France plans the ethnocide of three indigenous tribes and account for the genocide on the Wayana indians in French-Guiana.
A report by Thierry Sallantin and "Friends of Peoples close to Nature".

FRANCE VIOLATES;
Article 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Directive 76/464/EWG and Directive 80/86/EWG of the European Environmental Law.
Articles 1, 5 and 7 of the International Declaration about the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnical, Religious or Linguistic Minorities.
Article 1 of the International Agreement on economic, social and cultural rights and Acknowledgement of Minorities. Preamble / Preface
The European Union (EU), and in this special case France, directly administrates part of the Amazon Area in South America, between Brazil and Venezuela: French-Guyana (FG). This area is politically seen a French Department and thus part of the EU. FG spans 90.000 square kilometres and is - to 97% - covered with tropical rain forest. The only road runs along the Atlantic coast, where 90% of the 200.000 inhabitants of FG live.
In the south of FG, there are three indigenous tribes left, the Wayampi, the Teko and the Wayana people, who number about 3.600 individuals.

On the occasion of the Conference on World Climate in Rio 1992, France became involved in the creation of a large national park in FG. The discussion still continues, but any official meeting in this regard is held in FG, without any participation of the public and without any involvement of competent experts with experiences in creating national parks in areas with tropical rain forest.

Equally, no anthropologists were called in, with experiences concerning the establishment of territories for indigenous people, as has happened in adjacent Brazil. There, right next to the borders of Surinam and French-Guyana, the Brazilian Government has reserved several large territories exclusively for the inhabiting indigenous. Plus, shortly before the World Summit in Johannesburg, Brazil created the national park ”Tumucumaque”, covering an area of 38.000 square kilometers. The German Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, „Society for Technical Co-Operation“) was involved in the demarcation of the territory for the Wayampi of l’Amampa in Brazil.

In fact, France intended the establishment of a cross-border national park from Surinam to Brazil: but until today, the country refuses to create cross-border sanctuaries for the inhabiting indigenous, although they know that the Wayana and Wayampi Indians traditionally live on both sides of the border.

A national park in Europe:
Scientists like Francis Hallé hope for the establishment of a national park in the middle and northern parts of French-Guyana, an almost uninhabited forest area covering 50.000 square kilometres (Hallé and Poncy/Fleury 1998: 678). Just two villages exist there, Saül and Saint Elie. In addition, one of the rain forests most rich in endemic species is located there. Scot Mory from the New York Botanical Garden estimates that the highlands around Saül are among the richest in species diversity in the whole Amazon Area. The maps of the botanist Jean-Jaques de Granville affirm that the park should be established in the North of FG, not in the South. As a result of this outstanding bio-diversity in the North and with regard to Article 8 of the Convention of Biological Diversity (France signed this Convention on June 13th 1992), France had to create this National Park in the North, just as planned. The analysis of the World Resource Institute confirms that protecting the rain forest in FG is quite easy in comparison with other rain forest areas around the world (Bryant/Nielsen 1997) .

Unfortunately the number of illegal gold seeker camps multiply in the northern part of FG and turn this “European” area into a new “Far-West”. Instructed to break down these illegal camps, the military complains about missing financial means. While 15.000 men for 10 patrols per day would be necessary for controlling and repelling these illegal gold seekers (orpailleurs), the actual military force is so small that it is just sufficient for manning one patrol. Furthermore, in August 2003, a high-ranking official of the Foreign Legion (the elite troop of the French Military) expressed his astonishment about a recent order of the Ministry of Defence not to intervene in respect to the illegal gold seekers .

In the meantime, France has relocated the project of the national park more and more to the south and has reduced its planned dimensions, for fear of a confrontation with the gold seekers. In April 2004, an interview with Viviane Thierron revealed that even the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) accepted to give in to the pressure exerted by the Mining Lobby. It is even considered to accept the gold mining explicitly as integral part of a future national park.

The systematic ethnocide
But the situation is more serious. A national park in the South of French-Guyana would be located right in the heart of an Indian sanctuary which was established by the French Government in the 1970ies. There, the three last indigenous tribes of southern FG are living, the Wayampi, the Teko and the Wayana people, counting together 3.600 individuals. The political status of this Indian sanctuary was then - in 1970 - classified as “restricted area”. Thus, in order to protect the Indian culture, foreigners could only enter with a special permit issued by the French Prefect in Cayenne, the Capital of French-Guyana. Of the 30 indigenous tribes that existed in the whole of FG before the colonisation of 1604, only six remained. The seventh, the Akulio, disappeared in the 1980ies as a result of the deportation forced upon them by the missionaries of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Ethnologists such as Thierry Sallantin and Pierre Francoise Grenand believe that within this Indian sanctuary at least four un-contacted indigenous groups still exist.
Added to this, it must be feared that with the establishment of a national park additional roads will be build which will then be used as additional gateways for the gold seekers.

The implementation of the national park in the south as planned by France would equal a ethnocide and violates the International Declaration about the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. (Resolution 47/137 of the UN General Assembly) :

ÅgStates shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identityÅh (Art. 1, Åò1).

ÅgNational policies and programs shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.Åh (Art. 5, Åò1)

ÅgStates should cooperate in order to promote respect for the rights set
forth in the present Declaration.Åh (Art. 7).

The attitude of the French Government and of the WWF, to establish a national park within an Indian sanctuary, is in contradiction to a new scientific study of “Forest Trends” (Who conserves the world’s forest’s?) which confirms that indigenous people are the best conservationists. A co-operation between conservationists and anthropologists regarding any future planning of such projects should be set as minimum requirement.

Last but not least - until today, the French Government refuses the acknowledgement of the indigenous as a ‘minority’ in FG. Multiple rights could be derived from this status for the Indigenous.

In his report to the UN about nature preserves Markus Colchester of the World Rainforest Movement even goes one step further and declares that a national park may never be established within the habitat of indigenous people as the presence of visitors would inevitably lead to the destruction of the indigenous culture (Colchester 2003: 151). Besides, there’s the immediate danger of lethal diseases introduced by tourists.

The non-acknowledgement of the indigenous as minority and the influence of the gold lobby are probably two of the reasons for the fact that all preparations on the part of France regarding the establishment of the national park in the South were - and are being - held behind closed doors. There are neither any official meeting on EU-level, nor do the French officials try to obtain the co-operation of scientists (biologists as well as anthropologists) of the European universities.

On the other hand, France uses funds of the European Union (71% of the budget of FG, after all) for a policy which is detrimental to the tropical nature as well as to the inhabiting indigenous. Therefore, France avoids with good reason to include representatives, tax payers and other members of the EU in its decision making process.

The indigenous
France intends to establish a national park in the rain forest of French-Guyana before the middle of 2005, without any public announcement, and thus to sacrifice an area which is reserved for the Indian population since 1970. The former Indian territory with its 30.000 square kilometres would be lost. If the park is opened for visitors, the Indians would turn into objects of tourist curiosity which will inevitably lead to their ethnocide. The Minister in charge in French-Guyana, Leon Bertrand, has already announced first steps to get the national park open for tourists. But that same minister has admitted in a letter from May 2003, addressed to Thierry Sallantin, that the Indians object to tourists. A statement of the Indian representative of the Teko people (Emerillion), Mrs. Ti”iwan, confirms the objections of the Indians concerning tourists (Michel 2002: 278ff):

“If we talk about the inherent principle of the national park, we want to make clear that the Indians do not want any tourists in that area, neither in their villages, nor in the – as the brochure describes – “centres to formulate first proposals concerning the project of a tropical rain forest national park Guyana.”. You have to interpret this as to mean that the “villages Maripa, Soulam Saül and Camopi will become (open?) gates into the park, specially designed for the reception of visitors.”

At present, the indigenous try hard to maintain the status quo of a “restricted area”. This would mean that large parts in the inside of the planned park would only be open for people with special authorisation.

The press release of the Wayana of Twenke of June 1998 which was signed by the Grand Man Amaipoti (Michel 2002: 275):

“Hunting, Fishing, the harvesting and the gentle utilization of the forest resources are part of our life, harmonizing with the forest. The Establishment of a national park and the anticipated rules resulting of this national park, directly contradict this symbiotic way of life and the freedom. Thus, the Wayana definitely object to this project. Likewise, as indigenous, they resolutely refuse to be presented as tourist attraction in such a park.”

The two indigenous representations of French-Guyana “Villages of Guyana” and “Federation of Indigenous Organisations in FG” (F.O.A.G.) have expressed their position against the establishment of a national park several times, e.g. in their magazine OKA-MAG.

In the Declaration of Twenké of June 1998, signed as well by the indigenous and by the Noirs-Marrons (Aluku), a people of the adjacent region Maripa-Soula, they refused to be put under the French legislation from 1960, concerning national parks. Instead, the indigenous representatives demand the application of the amended “statute about the explicit acknowledgement of the territorial sovereignty of indigenous and forest peoples.”
Referring to this, the world community committed itself in Article 1 of the 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' of 19.12.1966:

Abs. 1: 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.
Abs. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

With its intentions, France violates this internationally anchored right, too.

5. Gold Rush and Genocide
The documentary of Philippe Lafaix “The right of the jungle, the history of a lawless zone: French-Guyana” tells the story of the present invasion of French-Guyana through gold seekers and the resulting mercury contamination. The French Secretary of Commerce seems to work as accomplice of the mining industry, namely for Cambior and Golden Star from Canada. Those two companies lease their own legally licensed concessions to small gold seekers in order to gain larger profits. (Mackay 2000: 52ff). The costs of the extraction of one ounce of gold in FG is one of the lowest worldwide, just 180 Dollars, thanks to the mercury method and to the illegally employed Brazilian workers). The French newspaper Libération reported on October 16th 2004 that every single year, 10 tons of gold are won legally in French-Guyana, another 35 tons illegally.
Scientists found out that in FG the concentration of mercury in the near vicinity of gold mines lies at 0,6 microgram/gram in fresh fish. In other parts of the country, without gold mines, the concentration is much lower, at about 0,1 microgram/gram.

By their passiveness towards the gold mines the French Government is partly responsible for the excessive discharges of mercury resulting in contaminations that by far exceed thresholds set by the EU Directive 76/464/EWG (discharge of certain hazardous substances into water bodies, Article 2, list 1, appendix 1) and for the violation of Directive 80/86/EWG (conservation of groundwater, Article 4, List 1). More information about this topic may be found in the Greenpeace document “Environmental crimes of multi-national corporations”. By its passive attitude against illegal gold mines in the indigenous territory, the French Government is just as responsible for the rapid increase of miscarriages and deformation of new-borns (Minamata-Illness) among the indigenous. Without instant intervention, this will lead to the genocide of the affected Wayana and Teko Indians, who still follow the traditional fishing. Not to be forgotten in this place are the people of the Noirs-Marrons (former slaves), the Aluku (Boni), Ndjuka (Djuka) and Paramaka, living along the Maroni River and affected by mercury contamination as well.

Even the German-French research station of Nouragues (with co-operation of Prof. G. Gottsberger, University of Ulm) was attacked and plundered by gold seekers on May 7th 2004, although sited right in the heart of a small nature protection area. At present, more than twenty illegal gold seeker camps are counted in that area. Up to now, France has not undertaken any measures to provide protection. Thus it is absurd to claim that the establishment of a national park in the south would protect the indigenous from the gold seekers.

6. The claim
Everything points to the fact that the interest of France towards FG are limited to the European space centre in Kourou (start base of the Ariane missile) whereas the rainforest is left to the armed mob of the “far west”. It would be a challenge worth our European values for France to conserve and protect the northern rain forest as a whole.
The Eco-Tourism in this part of FG could become a second source of income beside the space industry. But the gold mines are per se incompatible with the concept of sustainable development. The protection of the northern rainforest could facilitate the creation of short- and long-term jobs in the frame of a permanent, ecologically sustainable growth.

We demand that the European Community of States tahes instant action to persuade the president of the French Republic, M. Jacques Chirac, to create an autonomous territory for the inhabiting indigenous in the south of FG. This would be comparable to the “Nunavut” territory, which was established in 1999 for the Inuit, an independent people in the north of Canada. With its committal to the Inuit, the rights of the indigenous were accepted according to the ILO convention 169.
Furthermore, we demand to create a large national park of 50.000 square kilometres in the rest of FG, ranging from the central highlands to the moor lands along the coast. With funds of the European Union and with rigorous compliance to the conservation aspect, this can function as a positive example for other countries to conserve their own rain forests in a similar way.

Currently the focus is to prevent the French Government with all urgency to establish an illegitimate national park by the middle of 2005 in an area that was classified as “restricted area” in 1970 in order to protect the inhabiting indigenous.
France is called upon to respect the will of the indigenous and to finally take action against the mercury contamination of the tropical rain forest.

Furthermore, we demand of France to request the involvement of European NGO´s concerning the preparation of this plan. Amongst those there should be conservationist organisations as well as representatives of NGO´s dealing with the problems of indigenous people.

7. References
BRYANT, D., NIELSEN D. (1997): The last Frontier Forests
CATZEFLIS, F., GERAUX, H., LE GUEN, R. (2002): Lòrpaillage en Guyane – Un mal incurable, in: Le Courier de la Nature, Ausgabe März/ April 2002, S. 25
COLCHESTER, M. (2003): U.N.R.I.S.D.-Bericht, Genf, S. 151
HALLÉ, F. (1998): „Bewahrung und Verwaltung des Regenwaldes in Guyana“, Magazin JATBA des ethno-botanischen Labors des Nationalmuseums für Naturgeschichte in Paris Nr. 40, MNHN Paris.
MACKAY, F. (2000): „Französisch Guyana“, in: Forest peoples Programme Report „Undermining the forests“ Ausgabe: Januar 2000, S. 52ff., 89
SILBERSTEIN, J. (2002): Kali´na, eine indianische Familie in Französisch Guyana, Albin Michel ed. S:275, 278-281
PONCY, O., FLEURY, M. (1998): Bericht in der Sonderausgabe Guyana des Magazins JATBA des ethno-botanischen Labors des Nationalmuseums für Naturgeschichte, MNHN Paris.

Please take active part in the campaign against the planned ethnocide and the ongoing genocide and write to the France minister of environment: ministere@ecologie.gouv.fr