(Re)Defining Indigeneity and the Future of Roma Rights

Gloria KostadinovaIndigenous Rights and Natural Resources

Professor Tirrell5/9/2014

Kostadinova 2

I. Introduction

The preservation of indigeneity is a complex issue, one that has become

increasingly pertinent in the face of the climate change crisis and environmental concerns

in general. Like any identity, indigeneity is difficult to define; it is both a social

construction and an individual experience that is ever changing. An indigenous identity is

dynamic in the sense that it is constantly interpreted and contested by public perceptions.

Ethnicity, ancestry, origin, culture, and language all play an important role in defining

indigeneity, and as difficult as it is to determine indigenous origin, defending it is an

equally challenging task. There have been several international efforts to protect the

rights of indigenous populations, namely the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the American Convention on Human Rights, the United

Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and the Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples Convention of 1989 (C169). These documents represent a significant milestone

in international law; they not only demonstrate the UN’s commitment to eliminating

human rights violations, but they also establish a universal standard for the treatment of

indigenous peoples.

While these declarations are invaluable achievements, they are by no means

seamless. Documents such as UNDRIP and C169 successfully emphasize the importance

of the preservation of indigenous rights, and cover a wide range of issues from economic

and political organization, healthcare and education to cultural and environmental

preservation. However, certain sections within these declarations leave significant room

for debate, namely who qualifies as indigenous and receives protection under the law.

2

Kostadinova 3

The weaknesses of these clauses result in the failure to protect vulnerable peoples from

human rights violations.

This paper will focus on the challenges posed by indigenous identification

through, and the complication of territorial rights. Is indigeneity strictly determined by a

particular territorial claim? What happens when a culturally distinct, marginalized group

of people does not have any claims to a particular territory? Are they not indigenous?

Are they not allowed the same protection under the law? Such questions, and many more,

must be addressed in order to move forward and make progress in protecting inalienable

human rights for all peoples and individuals. Today there are many groups of people that

are not considered indigenous, but still experiences human rights violations, including

discrimination and marginalization. Such “historically oppressed substate groups” are

categorized as national minorities, while other nontraditional homeland minorities are

classified as subaltern groups (Kymlicka, 2011). However, the nuances between some

indigenous and minority groups are extremely subtle and sometimes ambiguous. The

Romani people in Eastern Europe are a prime example of a marginalized group that

transcends traditional minority classification. The Romani, or Roma, are not considered

indigenous, yet they have many historical and cultural parallels with other indigenous

peoples who do receive indigenous rights protection.

The following analysis will focus on the historical trajectory, current status and

fate of the Romani as an oppressed group of people with no homeland. In 2009 the U.S.

State Department published a report on human rights around the world noting that the

Romani, "suffer disproportionately from poverty, unemployment, interethnic violence,

discrimination, illiteracy and disease" (Lewy, 1999). That was fifteen years ago. Today,

3

Kostadinova 4

the situation of the Roma is much unchanged, as a recent World Bank publication reveals

that, “In Eastern Europe…71% or more of Roma households live in deep poverty” and “

fewer than 1 in 4 Roma complete upper secondary” education (World Bank, 2014). How

do we begin to explain these social injustices, and more importantly, what must be done?

Should the Romani of Eastern Europe be granted Indigenous Rights? In the summer of

2000, Romani groups met at the Fifth Romani World Congress and produced the

Declaration of Nation, which articulated their claim to non-territorial nation status. What

are the political, cultural, and social implications of this kind of statehood? How does it

differ from other Indigenous rights claims?

In order to better understand the Roma context, I will refer to two case studies of

similarly marginalized nomadic groups as points of comparison. The first is the Native

American Santee Dakota tribe of the Plains region in North America, and the second

group is the Tuareg tribes of northwestern African. While these three groups have vastly

different historical contexts and varying degrees of human rights protection, they share

many commonalities as historically oppressed and culturally distinct populations. These

parallels play an important role in examining both the successes and shortcomings of

current indigenous rights doctrines.

II. Indigeneity and Territorial Land Claims: Who Came First?

To begin I will refer to the language of the indigenous rights declarations,

UNDRIP and C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and will analyze the gaps

that exist within the documents. Article 2 of UNDRIP states that “Indigenous peoples and

individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be

free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that

4

Kostadinova 5

based on their indigenous origin or identity [emphasis added]” (UNDRIP, 4). The

distinction made between indigenous origin and indigenous identity in Article 2 is critical

to interpreting the various factors that define indigeneity. The first definition, referring to

indigenous origin, assumes that indigeneity is associated with certain claims to a specific

geographical region. The second definition, referring to indigenous identity, stipulates

that indigeneity is based on other factors that are independent of origin. Naturally, these

other factors vary from person to person and group to group, but they can include culture,

language, religion, ethnicity, etc.—notions typically associated with individuality and

self-expression from a sociological and anthropologic perspective (Cohen, 1993).

Similarly, Article 1(a) of C169 states that the Convention applies to “tribal

peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions

distinguish them from other sections of the national community…” This clause makes no

mention of aboriginal territorial origin. Moreover, Article 1(b) details that the Convention

applies to:

“Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country or a geographical region [emphasis added] to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or [emphasis added] the establishment of present state boundaries and who…retain some or all of their own social economic, cultural and political institution” (C169).

The above cited articles from UNDRIP and C169 are particularly important because they

set the precedent for which groups of people qualify for indigenous rights. The

stipulations apply directly to the Romani people, as well as many other subaltern groups,

who legally do not receive Indigenous Rights protection.

5

Kostadinova 6

The principle argument denying Romani people indigenous rights is based on the

fact that the Romani are not native to the European continent, thus they do not have

indigenous land claims. Based on linguistic analysis and recent genetic studies, many

historians and experts trace Roma roots back to India (Kiger, 2012). While their ancestral

homeland may reside in India, the Romani people have not lived there for centuries.

Roma Historian, David Crowe, has found evidence of Roma folk legends that date back

to Alexander the Great, as early as the 4th century. More substantial research, however,

shows that the Roma found their way to Europe by the 11th century, as a result of Muslim

invasions and efforts to spread the Islamic faith in the East (Crowe, xi). Not only have the

Roma resided in Europe for nearly 1,000 years, but in accordance with Article 1(b) of

C169, the Roma population has also inhabited the geographical region, to which the

European countries belong, at the time of the establishment of present state boundaries.

In a more general sense, the claim to historical ancestry is fundamentally flawed

at its core, and is merely dependent upon how far back ancestry claims are made.

Anthropologically, no group of people is native to the European continent. Based on the

advanced DNA analysis and extensive research of the National Geographic’s latest

Genographic Project, experts have concluded that:

“Our species is an African one: Africa is where we first evolved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fossils of recognizably modern Homo sapiensappear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated” (Wells).

Correspondingly, outside of the African continent, all peoples of the world were at one

point in history nomads and immigrants. How far must indigeneity trace back? One

6

Kostadinova 7

thousand years? Ten thousand years? The beginning of humanity? This argument is

ultimately unproductive, and the main question becomes who gets to determine and trace

back indigenous origin? These questions ultimately have no answers, and will continue to

be debated even if provisions to indigenous rights doctrines are made. The only pertinent

question is how society must go about alleviating widespread poverty, human rights

violations, and oppression of innocent and marginalized peoples. Furthermore, the debate

of origin undermines the protection of marginalized groups within Africa, like the Tuareg

people, whose unique situation demands more adequate protection of human rights, as

this paper will discuss.

Although the Roma have led nomadic livelihoods since their arrival in Europe and

do not claim any territorial homeland, they have retained their original social, economic

and political institutions. Their nomadic lifestyle, due in part to the Romani’s constant

marginalization and expulsion from mainstream society, is very similar to that of the

Native American tribes, who are indigenous to North American, and who are protected

under UNDRIP and C169.

III. Nomadic Peoples: The Santee Dakota and the Romani

One such nomadic tribe of North America is the Santee Dakota. The Santee are

one of the three groups that comprise the Sioux Native American people of the Plains

region. The Santee Dakota, or Eastern Ally, originally resided in the far eastern territories

of present day North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and northern Iowa (Minnesota

Historical Society). Unlike the Roma, the Santee are indigenous to the North American

continent in the sense that they preceded their European conquerors. The first contact

that the Santee had with European conquistadors was in the mid-1600s. Before the 17th

7

Kostadinova 8

century, the Santee lived relatively undisturbed nomadic lifestyles in the Plains. The

tribes “moved their villages and varied their work according to the seasons” (Minnesota

Historical Society). Like many other Plains tribes, the Santee raised crops, hunted

buffalo, and traded with other native peoples. Similar to the way the Roma traveled in

caravans as merchants, musicians and traders across Europe, the Santee lived in tipis and

followed the seasonal grazing and migration of the buffalo across the Plains region.

The Santee Dakota people have unique cultural ties with the buffalo of the Plains

region as they consider the animal to be sacred. The tribe’s heavy reliance on the buffalo

for survival, and the animal’s spiritual value amongst the tribe, provided an inherent link

between the Santee people and the Plains region where the buffalo roamed; threatening

the buffalo or the Plains in turn threatened the tribe’s existence. Although the Roma did

not rely on the land for survival in the same way as the Santee tribe, both peoples have

been uprooted from their homes, and experienced repeated marginalization over the

years. Is it justifiable to violate inherent human rights just because a group of people does

not have ancestral territorial claims? In addition to their nomadic existences, the Romani

and the Santee have led vastly different lives from mainstream society; they speak

different languages, have distinct cultural traditions and separate political and economic

structures, that qualify, at least one of the groups, as indigenous.

The Santee and Romani cultures both derive from oral traditions, and thus do not

have conventional written histories. The Romani speak various dialects that can be traced

back to Sanskrit, and have a rich story telling tradition. Many Romani became

fortunetellers, a profession which Christians throughout Europe deemed heretical. Santee,

on the other hand, is one of the two Eastern Dakota dialects of the Sioux people; the other

8

Kostadinova 9

is Sisseton. The Roma people also have a similar political structure to many Native

American tribes. As a nomadic people, the Roma travel in bands called kumpanias. Each

band elects a chieftain, or a voivode, who serves for life. The voivodes receive advice

from a council of elders as well as from the phuri dai, a senior woman who oversees the

welfare of the women and children in the kumpania (Kiger, June 2012). The voivode’s

heirs do not necessarily inherit titles, and the power of the chieftain varies from band to

band. The Romani spiritual beliefs also diverge from mainstream culture; they do not

embrace an organized religion like Christianity or Islam. Instead, Romani spiritualism is

influenced by the mysticism of ancient Vedic culture (Kiger, June 2012). Dakota

spirituality is centered on the belief of the unity and oneness of the world; a single

universal force called the ‘wakan,’ or the Great Mystery, animates everything (Minnesota

Historical Society). To recall Article 1(b) of C169, the Convention applies to “tribal

peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions

distinguish them from other sections of the national community.” The Romani people

embody this description just as well as the Santee tribes, and yet, the Romani are still

considered a subaltern minority.

This cultural and political distinctiveness is not only essential to the notion of

identity, but it is also critical to the idea of recognition. Political philosopher, James

Tully, has written extensively on the relationship between culture and politics, and how

the former is “an irreducible and constitutive” component of the latter (Tully, 6). Both

politics and culture are intimately tied within language and it is impossible to disassociate

one from the other without deconstructing the structure of language itself. Groups that

seek autonomy or recognition from the international community, such as the Santee and

9

Kostadinova 10

the Romani, do so because their own political structures and legislative institutions differ

vastly from those of mainstream society. Moreover, the contemporary constitutional

structure is rooted in a language and culture that is unlike their own. The Romani people

are not simply an ethnic minority; their cultural, religious, and political organization

makes them stand outside of their European context. The failure to recognize these

differences infringes upon their innate human rights, as well as their ability to claim

rights as a distinct and marginalized group. Yet, political and cultural misrecognition is

not the only injustice that the Romani and Santee have suffered over the years.

IV. A History of Violence and Marginalization

During the 19th century, there were U.S. government initiatives at the federal and

local level to starve the Plains population by killing off their main food source (Records,

1995). The near extinction of the bison by the mid-1800s was welcomed by the

government as it made room for cattle ranching and forced the Native populations onto

reservations (Moulton, 1995). The Roma, like their indigenous counterparts, also

experienced forced marginalization planned by the government. European laws against

the Romani people date back to the early 1400s, when cities such as Lucerne in

Switzerland and Freiburg in Germany began systematically removing them (Suddath,

2010). In the Balkans, laws were passed barring Romani from marrying spouses from

other groups, and many Romani were seized and forced into slavery, a practice that

persisted for five hundred years into the mid-1800s (Kiger, 2012). These actions were in

direct violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Right, Articles 4 and 16,

which stipulate, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade

shall be prohibited in all their forms,” and “Men and women of full age, without any

10

Kostadinova 11

limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a

family.”

In addition to overt discrimination and the violation of their human rights, the

native Santee and the Romani have suffered centuries of brutal genocide. As the

Europeans invaded the new frontier in search of gold, land, and opportunity they

destroyed acres of wildlife and slaughtered thousands of buffalo, leaving the native Plains

populations to starve to death. Moreover, the Europeans brought with them diseases, such

as smallpox and measles, which are know to have killed approximately 90 percent of the

Native American population (PBS). The Romani genocide was even more ruthless in

Europe. The ethnic purging during WWII killed an estimated two million Romani, with

500,000 sent to Nazi concentration camps, alongside Jews, homosexuals, and other

minorities (Kiger, 2012). What’s perhaps more devastating is that this kind of ethnic

purging still exists today. In recent years, many European governments have expelled

thousands of Roma from their borders, forcing them into miserable settlements, and

dispersing them into other Eastern states. Most notably in 2010, French president,

Nicolas Sarkozy, planned a national deportation of 10,000 Roma out of France and into

Romania and Bulgaria. Even if the Romani people wanted to claim a more sedentary

lifestyle, their constant expulsion from state borders has not allowed them the opportunity

to do so. They are perpetual stateless refugees, with no concrete legislation to offer them

asylum.

As previously established the treatment of the Romani not only violates the

indigenous rights declarations, but it also defies human rights doctrine that should be

applicable to all people, regardless of indigenous origin. The most recent expulsion of the

11

Kostadinova 12

Roma undermines UNDRIP Articles 1, 6, and 10, and violates the UN Universal

Deceleration of Human Rights Articles 7, 9, 12, and 15. Article 9 explicitly states, “No

one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.” Article 15 declares that

“Everyone has the right to a nationality” and that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of

his nationality…” Currently, the Romani people are not adequately protected under any

human rights standards. International declarations like UNDRIP and C169 were designed

specifically to protect and preserve the rights of vulnerable peoples around the world who

do not have equal political or economic influence in society, who are culturally distinct

from mainstream society, and who have a history of repeated human rights violations.

The Romani people qualify in each of these categories, but the international community

has yet to grant them indigenous immunity, and has yet to officially recognize the Roma

as more than just an ethnic minority.

V. The Limits to and Exceptions of International Indigenous Rights Doctrines

There are many weaknesses within the indigenous rights doctrines, but one

particular criticism of UNDRIP falls upon the moral foundations of certain Indigenous

Rights claims. In his essay, ‘UNDRIP and the Limits of the International Legal Project in

the Indigenous Context,’ Stephen Allen also questions the ethical implications of

Indigenous rights claims, namely claims to land and self-determination under Articles 3

and 26 of UNDRIP. Allen argues that while these claims, “are legitimate means through

which indigenous peoples can exercise their substantive rights” and “while they might be

grounded in the rhetoric of equality, they are privileged rights claims when compared

with the entitlements held and advanced by other sub-State societal groups” (Allen, 14).

As this paper has set out to demonstrate, the Romani represent a marginalized and

12

Kostadinova 13

oppressed sub-State group that remains exempt from the entitlements held by many other

indigenous groups who have the same grievances. UNDRIP may be a universal

declaration, but the implications certainly vary between groups and regions of the world.

In Africa, indigenous identification and land claims are even more complex due to

Africa’s distinct historical context, social and cultural development, and political

organization. The unique case of Africa’s indigenous peoples provides a useful lens

through which to interpret the case of the Romani people in Europe and apply a similar

historical trajectory. In his article, ‘Becoming Indigenous Peoples,’ Jim Igoe describes

how the global indigenous peoples’ movement has come to be defined as a movement of

“culturally distinct nonwestern societies,” societies characterized by “their historical

resistance to colonialism, state formation, and global capitalism” (Igoe, 402).

Both the Romani and many African subnational tribes experience similar

complications with territorial claims due to their non-colonial historical contexts. Like the

Roma, many of the African tribes were not subject to the same colonization as the Native

American tribes. Consequentially, the Romani arguably do not have indigenous land

claims on account of their migration from India. There is a similar argument in Africa,

which stipulates that indigeneity is not determined by geographic land claims because it

is very difficult to determine which groups are original to a certain region. The argument

that ‘all Africans are indigenous to the continent,’ and thus no one group can have special

land claims based on indigeneity is fundamentally true; however, it does not account for

the existence of small, marginalized ethnic groups within Africa with distinct cultural

practices who seek to preserve their traditional ways of life in the face of sweeping

globalization and capitalist economics. Moreover, colonization and oppression is not

13

Kostadinova 14

limited to the efforts of European expansion. Dominant groups in Africa have repressed

marginalized groups for centuries.

VI. The Blue People of the Desert

The Tuareg people represent one such marginalized ethnic group in Africa. They

are semi-nomadic, pastoralist people of Berber ancestry who reside in the Saharan region

of North-Western Africa in present day Algeria, Libya, Mali, and Niger (Tuareg People).

They have a population between 1 and 1.5 million and are nominally Muslim. Like the

Roma their primary means of livelihood is through trading, but they also engage in

agriculture. The Tuareg people once controlled the caravan trade routes across the

Sahara, and are known for breeding and trading livestock, namely camels. The Tuareg

people speak Tamasheq and write using a script called Tifinar, which is rooted in ancient

Libyan (Tuareg People). They are referred to as the ‘Blue People of the Sahara’ because

of the unique indigo turbans worn by Tuareg men. Like both the Santee and the Romani,

the Tuareg tribes have retained distinct cultural, linguistic, and political traditions, which

set them apart from surrounding populations in Africa. Similar to the violent past of the

Romani and Santee, the Tuareg peoples have also experienced decades of marginalization

and oppression from governments, resulting in perpetual political tensions. Government

enforced projects, namely uranium mining, have forced the Tuareg out of their territories

and into isolated regions. Droughts, exacerbated by climate change effects, also

contribute to marginalization, as arable land for livestock and crops continues to

diminish. Political tensions have resulted in violent conflicts including the rebellion to

French colonialism in 1916 and 1917, their reaction to the Mali government land reforms

infringing upon traditional Tuareg areas between 1961 and 1964, and the most recent

14

Kostadinova 15

struggle in 2007 over the unequal distribution of mineral wealth (Laszlo). While the

Tuareg people adopted UNDRIP in 2007, they still experience marginalization and

oppression from African governments, many of which do not fully recognize the claims

in the declaration.

VII. Contradictions of Self Determination

In 2012 the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) declared

independence in Mali, making a public statement on its website (BBC). According to the

BBC article, “the MNLA is one of two rebel groups to have gained ground in the area

after Mali's government was ousted in a coup.” The group partly consists of well-armed

Tuareg fighters from Libya along with other Islamist rebels. The African Union, as well

as former colonial power France and the European Union, refuse to recognize Azawad’s

independence, and have condemned the declaration as "null and void" (BBC). The online

declaration made specific references to international doctrines such as the UN Charter

and UNDRIP. The following is a translation of the original delectation:

“We, the people of Azawad…Recalling the principles of international law and the main international legal instruments governing the right of people to self-determination, including the UN Charter 1 and 55, the relevant provisions of the International Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples…Declare recognition of existing borders with neighboring states…The commitment of MNLA to create conditions for sustainable peace, to initiate the institutional foundations of the state based on a democratic constitution for independent Azawd” (Independence of Azawad, 2012).

The declaration was well articulated, and was founded upon valid international doctrine.

The cry for independence was, in part, a response to repeated government neglect and

marginalization of the Tuareg and other tribal groups. Despite the valid justification of

such a declaration, the most disconcerting element of the independence movement was

15

Kostadinova 16

the ANLA’s association with known terrorist groups. “The UN has voiced alarm at the

presence of Ansar Dine, which has links to an al-Qaeda franchise which operates in the

region” (BBC). Self-determination becomes a slippery slope with the threat of terrorism

and military power, so it is reasonable for the EU and the Mali government to deny the

ANLW declaration upon claims of self-determination. However, this conflict only reveals

the deeper problems that plague the region, and unfortunately, the European nations are

blind to the root causes of such political conflicts.

The BBC article conveys that the Western powers are more preoccupied with

stopping the Islamist threat in the region than they are with the Tuareg issue, “which is

considered a political internal problem.” While eliminating terrorist threats should be a

top priority, the Western states are wrong to assume that “political internal problems” are

localized issues. On the contrary, this conflict in Mali is a small manifestation of the

global effects internal problems can have if left unaddressed. The Tuareg and other

marginalized people will turn to terrorist and other rebel groups if the government and

international bodies continue to neglect their needs and deny them their rights as

indigenous peoples. Instead of immediately looking to exterminate rebel activity amongst

tribes through military force, it is important to consider the reasons why the tribes seek

autonomy. As marginalized group, the Tuareg have experienced decades of oppression

and neglect. In order to survive and preserve their culture and way of life, the Tuareg

have sought independence as granted to them in the Indigenous Rights doctrines. If the

government shows willingness to cooperate, support, and assist its own people, then

perhaps violent conflict and terrorist threats can be mitigated in the future.

16

Kostadinova 17

The argument that minority groups pose too much threat to national security and

thus should not be considered for indigenous rights is flawed and problematic. By

denying oppressed groups rights and resources, governments are only exacerbating

tensions and instigating future conflicts. Moreover, the conflict in Mali reveals another

inherent contradiction to the indigenous rights doctrines. While indigenous groups can

claim self-determination under Article 3 of UNDRIP, is this claim actually feasible? Do

governments and international governing bodies endorse this claim in its fullest meaning?

If by virtue of that right indigenous peoples can “freely determine their political status

and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” then why were the

Tuareg tribes not granted independence under the MNLA declaration? UN expert Erica-

Irene Daes offers some insight into this contradiction.

“In trying to diminish state opposition to indigenous claims to self-determination, [Daes] states that ‘in view of their small size, limited resources and vulnerability,’ it is ‘not realistic to fear indigenous peoples’ exercise of the right to self-determination.’ The clear if unintended implication is that it would be realistic to fear the exercise of self-determination by groups that are not small, or that have sufficient resources (or allies) to credibly challenge state power” (Kymlicka, 2011)

Perhaps it is better to amend the self-determination claim, and clarify the scope of

the clause, instead of to hope for the unattainable realization of such a right for

most vulnerable indigenous groups. As the case of the Tuareg tribe illustrates, any

marginalized subaltern group, regardless of size or indigenous status, can present

a geopolitical threat, if oppressed and neglected long enough. Thus, it is not a

matter of restricting autonomy and self-determination out of fear, but a question

of how to establish peaceful diplomatic sanctions that provide a level playing field

for all indigenous, non-indigenous, and state stakeholders.

17

Kostadinova 18

VIII. Failed Initiatives and Future Reparations

As Professor Kymlicka elaborates in his essay ‘Beyond the Indigenous/Minority

Dichotomy,’ opening the gates for minority groups to claim indigenous rights may

undermine the progress and achievements of the indigenous rights doctrines, and may

also threaten the protection of vulnerable indigenous groups who do have original land

claims, such as the Santee Dakota. However, the solution to the existing shortcomings of

the doctrines is not to ignore subnational and subaltern minorities altogether. Negligence

is perhaps even worse than oppression, as the case of the Tuareg people demonstrates.

Though in recent years, many European governments have expressed increasing

concern about the ‘Roma question’ and have engaged in an international dialogue about

the fate of this ethnic minority. Just last month, President of the European Commission

Jose Manuel Barroso spoke at the European Roma Summit held in Brussels, Belgium. He

emphasized that “a society is only strong when it takes care of its weakest members,” and

expressed the EC’s commitment to ensuring that more European funds go towards

fighting poverty in socially excluded groups such as the Roma (Sofia News Agency,

2014). The EC will allocate EUR 80B for human capital, employment, and social

inclusion, financed through the European Social Fund (Sofia News Agency, 2014). While

these much-needed efforts are certainly admirable and will help alleviate some poverty,

Roma integration and social inclusion projects are not going to solve the larger

challenges facing the Roma community. Poverty and discrimination are deeply rooted in

the Roma’s inability to act as a political entity in their own right. The marginal role that

the Romani play in their own political and economic matters leads to the violation of

their rights, and their oppression from other European states.

18

Kostadinova 19

Furthermore, integration and inclusion initiatives are mildly reminiscent of the

oppressive assimilation projects during the Soviet era when the Romani were stripped of

their culture and forced to assimilate into European nation states. Nomadism was

outlawed in Czechoslovakia in 1958 and in Poland in 1964, and drastic measures were

sometimes taken, such as shooting horses, removing wheels from caravans, and

prohibiting gatherings (Silverman, 1995). In other countries, governments forced Roma

people to resettle and disperse by tearing down their villages and assigning state housing.

In Bulgaria, the socialist government denied the existence of Roma while it

simultaneously implemented assimilationist policies. As early as the 1960s, the

government forced Roma with Muslim names to change their names to Slavic ones, as

part of the national "Bulgarization" process (Silverman, 1995). From the early 1970s, all

music specifically identified as Roma or in the Romani language was prohibited from

media and public performance.

Czechoslovakia enforced the most drastic measures to curb Roma population

growth by lowering the birth rate. Beginning in the early 1970s, government social

workers encouraged Roma women to have government-paid sterilization by offering

them monetary bonuses during economic crises (Silverman, 1995). Sadly, some women

were sterilized without their consent after undergoing cesarean sections or abortions.

There is a fine line between integration and assimilation, and in some cases the line

dissolves altogether. Arguably, while the integration of Roma may have alleviated

pockets of poverty throughout Europe, this came at a cost of destroying the Romani

culture, livelihood, and identity. The European Commission and other international and

national bodies must not make the same mistaken in thinking that integration and social

19

Kostadinova 20

inclusion will solve the problem and mitigate discrimination, marginalization, and other

human rights violations.

IX. Alternative Solutions in a Changing World

The political transformations of our globalized society call for a reevaluation of

the status of marginalized groups. According to Morag Goodwin, a professor in

International Law at Tilberg University, as a result of these global political changes, “an

increasing number of identity-based groups are staking claim to political recognition. In

the play of flux and uncertainty is arguably room for a reassessment of the way in which

we recognize and deal with group-based difference” (Goodwin, 2004). The unique case

of the Romani calls for unconventional problem-solving strategies.

The Romani claim to non-territorial nation status in 2000 presents a unique

alternative to the way subaltern groups have traditionally been treated. This alternative

claim to non-territorial nationhood is based upon the notion of national-cultural

autonomy. As Goodwin describes, this model was first adopted by the Jewish Workers

Union to provide a “socialist response to the attempted assimilation and repression of

Jews within the Russian territories,” and was later used to resolve national problems

within the Austro-Hungarian empire (Goodwin, 2004). The Romani claim to non-

territorial nation status further seeks recognition of Roma as equal to other nations on the

international level.

Their assertion is rather delayed in comparison to other subaltern groups who

have made the same claims based upon the doctrine of self-determination. It is unclear as

to why the Roma have not sought self-determination previously, but as Goodwin

hypothesizes, perhaps it is “the failure of individual and minority rights to deliver that has

20

Kostadinova 21

nonetheless witnessed widespread agreement in recent years among the Romani

leadership on the need to stake a claim to self-determination” (Goodwin, 2004). Now,

whether or not the Romani can actual realize their claim to self-determination is

dependent upon the intentions of the international rights doctrines. While they have never

showed rebel antagonism or cooperated with other rebel groups, if the Romani continue

to be persecuted and marginalized, European governments may run the risk of

radicalizing the Roma population and creating a conflict similar to that in Mali. It is

better to acknowledge and mitigate their grievances now, than to ostracize the Romani

and allow them the opportunity to respond in more aggressive ways.

X. Conclusion

While the international working groups have made significant progress in the

realm of human and indigenous rights through the creation of such declarations as

UNDRIP and C169, the documents are by no means comprehensive or all-inclusive. In

theory the documents present efficient principles for the protection of indigenous rights,

but putting the regulations into practice presents additional challenges. The main obstacle

lies in the implementation and enforcement of the regulations outlined in the declarations.

With no international or even national police force ensuring the proper realization of the

regulations, it is unlikely that governments will adhere to each and every article

disclosed. The consequences to potential violations are rather limited and mild, ranging

from diplomatic shaming in international conferences, regional human rights courts,

which also lack police enforcement, and social advocacy through documentaries and

social justice initiatives. The accountability falls mainly on the individual government’s

judgments and regard for ethical imperatives.

21

Kostadinova 22

The declarations also have significant room for improvement in addressing the

claims and rights of ethnic subaltern groups who fall in the gray areas of international

law, such as the Romani. In order to prevent these vulnerable groups from suffering

unjustly from the shortcomings of political doctrines, the international community must

reevaluate, and perhaps renew the protection of minority rights. On the other hand, if the

UN does not grant the Romani and other untraditional subaltern groups protection under

UNDRIP and C169, then international bodies must come up with more innovative and

inclusive legislation that reflects the changing multicultural political paradigm, and

recognizes the growing need to protect marginalized people without a voice in today’s

society.

22

Kostadinova 23

Works Cited

Allen, Stephen. ‘The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Limits of the International Legal Project in the Indigenous Context.’ Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ed. Stephen Allen et al. Portland: Hart Publishing Ltd., 2011. 1-24.

BBC. ‘Mali Tuareg rebels declare independence in the north.’ BBC News. April 6, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-17635437.

Cohen, Anthony P. ‘Culture As Identity: An Anthropologist’s View.’ New Literary

History. 24:1. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Crowe, David. A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St.

Amrtin’s Press, 1995.

Goodwin, Morag. ‘The Romani Claim to Non-Territorial Nation Status: Recognition

from an International Legal Perspective.’ European Roma Rights Centre. May 27, 2004.

Retrieved from: http://www.errc.org/article/the-romani-claim-to-non-territorial-nation-

status-recognition-from-an-international-legal-perspective/1849.

Igoe, Jim. ‘Becoming Indigenous Peoples: Difference, Inequality, and the Globalization

of East African Identity Politics.’ African Affairs. Oxford University Press, 2006. 399-

420.

Kiger, Patrick J. ‘Romani Culture and Traditions.’ National Geographic. June 26, 2012.

Retrieved from:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/american-gypsies/articles/romani-culture-

and-traditions/.

Kiger, Patrick J. ‘ A History of the Romani People.’ National Geographic. August 1,

2012. Retrieved from:

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/american-gypsies/articles/a-history-of-

the-romani-people/.

23

Kostadinova 24

Kymlicka, Will. ‘Beyond the Indigenous/Minority Dichotomy.’ Reflections on the UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ed. Stephen Allen et al. Portland: Hart

Publishing Ltd., 2011. 183-208.

Laszlo, Damon de. ‘The Nomadic Inhabitants of North Africa.’ Bradshaw Foundation.

Retrieved from: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/tuareg/

Lewy, Guenter. ‘The Travail of the Gypsies.’ National Interest. 1999. Retrieved from:

http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-travail-of-the-gypsies-808

Minnesota Historical Society. ‘The Dakota People.’ Historic Fort Snelling. Retrieved

from: http://www.historicfortsnelling.org/history/american-indians/dakota-people.

Moulton, M. ‘Wildlife Issues in a Changing World.’ 2nd edition. CRC Press, 1995.

Records, Laban. ‘Cherokee Outlet Cowboy: Recollections of Laban S. Records.’

Norman, Oklahoma: University Press, 1995.

Sofia News Agency. ‘Bulgaria Among Positive Examples for Roma Inclusion-EC

President.’ Novinite.com. April 4, 2014. Retrieved from:

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=159545

Wells, Spencer. ‘The Human Journey: Migration Routes.’ National Geographic Society.

Retrieved from: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/.

PBS. ‘ Variables: The Story of…Smallpox—and Other Deadly Eurasian Germs.’ PBS.

Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html.

Silverman, Carol. ‘Persecution and Politicization: Roma (Gypsies) of Eastern Europe.’

Cultural Survival. 19.2, 1995. Retrieved from:

24

Kostadinova 25

http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/albania/

persecution-and-politicization-roma-gypsies-eastern

Suddath, Claire. ‘Who Are the Gypsies, and why is France Deporting Them?’ Time.

August 26, 2010. Retrieved from:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2013917,00.html

‘Tuareg People: Africa’s Blue People of the Desert.’ Exposing Black Truth. April 27,

2014. Retrieved from: http://www.exposingblacktruth.org/tuareg-people-africas-blue-

people-of-the-desert/.

Tully, J. Strange Multiplicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 6-17.

World Bank. ‘Europe and Central Asia: Roma.’ World Bank. February 24 2014.

Retrieved from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/region/eca/brief/roma

25