrainian conflict as an opportunity to settle old scores after its failed 19th-century attempt to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

The museum is a historical trigger, stirring painful memories in Britain of a gruelling military campaign that brought enormous losses among the upper ranks of the UK elite. In these circumstances, for proud Albion, setting the panorama ablaze amounted to an attempt to erase a testimony to the heroism of the Russian soldier.

🤷‍♂️ Sadly, London has still failed to learn the lessons of history.

We are convinced that the British will have to answer for this strike, as well as for many other barbaric crimes against the peoples of Russia and Ukraine.