Information Communication Technologies (ICTs): Transnational Networks and their Support to...

Concept Paper

Copyright @ 2006—Jorge A. Garcia

Information Communication Technologies (ICTs): Transnational Networks and their Support to Indigenous Human Rights and Self-

Determination in the context of the knowledge society

Jorge Garcia, Graduate Student at the Community and Planning Department at the University of New Mexico (UNM)/Graduate Student at the Language Literacy and Social Cultural Studies at the Education

Department at the University of New Mexico (UNM) & Program Director of the Iberoamerican Science Technology and Education Consortium (ISTEC)

[email protected]

Copyright @ 2006 Jorge A. Garcia 1

Abstract Indigenous Peoples around the world continue to organize for claiming their human right to self-determination. In spite of the fact that many Indigenous Nations remain living in isolated areas, they have managed to create alliances with International Non-government Organizations (INGOs), which have allowed them to prevent land deforestation, human displacement, desecration of religious sites, pollution of rivers, and to further their human right to manage and control the natural resources within their communities. In this context, the development of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) has opened up new opportunities for communication and information sharing. This paper addresses social, economic, cultural and political inequalities in a global world. It focuses on the development of human networks and the use of ICT to counteract social inequality. It will be argued that in the process of development, marginalized groups can use ICTs as communication and planning tools to create social, economic and cultural development from within their own communities. The Quadruple Helix paradigm exemplified in this paper supports the notion that 1) strategic alliances that include community as an integral part can be the drivers of cultural, political and social development and 2) that in the development process ICT can also be used to generate economic opportunities Key words: Transnational Networks - Information Communication Technology (ICT) – Indigenous Human Rights - Indigenous Self-Determination - International Non-government Organizations (INGOs)


…Our vision of the Information Society is respect for the dignity and human rights of

Indigenous peoples, nations and tribes, which must be affirmed, if the economic,

information and digital divide which separates technology rich nations and the private sector

from the most marginalized peoples in society including Indigenous peoples, nations and

tribes, is to be bridged.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) should be used to support and

encourage cultural diversity and to preserve and promote (indigenous) languages, distinct

identities and traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples, Nations and tribes that they

determine best advances these goals.

We have the rights to fully access and participate in decision-making processes (at all levels)

concerning State Education (and the use of modern technologies). We also have the right to

establish and control our own education systems based on our cultural methods, in our own

languages and to plan and control our ICT application[s], as we see fit.

Points 4, 5 and 12 of the Geneva Declaration of the Global Forum of Indigenous

Peoples and the Information Society

Geneva, December 11, 2003


Table of Contents

I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………. 4

II. Transnational Networks: from Informal to a Formal Network ………………..6

III. ICTs for communication and planning …………………………………….….9

IV. Case studies: Canada, Jordan, and the Zapatistas …………………………..…11

V. Existing Paradigms and Coordinating Models ………………………………..17

VI. Conclusion ..………………………………………………………………….17

References .…………………………………………………………………………..19

Appendices …………………………………………………………………………..21


I. Introduction

For decades Indigenous Peoples have organized to claim their human right to self-

determination. Throughout the Continent Indigenous Peoples have struggled to maintain

the right to own and protect their entitlement to their land, water, and traditional rights. In

spite of the fact that many Indigenous Nations remain marginalized in isolated areas, many

of them have managed to create alliances with International NGOs, and among themselves,

which in turn have focused coordinating efforts to prevent land deforestation, human

displacement, desecration of religious sites, pollution of rivers, and the denial of the human

right to manage and control the natural resources within their communities.

To this effect, the development of Information Communication Technologies

(ICTs) has opened new opportunities to communicate and share information among diverse

groups. In addition, International Non-government Organizations (INGOs) have

developed organizational models that allow for the development of strategic alliances and

the use of ICTs as a way to share and create information that can support the development

of self-determination as an inherent human right for Indigenous Peoples.

With the advancement of human transnational networks, as a globalizing paradigm

not only confined to transnational corporations, (Brysk, 2000) the need to create a

transnational network that can serve as a decision-making tool for Indigenous Peoples across

Turtle Island is eminent to develop the synergy needed to further support the rights of

Indigenous Peoples for self-determination.

The purpose of this paper is to first analyze the development of a human network

from an Informal to a Formal Network. This analysis will be made within the context of the


Consejo de Organizaciones y Naciones Indígenas del Continente (CONIC), an Informal

Transnational Indigenous Network that has operated since 1990.

Second, ICTs that support the development of a Formal Network would be

illustrated to exemplify how the Network can use existing paradigms and processes as a

communication and planning tool.

Third, this paper will illustrate specific programs that have been created to use ICTs

to train people, create and exchange information, and successfully allow the members of a

particular network to communicate and plan.

Fourth, paradigms and coordinating models will be explored to put in context social

and economic paradigms that can be used to create a transnational network. In concrete,

this section will focus on the paradigm that has been used to promote strategic alliances

among government, industry, and academia. Because the paradigm discussed in this section

was designed to promote the development of strategic alliances to facilitate and expand the

development of science and technology, the importance of understanding its functionality

lies in the fact that 1) the development of strategic alliances is not restricted to the

development of science of technology and 2) that development should not be confined to

economic and scientific premises as if the social aspect of development is not an issue

relevant to those who fuel and support development, which is the people themselves. Along

these lines, this author refers, to avoid restricting the human rights of Indigenous Peoples to

state repression, to human rights as the inherent right of Peoples’ right to self-determination

as a way to exercise control over the natural resources in their territories and the right to

maintain and preserve their cultural and spiritual sovereignty as a way to achieve economic,

cultural, educational, and political development.


Finally, a general approach would be presented to illustrate the benefits that a Formal

Network can bring to a geographically diverse group of people.

II. Transnational Networks: from Informal to a Formal Network

With the promulgation of the International Decade of the Indigenous Peoples in

1995 by the United Nations, Indigenous Peoples across the continent organized to create

transnational alliances with INGOs and among themselves (Brotherston, 1997; Yashar

1998). Contrary to the conventional belief that Indigenous Peoples have “rarely initiated or

sustained social movements that proclaimed an indigenous identity and demanded

indigenous rights,” (Yashar, 23) in 1990 Indigenous representatives from North and South

convened in Quito, Ecuador to reaffirm their position against the quincentennial celebration

of Columbus’ “discovery of the Americas.” Five years later, the UN promulgated the 1995-

2005 Decade of Indigenous Peoples. Consequently to this promulgation, representatives

from various Indigenous Nations from Ecuador, United States, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, US,

Colombia, Guatemala, and others, met in Panama City to discuss ways by which they will

“freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural

development.”1 The result of this meeting was the creation of the Council of Indigenous

Organizations and Nations of the Continent (CONIC),2 as a coordinating body for the

Indigenous nations and organizations involved in this process.

To this effect, CONIC has acted as an Informal Network3 that has created the

spaces for Indigenous Peoples from North and South to meet and understand the

commonality of their struggles. This process allowed the creation of a framework that

1 UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, clause 14 2 The acronym CONIC responds to the Council’s name in Spanish 3 The reason I consider CONIC an Informal Network is because it was never institutionalized, it simple served as a forum for Indigenous Peoples to meet and discuss common issues and strategies


allowed them to evaluate their strategies and common issues. It also created the spaces

needed to collaborate on future initiatives. (Brotherston, 433)

To this extent, one can argue that the constitution of an Informal Network, such as

CONIC, initially serves the purpose to 1) create alliances and identify partners, 2) outline

common issues and possible sources of support, and 3) define strategies that could lead to

the creation of what Keck and Sikkink (1998) call a “Boomerang Effect” to pressure Nation-

states to comply with International treaties “from above” and “from below.” This

systematic pressure is intended to produce the quantitative and qualitative data that can be

used to continue pressuring Nation-states to respect and enforce the human rights of

Indigenous Peoples. One way that abuses can be measured is by actively getting engaged in

creating a social instrument that can bring together groups to develop ways by which the

enforcement of international covenants can be measured and monitored. (See Appendix A)

In order to strengthen collaboration between Indigenous groups and INGOs, the

development of an Indigenous Informal Network to a Formal Network could serve as a

decision-making body for Indigenous groups to interact in unison and have a concerted

voice in the draft and enforcement of International covenants. (Keck and Sikkink, 1998;

Heyns and Viljoen, 2001) To move these processes forward, however, certain conditions

need to be met.

One condition is to have access to international treaties in indigenous languages or at

least in the adopted language that Indigenous Peoples might use to communicate.4 This is in

response to the claim that Hyens and Viljoen make that “treaties are not freely available in

indigenous or minority languages or at least one of these” (22), and to the need of

Indigenous Peoples to have access to this information in their own languages.

4In the case of people from the Amazon in Ecuador, for example, documents need to be translated from English into Spanish, and if possible into the Native language of local Indigenous Peoples


Another condition is to be able to analyze as a collective group the information

being produced in multilateral agencies, and centralize the comments in a way that they

represent the views and concerns of the collective group. The advantage of being able to

work on these documents prior to any meeting is that it could move the implementation

process of these covenants much faster. (Metzl, 1996; Yashar, 1998)

As an intricate part of this process, Indigenous Peoples should have the ability to

monitor the implementation of these treaties. A formal network could provide the

mechanisms needed to communicate and monitor this process using Information

Communication Technologies (ICTs) (Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Luyt, 2004; Alleyne, 1994),

as well as the physical and technological spaces needed to do this.

In addition, for the groups involved in the development of these documents,

meeting regularly can be a logistical and financial problem that could halt the process. To

this effect, Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the development of

human networks have proven to be efficient tools that provide a venue to communicate and

collaborate in spite of geographical distances. (Keck and Sikkink, 1998)

In short, the development of a Formal Network can provide the stage by which the

“construction of a transcommunity network” (Yashar, 36) can serve as a vehicle to advocate

for the respect and enforcement of International covenants. So what are the conditions and

processes that that need to exist for a Formal Network to become efficient and serve as a

link or a node to an identified group of people who share the same goals and objectives?

The answer to this question lies not just on assessing the roles that ICTs can play in

facilitating processes. It lies in the processes by which a human network supports grass

roots movements in the process of analyzing and creating information, especially in the

development of international declarations and mechanisms that support issues of self-


determination as a basic human right to control and manage natural resources as well as the

development of process that will trigger Indigenous education for and by Indigenous

Peoples themselves. So how can ICTs be used to connect people and what are the types of

technologies that can be used for this purpose?

III. ICTs for Communication and Planning

In this section, ICTs that support the development of a formal network will be

discussed to exemplify how a Network can use existing paradigms and process as a

communication and planning tool.

Today ICTs are considered tools that can be used to share and create information

using electronic technologies. In the case of development, technology is just a tool by which

information is communicated between the members of the Network using virtual platforms.

In the process of creating a formal network, however, the importance of belonging

to it is neither technology nor information; rather is the ability to communicate and share

experiences, as well as to exchange information about these experiences. (Risse and Sikkink,

1999) Furthermore, because of the social and economic benefits that technology is bringing

to society, (ADEA, 2002) advanced ICTs are usually defined as a catalyst that can be used to

overcome barriers and help marginalized groups to communicate among themselves, even if

it is just by telephone and fax. (Gumucio-Dagron, 2003) So what are the challenges that

need to be overcome to provide access to ICTs as tools that support advocacy work for

social, cultural, economic and political development as a fundamental human right? (Alleyne,

1994)

To manage a formal network, the efficient use of new technology applications is

essential to share updated and relevant information in real-time between the members of the

Network. In addition, as Metzl (1996) states “accurate and timely information is an


indispensable tool and an essential precondition for effective responsive action in the

promotion of human rights.” (705)

Some of the applications that can be used to stimulate effective responses and the

promotion of human rights are the following:

• Electronic mail, which now almost everyone has access to • Messaging which can be done in real time or uniformly by setting up message boards

on the Internet5 • Online news that can be shared across borders (Fox and Rivera-Salgado, 2004) • Fax and telephone for rural communities that are not connected to the net • Community broadcasting (Gray-Felder and Deane, 1999)

In addition, for isolated places some of these applications can be powered with solar energy

and connectivity, which can be provided by using wireless and satellite applications. Also,

existing ICT platforms can be used to validate claims and produce reports to move

processes forward in a systematic way. Some of these tools are the following:

• Geographical Information Systems, which can be used for land demarcations, as well as cultural, social, and even economic mapping

• Voice over IP to communicate without cost over the Internet • Secure systems to share, create, and modify content using existing infrastructure • Broadcasting using digital and wireless communications to connect isolated

communities • Multimedia technologies that allow the development of interactive and visualization

environments6 for decentralized groups to work together • Spreadsheets and electronic notepads, which can be access virtually by everyone with

an access to PC

The issue with the use of Information Technologies as communication tools is that as long

as they are presented as the panacea without providing a way by which marginalized groups

can get access to them, we will continue to contribute to the myth that “development is a

matter of technology.” (Gumucio-Dagron, 2003, Metzl, 1996) For a Formal Network to be

efficient, it must have as one of its goals and objectives to provide the tools and resources

5 http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9202/ 6 http://www.accessgrid.org/


needed for its member to communicate efficiently and to have access to information

relevant to their needs in a way that it is practical and useful to the goals and objectives of its

community. To this effect, the Coordinating node of the network needs to achieve a level of

organizing in which information is processed, created, and disseminated in a way that this

information responds to the issues and the goals of the individual members of the network.

To do this, it is imperative that the network train and develop its own critical mass, which in

turn can respond and move forward the goals of the members of the Network. One of the

reasons why this author encourages the use of ICTs as an organizing tool for social, cultural,

economic, and political development is because without strong and reliable means of

communication ancestral languages, cultural practices, ownership of ancestral home lands,

and the preservation of natural resources could vanish and be taken away from Indigenous

People if the human rights of traditional communities are not protected and respected by

local and traditional governments. So what are ways by which ICTs have been used as a tool

for empowerment? And how can Indigenous Peoples create a network that does not

interfere with the self-determination of the groups that compose it, and, as a benefit; the

Network highlights and supports the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples?

IV. Case studies: Canada, Jordan, and the Zapatistas

Even though ICTs can be used as a catalyst to bring about social development, the

implementation of any given project needs to evolve from within the needs of local

communities. In the case of a Formal Network, the use of ICTs is determined from the

processes and the needs of the network itself and its activities. To this effect, the

importance of a Formal Network resides in the benefit that the process of communicating

and sharing information brings to the members of the Network. ICTs, within the context of

the user, are simply employed as a tool that facilitates the development of processes and the


critical mass needed for these processes to evolve. There are some examples that show

ways by which ICTs have been used to train, inform, and disseminate information to achieve

specific goals and objectives. Canada, for example, launched the Broadband for Rural and

Northern Development Pilot Program7 as an effort to bring connectivity to Indigenous

Peoples with the objective of creating “an environment of excellence and inclusiveness in

which all Canadians can take advantage of their talents, skills and ideas.” (TIA, 2003) The

Jordanian government launched the Jordan Education Initiative8 “to spur innovative

thinking and the development of critical skills (TIA, 2003) within classrooms. At the grass

root level, the Zapatistas in Mexico also have used e-mail and Internet to “Internationalize”

their struggle. (Harry, 1998)

To this regard, there are also International NGOs that are providing the necessary

training to be able to use ICTs efficiently, especially when it comes to report human rights

abuses. The Witness Program of the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human

Rights, for example, developed a program by which they provide equipment and training to

human right groups “to integrate such equipment into their work.” (Metzl, 1996) Amnesty

International also uses electronic mail to get information from their collaborators and in turn

this information is fed to researchers to keep up with local news. (Luyt, 2004) These are just

a few examples of the ways by which training can be provided to use ICTs efficiently for

planning and communicating.

Creating the processes that a Formal Network needs to produce outcomes and

benefits to those who are part of the Network is not a simple task, especially when the

network is transnational and diverse in nature. In the process of developing a Formal

Network it is important to understand that the tools available for communicating do not

7 For more information see http://broadband.gc.ca/pub/program/bbindex.html 8 For more information on this initiative see http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/25315.html


eliminate the synergy required for any given network to have an impact and provide tangible

benefits to its members. In terms of ICTs and their use to further the work of human rights

groups, one issue to keep in mind is the need for:

“[The] use [of] new ICTs for the benefit of those truly at the bottom of the global social and economic hierarchy need to re–construct the nature of the digital divide as a policy issue, to frame it as more than access, skills, or even content, but rather as part of a challenge to the global order itself so that solutions to the problem consciously tilt the balance of benefits away from those already privileged (information capital, the state, and the development industry) towards those currently excluded from not only new information and communication technology, but the basic requirements of a dignified human existence. (TIA, 2003)

For Indigenous communities ICTs and Formal Networks should be a window that allows

them to claim, in international and domestic courts, their right to manage their natural

resources, create educational content based on their own culture and traditions, and exercise

their right for self-determination. To do this, Indigenous Peoples will benefit from having

access not only to technology and information, but also to the centers where this technology

and information is produced. Education, information, research, and proper spaces for

dialogue (open forums) are the major areas that support the development of critical mass

that can monitor the efforts that nation-states are doing to respect the human rights of

Indigenous Peoples. In the case that these governments are not complying, then they could

mobilize their partners to pressure their governments to comply with International treaties.

(Sikkink, 1993; Metzl, 1996) So how does a Formal Network organize and what are its main

characteristics? To answer this question one needs to understand the processes that govern

a Network. One way of doing this is by understanding the paradigms and the strategic

alliances that give life and cohesion to International Networks.

IV. Existing Paradigms and Coordinating Models


The paradigm that has propelled the notion of creating strategic partnership for

development is the “Triple Helix” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997) social communications

theoretical model, which encourages the development of strategic partnerships between

industry, government, and academia to encourage the development of science and

technology and thus encourage economic development.

Based on the social inequities in our societies, especially in places like the Andean

Region in South America and Africa to mention a few, this author argues that what we need

is a change of paradigm from the “Triple Helix” as a paradigm for development to the

“Quadruple Helix,” under which if collaboration between government agencies, academia,

multilateral agencies, and industry (with communities at the heart of this process as the single

most important component) is promoted and supported, then social, economic, political,

and cultural development could be created and encouraged with ample participation of

Indigenous and Non-Indigenous communities throughout the world. (See Appendix B)

This notion of the Quadruple Helix is based on two premises 1) development cannot

be disassociated from the role that society plays as the single most important part of fueling

and supporting any given development and 2) that in order to support the development of

human rights, it should not be just an issue about State repression and crimes committed

against humanity but also that social, cultural, economic, and political development are

human rights that need to be exercised as a pre-condition for the self-determination of pre-

colonial Indigenous groups. Take for example Colombia where “in the last five years, we

have had somewhere around 150,000 displaced across the Colombian Amazon.” (Fletcher,

2003) This displacement of Peoples from their lands, and the social, economic, and cultural

consequences is another form of violence against the integrity, dignity, and well being of

Indigenous Peoples. One way of stopping this displacement is by increasing the pressure at


the International level and create a vehicle that will allow for specific information to be

disseminated about what is currently going on in these communities.

An example of a coordinating model that could support a Transcontinental

Indigenous Network is the Iberoamerican Science Technology and Education Consortium

(ISTEC), which has successfully used the Triple Helix model to promote the development

of Science and Technology in the Iberoamerican region and the implementation of a new

culture of collaboration.

The ISTEC Consortium has created a model of coordinating similar to those of

multilateral agencies, and its strength is to have a Secretariat that serves as the node for over

120 universities located in the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America, technology industries

mostly, and working relationships with Multilateral agencies such as UNESCO, OEA, and

IDB. This author makes the argument that the coordinating model that ISTEC has adopted

can support the efforts that Indigenous People are undertaking to promote and develop the

Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples both at the State and International level.

As a basic coordinating principle, at the core of a Transnational Network, formal or

informal, is the self-determination of the members of the network to act as an independent

unit under a collective group. In fact the power of a Network resides in the fact that its

node serves only as a central and neutral node where all participants can convey without

giving up their autonomy.

Human rights, or rather the human rights of communities to have control over their

own resources, are issues that cannot be defined by simply stating that Indigenous Peoples

are sovereign. Indigenous People will gain self-determination as long as they are able to

transform notions and understandings about what it means to be the first inhabitants of this

land, as well as the original land keepers of their territories. (Sikkink, 414)


Another issue is that this notion of self-determination is not something that needs to

be extensively discussed nor defined; Indigenous Peoples historical precedence and

continuous presence in this Continent makes them inherently sovereign and thus, they

should have complete control over the natural resources within the confines of their

territories. (Kingsbury, 419)

There is no doubt that Indigenous Peoples, since the arrival of Europeans, have

suffered from a cultural, social, linguistic, political, and economic genocide that continues to

prevent them from finding ways to support their traditional ways of life. Therefore,

ownership of their lands ensures survival of their traditional ways and provides them with

the economic security they need to survive. This means that for Indigenous Peoples, human

rights is a much broader issue that should not only be limited to State repression. As argued

earlier, within the context of Indigenous Peoples, the issues discussed within human rights

should also include displacement from traditional territories, as well as the right to manage

and control their own natural resources. To spur change and create the processes needed

for them to challenge Nation-states that do not respect their ancient rights to own their land,

as well as their desire to protect their ways of life and traditional knowledge, Indigenous

People could create a Formal Network that would allow the 35-40 million Indigenous

Peoples (Yashar, 24) to have one voice through which their collective will could be exercised

and expressed. This effort requires that Indigenous representatives be active participants in

the process of ownership and appropriations of this Network9, that they manage the

development of specific content that exemplify the claim of ownership, ensure their cultural

and linguistic survival, and develop the process by which convergence and networking

sustains the Network. (Gumucio-Dragon, 2003)

9 Take for example Indigenous Peoples from Pastaza who have a web page that is developed and manage in England


The questions of course are 1) how can this Network respond to what is actually

occurring in their own communities? 2) How can one gain access to International agencies

where policy is decided? 3) How can this information be made available for other NGOs

representatives to support the human rights of small communities?

A solution to these questions is to increase the level of awareness regarding the way

ICTs can facilitate not only the access to information, but also the development of a critical

mass that can use these ICTs efficiently. One way of developing this critical mass is by

creating a body composed of people who understand the process, who are already directly

engaged in the fulfillment of the mission of the collectivity that makes up the Network, and

who would support the activities needed to bring benefits to the Network at large. Even

though the nature of the Network should be decentralized in terms of its operations, a

central node should be created in a strategic place where resources can be drawn to support

the efforts of the Network. This network should have a Secretariat that manages the

process. This Secretariat should be in charge of creating new policy for the functioning of

the Network, programs, and the communication links between the members of the

Network.

As the Network expands, it needs to have policies and regulations. These policies

and regulations, however, should be designed only to manage the growth of the Network,

and they should not limit the potential growth of the people and the groups in charge of

coordinating the Network to encourage creativity and initiatives to flourish.

The Network needs to be organized around central themes that clearly define the

initiatives that allow the development of critical mass, education, transfer of information, the

development of strategic alliances, and research. These initiatives should have a Director

who 1) understands the field, 2) has enough expertise in the field, 3) is able to draw


resources and create programs that sustain the initiative. The Network should be organized

as follows: It should have a Board of Directors/Council, its officers (President, Vice

Presidents, a Secretary, and a treasurer), and the staff that should be composed of at least

one coordinator and one administrative assistant. Again, this recommendation is purely

hypothetical because the process, the objectives, and the mission determine the final

structure of a Network, and the organization of the Network is not as important as it is to

have clarity on who is responsible for coordinating efforts. Once the Network is created the

expectations are, as Keck and Sikkink define it, that:

• [The Network] can provide alternative channels of communication; • [The Network] open channels for bringing alternatives visions and information into

international debate; • [The Network] can help reframe international and domestic debates, changing their

terms, their sites, and the configuration of participants; (Pg. 3) • [The network] promote norm implementation, by pressuring target across to adopt

new policies, and by monitoring compliance with international standards. • [The network] connects groups to each other, seek out resources, propose and

prepare activities and conduct public relations. (Pg. 7) • [The Network] strives to uncover and investigate problems, and alert the press and

policymakers. Pg. 19

In regards to moving from an Informal to a Formal Network, the Iberoamerican Science

Technology and Education Consortium (ISTEC) is an example of a Network that went from

an informal to a formal stage in which it became a non-profit organization that advocates for

the transfer of science and technology to the scientific community in the Iberoamerican

region, and recently is also advocating for the implementation of technology for the social,

cultural and economic development of traditional communities. The remarkable gains of this

Consortium/Network are that is has created the initiatives that allow the transfer of

technology and information as a way of developing the critical mass in the region. It also

maximizes its impact by incorporating ICTs in every aspect of its operation. For example,


because ISTEC is a decentralized organization10 it has had to adopt communication

technologies over the Internet to minimize costs for its Executive Office to be able to

communicate with its members for planning purposes. Some of the processes followed to

coordinate communication and planning is to use simple tools to track reviewed documents.

Teleconferencing and even videoconferencing is used to communicate and to participate in

long distance meetings or forums. News and special information is distributed using

specialized e-mail list serves. Board messages are organized to discuss issues and mass

communicate with the community on predetermined times. Information is organized and

secured through secure servers, and the web page serves as the source through which news,

events, and opportunities are posted. The development of a database also helps to maintain

the list serves and contact information about the members of the Network. Small clusters

are organized to be able to create new initiatives or to create focus groups that work on

specific themes. These are some of the ways by which the ISTEC Consortium coordinates

its members. 11 In terms of logistics, the members of the Board meet twice a year to set

policy, and it is at these times when the Executive Office reports on new developments, as

well as providing a financial outlook and forecasts to be able to plan future strategies based

on exiting resources. The Board of Directors approves new programs and policies and the

General Assembly ratifies these decisions. The General Assembly, which is composed of all

the members of the Network, convenes once a year.12 Even though the composition of this

Network might seem complex, the task of creating a Network to serve as a vehicle for

decision-making purposes requires an organizational model that is horizontal in terms of its

10 Its President is in Brazil. The VP for Strategy and Planning is in Bolivia. The VP for Finances is in California, US. The Secretary and the Treasurer are in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as well as the Executive Office 11For more information on specific programs see www.istec.org 12 These members pay a fee that allows the financial support of specific programs. These internal funding provides autonomy and flexibility to the Network


operational infrastructure, but flexible enough to grow and to respond to the needs of its

members. A model such as the one implemented by ISTEC that promotes, not just the use

of ICTs for research, development, and education, but also a new culture of cooperation that

drives development based on the needs of its members, could be used by Indigenous

Peoples to solidify their existing Networks. If created, an Indigenous Network would have

to be designed based on the needs and expectations of those who created it, but to sustain

its operation and ensure its impact it needs to have a mission and a vision that would be

shared not only by those who created it, but for all of those who will benefit from it.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, a Formal Network can provide the framework needed to take the

struggle for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples on to another decade in which

strategic alliances start to flourish and mechanisms are developed to monitor the

responsibilities that States have in relation to International covenants and their

responsibilities to establish democratic processes that prevent abuses and prevent social ills

derived from poverty and lack of education.

This Formal Network could represent a forum through which the human right of

Indigenous Peoples to social, economic, and cultural development is enforced. In addition,

this Network could also be used to support collaborative efforts between multilateral

organizations, Indigenous Nations, universities, government agencies, and other partners in

the process of ensuring that Indigenous territories are not destroyed, cultures and languages

do not disappear, economic development is created by and for Indigenous Peoples

themselves, and that education becomes pivotal for all of this development.


REFERENCES Alleyne, Mark D. 1994. ‘Thinking about the International Systems in the ‘Information

Age’: Theoretical Assumptions and Contradictions.’ Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 31, no. 4, pp., 407-424

Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) International Institute for Education and Planning. 2002. Open and Distance Learning in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Literature Survey on Policy and Practice. Paris, France. www.adeanet.org

Brotherston, Gordon. 1997. La América Indígena en su Literatura: Los Libros del Cuarto Mundo. México, DF: Fondo de Cultura Económica

Brysk, Alison. 2000. Globalization: the double-edged sword. NACLA Report of the Americas, Vol.

34, No. 1 J1/Ag Cleaver, Harry. 1998. “The Zapatista Effect: The Internet and the rise of an alternative

political fabric,” Journal of International Affairs, Volume 51, number 2, pp. 621-640 in Brendan Luyt. “ Who benefits from the Digital Divide?,” First Monday, Volume 9, number 8 (August 2004). URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/luyt/index.html

Etzkowtitz, Henry and Leydesdorff, Loet. 1997. Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A

Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relation. London: Continuum Fletcher, Nataly. 2003. ‘Organizing and Protecting: A Narrative from José Soria of the

Organization for Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon.’ Cultural Survival Quaterly. January, Issue 26.4

Fox, Jonathan and Rivera-Salgado, Gaspar. 2004. Building Civil Society Among Indigenous Migrants. In Indigenous Mexican Migrants (http://www.ccis.org/PUBLICATIONS/indigenous.htm)

Gray-Felder, Denise and Deane James. 1999. Communication for Social Change: A Position Paper and Conference Report. Conference Report

Gumucio-Dagron, Alfonso. 2003. “What can ICTs do for the Rural Poor?” International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) roundtable: “Six Years Experience in Bridging the Digital Divide”. Geneva.

Heyns, Christof and Viljoen, Frans. 2001. ‘The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level.’ Human Rights Quaterly, Vol. 23, pp. 483-535

Sikkink, Kathryn. 1993. ‘Human Rights, Principled Issue-Networks, and Sovereignty in Latin America. International Organization. Vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 411-441

Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy


Networks in International Politics. New York: Cornell University Press

Kingsbury, Benedict. 1998. “Indigenous Peoples” in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Controversy. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Jul. 1998), 414-457

Luyt, Brendan. 2004. Who benefits from the digital divide? First Monday, volume 9, Number 8 (August), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/luyt/index.html

Metzl, Jamie F. 1996. ‘Information Technology and Human Rights.’ Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18.4, pp.705-746

Risse, Thomas and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1999. “The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction, pp. 18 in Ed. Risse, T. Ropp, S.C, and Sikkink, K. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. UK: Cambridge University Press

TIA, Telecommunications Industry Association. 2003. The Economic and Social Benefits of Broadband Deployment. Report. http://www.tiaonline.org/policy/broadband/Broadbandpaperoct03.pdf

Yashar, Deborah J. 1998. ‘Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin America’, Comparative Politics, Vol. 31, no. 2, October, pp. 25-26

Information Communication Technologies (ICTs): Transnational Networks and their Support to...

Documents

Transcript of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs): Transnational Networks and their Support to...