Guyana Votes for New UN Declaration

Guyana backs UN declaration on indigenous rights
STABROEK NEWS, Georgetown, Guyana

Friday, September 14th 2007

Guyana was among 143 UN member states which voted in favour of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN General Assembly in New York yesterday.

Contacted on Guyana's voting, Director General in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Elisabeth Harper said Guyana voted in favour of the declaration, which had the backing of other Caricom countries.

Two non-governmental organizations with large indigenous peoples membership - the Amerindian People's Association (APA) and the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) - had called on the government to support the declaration on the occasion of World Indigenous People's Day observed on August 9.

At the time the government had expressed some reservations and urged a redraft of some sections including a definition of who could be considered an indigenous person. The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOG) had supported the government's position on a redraft.

Guyana's indigenous people account for some 10 per cent of the population. A Reuters report yesterday said that under negotiation for 20 years, the document says that indigenous people, whose number has been put at 270 million worldwide as understood by the declaration, "have the right to self-determination."

One of its most controversial articles, according to Reuters, states that "indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." That could potentially put in question most of the land ownership in countries, such as those that opposed the declaration, whose present population is largely descended from settlers who took over territory from previous inhabitants.

A balancing clause inserted at a late stage in the text says nothing in it can authorize or encourage "any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity" of states, Reuters noted.

That was not good enough for the four objectors, notably Canada, where the issue has become a political football. Many of Canada's 1 million aboriginal and Inuit people live in overcrowded, unsanitary housing and suffer high rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide.

"The provisions in the declaration on lands, territories and resources are overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations," Canada's U.N. Ambassador John McNee told the General Assembly, according to Reuters.

Cowardly
That stance was attacked by Canada's left-leaning opposition New Democrats. "It's very disappointing. I think it's cowardly and very un-Canadian ... we pride ourselves on being advocates for human rights," legislator Jean Crowder told Reuters.

U.S. delegate Robert Hagen said the U.N. Human Rights Council, which prepared the text, had not sought consensus. "This declaration was adopted ... in a splintered vote. This process was unfortunate and extraordinary," he said.

A release from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples issued yesterday said that 143 of the 192-member body voted in favour of the declaration; four voted against; and eleven abstained.

Those voting against were Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Those abstaining were Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, the Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine.

The declaration, which outlines the rights of the world's estimated 370 million indigenous people and outlaws discrimination against them, has been in the making for over 22 years with several drafts written and rewritten.

The declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples. These include their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations. It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development.

A release from the Indigenous Peoples Caucus said the declaration represents a significant recognition of the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of the world's indigenous peoples who belong to more than 5,000 distinct nations and groups around the world. It encourages harmonious and cooperative relations between nation states and indigenous peoples and recognises a wide array of rights specific to indigenous peoples around the globe.

The release noted that indigenous peoples continue to suffer human rights abuses such as forced relocation and assimilation; seizure and exploitation of their lands, territories and natural resources; discrimination and a disproportionate amount of poverty. It said that indigenous languages, cultures and ways of life continue to be threatened without international legal protection.

A UN press release issued after the vote quoted General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour as welcoming the adoption of the declaration.

Sheikha Haya said "The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated. By adopting the declaration, we are also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."

But she warned that "even with this progress, indigenous people still face marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations. They are often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that threaten their way of life and very survival; and, suffer from a lack of access to health care and education."

Painful
In a statement released by his spokesperson, Ban described the declaration's adoption as "a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all."

He called on governments and civil society to ensure that the declaration's vision becomes a reality by working to integrate indigenous rights into their policies and programmes.

Arbour noted that the declaration has been "a long time coming. But the hard work and perseverance of indigenous peoples and their friends and supporters in the international community have finally borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples' rights."

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues estimates there are more than 370 million indigenous people in some 70 countries worldwide. Members of the forum said earlier this year that the declaration creates no new rights and does not place indigenous peoples in a special category.

"This declaration is the least that could be approved to give us all instruments recognizing the existence of indigenous people," Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca, himself indigenous, told the General Assembly, according to Reuters.

"It is an important step for indigenous people to do away with discrimination, to strengthen the identity, to recognize our right to land and natural resources, to be consulted, to participate in decisions," the minister said.

Most U.S. allies, including Britain and Japan, also voted for the declaration, saying last minute amendments had made it acceptable, given that it did not have the force of international law.

Guyana's Government Continues to Oppose UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights

From the Stabroek News, Georgetown, Guyana:

Gov't has doubts on parts of UN indigenous peoples rights declaration
Saturday, August 11th 2007

Two Amerindian groups are calling on the Government of Guyana to vote in support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when it comes up before the UN General Assembly next month but Minister of Amerindian Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues says that the government has reservations about some clauses.

In a press release issued on the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, observed on Thursday, the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) and the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) issued the call while expressing grave disappointment at learning that Guyana had joined six other states in asking for the declaration to be redrafted.

"This represents a most retrograde step on the part of Guyana and those states which have taken this position. We are dismayed that Guyana has aligned itself with this small group of states which are proposing that one-sided changes are made to a vital document that constitutes the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well being of indigenous peoples," the statement said

Contacted by Stabroek News, Minister Rodrigues said that Guyana is not asking for the entire declaration to be redrafted but would like to see some issues defined. She said that Guyana supports a declaration that is very clear and is of ultimate benefit to everyone, while also preserving national unity. She said there are some sections that Guyana thinks should be looked at again and one is that there is no clear declaration as to who is an indigenous person and who the name applies to. She also pointed out that a declaration can be made and some countries wouldn't do anything about it but that Guyana has a good record in honouring its commitments.

Rodrigues pointed out that indigenous peoples in different countries are different. She noted that charity begins at home and according to her some of the issues Guyana has already addressed in relation to indigenous peoples can be used as examples for other countries. "We want to have a declaration that we can work with and so there are issues that need to be clarified," the minister said.

GOIP and the APA said they are "gravely concerned" at Guyana voting for a redraft of the declaration taking into consideration that GOIP had written to the president and in a response Minister Rodrigues said that the Government is "fully supportive of a process that would result in a declaration that is unambiguous, preserves national unity and ultimately improves the lot of the world's indigenous peoples."

The two groups are convinced that the declaration which was adopted by the Human Rights Council of the UN in June 2006 represents the most important international instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights for indigenous peoples and fits the criteria that the government says it supports. "We are therefore utterly dismayed that the government has suddenly taken this extreme position."

Guyana: APA & GOIP respond to Persaud on Barama Controversy

From the Stabroek News, Georgetown, Guyana:

Who did Mr Peter Persaud really represent?
Thursday, June 7th 2007

Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter captioned, "These groups are wrong to call on Barama to cease operations in Akawini village lands" (07.05.28) by Peter Persaud of The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana.

First of all the Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) and the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) are not surprised that Mr. Persaud did not have the guts to personally confront the two organisations with his opinions when he had ample opportunities to do so. He is only following his modus operandi of seeking to cast blame on others while trying to make himself look good. An opportunity for Mr. Persaud to clear the air had presented itself when two senior members of the APA had asked him about his alleged connections with the Barama Co. based on questions that arose from among the Akawini community about what appeared to be his representation of the company and not the community's interest in the Barama issue. He had denied any connections with the company.

In his earlier meetings with the team that met with the Akawini community, Mr. Persaud had claimed that he was the "indigenous representative" in the discussions even though it is not clear who had appointed him as such a representative.

There was another opportunity for Mr. Persaud to state his opinions when he travelled for two days in the company of two senior members of the APA and GOIP on the recent Barama-led tour of its operations in Buckhall and to the Akawini village. All along none of the two persons knew that Mr. Persaud harboured such opinions of the organizations and that a letter was already in the press. Nonetheless his position is not difficult to understand as it was clear during the trip that he was very familiar with the Barama officials and vice versa. We cannot say the same for his closeness with the Akawini council which he claims to represent and wonder what it took for him to finally clear the air on where his allegiances lie. We trust that the wider indigenous community takes note of this.

Just to clarify for Mr. Persaud, the opinions of the APA and GOIP are based on how Barama chose to operate in the Akawini community rather than on what any "critic" may have said about the company. If Mr. Persaud had truly been representing the community, surely he would have supported them as well. He should now tell the public what was his role as a so called "indigenous representative" which resulted in an unconscionable agreement signed between Akawini and the Interior Woods Products Inc in which the community only stood to lose. Mr Persaud had said that he had never seen the contract yet he had made several visits to Akawini, one clearly on behalf of Barama, to try to convince the Toshao that he should meet with Mr. Lalaram for a one-to-one discussion to try to sort out the problems being encountered. How could Mr Persaud not have asked to see the contract when this was the main source of the problem for the community? This further raises questions about this ability to represent an issue, given his admission that he has never seen the contract.

Mr Persaud questions the representation by our organizations but we urge him to tell us when last his "organization" held an assembly of its members to elect an executive body, where is his constitution that guides the operations of his "organization", and what is his membership like? It appears that Mr. Persaud is "president for life" or otherwise he is the epitome of leadership in his "organization" and cannot be replaced.

Mr. Editor, it has never been the policy of our organizations to raise matters like these in the public but we feel compelled to respond to Mr. Persaud's baseless accusations as others may go on to believe his ravings. We know that he will continue to use the press to spread his groundless statements, or perhaps even use a pen name to spread his misrepresentations but we do not wish to continue anything in public, not because we have anything to hide or are not proud of the work of our organizations but because we simply do not feel that cheap politicking and accusations will get us anywhere.

Yours faithfully,

Tony James

President APA [Amerindian Peoples's Association]

Alan Leow

Chief, GOIP [Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples]

Guyana: Wrong to Ask Barama to Cease Logging?

A letter to the editor of the Stabroek News, by Peter Persaud, President of The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOC), was forwarded today, strongly contradicting a previous post on this blog about calls for a cessation of logging by the Barama company.

This is the text of the letter:

May 28, 2007
I wish to refer to your newspaper article under the caption "Amerindian groups call on Barama to cease Akawini logging" in your issue of Thursday May 24th 2007.

I am disappointed with both the APA and GOIP for allowing themselves to fall prey to a known anti-Barama critic. But whether deliberately or not both of these organizations instead of finding solutions for the development of indigenous peoples are now carrying out the wishes of Barama's detractors and critics.

These so called indigenous groups not knowing the truth about the Akawini situation call on the Barama Company to cease its harvesting operations in the Akawini village lands. But it must be known to the Guyanese public and the international community that the root cause of Akawini's squabble with the IWPI is as a result of competing logging interests wanting to do business with the village council. Nevertheless the truth has to be revealed and it is unfortunate that the Toshao of Akawini while he was in Switzerland did not tell the society of Threatened peoples and the Bruno Manser Fords the truth surrounding the Akawini - IWPI fall out. Why didn't the Akawini Toshau tell these two Swiss NGOs and the international forum which he attended that the Akawini village had prior knowledge which was told at the Community Consul-tations that the Barama Company would have engaged in sustainable forest harvesting in Akawini. Why now this big cry about 'sub contract documents' when the Akawini people knew about Barama's involvement in the harvesting of commercial forests. For the Akawini village council to say that they knew nothing about Barama's role in Akawini is lying to the Guyanese public as well as lying to the international community.

But what is contradictory about both the APA and GOIP is that while they target Barama, they allowed the pillage and plunder of the commercial forests of Kwebanna, Bethany, Orealla, Cabacaburi, Manawarin and Wakapau Amerindian communities by their continued silence over this forest crime. Why didn't these two organizations stand up for the rights of their constituencies amidst the plundering of their forest by indiscriminate coastland loggers? Is this the policy position of both the APA and GOIP that forest destruction by coastland loggers is acceptable to them, while sustainable forest management by the Barama company is not allowed?

What do APA and GOIP have to offer the Akawini people should Barama decide to leave Akawini? This is what the village council should think about and stop being used by the APA and GOIP as their political football. Since Barama's operations in Akawini the village has earned millions which should be used for their community development as well as to provide small grants to grass-roots organisations of the village to fund their projects.

Both the APA and GOIP are aspirants to serve on the Indigenous Peoples Commission (IPC) and I am now concerned with the level of their maturity to effectively discharge the IPC's functions which in the final analysis will enhance the well being of Guyana's indigenous peoples.

I am appealing to the Akawini village council to let good sense prevail for an amicable solution to their concerns with the Barama Company.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Persaud

President

The Amerindian Action Movement of Guyana (TAAMOC)

Guyanese Amerindians Call for Halt to Logging in Akawini

Amerindian groups call on Barama to cease Akawini logging
STABROEK NEWS--Georgetown, Guyana--Thursday, May 24th 2007

The Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) and the Guyanese Organisation of Indigenous Peoples (GOIP) are calling on Barama Company Limited and Interior Woods Products Limited (IWPI) to immediately cease all logging operations in the titled lands of Akawini Amerindian Village in Pomeroon Region 2.

A release from the two groups said yesterday that Barama began logging in Akawini in February 2006 "ostensibly" on a subcontract it signed with the IWPI. According to Akawini Toshao, David Wilson, the Akawini Village Council has never seen this subcontract "and we were never consulted before IWP entered into this subcontract with Barama."

Read more in The Stabroek News...