Journal articles on the topic 'Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries Convention'

AbstractOn 27 June 1989, by a majority of 328 votes for, one against and 49 abstentions, the International Labour Conference adopted the Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which came into force on 5 September 1991. Twenty years later, the Convention remains the only modern international legally binding instrument containing a series of novel provisions specifically devoted to the rights of indigenous peoples with a view to recognising, protecting and promoting their distinct identity. Despite its shortcomings and its few ratifications (just 20), the Convention has proved to be a significant departure for the defence and strengthening of indigenous rights at national, regional (especially that of Latin America) and universal level.

AbstractThis article examines the contested reception of the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (“ILO Convention 169”) in Nepal, particularly in the context of current constitutional reform and post-conflict economic development. Compelling evidence suggests that exclusionary political institutions, laws and structures have been the major cause of exclusion in contemporary Nepal. While Nepal is home to a range of different ethnic, language, religious and caste-based groups, the Adivasi Janajati (around 37 per cent of the population) consider themselves indigenous peoples. With such a sizeable minority, Nepal was the first and so far only Asian country to ratify the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169, which has considerable significance in a context of state restructuring and the accommodation of indigenous rights. The form of recognition of indigenous rights in the constitutional drafting process has created much heat, particularly over questions of autonomy and federalism, control over natural resources and land and quotas for political representation, but with less light concerning political consensus. The ILO Convention 169 has figured prominently in this process with various interpretations by different actors. Reconciling international meanings of this treaty with national interpretations used for political purposes in Nepal foregrounds a paradox existing between liberalism (in the form of rights and freedoms) and equality (democracy). Through a range of disciplinary methods, this article analyses the background to indigenous demands, the political and legal contestation over the interpretation of ILO 169 and the specific case of natural resources.

AbstractThis article presents some emblematic cases of the application of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Nations by Latin American courts. I chose a small number of cases that cover diverse topics and represent different countries in the region, as well as the regional court of human rights – the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It is clear that there has been considerable experience in the application of Convention 169 in Latin America, with some countries having developed important jurisprudence through a significant number of judgments in the field. Therefore, this work makes no pretence of being an exhaustive review of the material: the perspective adopted is simply to select a handful of cases, based on the novelty of interpretation offered or on the relevance of its consequences. Before outlining the cases, I make some preliminary clarifications that may be useful in explaining the material presented here, and the context in which they should be understood.

The Alta case and the Sámi struggle for “rights to lands and waters” put political pressure on the Norwegian government to broadly explore the rights of the indigenous Sámi people to such resources. Both Norway’s ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries in 1990, and the 2005 Finnmark Act are results of that exploration. To meet the obligations Norway undertook by signing the ILO Convention, the Finnmark Act authorises the Finnmark Commission to investigate land rights held by Sámi and other people in the most central part of Sámi areas in Norway. In March 2012, the Commission submitted its first report, which is the first specific legal clarification of a particular area after 30 years of examinations and discussions of Sámi rights. The report is therefore met with high expectations. This article analyses the main findings of the Commission, including the interpretation of its mandate and thus also Norway’s obligations in regards to the ILO Convention. The article concludes with reflections as to whether the investigation fulfils Norway’s commitments to identify and recognise the lands of the Sámi, both under national and international law.

During the two last decades of the 20th century, Norway has undertaken several commitments pursuant to international law that protect Sámi lands, culture, language and way of life. Norway’s 1988 constitutional amendment framed after the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 27 and the ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention no. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries in 1990 are the most prominent of these. The adoption of the 1999 Norwegian Human Rights Act incorporating the ICCPR as internal Norwegian law should also be mentioned. This article examines how Norway complies with the international legal obligations the country has undertaken to protect the indigenous Sámi culture, in relation to land-based renewal resources, marine resources, and mineral resources.

AbstractInternational organizations are considered to be central actors on the stage of world politics. They are not simply passive collections of rules or structures through which others act. Rather, they are considered to be active agents of global change. International organizations are often the actors to whom we defer when it comes to defining meanings, norms of good behaviour, the nature of social actors, and categories of legitimate social action in the world. The article has an interdisciplinary approach to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and its Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent countries. The approaches of international relations and international law helps explain the power the ILO exercises in national and world politics. These insights are illustrated by exploring why state agents comply with norms promoted by the regime of ILO Convention No. 169. The article briefly introduces the historical approach of the ILO to indigenous issues and the complexity related to the concept of indigenousness; the highly relevant debate when states are considering the ratification of the Convention and even when implementing it. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) in the ILO structure is the most central body guiding the States to normative and political changes in their domestic practices. It is argued that the Committee is using its authority and power through the normative regime and its supervisory mechanisms, and therefore is also interpreting the Convention. The system as a whole has effects on traditional state sovereignty and the demands of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. The research questions focuses also on the compliance, implementation and effectiveness of international Conventions. The article has a Nordic approach with comparison to different approaches related to Article 1 dealing with the subjects/objects of the Convention and also different land right situations (Articles 13‐19) especially in Latin America.

Even though the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) is soft law, the need to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to be informed and to be involved in development projects is strongly backed in international legal instruments including inter alia the ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1998) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal People (2007). These instruments do not only appear to be the most comprehensive and advanced international legal instruments that deal with indigenous peoples' rights in terms of the FPIC, but also signal an addition to the growing body of international human rights law that serves to ensure the realisation and protection of the substantive environmental and other human rights of indigenous people, particularly in the context of land grabbing activities that have the potential to negatively impact on their rights. Such rights include, for example, the rights to be informed and to participate in decision-making processes with respect to development projects, including land grabbing activities. This implies an obligation on states party to such international agreements to ensure that indigenous people are informed about and are actively involved in both the negotiation and the implementation of land grabbing deals. However, because the latter often takes place against the background of non-transparent transactions which are inimical to the rights and interests of indigenous people, one may wonder why the principle of FPIC is not applicable during land grabbing transactions.Focusing on Cameroon, this article examines instances of land grabbing in the country in order to support this hypothesis. This is done by focusing specifically on the application of the principle of FPIC. The arguments in the article are inspired by international law in which the application of the principle in the context of land grabbing serves not only to protect the rights and interests of indigenous people but is also conducive to fostering and reinforcing the land governance regime of host countries involved in such deals. To this end, the article concludes that because the principle embodies aspects of procedural rights such as the rights to information and participation, which are often conspicuously lacking during land grabbing contracts, its application in and during land grabbing might be useful to set the basis for the recognition, promotion, and enforcement of local communities' rights in Cameroon.

ILO Convention No. 169 remains the only treaty open for ratification specifically and exclusively dedicated to the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. Its cornerstone is the State’s duty to consult indigenous peoples. This article presents the history of the emergence of the duty to consult indigenous peoples in ILO Convention No. 169, its normative content and related guidance from the ILO supervisory bodies. It further examines developments with regard to this duty in the UN and the Inter-American systems and explores the relationship between such developments and ILO Convention No. 169. The paper revisits State practice of countries that have ratified that Convention, illustrating progress and challenges relating to the implementation of regulatory frameworks for consultation with indigenous peoples.

Abstract The paper is an overview of the participation of the northern indigenous peoples in the public management of the Arctic territories in Russia. Different forms of participation are described, and most attention is paid to the co-management of the governments and the indigenous peoples when their mutual aim is protecting the Arctic and its natural landscapes in the period of extensive industrial development. The principle objective of the paper is to analyze the international and national legal regulations and to show some effective legal mechanisms through which participation can be developed in Russia. The authors study definitions of participation, the main international principles of participation and give a deep analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation, which provides the framework for indigenous participation. Much attention is paid to the legislation of the federative regions of Russia which are inhabited by the northern indigenous peoples. Mostly the authors study the example of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area, the Arctic area of Russia with the biggest gas reserves, inhabited by the Nenets. The first conclusion made in the paper is that the Arctic countries must not only prioritize the exploitation of rich Arctic resources, but also be aware that the Arctic is primarily the home and the area of the traditional lifestyle and occupations of the northern indigenous peoples who have lived there for a long time. The northern indigenous peoples are interested in cooperation with the governments according to their traditional values and knowledge; they want to be involved in the decision-making process and management of their territories and resources. The second conclusion is that a patchwork of federal laws regulating indigenous issues in Russia does not grant any special rights that let the northern indigenous peoples participate in the decision-making process concerning the lands and resources in the Arctic areas. The federal government mostly implements the concept of paternalism but not the concept of participation. The federative regions in their regulations provide considerably more opportunities for participation. However, the regions are quite restricted by the federal legislation. The regulations are fragmentary on both the federal and the regional levels, there is no system of public authorities providing for consultation, cooperation, agreements and other forms of indigenous participation. Moreover, in Russia there is very little experience in the realization of the participation of the Arctic territories and resources. The third, and most important, conclusion is that participation in the management of the Arctic territories should become a new element of the Russian Arctic policy. From this perspective it is necessary to ratify and sign two international documents – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – and to incorporate the basic principles of participation into the Russian federal legislation. Also it is vital to establish a specialized federal body on indigenous issues with a special focus on the northern indigenous peoples. Lastly, the legal and administrative capabilities of regions and local authorities should be increased, and the regional and local bodies should be vested with the power to involve indigenous peoples in the management of the northern territories.

Tujuan dilakukannya penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana Pengaturan Hukum Hak Budaya Masyarakat Adat Menurut Konvensi Internasional Dibidang Hak Asasi Manusia dan bagaimana Implementasi Jaminan Hukum Perlindungan Hak Budaya Masyarakat Adat Dalam Hukum Nasional. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, disimpulkan: 1. Hak masyarakat adat telah diatur dalam beberapa Konvensi Internasional dibidang Hak Asasi Manusia, yakni, Deklarasi Universal Hak Asasi Mnusia) 1948 (DUHAM), ICESCR (Hak-hak ekonomi, sosial dan budaya) diakui dan dilindungi oleh instrumen-instrumen hak asasi manusia internasional dan regional, yakni; Convention of International Labor Organization Concerning Indigeneous and Tribal People in Independent Countries (1989), Deklarasi Cari- Oca tentang Hak-Hak Masyarakat Adat (1992), Deklarasi Bumi Rio de Janairo (1992), Declaration on the Right of Asian Indigenous Tribal People Chianmai (1993), De Vienna Declaration and Programme Action yang dirumuskan oleh United Nations World Conference on Human Rights (1993). Sekarang istilah indigenous people semakin resmi penggunaannya dengan telah lahirnya Deklarasi PBB tentang Hak-Hak Masyarakat Adat (United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indegenous People) pada tahun 2007 yang disingkat dengan UNDRIP. 2. Sebagai negara pihak dalam konvensi-konvensi HAM internasional yang berkaitan dengan hak masyarakat adat, Indonesia merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dari konsepsi HAM sebagaimana diakui, dihormati, dan dilindungi oleh negara dalam UUD 1945 Indonesia telah melakukan tindakan implementasi dalam hukum nasional dalam bentuk Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan HAM dan peraturan perundang-undangan lainnya, sebagaimana yang terdapat dalam Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945, Undang-Undang Nomor. 39 Tahun 1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia.Kata kunci: Perlindungan Hukum, Hak-Hak Budaya Masyarakat Adat, Perspektif Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia

Indigenous and tribal rights have always been neglected in almost all jurisdictions across the world. The international movement has however gained momentum in the last few decades with the turn-around construed by ILO 169. The indigenous movement subsequently reached a significant level with the UNDRIPS. Thirty years after the Convention No. 169 only 23 countries have ratified the convention. Like most signatory countries, India has not ratified this convention and still carries on with the outdated ILO 107 which was criticized as a historic blunder. Like most nations India is also bound to submit the UPR but unfortunately none of the UPRs discusses in details the condition of tribal communities in India. This research studies the socio-economic scenario of tribal peoples in West Bengal. Some perception of the employees, Social worker, NGO professional have been made and a set of recommendation follows for better implementation of development schemes and livelihood

El entender la consulta como derecho ciudadano que conlleva el consentimiento previo e informado sobre temas que afectan a la ciudadanía, y sobre todo como derecho colectivo de los pueblos indígenas, incluidos los de México, no ha sido desarrollado hasta el momento. La intención de este trabajo es argumentar la necesidad del reconocimiento de este derecho y cómo en la práctica los pueblos indígenas han sido afectados en sus territorios al no ser consultados. En el mismo sentido, se hace un análisis que toma como referentes el Convenio 169 para Pueblos indígenas y tribales en países independientes, de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, y la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Finalmente se comparte una propuesta de consulta a pueblos indígenas. ABSTRACT Understanding has not been developed to date regarding the right to consultation as a citizen right that implies prior and informed consent by citizens regarding issues affecting them, and in particular as a collective right of indigenous peoples, including the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The intention of this document is to argue the need for recognition of this right and to discuss how territorial rights of indigenous peoples have been affected in practice due to lack of consultation. In this same sense, an analysis is presented with references to the International Labor Organization (ILO) Agreement 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries, and to Mexico’s Constitution. Finally, a proposal is presented regarding consultation of indigenous peoples.

On the morning of Thursday, 4 May 2006, the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held an open hearing entitled “Terrorist Use of the Internet.” The Intelligence committee meeting was scheduled to take place in Room 1302 of the Longworth Office Building, a Depression-era structure with a neoclassical façade. Because of a dysfunctional elevator, some of the congressional representatives were late to the meeting. During the testimony about the newest political applications for cutting-edge digital technology, the microphones periodically malfunctioned, and witnesses complained of “technical problems” several times. By the end of the day it seemed that what was to be remembered about the hearing was the shocking revelation that terrorists were using videogames to recruit young jihadists. The Associated Press wrote a short, restrained article about the hearing that only mentioned “computer games and recruitment videos” in passing. Eager to have their version of the news item picked up, Reuters made videogames the focus of their coverage with a headline that announced, “Islamists Using US Videogames in Youth Appeal.” Like a game of telephone, as the Reuters videogame story was quickly re-run by several Internet news services, each iteration of the title seemed less true to the exact language of the original. One Internet news service changed the headline to “Islamic militants recruit using U.S. video games.” Fox News re-titled the story again to emphasise that this alert about technological manipulation was coming from recognised specialists in the anti-terrorism surveillance field: “Experts: Islamic Militants Customizing Violent Video Games.” As the story circulated, the body of the article remained largely unchanged, in which the Reuters reporter described the digital materials from Islamic extremists that were shown at the congressional hearing. During the segment that apparently most captured the attention of the wire service reporters, eerie music played as an English-speaking narrator condemned the “infidel” and declared that he had “put a jihad” on them, as aerial shots moved over 3D computer-generated images of flaming oil facilities and mosques covered with geometric designs. Suddenly, this menacing voice-over was interrupted by an explosion, as a virtual rocket was launched into a simulated military helicopter. The Reuters reporter shared this dystopian vision from cyberspace with Western audiences by quoting directly from the chilling commentary and describing a dissonant montage of images and remixed sound. “I was just a boy when the infidels came to my village in Blackhawk helicopters,” a narrator’s voice said as the screen flashed between images of street-level gunfights, explosions and helicopter assaults. Then came a recording of President George W. Bush’s September 16, 2001, statement: “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” It was edited to repeat the word “crusade,” which Muslims often define as an attack on Islam by Christianity. According to the news reports, the key piece of evidence before Congress seemed to be a film by “SonicJihad” of recorded videogame play, which – according to the experts – was widely distributed online. Much of the clip takes place from the point of view of a first-person shooter, seen as if through the eyes of an armed insurgent, but the viewer also periodically sees third-person action in which the player appears as a running figure wearing a red-and-white checked keffiyeh, who dashes toward the screen with a rocket launcher balanced on his shoulder. Significantly, another of the player’s hand-held weapons is a detonator that triggers remote blasts. As jaunty music plays, helicopters, tanks, and armoured vehicles burst into smoke and flame. Finally, at the triumphant ending of the video, a green and white flag bearing a crescent is hoisted aloft into the sky to signify victory by Islamic forces. To explain the existence of this digital alternative history in which jihadists could be conquerors, the Reuters story described the deviousness of the country’s terrorist opponents, who were now apparently modifying popular videogames through their wizardry and inserting anti-American, pro-insurgency content into U.S.-made consumer technology. One of the latest video games modified by militants is the popular “Battlefield 2” from leading video game publisher, Electronic Arts Inc of Redwood City, California. Jeff Brown, a spokesman for Electronic Arts, said enthusiasts often write software modifications, known as “mods,” to video games. “Millions of people create mods on games around the world,” he said. “We have absolutely no control over them. It’s like drawing a mustache on a picture.” Although the Electronic Arts executive dismissed the activities of modders as a “mustache on a picture” that could only be considered little more than childish vandalism of their off-the-shelf corporate product, others saw a more serious form of criminality at work. Testifying experts and the legislators listening on the committee used the video to call for greater Internet surveillance efforts and electronic counter-measures. Within twenty-four hours of the sensationalistic news breaking, however, a group of Battlefield 2 fans was crowing about the idiocy of reporters. The game play footage wasn’t from a high-tech modification of the software by Islamic extremists; it had been posted on a Planet Battlefield forum the previous December of 2005 by a game fan who had cut together regular game play with a Bush remix and a parody snippet of the soundtrack from the 2004 hit comedy film Team America. The voice describing the Black Hawk helicopters was the voice of Trey Parker of South Park cartoon fame, and – much to Parker’s amusement – even the mention of “goats screaming” did not clue spectators in to the fact of a comic source. Ironically, the moment in the movie from which the sound clip is excerpted is one about intelligence gathering. As an agent of Team America, a fictional elite U.S. commando squad, the hero of the film’s all-puppet cast, Gary Johnston, is impersonating a jihadist radical inside a hostile Egyptian tavern that is modelled on the cantina scene from Star Wars. Additional laughs come from the fact that agent Johnston is accepted by the menacing terrorist cell as “Hakmed,” despite the fact that he utters a series of improbable clichés made up of incoherent stereotypes about life in the Middle East while dressed up in a disguise made up of shoe polish and a turban from a bathroom towel. The man behind the “SonicJihad” pseudonym turned out to be a twenty-five-year-old hospital administrator named Samir, and what reporters and representatives saw was nothing more exotic than game play from an add-on expansion pack of Battlefield 2, which – like other versions of the game – allows first-person shooter play from the position of the opponent as a standard feature. While SonicJihad initially joined his fellow gamers in ridiculing the mainstream media, he also expressed astonishment and outrage about a larger politics of reception. In one interview he argued that the media illiteracy of Reuters potentially enabled a whole series of category errors, in which harmless gamers could be demonised as terrorists. It wasn’t intended for the purpose what it was portrayed to be by the media. So no I don’t regret making a funny video . . . why should I? The only thing I regret is thinking that news from Reuters was objective and always right. The least they could do is some online research before publishing this. If they label me al-Qaeda just for making this silly video, that makes you think, what is this al-Qaeda? And is everything al-Qaeda? Although Sonic Jihad dismissed his own work as “silly” or “funny,” he expected considerably more from a credible news agency like Reuters: “objective” reporting, “online research,” and fact-checking before “publishing.” Within the week, almost all of the salient details in the Reuters story were revealed to be incorrect. SonicJihad’s film was not made by terrorists or for terrorists: it was not created by “Islamic militants” for “Muslim youths.” The videogame it depicted had not been modified by a “tech-savvy militant” with advanced programming skills. Of course, what is most extraordinary about this story isn’t just that Reuters merely got its facts wrong; it is that a self-identified “parody” video was shown to the august House Intelligence Committee by a team of well-paid “experts” from the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a major contractor with the federal government, as key evidence of terrorist recruitment techniques and abuse of digital networks. Moreover, this story of media illiteracy unfolded in the context of a fundamental Constitutional debate about domestic surveillance via communications technology and the further regulation of digital content by lawmakers. Furthermore, the transcripts of the actual hearing showed that much more than simple gullibility or technological ignorance was in play. Based on their exchanges in the public record, elected representatives and government experts appear to be keenly aware that the digital discourses of an emerging information culture might be challenging their authority and that of the longstanding institutions of knowledge and power with which they are affiliated. These hearings can be seen as representative of a larger historical moment in which emphatic declarations about prohibiting specific practices in digital culture have come to occupy a prominent place at the podium, news desk, or official Web portal. This environment of cultural reaction can be used to explain why policy makers’ reaction to terrorists’ use of networked communication and digital media actually tells us more about our own American ideologies about technology and rhetoric in a contemporary information environment. When the experts come forward at the Sonic Jihad hearing to “walk us through the media and some of the products,” they present digital artefacts of an information economy that mirrors many of the features of our own consumption of objects of electronic discourse, which seem dangerously easy to copy and distribute and thus also create confusion about their intended meanings, audiences, and purposes. From this one hearing we can see how the reception of many new digital genres plays out in the public sphere of legislative discourse. Web pages, videogames, and Weblogs are mentioned specifically in the transcript. The main architecture of the witnesses’ presentation to the committee is organised according to the rhetorical conventions of a PowerPoint presentation. Moreover, the arguments made by expert witnesses about the relationship of orality to literacy or of public to private communications in new media are highly relevant to how we might understand other important digital genres, such as electronic mail or text messaging. The hearing also invites consideration of privacy, intellectual property, and digital “rights,” because moral values about freedom and ownership are alluded to by many of the elected representatives present, albeit often through the looking glass of user behaviours imagined as radically Other. For example, terrorists are described as “modders” and “hackers” who subvert those who properly create, own, legitimate, and regulate intellectual property. To explain embarrassing leaks of infinitely replicable digital files, witness Ron Roughead says, “We’re not even sure that they don’t even hack into the kinds of spaces that hold photographs in order to get pictures that our forces have taken.” Another witness, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and International Affairs, Peter Rodman claims that “any video game that comes out, as soon as the code is released, they will modify it and change the game for their needs.” Thus, the implication of these witnesses’ testimony is that the release of code into the public domain can contribute to political subversion, much as covert intrusion into computer networks by stealthy hackers can. However, the witnesses from the Pentagon and from the government contractor SAIC often present a contradictory image of the supposed terrorists in the hearing transcripts. Sometimes the enemy is depicted as an organisation of technological masterminds, capable of manipulating the computer code of unwitting Americans and snatching their rightful intellectual property away; sometimes those from the opposing forces are depicted as pre-modern and even sub-literate political innocents. In contrast, the congressional representatives seem to focus on similarities when comparing the work of “terrorists” to the everyday digital practices of their constituents and even of themselves. According to the transcripts of this open hearing, legislators on both sides of the aisle express anxiety about domestic patterns of Internet reception. Even the legislators’ own Web pages are potentially disruptive electronic artefacts, particularly when the demands of digital labour interfere with their duties as lawmakers. Although the subject of the hearing is ostensibly terrorist Websites, Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) bemoans the difficulty of maintaining her own official congressional site. As she observes, “So we are – as members, I think we’re very sensitive about what’s on our Website, and if I retained what I had on my Website three years ago, I’d be out of business. So we know that they have to be renewed. They go up, they go down, they’re rebuilt, they’re – you know, the message is targeted to the future.” In their questions, lawmakers identify Weblogs (blogs) as a particular area of concern as a destabilising alternative to authoritative print sources of information from established institutions. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) compares the polluting power of insurgent bloggers to that of influential online muckrakers from the American political Right. Hastings complains of “garbage on our regular mainstream news that comes from blog sites.” Representative Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) attempts to project a media-savvy persona by bringing up the “phenomenon of blogging” in conjunction with her questions about jihadist Websites in which she notes how Internet traffic can be magnified by cooperative ventures among groups of ideologically like-minded content-providers: “These Websites, and particularly the most active ones, are they cross-linked? And do they have kind of hot links to your other favorite sites on them?” At one point Representative Wilson asks witness Rodman if he knows “of your 100 hottest sites where the Webmasters are educated? What nationality they are? Where they’re getting their money from?” In her questions, Wilson implicitly acknowledges that Web work reflects influences from pedagogical communities, economic networks of the exchange of capital, and even potentially the specific ideologies of nation-states. It is perhaps indicative of the government contractors’ anachronistic worldview that the witness is unable to answer Wilson’s question. He explains that his agency focuses on the physical location of the server or ISP rather than the social backgrounds of the individuals who might be manufacturing objectionable digital texts. The premise behind the contractors’ working method – surveilling the technical apparatus not the social network – may be related to other beliefs expressed by government witnesses, such as the supposition that jihadist Websites are collectively produced and spontaneously emerge from the indigenous, traditional, tribal culture, instead of assuming that Iraqi insurgents have analogous beliefs, practices, and technological awareness to those in first-world countries. The residual subtexts in the witnesses’ conjectures about competing cultures of orality and literacy may tell us something about a reactionary rhetoric around videogames and digital culture more generally. According to the experts before Congress, the Middle Eastern audience for these videogames and Websites is limited by its membership in a pre-literate society that is only capable of abortive cultural production without access to knowledge that is archived in printed codices. Sometimes the witnesses before Congress seem to be unintentionally channelling the ideas of the late literacy theorist Walter Ong about the “secondary orality” associated with talky electronic media such as television, radio, audio recording, or telephone communication. Later followers of Ong extend this concept of secondary orality to hypertext, hypermedia, e-mail, and blogs, because they similarly share features of both speech and written discourse. Although Ong’s disciples celebrate this vibrant reconnection to a mythic, communal past of what Kathleen Welch calls “electric rhetoric,” the defence industry consultants express their profound state of alarm at the potentially dangerous and subversive character of this hybrid form of communication. The concept of an “oral tradition” is first introduced by the expert witnesses in the context of modern marketing and product distribution: “The Internet is used for a variety of things – command and control,” one witness states. “One of the things that’s missed frequently is how and – how effective the adversary is at using the Internet to distribute product. They’re using that distribution network as a modern form of oral tradition, if you will.” Thus, although the Internet can be deployed for hierarchical “command and control” activities, it also functions as a highly efficient peer-to-peer distributed network for disseminating the commodity of information. Throughout the hearings, the witnesses imply that unregulated lateral communication among social actors who are not authorised to speak for nation-states or to produce legitimated expert discourses is potentially destabilising to political order. Witness Eric Michael describes the “oral tradition” and the conventions of communal life in the Middle East to emphasise the primacy of speech in the collective discursive practices of this alien population: “I’d like to point your attention to the media types and the fact that the oral tradition is listed as most important. The other media listed support that. And the significance of the oral tradition is more than just – it’s the medium by which, once it comes off the Internet, it is transferred.” The experts go on to claim that this “oral tradition” can contaminate other media because it functions as “rumor,” the traditional bane of the stately discourse of military leaders since the classical era. The oral tradition now also has an aspect of rumor. A[n] event takes place. There is an explosion in a city. Rumor is that the United States Air Force dropped a bomb and is doing indiscriminate killing. This ends up being discussed on the street. It ends up showing up in a Friday sermon in a mosque or in another religious institution. It then gets recycled into written materials. Media picks up the story and broadcasts it, at which point it’s now a fact. In this particular case that we were telling you about, it showed up on a network television, and their propaganda continues to go back to this false initial report on network television and continue to reiterate that it’s a fact, even though the United States government has proven that it was not a fact, even though the network has since recanted the broadcast. In this example, many-to-many discussion on the “street” is formalised into a one-to many “sermon” and then further stylised using technology in a one-to-many broadcast on “network television” in which “propaganda” that is “false” can no longer be disputed. This “oral tradition” is like digital media, because elements of discourse can be infinitely copied or “recycled,” and it is designed to “reiterate” content. In this hearing, the word “rhetoric” is associated with destructive counter-cultural forces by the witnesses who reiterate cultural truisms dating back to Plato and the Gorgias. For example, witness Eric Michael initially presents “rhetoric” as the use of culturally specific and hence untranslatable figures of speech, but he quickly moves to an outright castigation of the entire communicative mode. “Rhetoric,” he tells us, is designed to “distort the truth,” because it is a “selective” assembly or a “distortion.” Rhetoric is also at odds with reason, because it appeals to “emotion” and a romanticised Weltanschauung oriented around discourses of “struggle.” The film by SonicJihad is chosen as the final clip by the witnesses before Congress, because it allegedly combines many different types of emotional appeal, and thus it conveniently ties together all of the themes that the witnesses present to the legislators about unreliable oral or rhetorical sources in the Middle East: And there you see how all these products are linked together. And you can see where the games are set to psychologically condition you to go kill coalition forces. You can see how they use humor. You can see how the entire campaign is carefully crafted to first evoke an emotion and then to evoke a response and to direct that response in the direction that they want. Jihadist digital products, especially videogames, are effective means of manipulation, the witnesses argue, because they employ multiple channels of persuasion and carefully sequenced and integrated subliminal messages. To understand the larger cultural conversation of the hearing, it is important to keep in mind that the related argument that “games” can “psychologically condition” players to be predisposed to violence is one that was important in other congressional hearings of the period, as well one that played a role in bills and resolutions that were passed by the full body of the legislative branch. In the witness’s testimony an appeal to anti-game sympathies at home is combined with a critique of a closed anti-democratic system abroad in which the circuits of rhetorical production and their composite metonymic chains are described as those that command specific, unvarying, robotic responses. This sharp criticism of the artful use of a presentation style that is “crafted” is ironic, given that the witnesses’ “compilation” of jihadist digital material is staged in the form of a carefully structured PowerPoint presentation, one that is paced to a well-rehearsed rhythm of “slide, please” or “next slide” in the transcript. The transcript also reveals that the members of the House Intelligence Committee were not the original audience for the witnesses’ PowerPoint presentation. Rather, when it was first created by SAIC, this “expert” presentation was designed for training purposes for the troops on the ground, who would be facing the challenges of deployment in hostile terrain. According to the witnesses, having the slide show showcased before Congress was something of an afterthought. Nonetheless, Congressman Tiahrt (R-KN) is so impressed with the rhetorical mastery of the consultants that he tries to appropriate it. As Tiarht puts it, “I’d like to get a copy of that slide sometime.” From the hearing we also learn that the terrorists’ Websites are threatening precisely because they manifest a polymorphously perverse geometry of expansion. For example, one SAIC witness before the House Committee compares the replication and elaboration of digital material online to a “spiderweb.” Like Representative Eshoo’s site, he also notes that the terrorists’ sites go “up” and “down,” but the consultant is left to speculate about whether or not there is any “central coordination” to serve as an organising principle and to explain the persistence and consistency of messages despite the apparent lack of a single authorial ethos to offer a stable, humanised, point of reference. In the hearing, the oft-cited solution to the problem created by the hybridity and iterability of digital rhetoric appears to be “public diplomacy.” Both consultants and lawmakers seem to agree that the damaging messages of the insurgents must be countered with U.S. sanctioned information, and thus the phrase “public diplomacy” appears in the hearing seven times. However, witness Roughhead complains that the protean “oral tradition” and what Henry Jenkins has called the “transmedia” character of digital culture, which often crosses several platforms of traditional print, projection, or broadcast media, stymies their best rhetorical efforts: “I think the point that we’ve tried to make in the briefing is that wherever there’s Internet availability at all, they can then download these – these programs and put them onto compact discs, DVDs, or post them into posters, and provide them to a greater range of people in the oral tradition that they’ve grown up in. And so they only need a few Internet sites in order to distribute and disseminate the message.” Of course, to maintain their share of the government market, the Science Applications International Corporation also employs practices of publicity and promotion through the Internet and digital media. They use HTML Web pages for these purposes, as well as PowerPoint presentations and online video. The rhetoric of the Website of SAIC emphasises their motto “From Science to Solutions.” After a short Flash film about how SAIC scientists and engineers solve “complex technical problems,” the visitor is taken to the home page of the firm that re-emphasises their central message about expertise. The maps, uniforms, and specialised tools and equipment that are depicted in these opening Web pages reinforce an ethos of professional specialisation that is able to respond to multiple threats posed by the “global war on terror.” By 26 June 2006, the incident finally was being described as a “Pentagon Snafu” by ABC News. From the opening of reporter Jake Tapper’s investigative Webcast, established government institutions were put on the spot: “So, how much does the Pentagon know about videogames? Well, when it came to a recent appearance before Congress, apparently not enough.” Indeed, the very language about “experts” that was highlighted in the earlier coverage is repeated by Tapper in mockery, with the significant exception of “independent expert” Ian Bogost of the Georgia Institute of Technology. If the Pentagon and SAIC deride the legitimacy of rhetoric as a cultural practice, Bogost occupies himself with its defence. In his recent book Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames, Bogost draws upon the authority of the “2,500 year history of rhetoric” to argue that videogames represent a significant development in that cultural narrative. Given that Bogost and his Watercooler Games Weblog co-editor Gonzalo Frasca were actively involved in the detective work that exposed the depth of professional incompetence involved in the government’s line-up of witnesses, it is appropriate that Bogost is given the final words in the ABC exposé. As Bogost says, “We should be deeply bothered by this. We should really be questioning the kind of advice that Congress is getting.” Bogost may be right that Congress received terrible counsel on that day, but a close reading of the transcript reveals that elected officials were much more than passive listeners: in fact they were lively participants in a cultural conversation about regulating digital media. After looking at the actual language of these exchanges, it seems that the persuasiveness of the misinformation from the Pentagon and SAIC had as much to do with lawmakers’ preconceived anxieties about practices of computer-mediated communication close to home as it did with the contradictory stereotypes that were presented to them about Internet practices abroad. In other words, lawmakers found themselves looking into a fun house mirror that distorted what should have been familiar artefacts of American popular culture because it was precisely what they wanted to see. References ABC News. “Terrorist Videogame?” Nightline Online. 21 June 2006. 22 June 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2105341>. Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: Videogames and Procedural Rhetoric. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. Game Politics. “Was Congress Misled by ‘Terrorist’ Game Video? We Talk to Gamer Who Created the Footage.” 11 May 2006. http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/285129.html#cutid1>. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York UP, 2006. julieb. “David Morgan Is a Horrible Writer and Should Be Fired.” Online posting. 5 May 2006. Dvorak Uncensored Cage Match Forums. http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php/topic,130.0.html>. Mahmood. “Terrorists Don’t Recruit with Battlefield 2.” GGL Global Gaming. 16 May 2006 http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=3090>. Morgan, David. “Islamists Using U.S. Video Games in Youth Appeal.” Reuters online news service. 4 May 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/ArticleNews.aspx?type=topNews &storyID=2006-05-04T215543Z_01_N04305973_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY- VIDEOGAMES.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc= NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2>. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York: Methuen, 1982. Parker, Trey. Online posting. 7 May 2006. 9 May 2006 http://www.treyparker.com>. Plato. “Gorgias.” Plato: Collected Dialogues. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1961. Shrader, Katherine. “Pentagon Surfing Thousands of Jihad Sites.” Associated Press 4 May 2006. SonicJihad. “SonicJihad: A Day in the Life of a Resistance Fighter.” Online posting. 26 Dec. 2005. Planet Battlefield Forums. 9 May 2006 http://www.forumplanet.com/planetbattlefield/topic.asp?fid=13670&tid=1806909&p=1>. Tapper, Jake, and Audery Taylor. “Terrorist Video Game or Pentagon Snafu?” ABC News Nightline 21 June 2006. 30 June 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Technology/story?id=2105128&page=1>. U.S. Congressional Record. Panel I of the Hearing of the House Select Intelligence Committee, Subject: “Terrorist Use of the Internet for Communications.” Federal News Service. 4 May 2006. Welch, Kathleen E. Electric Rhetoric: Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, and the New Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Losh, Elizabeth. "Artificial Intelligence: Media Illiteracy and the SonicJihad Debacle in Congress." M/C Journal 10.5 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0710/08-losh.php>. APA Style Losh, E. (Oct. 2007) "Artificial Intelligence: Media Illiteracy and the SonicJihad Debacle in Congress," M/C Journal, 10(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0710/08-losh.php>.