A response to Paul van Vlissingen's letter to Professor Sheridan and the TGER listserv
The last evening I spent, 7 months ago, with A------- the then warden
of Mago Park, he told me how their park demarcation maps were finished
and how now it was most likely that African Parks Foundation (APF)
would takeover the Mago and Omo National Parks. He described how
African Parks Foundation wanted electric fences circling the two parks
and how he disagreed with the fences APF wanted, because they would
interrupt animal migration routes. When fences encircle the parks it
would mean no more people would be allowed inside.
About a month earlier I attended a boundary demarcation meeting where I
met F-------- the Southern Regional Parks Expert, and A-------'s boss,
who said he was "still in favor of moving people." It is obvious that
the Government parks decision makers still hold a protectionist view of
parks without people. Turton has written on the history of their
protectionist views in regards to the Omo and Mago Parks, a view they
have held since the 60's.
The GoE (Government of Ethiopia) have begun to implement this
protectionist view by forcibly collecting thumbprints from Mursi, on
documents the Mursi can not read, to effectively make them illegal
squatters on their own land. The last reporting of a incident like this
is from August 3rd, 2005. They had begun this process 7 months ago;
A-------- told me he had held meetings with elders from many villages
and they had decided that thousands of Mursi would leave their
permanent villages and their cultivation land on the Omo River, whose
ownership is passed down through the families, for nothing, "only to
return in times of emergency."
The government has explicitly said it wants to move the Mursi. African
Parks Foundation said they wanted the Mursi moved as of seven months
ago. It is not coincidence that the Government would begin the process
of moving the Mursi now, after thirty-five years of debate on this
subject, with a foreign Parks organization moving in. The removal is
because of APF moving in. APF is now saying it can not interfere
in the removal of the people of the Omo Park because it is the affairs
of a 'sovereign government'. The processes of removing the Mursi has
begun and there is no one to stop it.
APF has been asked a number of times to sign a 'no eviction' clause for
the people of Omo Park with the GoE. They have refused. This is the BIG
question in this issue. Paul van Vlissingen mostly brushes over this
question in his reply to Michael, talking about Hanoi, Cuba, and Iraq.
As a Netherlands Organization they are subject to ILO convention
169. Article 14.1 which says:
"The rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over
the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognized."
APF can not be a partner in the removal of the people of Omo Park, it is against international law.
The other response of PvV: "If African Parks wants to help the local
people in very remote areas by our Park system , and the flora
and fauna , we can not risk being “ thrown out “. And
also this : the more we can show that we can manage a Park together
with the traditional tribes, the less the reason for a Government to
resettle."
What is presumably meant by this is if you give us a little time we can
show that we can work with people and the government will not want to
move them any more. We can not sign a contract for no eviction because
the government would kick APF out.
This is an extremely weak position for helping the people of the Omo.
Especially, coming from an organization that said it wanted to move the
people of Omo out and saw the forced resettlement of thousands of Guji
and Kore, including the burning of 463 houses, in Nech Sar, a park it
had already signed on to manage.
Will Hurd
3rd Nov 2005
