A Third Option

First I want to express my appreciaton for the work IUCN is doing. It is important and rich in perspectives.

Caring for the Earth and its peoples is a grand theme to gather under. I am sure that we all hope and wish, that our deeds during this general assembly will be in accordance with that theme.

We have all recieved the beautiful book, A Strategy for Survival, published by IUCN, WWF and UNEP. It explains the issues of conservation and of social and economic development. It tells about the often problematic interaction between man and the environment. Strategies for survival of our planet and its inhabitants are also given.

As an indigenous person representing the Inuit of the circumpolar North, I found the following wording, on page 17, interesting:

"... It is often assumed that indigeous peoples have only two options for the future: to return to their ancient ways of life, or to become assimilated into the dominant society. They should, however, also have a third option: to modify their life styles, combining the old and the new in ways that maintain and enhance their identity while allowing their economy to evolve. Their chances of following such a path will be much improved if governments recognise aboriginal rights to use and manage land and resources, including the rights to harvest animals and plants on which they depend...."

This is fully in accordance with the ILO convention 169, the Brundtland report, the Rio Decleration, the Agenda 21 where it is said again and again that indigenous peoples have a right to maintain and develop their livelihood.

But why is it that a third option has to be mentioned? How did Western cultures develop? Not by returning to your old ways, nor by assimilation, if not otherwise forced. A culture lives and develops by "combining the old and the new in ways that maintain and enhance the identity while allowing the economy to evolve".

On page 19 in the same book one can read:

"The campaign against fur trade had deprived indigenous peoples in Canada and Greenland of a major source of income - for some communities, the only source, even though they vere harvesting those resources sustainably"

Experience has taught us, the Inuit, that whatever is written of good intentions in books like A Strategy for Survival, and in the mentioned international conventions and declarations, our reality is often different.

Animal protection organisation like the IFAW, Greenpeace, Earth First and others have convinced European, North American and Australian politicans, to name a few, that nearly all marine mammals have an intrinsic value as beings, and should not be harvested, as they say. To many Westerners, the whales have become nearly sacred.

Those organisations have forced Western politicians to believe that they constitute an international majority, who's wishes has to be obeyed. But the concept of majority is a relative one: In our culture, our main food comes from marine mammals. Therefore in the Inuit societies we have a real majority supporting sustainable marine mammal hunting - namely one of 100% - you may laugh - we are still a tiny people in the international perspective. But who has asked the peoples of China, the peoples of India - or the people that in other connections are called the silent majority in the Western World? It may be outside your rationality to appreciate a question like that.

The politicians of the Western World have forgot two important obligations they should face: One is to protect minorities, they being handicapped people, women, children or people of other races for example. Politicians in international organisations should realize that they, if they are true democrats, also have to consider the situation of minorities. Another obligation a politician should face is that he should be obligated to educate his constituency on these issues.

In other words these politicians should not only protect the mute and the dumb animals, but also accept an obligation to promote our interests. We are few, and we can not effort large scale campaigns in the dominating international media. Such considerations would maintain the cultural diversity on our planet. In conclusion, I once more want to express my appreciation of the work done by the IUCN. The cooperation with UNEP and the new born WWF has exciting perspectives.

Let me repeat, that we, the Inuit, want to continue to develop our culture by combining the old and the new in ways that maintain and enhance the identity while allowing our economy to evolve.

You seem to be ready to let us eat our traditional food, you seem to be ready to accept or even demand, that we introduce modern means in our hunting methods - when do you in addition allow our economy to evolve - by opening your markets for our marine mammal products?