México Indígena

México Indígena is the controversial prototype project of the Bowman Expeditions, an initiative of the American Geographical Society to organize international teams of geographers to research potentially important place-based issues and restore the role of geographers as advisers to U.S. government foreign policy.[1] The stated objective of the México Indígena project is to produce maps of the "digital human terrain," of the region's indigenous peoples. As asserted by Jeremy Dobson, the American Geographical Society's President, and a key México Indígena project advocate and participant "much of the human terrain concept, however controversial, sits at the core of our discipline".[2][3]

The México Indígena project began in 2005, and the bulk of its work will end in 2008. Led by a multinational team of Latin Americanist geographers, including Peter Herlihy [4] the Associate Director and Graduate Advisor, Latin American Studies, University of Kansas,[5][6] as well as Jeremy Dobson and Miguel Aguilar Robledo,[7] it focuses on the geography of Mexico's indigenous populations and the changes in the cultural landscape and conservation of natural resources resulting from the gargantuan land certification and privatization program called the Programa de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares (Program for the Certification of Ejido Rights and Titling of House Plots or PROCEDE). The legal changes initiated by the PROCEDE program may eventually lead to the disappearance of the Registro Agrario Nacional (RAN),[8] Mexico's rural land registry for communal property (ejidos and mainly indigenous comunidades agrarias).

México Indígena's primary method for obtaining and understanding geographic data is participatory research mapping (PRM). In PRM, local investigators, chosen by the communities, are trained by the formal researcher in geographic data gathering techniques. Cognitive mental (individual) maps are converted to consensual (community) maps, including only features whose nature, name, and coordinates have been verified. These are then converted to standardized maps,[9] which the communities may choose to use for educational, political, legal, or other, purposes. Participatory maps of resource-use areas, for example, have been used successfully for indigenous territorial claims in Panama (Herlihy 2003) and elsewhere. México Indígena's primary tool for joining data from different sources to produce maps and to analyze trends is geographic information systems (GIS).

Sponsoring and collaborating institutions and participants [10] of the México Indígena research project have included the University of Kansas (US), the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí (Mexico), the Foreign Military Studies Office, Radiance Technologies (US),[11] and the Mexican federal environmental ministry SEMARNAT.

In many respects the México Indígena project is an example of military geography. "FMSO's goal is to help increase an understanding of the world's cultural terrain." [12] The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges' International Development Project Database Survey notes that the México Indígena research project has received between $751,000-$1,000,000 from all sources external funds, including: U.S. Department of Defense, Foreign Military Studies Office; U.S. Department of State, Fulbright-Garcia Robles; the American Geographical Society; the University of Kansas' Center of Latin American Studies; Mexico's Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales; and the Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí.[13]

Imperial Geography: Geopiratería[14]

The false attribution of location in the visual arts has been deemed "geopiracy" by Vogel (2006) and rigorously defined in Vogel et al. (2008). México Indígena raises consequential questions when humans are not falsely situated (located) in digitally-generated topographies of the human terrain. The ethical questions generated by the moral quagmire associated with efforts such as the México Indígena project have yet to be adequately addressed. While México Indígena's ethical guidelines explicitly assert "No information will be acquired through deception or misrepresentation" [15] significant concerns have arisen regarding the nature of the research,[16] despite the project's embrace of a putatively participatory research methodology that ostensibly "empowers" the local community in geographic knowledge generation and manipulation. Naïve statements by team leaders of Mexico Indígena's controversial land titling project designed to produce "digital human terrains," (for example, "Experience has proven that, when communities themselves give the world their understandings of their land, the world is better equipped to respect these alternative understandings"),[17] underscore legitimate and deeply troubling questions that have emerged surrounding the ethical conduct of the US-based researchers involved in México Indígena.[18] México Indígena project leader Peter Herlihy and the editor of "Participatory Mapping of Indigenous Lands in Latin America" a special Issue of the journal Human Organization of the Applied Anthropology Association initially explained to the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca (UNOSJO, S.C.) that the proposed research objective was to assess the influence that the Mexican Government's PROCEDE program has had on indigenous people's communities. Nevertheless, Herlihy did not explain that the research initiative he led was financed by United States Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO), nor did he mention that research findings would be given directly to FMSO. As the Zapotec's indigenous organization, the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca notes, "Herlihy neglected to mention this despite being expressly asked to clarify the eventual use of the data obtained through research." Similarly, he failed "to acknowledge [to UNOSJO, S.C] the participation of Radiance Technologies, a company that specializes in arms development and military intelligence" [19] According to a statement released at the end of January 2009 by the Project leader, Peter Herlihy, "FMSO has financed the expedition to Mexico, as well as others to Colombia, the Antilles and Jordan, through the Radiance Corporation,[11] that administers the contracts between FMSO, AGS, and the universities" ("The American Geographical Society's Bowman Expeditions seek to improve geographic understanding at home and abroad: Spotlight on México Indígena"). Managed under contract by Radiance Technologies, an Alabama-based military contractor specializing in intelligence and logistical services, Herlihy's research has been financed through FMSO, indicating for some that "the Mexico Indígena project is involved in gathering intelligence for the US Army." [20]

According to the Independent Media Center [21] "The researched [Oaxaca] communities knew nothing of this involvement and are left feeling like victims of geopiracy."

The Kansas City based SmartPort Inc.[22] is pushing forward with its project to convert Kansas City into what is called an inland port for Mexican shipments, and facilitating the free passage of goods across the Mexican border. One may question why Kansas City merchants may have an interest in maps of Mexico. Yet as SmartPort Inc. observes, "Located in the heart of America at the hub of the transcontinental and NAFTA trade corridors, Kansas City is a center of choice for warehousing, manufacturing and distribution".[23] Herlihy has commented that his research in Mexico can benefit SmartPort Inc. planners by offering them with information about the regions along Mexico's railways. He said, "They can take this information and use it for all kinds of things to really understand what they call the cultural terrain," Herlihy is reported to have also said. "You can't even predict all the uses" [24]

Given the American Geography Society's long and intimate association with imperial agendas,[25] it is perhaps no surprise that the AGS sponsored México Indígena project has been the source of fierce criticism from indigenous organizations in Mexico, not to mention from a student-based group at the University of Kansas—the academic home of Mexico Indígena.[26] Student supporters of KU Watch's critique of México Indígena demonstrated at the University of Kansas to enhance awareness about research conducted at the University funded by the Department of Defense.[27] In response to criticisms raised by the University of Kansas student group KU Watch, Peter Herlihy, a leader of the Bowman Expedition, said that he was "proud to raise the flag and say look at what the government is funding," In addition, Herlihy reported that his research project "empowers indigenous people by putting intellectual property where it belongs." Moreover, he noted that "Geographical intelligence is needed for peace and prosperity just like it is needed for war and destruction,".[27] Recently, a number of geographers have written to the AAG requesting that it conduct its own inquiry into the nature and consequences of Peter Herlihy's research in Mexico, which they "feel violated the ethical norms of our profession."[28]

Meanwhile, Esteban Ortiz Rodea, the Mexican State representative for the Secretary for the Environment and Natural Recourses (SEMARNAT) has publicly acknowledged that no Federal funds were used to support the implementation of the "México Indígena" project in the communities of the Sierra Juárez. Moreover, Aldo González, the leader of the Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca (UNOSOJO) apparently only became aware of "México Indígena's" ties to FMSO very recently. González has since joined other Zapotec leaders and expressed grave concern regarding the actual intentions of the United States Department of Defense-funded project.[29][30] This concern culminated in mid January, 2009, when Juan Pérez Luna y Aldo González of the Union of Organizations of the Sierra Juarez of Oaxaca (UNOSJO) released a press statement denouncing the México Indígena's lack of full disclosure regarding funding procured from the United States Army Foreign Military Studies Office.[31]

The Co-chair of the Indigenous Peoples' Specialty Group (IPSG) of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) and Secretary of the Indigenous Peoples' Knowledges and Rights Commission (IPKRC) of the International Geographical Union (IGU), Renee Pualani Louis, lamented the release of UNOSOJO's declaration by noting how it was such a "sad day for geographers and anyone doing research with Indigenous communities especially in Meso-America."[32]

As the Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca's press release indicates, Zapotec Indigenous Peoples in Mexico are demanding full transparency from the U.S. scholar leading the United States Department of Defense funded project. In their words, "Prof. Herlihy failed to mention that he received funding from the Foreign Military Studies Office of the U.S. Armed Forces. The failure to obtain full, free and prior informed consent is a violation of the rights of indigenous communities as codified in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the United Nations in 2007." (according to UN Declaration Article 11/2, research must be conducted with free prior and informed consent).[33] As noted by the website El Enemigo Común in their essay 'A Road to Hell', "The role of the Foreign Military Studies Office in identifying 'emerging and asymmetric' threats in Oaxaca, Mexico is chilling to say the least. Fort Leavenworth has a vast array of knowledge with regards to how neo-liberal changes in Mexico's property regime will affect indigenous culture and land use."[34] Data from the "México Indígena" project are disseminated monthly at Fort Leavenworth's Foreign Military Studies Office. It is reported that during a conversation between Gen. Petraeus and the project leaders of México Indígena, Petraeus observed that, "knowledge of the cultures is a multiplier of [military] forces…the knowledge of cultural ` terrain' can be as important, and at times more, than the knowledge of the geographic terrain". Accordingly, the project heads of México Indígena are reported to have stated that "the culture and local residents are then the 'decisive terrain'".[35] So-called-participatory mapping PRM is a technique that fully capitalizes on local indigenous knowledge in the creation of "formalized" maps necessary for the creation of neo-liberal property regimes. According to an excerpt from 2006 Methodological Approaches Report of México Indígena: "The participatory mapping, or PM, methodology rests on the philosophy that local populations have some of the best and most detailed knowledge of their surrounding lands and resources and that can be collected and interpreted geographically."[36][37]

Neglecting to disclose funding sources to research participants violate the ethical principles of both the Association of American Geographers (AAG) as well as the Belmont Report. Failure to inform participants about the potential risks or unintended consequences associated with the study abrogates the principal of informed consent, and hence violates the rights of the project participant's. México Indígena's military-funded investigations do in fact pose a risk in Oaxaca for individuals and communities, especially in light of the fractious and divisive nature of village and inter-village politics in Southern Mexico, not to mention the socio-political turmoil in this region that has been fragmented by international migration, political factionalism and economic marginalization.

Notwithstanding such critiques, in Peter Herlihy's estimation, México Indígena is a concerted effort to renew "society's commitment to inform the public and the United States government about world geography".[38] The American Geographical Society has been clear about the potential sanctions accompanying a breach of ethical conduct. According to an AGS document released on the México Indígena web site called "Developing Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of Foreign Field Research": "Lead scholars and other members of AGS-sponsored expeditions must comport themselves in a manner that respects cultures in the host country while simultaneously adhering to widely held values of American culture. Their actions must not adversely affect the people or natural environments of host countries. A significant breach of this provision may result in recall of individuals or entire expeditions." [12]

The Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca (UNOSJO) has reiterated its rejection of the University of Kansas geographers associated with the México Indígena Project for failing to obtain informed consent from the communities involved in the research.[39][40][41] UNOSJO continues to maintain that research was conducted in a covert fashion.[42] Moreover, the coordinator of the Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez de Oaxaca Aldo González Rojas is reported to have said in Spanish that "the looting of traditional Zapotec knowledge about land and territoriality is tantamount to geopiracy (geopiratería), which is being conducted through the work of México Indígena in the indigenous communities of the Sierra. This in turn has generated an international debate over the ethical nature of social research conducted in indigenous communities." [43]

Aldo González Rojas, speaking on behalf of UNOSJO, has indicated that it is necessary to determine if the information collected by "México Indígena" is for U.S. military or counter-insurgency purposes. As such, UNOSJO has called for complete disclosure of the institutions and corporations with privileged access to the data collected by México Indigena. UNOSJO holds that the DOD funded Bowman expedition in Mexico is dedicated to developing military tactics for application in zones of armed conflict. UNOSJO continues to claim that Mexico's Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) has financed the work of México Indígena through its support of the University of San Luis. SEMARNAT has previously disputed UNOSJO's claim, saying they have not funded the implementation of the "México Indígena" project in indigenous or mestizo communities in the Sierra Juárez. According to Esteban Ortiz Rodea, reports from the indigenous communities of Tiltepec, Yagavila, Ixtlán, Yagila and Guelatao suggest few indications of the actual communal collection of zapping information, despite "México Indígena" project's championing of PRM.[44]

Posted on the México Indígena web site is an image of a "parcel sketch map of part of community of La Pila, with request to PROCEDE authorities" from an ejidatario of the Pila—Municipio de Ciudad Valles, which provides digitized visual identification of families tying them to place (parcels).[45] In addition to mapping the region, the México Indígena team established a database that includes the names of community members, the location of their plot(s) of land, the formal and informal use of their territories, as well as other data that is not accessible via the Internet.[46] An egregious human rights concern that emanates from the México Indígena project is the alleged deception research, not to mention the privileged knowledge associated with "digitally" tying people to place and then releasing this critical cultural terrain intelligence information to immigration and other border security personnel. To date, this vital ethical concern has not been addressed by the México Indígena team, while this concern was lauded by a recent apologetic analysis of the project which notes that, "PROCEDE's effects on the Mexican populace is a perfect example of salient GIS information untapped by the IC. The United States Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection, based on hometowns or origins of detained illegal immigrants where PROCEDE has been enacted, could identify out-migration trends from Mexico and enhance the deployment and effectiveness of border protection resources" [47] (See the description of México Indígena in Batson, Douglas 2009 Registering The Human Terrain: A Valuation of Cadastre. National Defence Intelligence Press). The OaxacaLibre web site is clear in expressing regional apprehension regarding México Indígena 's treatment of confidential data, asserting that the local community should control such sensitive data: "El derecho a la información se maneja también dentro del derecho de la privacidad, el conocimiento comunitario debe ser controlado por la comunidad." [48]

Sources

Further reading

References

  1. ↑
  2. ↑
  3. ↑ "US military: Human Terrain Team Handbook, Sep 2008". WikiLeaks. 2008-12-11. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  4. ↑ "KU Geography Department". .ku.edu. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  5. ↑
  6. ↑
  7. ↑
  8. ↑ "Registro Agrario Nacional". Ran.gob.mx. Retrieved 2015-02-22.
  9. ↑ "410 « « CapitaCapita". Appliedlanguage.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  10. ↑
  11. 1 2 "Radiance Technologies, Inc. - Systems Engineering, Technology Development, Production and Fielding Support". Radiancetech.com. Retrieved 2015-02-22.
  12. 1 2
  13. ↑ "Nasulgc". Nasulgc.advcomp.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  14. ↑ "GEOPIRATERÍA | BREVARIO 2013". Mibug.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  15. ↑
  16. ↑ "Bowman". Ciudadania Express. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  17. ↑
  18. ↑
  19. ↑ Peter N. Jones (2009-02-07). "Zapotec Indigenous People Demand Transparency: Oaxaca, Mexico - Indigenous People's Issues Today". Indigenousissuestoday.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  20. ↑
  21. ↑ "Independent Media Center | http://www.indymedia.org | ((( i )))". www.indymedia.org. Retrieved 2013-10-14. External link in |title= (help)
  22. ↑ "Supply-Chain Centered". KC SmartPort. Retrieved 2015-02-22.
  23. ↑
  24. 1 2
  25. ↑
  26. ↑
  27. 1 2
  28. ↑
  29. 1 2
  30. ↑
  31. ↑
  32. ↑
  33. ↑ Young, Robert (2010-08-15). "U.S. Military's New Afghanistan Strategy from the Front Lines". MensJournal.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  34. ↑
  35. 1 2 "Geo-Piracy in Oaxaca... and Much More". Narco News. 2000-04-18. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  36. ↑
  37. ↑ "Geographical Review July 2008". Amergeog.org. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  38. ↑
  39. ↑ "II CONGRESO APPO. - Barricada de Oaxaca". Barricada.blogcindario.com. 2011-08-04. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  40. ↑
  41. ↑ Publicadas por JA (2006-10-05). "De chivo, los tamales (v2.0): La geopiratería, estrategia del Pentágono: el caso de Oaxaca". Dechivolostamales.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  42. ↑ "la_barricada_oaxaqueña: CONGRESO DE LA APPO". Barricadaoaxaca.blogspot.com. 2009-02-20. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  43. ↑
  44. ↑ "Imparcial en Línea". Imparcialenlinea.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  45. ↑
  46. ↑ "OAXACA DE JUAREZ, MAGON Y ZAPATA CIUDAD DE LA RESISTENCIA- APPO 2011". Todoelpoderalpueblo.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  47. ↑
  48. ↑ "The Leading Oaxaca Libre Site on the Net". OaxacaLibre.net. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  49. ↑ "ADN - Agencia Digital de Noticias Sureste". Adnsureste.info. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  50. ↑ "Geographic Survey Project of the Sierra Juarez Mountains Stirs Protests". Narco News. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  51. ↑ "Contemporary Colonial Scholarship and the Spreading Human Terrain System: AGS Bowman Expeditions, Zapotec Indians, and onto the Caribbean | ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY". Openanthropology.wordpress.com. 2009-01-29. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  52. ↑ "ANTE LA "SORDERA" DEL PODER. - Barricada de Oaxaca". Barricada.blogcindario.com. 2011-08-04. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  53. ↑ "Yahoo! Groups". Groups.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  54. ↑ "Observador Ciudadano ®". Observadorrcm.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2013-10-14.
  55. ↑ "Human Terrain System meets the Bowman expeditions". English pravda.ru. 2009-01-29. Retrieved 2015-02-22.
  56. 1 2 "Bowman". Ciudadania Express. Retrieved 2015-02-22.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, December 21, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.