First Peoples group may take Red House case to UN.

First Peoples group may take Red House case to UN.
By JULIEN NEAVES | Trinidad & Tobago's Newsday | Saturday, July 13 2013

LOCAL indigenous peoples group “Partners for First Peoples” says if Government does not agree to make the Red House a national historical site, they will take their case to the United Nations.

“Here is a Government that is taking a sacred site, and depriving the first peoples of their claim to it,” said one of the group leaders, Roger Belix.

First Peoples groups believe that skeletal remains, cultural and historical artifacts unearthed on March 26 last during excavation work at the Red House, which is to undergo restoration works, were that of their ancestors.

At a press conference on Tuesday the various groups called on Government to turn the Red House into a national historical site, and consider the permanent removal of Parliament, which has been housed temporarily at the International Waterfront Centre, since October, 2011.

Minister of National Diversity and Social Integration, Clifton De Coteau, had described the request as “a very tall order”, but reported that he would meet next week with Chief Ricardo Bharath Hernandez of the Santa Rosa First People’s Indigenous Community.

Yesterday Belix noted that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was “quite clear on burial sites of indigenous peoples that they should be protected and returned.”

Partners for First Peoples was one of the groups that had been engaging with the Red House Cultural Heritage Team, a Cabinet-appointed committee to manage aspects of the historical find.

Meantime, members of the Santa Rosa First People’s Indigenous Community plan to perform today, a spiritual ritual at the Red House in Port-of-Spain to “appease the spirits” of bones disturbed during works at the Red House site.

Wikileaks: The U.S. Embassy in Trinidad and Tobago, the Amerindians, and Indigenous Rights

Thanks to the recent release of WikiLeaks' U.S. Embassy cables, we have a complete set for Trinidad and Tobago, and many of the items are quite striking and revealing. One is of particular relevance to Trinidad's Indigenous community. It seems that the U.S. Embassy worked to temper any Trinidadian embrace of a new Indigenous Rights charter (that being drafted by the OAS), and that on the other hand, the Trinidadian government had a very selective view of what rights it had actually signed on to at the UN, as well as seeming agreeable to making concessions to the U.S. Of course none of this international diplomatic chatter on the rights of Trinidad's Indigenous People was previously made public.

Apparently the public profile of Trinidad and Tobago's Indigenous community, specifically the Santa Rosa Carib Community, came up in discussions between the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (GOTT) and an officer in the Political Affairs section (PolOff) of the U.S. Embassy in Port of Spain, according to a WikiLeaks cable. The cable is marked as "sensitive but unclassified". In a meeting that took place on 22 October 2007, Ms. Delia Chatoor of the Multilateral Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned that "Trinidad and Tobago's own small Amerindian community had recently become more vocal, and that a week dedicated to the history and culture of the group had just concluded [Amerindian Heritage Week]". These remarks were made in connection with developing a government position on the work of the Organization of American States (OAS) in preparing a Draft Declaration of Indigenous Rights (DRIP) (also see this and that), and in light of the then recent passage of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples--which the GOTT approved. We already know, from other WikiLeaks cables, that the U.S. worked actively on the international front to try to pressure governments to vote against the UN Declaration. However, the remarks by the Trinidadian government official are rather curious.

With reference to the UN Declaration, Chatoor commented that "states could...pick and choose which items to endorse"--when the GOTT in fact voted to approve the Declaration as a whole, not select parts. This comment suggests some duplicity on the part of the government, in that it might "pick and choose" those elements which it found to be least of a challenge to the dominant order. To her credit, she also told the U.S. Embassy official that "the UN declaration was important as a means of reminding people indigenous rights was not a dead issue and that indigenous communities should be factored into considerations of human rights".

However, when it came to the OAS DRIP, Chatoor seemed to agree with the U.S. Embassy that instead of a Declaration, "a Year of Action and a non-binding action plan also had merit". Merit for whom? Certainly not for Indigenous Peoples, as this would mean the adoption of superficial, symbolic actions. While she earlier implied that the more vocal Amerindian community in Trinidad had an impact on the Government's decision-making regarding Indigenous Rights, her subsequent willingness to concede to U.S. interests, and her delegating authority to Trinidad's diplomatic mission at the OAS before reaching any decision, make it apparent that the rights of Trinidad's Indigenous People are not as important as they ought to be--and they are apparently subject to negotiation with foreign powers.

What Wikileaks Reveals about Canadian and U.S. Efforts in Suppression and Surveillance of Indigenous Communities

First, from Brenda Norrell's exceptional effort to keep us all abreast of a wealth of daily news concerning indigenous struggles--CENSORED NEWS: Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights--some extracts (please see the complete articles at the links below), with the most recent articles listed first:

Wikileaks: Top six ways the US and Canada violated Indigenous rights--Wikileaks reveals how the US and Canada worked globally to systematically violate Indigenous rights:

1. The United States worked behind the scenes to fight the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Ecuador, the US established a program to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration. In Iceland, the US Embassy said Iceland's support was an "impediment" to US/Iceland relations at the UN. In Canada, the US said the US and Canada agreed the Declaration was headed for a "train wreck."
2. The United States targeted and tracked Indigenous Peoples, community activists and leaders, especially in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. A cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Mapuche and Quechua activists and community leaders. President Chavez and President Morales were consistently watched, and their actions analyzed. Indigenous activists opposing the dirty Tar Sands were spied on, and other Indigenous activists in Vancouver, prior to the Olympics.
3. The United States was part of a five country coalition to promote mining and fight against Indigenous activists in Peru. A core group of diplomats from U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. In other illegal corporate profiteering, Peru’s government secretly admitted that 70-90 percent of its mahogany exports were illegally felled, according to a US embassy cable revealed by Wikileaks. Lowe's and Home Depot sell the lumber.
4. Canada spied on Mohawks using illegal wiretaps. Before Wikileaks hit the headlines, it exposed in 2010 that Canada used unauthorized wiretaps on Mohawks. Wikileaks: "During the preliminary inquiry to Shawn Brant's trial, it came out that the Ontario Provincial Police, headed by Commissioner Julian Fantino, had been using wiretaps on more than a dozen different Mohawks without a judge's authorization, an action almost unheard of recent history in Canada." The United States and Canada tracked Mohawks. In one of the largest collections of cables released so far that targeted Native people and named names, the US consulates in Montreal and Toronto detailed Mohawk activities at the border and in their communities.
5. The arrogant and insulting tone of the US Embassies and disrespect for Indigenous leaders is pervasive in US diplomatic cables. The US Embassy in Guatemala stated that President of Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, called Rigoberta Menchu a "fabrication" of an anthropologist and made other accusations. Menchu responded on a local radio station that Colom was a "liar."
6. The collection of DNA and other data, makes it clear that US Ambassadors are spies abroad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA. “The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide," Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biographical data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

Wikileaks: Canada says UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights headed for 'Train Wreck'

In a diplomatic cable marked 'sensitive,' US Ambassador David Wilkins states that the US and Canada agree that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is 'ill conceived and is headed for a train-wreck.' It was written five weeks after the United Nations adopted the Declaration.When the United Nations adopted the UN Declaration, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia were the four countries that voted against it. Although the four countries later took action on it, the US and Canada gave only lip service and did not sign on to it, or fully endorse it.

Wikileaks Quito: US worked against UN Indigenous Rights Declaration in Ecuador--US Ambassador in Quito carried out US mission of working against adoption of UN Declaration:

"Wikileaks reveals that US Ambassador Jewell in Quito, Ecuador, described steps taken by the US to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration in 2006, the year before it was adopted by the UN. Jewell stated the government of Ecuador was inclined to support the Declaration in 2006. She said, however, that the US took steps to present papers to show that the UN Declaration 'is fundamentally flawed'."

Wikileaks Peru: US feared Indigenous power--US Ambassador in Peru obsessed with fears of Venezuela, radicalism and Indigenous rule:

"Wikileaks releases from Peru once again reveal the pro-copper mining and anti-Indigenous sentiment of the US Embassy in Lima. Former US Ambassador Curtis Struble in Peru expresses fear that Indigenous may once again govern Peru. Struble is again on the look-out for Venezuela's "meddling," and again is tracking Indigenous activists. This time, on the US watch list, is Aymara activist Felipe Quispe of Bolivia, leader of Pachakuti Indigenous Movement, according to the June 19, 2007 cable. In one of six cables released Friday, Feb. 25, from Lima, Ambassador Struble writes of the regions of Peru. He said the southern highland province of Puno has an 'affinity for far-left radicalism.' Struble fears Venezuela is involved here and fears the movement of Bolivarism. 'Evo Morales is widely popular, but he is admired for his poor, indigenous background, not for his political views,' Struble wrote. Continuing his obsession with the feared 'radicalism' and Indigenous rule in Peru, Struble writes of the 'ethnocacerism' of Antauro Humala. He calls this 'a murky philosophy that seeks to return Peru to a past when only indigenous persons wielded political power'."

Wikileaks: US engaged in espionage of Indigenous activists

"A Wikileaks cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Quechua activist Miguel Palacin Quispe and community leaders. Since the writing of this cable, the bonds with Native Americans and First Nations have grown stronger in the struggles for justice. Bolivian President Morales and Ambassador Solon were in the forefront of the Indigenous global climate change efforts in 2010. Palacin was in Tucson for an anti-mining conference in 2007, and more recently at the climate summits in both Cochabamba and Cancun. The US Embassy report dated March 17, 2008, focuses on Indigenous activists and their supporters who, the cable states, were organizing "anti-summit" protests against the European Union-Latin American Heads of State summit scheduled for mid-May of 2008 in Lima. James Nealon at the US Embassy in Lima wrote the cable released Sunday, Feb. 13. 'The greatest concern among our European Union mission colleagues is the threat that radicals could hijack the protests by aggressively confronting ill-prepared security forces, as occurred in Cusco in February'."

Wikileaks Peru: US Ambassador targeted Indigenous activists, promoted mining--Diplomats protecting mining interests of Barrick, Newmont, BHP; US, Canada, Australia, UK, Switzerland and South Africa:

"...The diplomatic cables reveal the US promoting multi-national corporations, while targeting Indigenous activists and their supporters. The new cables reveal that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa."

Wikileaks on Indigenous Peoples: US white privilege:

"The most disturbing aspect of the US State Department cables on Indigenous Peoples is the haughtiness and white privilege that bleeds through the print. The cables make it clear that to the United States, Indigenous Peoples are annoying, even potential terrorists, and must be dealt with. Along with the Mapuches defense of their land and environment, the Wikileaks cables released so far [to December 2010] show the United States’ obsession with Bolivian President Evo Morales and his growing popularity. In the Bolivian cables, the incorrect facts, poor content and unreliable sources are the most glaring aspect."

Chile: "The US spy in Santiago said, 'Secretariat General of the Presidency Minister Viera Gallo told the Ambassador January 30 that the GOC – and Chilean society - are only belatedly taking seriously a growing problem with Chile's indigenous (largely Mapuche) population, which has never been fully integrated and is becoming increasingly radicalized. Mapuche alienation and protest activity could impact on issues such as terrorism, energy, and development in environmentally sensitive regions.' This cable, and other cables, show the growing concern by the United States of the rising collective power of Indigenous Peoples, it terms of uniting with other groups and stopping the development of enormous development projects such as dams that destroy Indigenous lands. With the Mapuches, the US is concerned about connections to the Basque and NGOs (non-governmental organizations.)"

Iceland's support of Indigenous Declaration an 'impediment' to US relations

"The United States scrutinized Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, according to new cables released by Wikileaks. The US cables reveal the behind-the-scenes maneuvers of the United States, the last country in the world to support the Declaration. US Ambassador Ambassador Carol van Voorst said Iceland's support of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was an 'impediment' to full cooperation between the US and Iceland at the United Nations. Van Voorst said Iceland is the only country in the Nordic that does not have Indigenous Peoples. Iceland officials, however, said they would join other Nordic countries in support of the Declaration, Van Voorst wrote to the US State Dept."

Second, from APTN:

U.S. considers ‘Native Canadian groups’ as possible terror threats: embassy cables

"The U.S. has been keeping regular intelligence on potential security threats in Canada, including the activities of unnamed First Nations groups, according to two cables sent by the U.S. embassy in Ottawa and obtained by APTN National News....The cables, sent from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, and titled, Security Environmental Profile Response For Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country. The U.S. identified the involvement of Aboriginal groups in anti-U.S. demonstrations and as possible terror threats in a Feb. 27, 2009 cable."...'Human rights groups, small political protest/grass roots organizations and Canadian Aboriginal groups are prone to carrying out demonstrations aimed at the host government and sponsor anti-U.S. demonstrations,' reads the cable from 2009....The cables also list potential terrorist threats in Canada. Under the heading 'Indigenous Terrorism,' the cables outline several subgroups of interest, including Anti-American Terrorist Groups and Other Indigenous Terror Groups....The cables...include Aboriginal groups under the heading of 'Other Indigenous Terror Groups'..."

Third, from rabble.ca:

Wikileaks comes to Canada: Federal failure on aboriginal rights

"You just know things are bad when the U.S. criticizes Canada for its treatment of Indigenous people. Wikileaks late last week released a memo from the American Embassy in Ottawa to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, outlining a land claim process that is hopelessly mired in bureaucracy, costly court cases, allegations of the mismanagement of First Nations funds and assets, and the lack of any lucid definition of aboriginal rights. The disparaging memo, which dates back to August of 2009, ends rather pessimistically. 'As long as Canada lacks a clear definition of aboriginal rights or a uniform model for negotiations, effective mechanisms to resolve aboriginal grievances in a timely manner will remain elusive'...."

Vel Lewis, Head of the Amerindian Projects Committee, Speaking in Arima in 2008

The video below dates back to Amerindian Heritage Day, 14 October 2008, in Arima, Trinidad, and the week of events surrounding it. The speaker opening the event is Vel Lewis, the head of the government-appointed Amerindian Projects Committee, one of whose main purposes was to reach a decision on the allocation of lands to the Santa Rosa Carib Community.

Some interesting points to note:

• Lewis, using terminology adopted from the Canadian context, refers to the local community as the Santa Rosa First Peoples Community;
• He says that "we all know what happened" since the days when Trinidad was populated entirely by Amerindians--in actuality, it is that history of what happened since the arrival of colonizers that has been the subject of great dispute, especially as "we all what happened" has usually prefaced the assertion that the Amerindians became extinct;
• Lewis salutes the Santa Rosa Carib Community for maintaining the Carib culture, which in itself is just one of very many statements that serves as acts of routine, everyday official recognition;
• Lewis praises the work of the Carib Community on the international front, in hosting international indigenous gatherings during CARIFESTA V in 1992, and again in 1993, and then becoming the chair of the Caribbean Organization of Indigenous Peoples;
• He promised that during 2008-2009 there would be an intensification of the work of the Amerindian Projects Committee, and a campaign to raise public awareness--he refers to two films and a book to be used in schools (no further information provided), plus the work of the National Museum and National Trust to develop the exhibits at the Carib Community Centre;
• Lewis talks about the development of a "model heritage village" which would be like an "outdoor museum"--this refers to the Amerindian village the Carib Community has long sought to establish; and,
• In 2008, Trinidad and Tobago would be represented for the first time at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and Lewis draws attention to other aspects of UN work to develop awareness of local indigenous communities, as well as mentioning the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Implementation of UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights

Thanks to the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) for relating this report. (Emphases were added below, and parts were abridged for publication on RICC.)

Joint Statement
Second session, Geneva
10-14 August 2009

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Second session, Geneva
10-14 August 2009

Agenda Item 4(a): United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
(a) Implementation of the Declaration at the regional and national levels


Implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Positive Initiatives and Serious Concerns

Joint Statement of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee); Assembly of First Nations; Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP); Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC); International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (IOIRD); Tebtebba Foundation; Saami Council; International Indian Treaty Council (IITC); Consejo de organizaciones aborigines de Jujuy (COAJ); First Nations Summit; Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC); Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA - Australia); Na Koa Ikaika Kalāhui Hawai’i; Asian Indigenous Women's Network; Asamblea Mixe para el Desarrollo Sostenible; Servicios del Pueblo Mixe; Asociación de Autoridades Mixes; Chiefs of Ontario; Québec Native Women’s Association; Samson Cree Nation; Ermineskin Cree Nation; Montana Cree Nation; Louis Bull Cree Nation; First Peoples Human Rights Coalition (FPHRC); Union of BC Indian Chiefs; Koani Foundation; Assembly of First Nations of Québec and Labrador; Native Women’s Association of Canada; Indigenous World Association; Ke Aupuni Hawaii; Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers); International Work Group For Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA); KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives; Almáciga; Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights; Oceania HR.


1. Indigenous peoples and human rights organizations welcome this opportunity to contribute to the discussion on implementation at the regional and national levels of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

2. The Declaration is an historic human rights instrument that has universal application to countless Indigenous contexts in over 70 countries. It provides a principled and normative legal framework for achieving justice and reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized:

The Declaration is a visionary step towards addressing the human rights of indigenous peoples. It sets out a framework on which States can build or rebuild their relationships with indigenous peoples. The result of more than two decades of negotiations, it provides a momentous opportunity for States and indigenous peoples to strengthen their relationships, promote reconciliation and ensure that the past is not repeated.

3. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, stated in his August 2008 report:

[The Declaration] represents an authoritative common understanding, at the global level, of the minimum content of the rights of indigenous peoples, upon a foundation of various sources of international human rights law.

4. The Declaration is the most comprehensive universal international human rights instrument explicitly addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples. It elaborates on the economic, social, cultural, political, spiritual and environmental rights of Indigenous peoples.

5. Indigenous peoples’ collective rights are human rights, as affirmed in the Declaration and other international and regional instruments. In its Agenda and Framework for the Programme of Work, the Human Rights Council has permanently included the “rights of peoples” under Item 3 “Promotion and protection of all human rights …” For decades, the established practice is to address Indigenous peoples’ collective rights within international and regional human rights systems.

6. Like other human rights instruments, the Declaration is necessarily drafted in broad terms. Its provisions can accommodate the different circumstances relating to Indigenous peoples – both now and in the future. This wide-ranging perspective enhances the effectiveness of the Declaration....

7. International treaty monitoring bodies are referring to the Declaration and using it to interpret the rights of Indigenous peoples and individuals and related State obligations. This practice underlines the significance of the Declaration and its implementation at all levels – international, regional and national.

… the Committee [on the Rights of the Child] urges States parties to adopt a rights-based approach to indigenous children based on the Convention and other relevant international standards, such as ILO Convention No.169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

8. Even if a State voted against the adoption of the Declaration at the General Assembly, international treaty monitoring bodies are free to recommend that the Declaration “be used as a guide to interpret the State party’s obligations” under human rights treaties.

9. In terms of implementing the UN Declaration, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), specialized agencies and mandate-holders of special procedures are committed to making important contributions at various levels. For example, the OHCHR has confirmed: “The OHCHR's work is to assist States and indigenous peoples in implementing the Declaration”.

10. Thirty-one UN specialized agencies are represented in the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Issues (IASG).....

11. ....

Positive initiatives

12. ....

13. Within the Organization of American States (OAS), the UN Declaration is being used as “the baseline for negotiations and … a minimum standard” for the draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

14. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has stated that it is “confident that the Declaration will become a very valuable tool and a point of reference for the African Commission’s efforts to ensure the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights on the African continent.” Some aspects of the Commission’s “Draft Principles and Guidelines on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights” are reflective of the UN Declaration. In regard to Indigenous peoples’ rights to lands and natural resources, specific reference is made to the Declaration.

15. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has adopted the terms of reference for a new ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission for Human Rights (AICHR). While no specific reference is made to the UN Declaration, the guiding principles for the AICHR include “upholding the Charter of the United Nations and international law ... subscribed to by ASEAN Member States”. Thus, as part of international law, the Declaration appears to be included. As proposed by the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, there should be explicit consideration of the Declaration, Indigenous peoples and their human rights issues:

The Forum recommends that ... the commission explicitly recognize indigenous peoples in its terms of reference. We look forward to a strong commission with full investigatory and implementation powers, which uses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as its framework in dealing with indigenous peoples’ issues. The Forum also recommends that the commission establish a committee on indigenous peoples in addition to its proposed committees on migrant workers and women and children.

16. In the Americas, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has relied in part on the UN Declaration in determining unanimously that the Saramaka people have “the right to give or withhold their free, informed and prior consent, with regards to development or investment projects that may affect their territory”.

17. In Bolivia, the Declaration was adopted at the national level as Law No. 3760 of 7 November 2007 and incorporated into the new Constitution promulgated on 7 February 2009. Bolivia emphasizes that it “has elevated the obligation to respect the rights of indigenous peoples to constitutional status, thereby becoming the first country in the world to implement this international instrument”.

18. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the government has endorsed the Declaration. In addition, the “Constitution has reaffirmed in that regard the attachment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to human rights and fundamental freedoms such as those proclaimed by the international legal instruments to which it has acceded.”

19. In the Arctic, a highly significant example of harmonious and collaborative implementation of the right to self-government and self-determination is taking place. In their March 2009 report to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Denmark and Greenland have reported on these initiatives under the agenda item on implementation of the UN Declaration. As of 21 June 2009, the new Greenland self-government regime has been in effect.

20. In Belize, the Supreme Court of Belize relied on the UN Declaration and other aspects of international and domestic law in upholding the land and resource rights of the Maya people.

21. In Australia, on 3 April 2009, the Labour government in Australia reversed the position of its predecessor and endorsed the Declaration. In the spring of 2009, New Zealand and the United States indicated that they are in the process of reconsidering their opposing positions.

22. Colombia abstained in the General Assembly vote on the Declaration. In a welcome development in April 2009, Colombia announced its endorsement of the Declaration.

23. Implementation of the UN Declaration is being further enhanced by the translation of this instrument into different Indigenous and other languages. Such actions promote human rights learning and education and can be highly beneficial for Indigenous communities in developing a human rights-based approach.

Serious concerns

24. With respect to implementation of the UN Declaration, the positions and actions of opposing States require careful scrutiny. Hopefully, constructive dialogue will lead to affirmative results.

25. In regard to New Zealand, the national government has positively indicated that it is reconsidering the opposing position of its predecessor and might endorse the UN Declaration. However, the government has recently suggested that the debate has shifted to what “exceptions” New Zealand would want. In particular, the government has indicated that it would endorse the Declaration “only if it does not trump New Zealand's constitutional framework and law”.

26. It is misleading to speak of the Declaration as “trumping” New Zealand law. The Declaration is not an absolute instrument that automatically trumps domestic law. In relation to Indigenous peoples, it elaborates a set of norms that should be effectively applied in all national, regional and international contexts.

27. Human rights are generally relative in nature so that the human rights of all are respected. The Declaration reflects and builds upon international human rights standards. It does not exist in a vacuum and allows for full consideration of relevant international and domestic law.

...

28. In interpreting human rights and related State obligations within a particular country, domestic courts may choose to consider declarations and other international instruments. Such dynamic interaction between domestic and international law is well-established and growing in different regions of the world.

29. The New Zealand government has suggested that the Declaration could be interpreted so that i) Māori would have to give full informed consent to laws being passed in Parliament – thus overriding New Zealand’s democratic institutions; and ii) Māori had the right to occupy all land they had before colonisation or receive full compensation for it.

30. Such absolute perspectives lack balance and accuracy. It is well-established that the principles of democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law are interrelated.

31. Such government claims rely on extreme interpretations of individual provisions in isolation from the necessary context of the Declaration as a whole and without regard for the body of international human rights law to which it belongs. In the close to two years since the adoption of the Declaration, none of the imagined negative consequences have materialized.

32. Like other human rights instruments of a similar nature, the Declaration can only complement, and not override, existing human rights protections. The necessity of a balanced interpretation and application of the Declaration is made explicit. Every provision must be “interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith” (art. 46(3)). The rights of all interested parties must always be fully and fairly considered.

33. It has been suggested that the Treaty of Waitangi or related framework might somehow be jeopardized by the Declaration. As stated by New Zealand’s Justice Minister, “the important point is to make sure that the unique framework constitutionally put in place primarily by the Treaty of Waitangi is not disrupted by any affirmation of the declaration [by the NZ government]”. However, the Declaration explicitly affirms:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements. (article 37(1)).

34. In regard to Canada, it has continued its ideological opposition to the Declaration. The current minority government has ignored the April 2008 Motion adopted by the House of Commons in Canada’s Parliament – calling for the Parliament and government of Canada to “fully implement” the standards in the Declaration.

35. The House of Commons is the elected chamber of Canada's Parliament. In adopting this resolution on the Declaration, the House of Commons rejected positions on the Declaration expressed by the current minority government at home and abroad.

36. In relation to Indigenous peoples, Canada has repeatedly violated the rule of law both internationally and domestically. It has failed to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and “cooperate with the Council”, as required of all Human Rights Council members. During its three-year term, Canada pursued the lowest standards of any Council member within the Western European group of States.

37. The Canadian government has opposed the Declaration in various international forums. It has encouraged other States to not support the Declaration. In taking its opposing positions, Canada has ignored its obligations under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It has failed to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples and uphold the honour of the Crown.

The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

38. The Canadian government has encouraged States that are supportive of the Declaration to go on record stating concerns or conditions for its implementation. The government has then used these same statements as evidence of a lack of genuine support for the Declaration.

39. At the world climate talks in Poland in December 2008, Canada’s Environment Minister announced at a press conference that the UN Declaration “has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.” Such statements unfairly politicize Indigenous peoples’ human rights and undermine global attempts to respond effectively to climate change.

40. This appears to be the first time that Canada has vigorously opposed a human rights instrument adopted by the General Assembly. The government erroneously claims that, in view of its opposing vote, the Declaration does not apply in Canada. In its December 2007 report, Amnesty International cautions that Canada’s position “attempts to set a very dangerous precedent for UN human rights protection”. The Report adds:

The proposition that governments can opt out … by simply voting against a Declaration, resolution or other similar document, even when an overwhelming majority of states have supported the new standards, dramatically undercuts the integrity of the international human rights system. … It is impossible to recall a similar example of Canada taking such a harmful position on the basic principles of global human rights protection.

41. Even as Canada opposes the Declaration, implementation is taking place domestically, with the leadership of Indigenous peoples and in partnership with civil society. The Declaration is becoming an integral part of human rights education and is used in presentations and materials shared across the country. Indigenous peoples are emphasizing the Declaration’s standards in their discourse with government and corporations. Academic institutions are including the Declaration in curricula, and trade unions are educating their members.

42. Within Canada, there are ongoing efforts from many sectors for the Canadian government to fully endorse and implement the Declaration. The opposition of the government was a central issue during Canada's Universal Periodic Review.

“Constitutional frameworks”, discrimination and universality

43. On 13 August 2007, an amendment was proposed unsuccessfully by New Zealand, Canada, Colombia and the Russian Federation in relation to article 46(3) of the Declaration that would require all provisions in this human rights instrument to be interpreted in accordance with “constitutional frameworks”.

44. The proposed amendment on “constitutional frameworks” was not disclosed to or discussed with Indigenous peoples prior to its submission to the President of the General Assembly. Nor was such an amendment ever tabled during the two decades of discussions in the UN Working Groups that drafted and considered the earlier texts of the Declaration.

45. During the standard-setting process, a version similar to article 46(3) of the Declaration was initially drafted and proposed by the former government of Canada in collaboration with Indigenous peoples. Canada actively encouraged other States to support this provision. Yet the current government of Canada continues to refuse to accept art. 46(3).

46. To require the provisions of the Declaration to be interpreted in accordance with the “constitutional frameworks” of each State could serve to legitimize any existing injustices and discrimination in national constitutions. Treaty monitoring bodies and special rapporteurs could be hampered from recommending amendments to constitutions, so as to recognize or safeguard the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

47. No such limitation or qualification is found in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights or the two international human rights Covenants. To impose such a requirement on the rights of Indigenous peoples would run counter to the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” in the Charter of the United Nations. It would also constitute a discriminatory double standard.

48. The interpretation of Indigenous peoples’ human rights in accordance with “constitutional frameworks” could severely undermine the principle of “universality”. Indigenous peoples in States with national constitutions that deny Indigenous rights could be denied rights that exist for Indigenous peoples in other countries.

All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. ... [I]t is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and freedoms.

49. Canada and New Zealand cannot be selective in what human rights they choose to respect and protect. The principles that govern the Agenda and Framework for the Programme of Work of the Human Rights Council include “universality”, “objectivity” and “non-selectivity”. Double standards or politicization should be carefully avoided.

Conclusions

50. Indigenous peoples’ human rights and related issues continue to be mainstreamed throughout the UN system. Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must remain a central objective. It is welcomed that the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has added this crucial item to their agenda.

51. The process of implementing the Declaration is in its initial stages and there remain formidable challenges to overcome. In the different regions of the world, Indigenous peoples continue to suffer severe poverty, dispossession of lands and resources, marginalization, discrimination and other widespread and persistent human rights violations.

52. While significant progress is being achieved in some cases, in other situations there may be little or none. In many instances, regional or national human rights institutions may be sorely lacking. There may also be no well-established culture of respect for human rights.

53. In fully assessing implementation of the Declaration at regional and national levels, a comprehensive and systematic approach is strongly recommended. It would be highly useful for States and Indigenous peoples to report on implementation, and share best practices and concrete results.

54. In regard to New Zealand, United States and Canada – there is virtually no advantage to retaining regressive or prejudicial positions. The international reputation and credibility of opposing States will likely continue to suffer. Moreover, such actions are not consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, run counter to the principles of international cooperation and solidarity, and serve to undermine the international system as a whole.

55. In regard to the United States, an additional compelling reason in favour of unequivocally endorsing the UN Declaration is that as a member of the Human Rights Council, the United States is required to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights” and “cooperate with the Council”.

56. In order to play a leadership role internationally, the three opposing States should set positive examples. In particular, it is crucial and urgent to fully endorse the Declaration – the most universal comprehensive international human rights instrument relating to 370 million Indigenous people worldwide.

Full copy including footnotes available here:
http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/files/UNDRIP_ExpertMechanismJointStatement_081109.doc

Guyana's Indigenous Peoples on the Periphery

An article in The Guyana Review titled, "Guyana's Indigenous Peoples: Still Languishing on the Periphery" (posted May 28, 2008) features an interview with David James, the former head of the Amerindian Peoples' Association (APA).

David James, who is the legal adviser to the APA, outlines some of the shock being suffered by indigenous communities in the face of the invasion by loggers and miners, and foreign corporations:

Those communities that have borne the brunt of the environmental damage are very resentful. They are resentful of the social effects of mining and timber harvesting – especially mining – which include the introduction of large amounts of alcohol, illicit drugs and prostitution camps. These activities take place either within the mining areas or close to the mining areas.

There are cases in which some communities are so resentful of these practices that they have sought legal redress. There are at least three cases that I am aware of where communities have initiated legal action to protect their rights. The success in these cases has been limited primarily because the court process is very slow.

What the communities feel is that their protection is best assured through the granting of full rights including sub—surface rights. This would mean that they would have full ownership of the resources and better control of those resources. Of course access also means that they would benefit from those resources.

James also describes the many ways that the rights of indigenous communities have been severely undermined by natural resource development, and the limited recourse they have under the law, especially as they do not possess rights to that which lies beneath the soil they live on. James calls for a revision of Guyana's Amerindian Act to bring it in line with the government's own endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

There is a need for the Amerindian Act to be amended particularly because in 2007 the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was approved by the General Assembly. That Declaration ought to be the guide for legislative reform in any country. The Amerindian Act was passed before that Declaration was approved but the approval of that Declaration essentially means that those states that have voted for it are saying that they consent to abide by its very lofty principles. Therefore, the Amerindian Act as it stands now falls far short of many of the rights standards that are contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

James ends the interview by describing the overall environment of confrontation between indigenous communities and the state. To the extent that earning foreign exchange to help purchase foreign imports continues to be the dominant developmentalist logic in Guyana, I don't think James is wrong in showing a lack of optimism for the future.

Taino Representative Notes Inadequate Attention by UN Agencies

In case anyone might have missed the statement by Mildred Karaira Gandia, reproduced on the blog of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the Greater Caribbean, we would like to post some of the troubling details that have been noted. Gandia spoke to the Seventh Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on Wednesday, 30 April 2008:


Madame/Mr. Chair it is unfortunate that we have to report however that the majority of United Nations Specialized agencies are still not giving serious attention to the Caribbean island region and this practice is contrary to the goals of the Second Decade.

Indeed, the Second Decade’s Plan of Action contains a specific reference to Caribbean Indigenous Peoples, which can be found under Section 6 “Social and Economic Development”, item (b) Regional level, number 86.

The recommendation clearly states that “representatives of Caribbean indigenous peoples should be included in region-specific consultations and conferences in Latin America and the Caribbean, and on steering committees for planning and implementing the programme of activities for the Second International Decade. Serious consideration should also be given to organizing a special regional consultative session focusing on the unique situation of Caribbean indigenous peoples, which would take place in the Caribbean, hosted by a Member State and a local indigenous community.”

With this in mind, we recommend that:

1) The Permanent Forum organize a special regional consultative session focusing on the unique situation of Caribbean Indigenous Peoples.

2) Such a special regional consultative session be held on the island of Dominica and that its planning and implementation take place in collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations such as those represented within the Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the Greater Caribbean as well as with the Caribbean Organization of Indigenous Peoples. The session should aim to strengthen cooperation, coordination, and capacity building among Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean.

3) The Permanent Forum should ensure that any special regional consultative session held in the Caribbean or on Caribbean indigenous issues provide equal funding opportunities for participation and follow-up to indigenous peoples of non-self-governing territories in the region.

For example, indigenous peoples from Puerto Rico are continuously denied funding by the UN Voluntary Fund to participate in meetings, conferences, regional specific consultations, capacity building opportunities and conferences in the region or elsewhere. This practice is discriminatory and must end.

Madame/Mr. Chair, in closing we urge the Permanent Forum to invite the Inter-Agency Support Group, as well as CARICOM, the Rio Group, the Association of Caribbean States, and Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas to work in close collaboration with Caribbean Governments to effectively finance and implement these recommendations focusing on the Second Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Goodbye and Good Riddance John Howard!

It is rare that we get to post such happy news on this blog: today, November 24, 2007, saw the defeat of the ruling Liberal Party in Australia and its infamous Prime Minister, John Howard. Howard had won four consecutive elections, and used his mandate for villainous ends as possibly the world's most extreme right wing political leader. From immediate support to the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, to atrocious abuses and hostility shown toward refugees, repeatedly condemned by UN agencies for his government's treatment of refugees and Aboriginals, to his anti-worker laws, Howard was a blight on the international political landscape and his humiliating defeat has not come too soon. One hopes that Australia will at least begin to alter its neo-colonial course.

Under Howard we have seen the effective re-colonization of the Northern Territory, the imposition of extreme surveillance and domination over Aboriginals who, were they to today form an independent nation-state of their own would most likely constitute the poorest country on earth. Under Howard Aboriginal misery swelled to unbelievable proportions, with staggering rates of unemployment, poor housing, and a life span that is on average 20 years less than that of white Australians. In the face of a history of abducting Aboriginal children, in what is clearly defined as genocide by the UN, Howard refused to so much as apologize, something that right wingers elsewhere have had little problem doing (with compensation added) as in the case of Howard's political friend, Stephen Harper, the Conservative Prime Minister of Canada. In response to the special misery suffered by Aboriginal Australians, Howard only worried about doing anything that could be perceived as "special treatment"...special treatment for the traditional owners of the land who remain ostracized and vilified as outsiders in their own homeland.

The new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd of the Labour Party, promised among other things to withdraw Australian combat troops from Iraq, to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We hope that these will be done quickly.

Goodbye John Howard, and goodbye to another angry, old, white racist.

For a special collection of YouTube videos dealing with the politics of the Australian nation-state and Aboriginals, click on the image below:

Against Recolonization: Australian Anthropologists Speak Out

As reported previously in The CAC Review, the government of Australia has taken a severe turn against indigenous rights in Australia, and internationally, having joined other settler states in voting against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The beleaguered discipline of anthropology in Australia, represented by the Australian Anthropological Society (AAS) has, after much debate, produced the following statement directed to the government of Australia:

Statement on recent policy trends in Indigenous affairs

The Australian Anthropology Society registers deep concerns at the policy direction the Australian nation is taking towards its Indigenous citizens. As a group of scholars, many with long-standing and ongoing professional experience of remote as well as rural and urban Aboriginal communities, we offer the following comments:

Australia has refused to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a document that was many years in the making. The Declaration does not provide an alternative set of laws to those of Australia or of any other nation. What it does do is oblige nation states to support the capacity of Indigenous populations to act. It aims to enhance the capacity of those populations, and individuals within them, to determine their modes of life within the laws and institutions of the states of which they are citizens. We and our Indigenous colleagues and friends cannot help but wonder at Australia’s ungenerous response to the non-binding but uplifting principles contained in the UN Declaration.

Minority populations with different social and cultural histories are a feature of many modern nation-states, and the ability to treat such people honourably is a measure of the maturity and humanity of a nation. Despite the body of work produced by anthropologists, the varied Indigenous societies that have interacted with the radically different European settlers at various stages since 1788 are little understood in their own country. Even the simplest features of the classical Aboriginal traditions — the totemic and moiety divisions, the mutual dependence and reciprocity built into ceremonial and economic arrangements, the multilingualism evident among the wealth of languages — are less well known to educated Australians than is the Indian caste system or the Spanish bullfight. Without knowledge of the normal economic, political and family structures that comprised the everyday life of Indigenous people, there can be little appreciation of the radical destabilisation and restructuring that these societies have had to manage.

Aboriginal people have been adjusting to their changing social conditions, in some cases for over 200 years but in others within living memory. While a long-term assimilative process may be inevitable and can be constructive and even liberating, a large body of research demonstrates that forcing established social processes into a foreign mould is destructive of individuals, families and cultures. There is no doubt that the insistent pressures and stresses resulting from radical social change, without a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the nation’s authorities, have been responsible for severely destabilising family authority and informal community standards of care and protection for the young and the vulnerable. This breakdown in turn has made it difficult to maintain social control. It is the loss of a coherent community structure that has seen the emergence of some extreme examples of social pathology, which, it must be stressed, are neither typical nor representative of the majority of Indigenous people.

The despair, desperation and destructive violence that mars the social life of a substantial number of Indigenous communities does demand government action. Indeed action is long overdue, but dealing with social dysfunction in a clumsy and ill informed manner is likely to compound the level of disorder and add to estrangement. Anthropologists working in Australia are personally and painfully aware of real and urgent humanitarian needs. Only the most scandalous and shameful of these feature in the media; the chronic conditions that generate them are not so obvious. Effective policy responses require an intelligent understanding and respect for the conditions and the people involved. The language of aggressive assimilationism is not effective in dealing with culturally distinct and historically alienated people. Although initially time consuming, processes of negotiation with respected individuals and relevant organizations are far more effective and thus, in the longer term, more economical. Measures for which Aboriginal people have been pleading for years — more police and law enforcement, better housing, and effective implementation of alcohol prohibitions — should not appear as corrective measures imposed in a military-style operation.

We believe strongly that the governing of vulnerable, marginal and excluded peoples carries an added responsibility as these are people whose voices are often muted in the public arena. Rather than welfare recipients being made the target of punitive measures, there needs to be long term commitment to a stable and holistic program of providing adequate resources for these communities to come to terms with their current conditions of integration with the state’s institutions and processes. A wealthy nation such as Australia surely has the knowledge, the expertise and the resources to provide excellence in education, housing and health for the relatively few residents of remote communities, as well as for other Indigenous Australians. It is crucial that these people are listened to, and thus enabled to take responsibility for the direction of their development into the future.

[Thanks to Dr. Gillian Cowlishaw for circulating this statement]

Professor Gillian Cowlishaw,
President, AAS.
University of Technology, Sydney
Humanities & Social Sciences,
PO Box 123
Broadway, NSW, 2007
Ph. 61 2 9514 2743

Other posts of relevance:

The Binding Symbolic Value of the UN Declaration

Recolonizing Australia...or why Trojan horses never say "sorry"

Canada, the UN, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Aboriginals in Australia: Still the Worst Off

News from Australia
----