There are also newer forms of exploitation of indigenous peoples, and their cultures such as the theft and patenting of traditional knowledge and biological and genetic resources through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and other mechanisms. Global economic restructuring such as trade lib- eralization, privatization, ‘free trade’ and deregulation has also considerably increased the pressure on indigenous territories. The dominant global economic system is based on continuous growth and thus requires an insatiable supply of natural resources and the world’s remaining and diminished resources are often located on indigenous territories. Deregulation of national resource extraction laws and regulations has resulted in a serious undermining of international instruments, constitutional provisions, national laws and policies safeguarding indigenous rights. The most central of these rights, the right to self-determi- nation of indigenous peoples has been questioned and undermined as national governments bind themselves to new global economic treaties.
Many scholars have pointed out the links between the processes of global economic restructuring and rising levels of violence. Some have even suggested ‘a new paradigm of violence’ which is particularly evident in ten- sions and conflicts where ethnic and religious identities are or can be employed as a resource to propel into violence for political ends (Wieviorka 2003). Discussions of globalization and violence, however, often fall short on seeing, understanding and analysing the gendered character and aspects of different forms of violence. This not only obscures the differences between men and women both as victims and perpetrators of violence, but also, as Wendy Harcourt and Arturo Escobar (2005: 4) contend, patriarchal and totalizing nature of ‘globalocentric’ frameworks disempower women and their politics. In the case of indigenous women, whose political and acti- vist work often centres on the grassroots decision-making and community well-being, patriarchal and globalocentric frameworks further marginalize and make their concerns and contributions invisible. For example, in consider- ations and struggles for indigenous self-determination, women’s concerns and priorities are often put on the back burner to be addressed ‘later’. Structures of autonomy that do not address women’s inequality from the very beginning, however, are likely merely to ‘reproduce inequality by cultivating conditions for superordinate and subordinate positions’ (Nash 2001: 245). Patriarchal, globalocentric analyses also fail to acknowledge and address the various forms of violence that indigenous women face when they challenge sexist,