Gitga’at First Nation reminds Enbridge that Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tanker project is not welcome in Gitga’at territory.

HARTLEY BAY, BRITISH COLUMBIA (May 16, 2013) – The Gitga’at First Nation has instructed Enbridge to leave its territory after the company and a team of oil spill response surveyors showed-up uninvited, during the nation’s annual food harvesting camp, a time of rich cultural activity and knowledge sharing.

Enbridge representatives were instructed to leave Gitga’at council chambers and Gitga’at territory, Wednesday morning, after councillors voiced their displeasure at not being consulted on an Enbridge oil spill response survey.

The dust-up comes on the eve of final oral arguments before the Joint Review Panel, which is reviewing the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline.

“Despite an ongoing review process, Enbridge has entered our territory and begun project work before their proposed oil tanker and pipeline project has even been approved,” said Arnold Clifton, Chief Councillor of the Gitga’at First Nation. “This is disrespectful to the Gitga’at First Nation, the review process, and the people of British Columbia, who oppose oil tankers in our coastal waters.”
“Four years ago when Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel and Northern Gateway President John Carruthers visited Hartley Bay, we treated them respectfully, but informed them in no uncertain terms that their project is not welcome in Gitga’at Territory. We reminded their staff of that today,” said Clifton.

Enbridge signaled its intention to enter Gitga’at territory by sending an after hours fax without proper contact information, less than a week before their arrival, and without prior consultation. The fax also mistakenly included a letter addressed to Chief Councillor Conrad Lewis of the Gitxaala First Nation, which the Gitga’at returned to Enbridge.

“It’s hard to imagine a company screwing-up its relationships with First Nations more than Enbridge has,” said Marven Robinson, Gitga’at Councillor. “This incident shows not only the failure of Enbridge to meaningfully consult, but also indicates an insensitive, scatter-shot approach to dealing with First Nations. We remain resolved to protect our territory and people from this project.”

Photo: CHIRAPAQ.

Deputy Minister Iván Lanegra plans to quit in the next few days due to controversy over entitlement of the right to prior consultation by Andean peoples.

Tania Pariona, young quechua leader of the Ñuqanchick organization, told Reuters that indigenous peoples should decide their own forms of development.

Lima, May 1st 2013 (Reuters/By Mitra Taj and Teresa Cespedes).- Peru’s mining minister is winning a crucial cabinet battle by swaying President Ollanta Humala to water down a law that gives indigenous groups more say over new mines and oil projects – and a deputy minister will likely resign in protest.

According to half a dozen people with direct knowledge of the internal tug-of-war, Mines and Energy Minister Jorge Merino has prevailed in excluding Quechua-speaking communities in the mineral-rich Andes from being covered by the law.

Sources said he fears applying the law throughout the highlands – as the government once said it planned to do – would delay a pipeline of mining investments worth $50 billion.

Several people in Merino’s office declined repeated requests by phone and email for comment.

The tussle underscores a quandary facing Peru, one of Latin America’ fastest-growing economies: how to develop its vast mineral wealth while also addressing a legacy of inequality from its colonial past.

The “prior consultation law,” which Humala touted during his 2011 campaign as a salve for widespread conflicts over natural resources, requires companies to negotiate agreements with indigenous communities before building new mines or oil wells around their lands.

It does not give the communities the power to veto a project, but miners have said it could snarl approvals for new mines for everything from gold to lead.

“Merino has realized that with this law the government was shooting itself in the foot,” an industry source said.

Eva Arias, the head of the country’s association of mining firms, was more diplomatic.

“We hope the law isn’t politicized. It could be a tool to forge consensus and development … otherwise it could slow investments,” she told reporters.

Foreign investment in mining has traditionally powered Peru’s fast-growing economy. Sources from the private sector and government said the debate over how to apply the new law has pitted the mining and finance ministries against the ministries of culture, environment and social inclusion.

Ivan Lanegra, a deputy minister for culture charged with implementing the law, plans to quit over the changes as soon as this week, two well-placed sources said.

“Merino seems to have won,” said a former cabinet chief close to the controversy, adding the changes might worsen the tensions between towns and firms the law aimed to prevent.

“I think this is a big mistake and we will all pay at the end of the day,” the source said. “When these communities get angry they are going to attack the mines under their noses.”

Humala has reshuffled his cabinet twice since taking office after anti-mining protests turned violent.

Quechua – the language of the Incan empire – is spoken by an estimated 3 million to 5 million people in Peru. The Quechua are the most numerous and widespread of about 50 indigenous groups in Peru.

Denial of Rights?

Lanegra maintains the law should cover Andean Quechua-speaking communities because they are “indigenous” – with a unique language and culture, and shared use of land.

Merino’s position is that the Quechua should not be considered “indigenous” under the law because they mixed with Spanish colonizers centuries ago, often have formal town assemblies, and are less isolated than Amazon tribes.

Quechua activists say they view themselves as indigenous.

“We don’t want to be invisible anymore. We want the right to say ‘this is what we want in terms of development,’” said Tania Pariona, a Quechua leader from the Ayacucho region.

Quechua towns have often been called “peasant communities” since an agrarian reform in the 1970s, but tribes in the Amazon – which holds most of Peru’s oil and gas fields – are referred to as “indigenous” or “native.”

Peru’s human rights office said “peasant communities” hold about 19 percent of all land and “native communities” 9 percent.

Humala, speaking on TV on Sunday, seemed to endorse Merino’s stance.

“In the highlands there are mostly agrarian communities … indigenous communities are mostly in the jungle,” Humala said.

“The spirit of the law is to give voice to communities that don’t have one,” Humala said. “These days few communities lack an official like a mayor that links them to the government.”

Humala’s position may further frustrate critics who say he abandoned parts of the left that voted for him and cuddled up to big business after taking office.

“It’s not about vulnerability or cultural ‘purity,’ but ‘cultural difference,’” Lanegra said days before Humala spoke.

“Quechua are indigenous. There is no way around it,” under Peru’s law and the U.N. pact on indigenous rights, Lanegra said.

Case-by-case basis

Lanegra also wanted exploratory mining projects to adhere to the law, but last week the government exempted 14 of them.

“If there is no exploration there is no mining,” said Merino on local TV station Canal N. “We have to stay competitive, otherwise we’ll see investments go somewhere else.”

Mining makes up some 60 percent of Peru’s export earnings, though domestic spending has driven the country’s impressive 6 percent annual growth rates in recent years.

More than 20 countries have ratified the U.N. pact on indigenous rights, and officials regard Peru as the first to codify a prior consultation law.

After taking office, Humala signed the law in 2011 in the jungle town of Bagua, where a clash between police and Amazon tribes killed 33 people in 2009, hurting President Alan Garcia, whose term was marked by some 200 deaths in protests.

Humala at the time specifically mentioned the Quechua as a group that would be covered by the law.

At least 24 people have died in social conflicts so far during Humala’s administration – mainly over natural resources.

Many towns fear mining will pollute, use up scarce water supplies, or fail to bring enough jobs and tax revenues.

Nearly 1.5 years since Congress passed the law, Peru is now leaning towards determining if a community is eligible for coverage on an ad-hoc basis.

“The registry of indigenous peoples will develop as time goes by,” Prime Minister Juan Jimenez told Reuters last week.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Velez and Terry Wade; Editing by Mary Milliken and Philip Barbara)

Photo: CHIRAPAQ.

Viceministro Iván Lanegra renunciará en los próximos días ante controversia sobre titularidad del derecho a la consulta previa de los pueblos andinos.

Tania Pariona, joven lideresa quechua de la organización Ñuqanchick, declaró a Reuters que pueblos indígenas deben decidir su propio desarrollo.

Lima, 01 mayo 2013 (Reuters/Por Mitra Taj y Teresa Cespedes).-  El ministro de minería del Perú está ganando una batalla crucial del gabinete al persuadir al presidente Ollanta Humala para debilitar una ley que da a los grupos indígenas mayor injerencia sobre las nuevas minas y proyectos petroleros – y un viceministro probablemente dimitirá en señal de protesta.

Según media docena personas, con conocimiento directo del tira y afloja interno, el ministro de energía y minas, Jorge Merino, ha prevalecido en la exclusión de las comunidades quechuas de los Andes, ricas en minerales, que serían amparadas por esta ley.

Fuentes dijeron que Merino teme que la aplicación de la ley a lo largo de la sierra – como el gobierno dijo planeaba hacer – demoraría una grueso de inversiones mineras de 50 billones de dólares.

Varias personas en oficina de Merino declinaron reiteradas solicitudes por teléfono y correo electrónico para dar sus comentarios.

La pelea subraya un dilema que enfrenta el Perú, una de las economías de más rápido crecimiento de América Latina: cómo aprovechar su enorme riqueza mineral mientras abordan un legado de la desigualdad de su pasado colonial.

La “Ley de consulta previa”, que Humala promocionó durante su campaña de 2011 como un bálsamo para conflictos sobre los recursos naturales, obliga a las empresas a negociar acuerdos con las comunidades indígenas antes de construir nuevas minas o pozos petroleros en sus tierras.

Si bien no da a las comunidades el poder de vetar un proyecto, los mineros han dicho que podría frenar aprobaciones de nuevas minas para todo, desde el oro al plomo.

“Merino se ha dado cuenta que con esta ley el gobierno se estaba perjudicando a sí mismo”, dijo una fuente de la industria.

Eva Arias, presidenta de la presidenta de la Sociedad Nacional de Minería, Petróleo y Energía, fue más diplomática.

“Esperamos que la ley no este politizada. Podría ser una herramienta para forjar un consenso y desarrollo… de lo contrario retrasarían las inversiones”, dijo a la prensa.

Tradicionalmente, la inversión extranjera en la minería ha impulsado la economía de rápido crecimiento del Perú. Fuentes del sector privado y el gobierno dijeron que el debate sobre cómo aplicar la nueva ley ha enfrentado a los ministerios de minería y economía contra los ministerios de cultura, del ambiente e inclusión social.

Ivan Lanegra, viceministro de Interculturalidad y encargado de implementar la ley, planea renunciar debido a estos cambios al terminar la semana, informaron dos fuentes de alta jerarquía.

“Merino parece haber ganado,” dijo un ex jefe de gabinete acerca de la controversia, agregando que los cambios podrían empeorar las tensiones entre los pueblos indígenas y las empresas, mismas que la ley pretendía evitar.

“Creo que es un gran error que pagaremos al final del día”, dijo la fuente. “Cuando estas comunidades se encolericen van a atacar a las minas bajo sus propias narices”.

Humala ha modificado su gabinete dos veces desde que las protestas contra la minería se tornaran violentas.

El Quechua – la lengua del Imperio Inca – es hablado por aproximadamente entre 3 y 5 millones de personas en Perú. El quechua es uno de los más numerosos y extensos pueblos de los casi 50 grupos indígenas que existen en el Perú.

¿Negación de derechos?

Lanegra mantiene que la ley debe incluir a las comunidades quechuas andinas porque son “indígenas” – con una única lengua y cultura, y el uso compartido de la tierra.

La posición de Merino es que el pueblo quechua no debe considerarse “indígena” bajo la ley porque se mezclaron con los colonizadores españoles hace siglos, a menudo sostienen asambleas comunitarias formales, y están menos aislados que los pueblos indígenas de la Amazonía.

Los activistas quechuas dicen verse a sí mismos como indígenas.

“No queremos ser invisible nunca más. Queremos el derecho a decir ‘esto es lo que queremos en términos de desarrollo,’ “dijo Tania Pariona, joven lideresa quechua de la región Ayacucho.

Los pueblos quechua a menudo han sido llamados “comunidades campesinas” desde la reforma agraria en la década de 1970, pero en la Amazonía – que contiene la mayor parte de proyectos de gas y petróleo del Perú – se conocen como “indígenas” o “nativas”.

La Defensoría del Pueblo dice que las “comunidades campesinas” poseen alrededor del 19% de toda la tierra y las “comunidades nativas” tan solo el 9%.

Las declaraciones de Humala, en una entrevista en televisión difundida el domingo, parecen respaldar la postura de Merino.

“En las tierras andinas hay principalmente comunidades agrarias… las comunidades indígenas están en su mayoría en la selva,” dijo Humala.

“El espíritu de la ley es dar voz a las comunidades que no la tienen”, dijo Humala. “Actualmente son pocas las comunidades que no cuentan con un representante, como un alcalde, que las articule con el gobierno.”

La posición adoptada por Humala puede frustrar aún más a los críticos que dicen que el presidente abandonó a parte de la izquierda que voto por él y se alineo con las grandes empresas al asumir el cargo.

“No es sobre la vulnerabilidad o la ‘pureza’ cultural, pero sí sobre la ‘diferencia cultural’,” dijo Lanegra días antes de las declaraciones de Humala.

“Los quechua son indígenas. No hay otro modo de verlo, bajo la ley peruana y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas”, dijo Lanegra.

Evaluar caso por caso

Lanegra quería también que los proyectos de exploración minera se adhirieran a la ley, pero la semana pasada el gobierno eximió a 14 de ellos.

“Si no hay exploración no hay minería”, dijo Merino a la televisora Canal N. “Tenemos que seguir siendo competitivos, de lo contrario veremos como las inversiones senvan a otra parte”.

La minería constituye un 60% de los ingresos de exportación de Perú, aunque el gasto interno aunque haya elevado la tasa anual de crecimiento del país a un impresionante 6% en los últimos años.

Más de 20 países han ratificado la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, y funcionarios respetan el que Perú sea el primer país en reglamentar una ley de consulta previa.

Después de asumir el cargo, Humala firmó la ley en 2011 en la ciudad de amazónica de Bagua, donde un enfrentamiento entre la policía y los indígenas de la Amazonia mató a 33 personas en 2009, perjudicando al entonces presidente Alan García, cuyo mandato estuvo marcado por unos 200 muertos en las protestas.

En aquel momento Humala señaló que el pueblo quechua sería uno de los grupos que incluiría la ley.

Al menos 24 personas han muerto hasta el momento en conflictos sociales durante la administración de Humala –principalmente por disputas sobre los recursos naturales.

Muchos pueblos temen que la minería contamine, consuma las escasas fuentes de agua o no lleve la suficiente cantidad de empleos e ingresos por recaudación de impuestos.

Casi un año y medio desde que el Congreso aprobó la ley, Perú se inclina ahora a determinar si una comunidad es apta para ser considerada o no por la misma según se crea conveniente.

“El registro de los pueblos indígenas se desarrollara a medida que pase el tiempo”, dijo a Reuters el primer ministro, Juan Jimenez, la semana pasada.

(Información adicional de Patricia Velez y Terry Wade; Edición a cargo de Mary Milliken y Philip Barbara)

Traducción al español / Foto: CHIRAPAQ.

By one of Earth Peoples Co-Founders, Petuuche Gilbert.

STATEMENT AT THE U.S.A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) STAKEHOLDERS MEETING, GALLUP, NM, U.S.A. ON APRIL 16-17, 2013

Protect Mt. Taylor -No UraniumMining on Sacred Land ! (left:Petuuche Gilbert (right) Leona Morgan)

I am Petuuche Gilbert, Laguna and Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment (LACSE) which is one of five core groups in the MultiCultural Alliance for a Safe Environment ( MASE). MASE is a consortium of indigenous and environmental justice communities that have been adversely impacted by historic uranium mining and milling in the Grants Uranium Belt. This uranium affected area extends from the Rio Puerco of the east to the Rio Puerco of the west, an approximate area of 50 miles wide and 150 miles long. It includes Laguna, Acoma, Grants/Milan, Thoreau, Crownpoint and Churchrock, and other communities. It is served by both Region 6 and 9 of the Environmental Protection Agency.
This region has been affected by 50 years of uranium mining which has left a legacy of harmful environmental impacts. Within this area there were once operating 97 uranium mines and 5 uranium mills. Combined with uranium mining on the Navajo Nation uranium mining in the region has degraded the environment and left a legacy of over a thousand abandoned uranium mines.
Uranium mining and milling has devastated this area we’re talking about today. Thirty-three years ago, an unlined earthen dam at the United Nuclear Corporation mill tailings facility near Churchrock New Mexico, collapsed and released 1,100 tons of radioactive tailings and 94 million gallons of toxic wastewater to the Puerco River. All the legacy mine sites are sources for radioactive hazardous releases to the air, soil and water.
Environmental impacts remain today and communities are still living in a radioactive impacted zone. Let me give two anecdotal stories which occurred near Crownpoint. Several years ago the New Mexico Environment Department held a hearing in the vicinity of Crownpoint. When they were there a wind storm was happening and some of the state staff personnel don air masks. These people were only there for a day while the community people live their daily for all of their lives. At one time a child was seen playing outside near one of the uranium impacted sites. Someone with a Geiger counter was curious and took a radioactive measurement of the child and registered a reading. One last story of people living in a dangerous environment is the picture of a sheep. The sheep is somehow biologically affected and its skin has turned yellow. This picture is always an attention getter at events where we talk about the effects of uranium mining. My main emphasis by telling these stories is that people are living daily in a radioactive contaminated area. The ground, water, and air, are all being affected.
Still, and yet, in this area after decades of uranium mining and its people suffering post traumatic stress syndrome as a result the federal and state governments have not done long-term regional health impact studies. Only recently has there been giving a priority in studying the impacts of uranium upon land and people. The Navajo tribe is doing a birth cohort study with the University of New Mexico. The Environmental Protection Agency and the state of New Mexico along with many stakeholders have a Five Year Plan in place to address health and impacts upon land and water within this region. One of the MASE core groups, Post 71, has done a survey of workers and in the uranium industry in this region and has completed it and has found and documented numerous illness of uranium survival stories. The uranium industry has affected the lives of many, many people in this region and yet there has been little or no scientific studies to see its real impact.
An environmental injustice is occurring before us and people here are living and feeling it. The federal and state agencies must pay attention to the uranium affected environment.
The Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment makes several recommendations:
1. There must be a call to acknowledge the rights of Mother Earth to be free of deep drilling and the withdrawal of massive amounts of water required by uranium mining and milling. Groundwater must not be polluted by in-situ mining.

2. Promote the public welfare by protecting the human right to a safe, clean water supply. Urge states to repeal the dewatering act which allows for wasting of precious groundwater and to repeal the archaic mining law of the 1872 Mining Act which allows for a disregard of public welfare.

3. Urge states to prevent new uranium mining and milling until all legacy uranium sites have been reclaimed.

4. Nuclear energy is not a viable form of sustainable development. Begin the phase-out of nuclear reactors and replace them with clean, sustainable energy sources. Nuclear power produces waste problems at the front end and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle.

5. Develop nuclear free zone petitions and declarations for a nuclear free world.

6. States and governments must regulate extractive industries and hold mining corporations accountable for their actions.

7. Contamination from uranium mining and milling are harmful impacts to air, land and water, it has no jurisdiction. This kind of destruction is pervasive and must be addressed by states and the federal government. Regions 6 and 9 must work cooperatively in planning to restore our affected environment to a safe, clean environment for our communities.

8. The federal and state governments must study the removal of radioactive mill tailings away from communities and taken to a permanent repository.

9. The Environmental Protection Agency must implement a Native American public health uranium impact study for this region.

10. EPA should set up a meeting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NM Environment Department, and Navajo EPA and federal congressional delegation so that lawmakers can understand what regulations are blocking full cleanup of these communities to pre-mining and milling conditions.

Top UN climate change official Christiana Figueres said that it is ‘no longer necessary’ for the World Bank to rely on coal in its energy projects, saying that the organization should now focus on bringing alternative energy sources forward.

Figureres commended World Bank Director Jim Yong Kim on his commitment to climate action and acknowledged that coal has understandably played an important role in past energy development projects. She went on to say, however, that it is time for the World Bank to move on from coal.

Figueres said:
“It is one of the very serious challenges that the World Bank has, and it’s very understandable, because [coal] was a fuel that was critically important to developing countries at a certain stage in their development. So the fact that the bank has a portfolio of investment in coal is understandable from a historical perspective. …it is no longer necessary to do that, because we have many other technologies that can come forward.”

Her remarks come as the World Bank draws criticism for its support of a new coal power plant in Kosovo. Director Jim Yong Kim has defended the project because of unmet energy needs in the area, but many have challenged Kim’s assumption that coal power is a solution – including Kosovars.

Citing the alarming health consequences of coal, Kosovar activists have launched a major public health campaign against the new power plant through ads on national television and social media outlets, as well as a light projection on the World Bank building in Washington D.C. Opponents believe that Kosovo’s energy needs can be met more safely and effectively through greater energy efficiency and modest renewable energy projects.

Figueres, like the Kosovar activists, is highlighting the discrepancy between the World Bank’s commitment to mitigating climate change and its continued support for coal – one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, as well as an enormous burden on public health and the environment.

As an international funding organization, a decision from the World Bank to halt funding for coal would be a powerful statement of its decreasing viability as an energy source.

READ: Where Fossil Fuels Come From?

by Damien Gillis

A legal challenge underway by a BC First Nation may hold the last, best hope in the battle to protect Canada’s resources, environment and democracy from the Canada-China trade deal, known as FIPPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement). But they need the public’s support in order to see their costly court case through.

The Hupacasath First Nation from Vancouver Island is heading to court this month in an attempt to block the controversial trade deal by asserting its infringement on the nation’s tile and rights. The Hupacasath’s representatives argue their constitutional rights to consultation have been violated by the deal and the manner in which it is being brought in. FIPPA would have a detrimental effect on this and other nations’ title and rights, as it entrenches the rights of Chinese investors above and beyond Canada’s First Nations and citizens.

FIPPA would mean Canada’s environmental laws and the concerns of the public are trumped by access to resources for Chinese companies -for a 31 year period once it’s ratified.

For instance, for the Hupacasath, a proposed coal port in nearby Port Alberni would be built by Compliance Energy, a Chinese company, thus, receive special protections from environmental or public health concerns. The same applies to logging, mines, private hydro projects, roads and any other Chinese-driven industrial development “promoted and protected” by FIPPA. Inevitable oil spills from tankers destined for China would also impact the Hupacasath and other nations’ traditional way of life on the land and water.

To help fund their $150,000 legal bills, the Hupacasath are running a crowd-funding initiative, which you can support at https://leadnow.netdonor.net/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1694&ea.campaign.id=18069

The United Nations Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business welcomes information at any time, as per its working methods. Simply send the information to this email address and it is forwarded to the Working Group members for their consideration.

Information about the UN Working Group

Additional background information and information on how to engage in the work of the Working Group is available on the following pages.

Information about Sessions of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises:
Click Here

General Information about United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights.

You can read reports of the Working Group here:
REPORTS

The Working Group is currently drafting a report to the General Assembly with a focus on indigenous peoples. Further information is available here, in the context of the open consultation that the Working Group held on 14 February on this subject:

Click here for pdf

The Working Group has further made a call for inputs on the next Forum on Business and Human Rights, you can find information on the Forum webpage (link above).

Information on registration for WG events and the Forum is posted in due course on the WG website, including modalities for registration, also for organisations that do not have ECOSOC status.

Please note that sessions of the Working Group are closed meetings, aside from specific scheduled open consultations that are duly indicated on the website approximately one month prior to each session.

Environmentalists, tribe sue after feds allow company to proceed despite ban on new mining near Grand Canyon

By Brandon Loomis/The Republic

(Photo Mark Henle/The Republic) Energy Fuels Resources says a federal ban on new uranium mining near Grand Canyon National Park doesn

The People of Acoma Still Fight to be Free

Petuuche Gilbert (Photo © Sara Cintrón Schultz)

How does a tribe survive an attempted annihilation? How does a nation of people survive a holocaust? Oñate burned and destroyed the village of Acoma. The place where the colonizer’s church, San Estevan del Rey, stands today is the site of the original village. It must have been a horrible massacre, with our people burned in their houses. It is written that mothers and fathers were killing their own children to prevent capture. How many of our people jumped off the mesa to avoid being killed by Spanish soldiers? It is written then that our people were taken as prisoners of war and marched up to Santo Domingo for punishment. As punishment and as a further act of premeditated terrorism the feet of our men were cut off, the survivors, men, women and children were enslaved. How many died soon afterwards is unknown and forgotten. So, how did Acoma survive? It is again written in Spanish records that ten years later there was another battle at Acoma. In spite of the atrocities committed upon us we endured and we are still a nation of Acoma people.

Spiritual and Physical Strength and Endurance.

Today my people do not remember the massacre and punishment. Very few people know of the battle. My mother talked of how people described the use of canons and how the rock walls were scarred black from explosions. No one knows about how two Acoma warriors hung themselves from a tree on the mesa top rather then submit to Spanish rule. It is written this is occurred and only the tree still remembers. No one at Acoma talks of the enslavement of our people as we were forced to build a huge, massive church. All the materials of sand, rock and wood, were carried on the backs of my people to the mesa top. Who knows how many Acomas died in the construction of their church. Today the people proudly say this is our church. We built it with our blood, sweat and tears. It is true what one of our guides said to tourists. “They made slaves out of us to build this church I guess that is why we are Catholics today”. Such is the power of the crown and the cross. Today the priest holds mass when tribal leaders allow him to do so. The Catholic Church should be so proud they have brainwashed so well that we are devout practitioners. We became Catholics so that we could survive another day. All the while we are still here, believing and practicing our language, culture and religion.
The Legacies of Colonial Institutions

At Acoma and in the homeland of indigenous peoples we carry on our backs the heavy chains of colonial institutions. The impacts of colonialism and terrorism are powerful. All of the remaining indigenous tribes call themselves pueblos and some even use Spanish names to identify themselves. Some resistors, like Acoma, identify themselves in their own names. All of the pueblos are Catholics and all have saints as their protectors. Most of them have feast days in honor of their patron saints. We have never really questioned ourselves why we do this. I know it is the impacts of fear and brainwashing. We became Catholics so that we could continue to live and practice our ways. Such is the power of the people to endure in spite of the brutality of the crown and the cross.

Another powerful institution intended to dispossess indigenous peoples of their homeland is the merced or mercedes. In English it is the Spanish land grant. On the Oñate statute being built in El Paso the conqueror conquistador is seen proudly waving La Toma in his hand. In April, 1598, Conquistador, Juan de Oñate, crossed the Rio Grande, near present day El Paso, Texas. He declared and claimed, “All lands, people, and resources north of the Rio Grande, possessions of the Royal Spanish Crown.” La Toma was the imperialistic method proclaimed by the conquerors to take indigenous land and intended to subject the indigenous people to a foreign rule. Essentially this action set the basis for pre-emptive war. If indigenous people did not submit to the rulers then just war could be declare upon them. The famous square league, about 17,000 acres, was recognized as the land set-aside by the Spanish for the indigenous tribes. The rest was, of course, was kept by the conquerors. The people of today have never understood how the conquerors could give out land that was not theirs in the first place. It was not free land for the taking. This continuation of imperialism was declared to be manifest destiny by the United States and the theft of land and subjection of people continued. Upon the implementation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848, the United States felt, as is duty to respect the land rights of indigenous peoples. Articles 8 and 9 talk of the indigenous people. In the treaty it stipulated that if pueblo Indian people did not want to be citizens of the United States they could just leave. I guess we could have just left our homelands and moved to Mexico. I think this imposition of citizenship has never really being understood by the ancient inhabitants of this land. In this way we were made political prisoners and we remain so to this day.

The third pervasive institution affecting us here as indigenous people is the form of Spanish civil government. Most of the pueblo governments have leaders named as governors and their attendant staff named after Spanish names. When the Spanish arrived they saw community leaders led us and they made us choose our own leaders. Today in the selection of our own tribal leaders we call this tradition. Too, it is a profound influence that the Pueblo Indian Governors carry the Spanish canes as the recognition of their authority to rule. Why? I once asked one of the former pueblo governors why do they carry the Spanish canes if we threw off Spanish implements during the Pueblo Indian Revolt. His reply was that we had already imbued them spiritually and, thus, they became sacred. This is maintained even today.

The Indigenous Peoples Of Today

The conquerors should be so proud of themselves. We are profoundly brainwashed that we behave as conquered people. This is the legacy of Oñate and the conquerors. Colonialism remains alive and well. We have Spanish forms of civil governments and we select our own leaders to rule ourselves. We rely on the land grant system to have our land rights respected. We are devout Catholics. We are proud American citizens and we proudly put our hands on our chests as we say the Pledge of Allegiance. We are proud to be called Native Americans. How tragic and what a travesty this is. As indigenous peoples we never ask ourselves why. Why do we have blind patriotism to a nation that stole our land, committed genocide and instituted creative law intended to keep us as political prisoners.

Today we, the indigenous people, fight for our human right to be free, sovereign and self-determining people. To become this is the challenge is upon all of us here. The United States of America is the most ardent enemy of indigenous people. This nation refuses to respect and recognize us as PEOPLES because peoples in international law have the right to self-determination. During the Decade of the Worlds Indigenous Peoples we aggressively pursued for the right of self-determination to be enshrined in the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This did not happen as the decade ended in 2004. Prior to this indigenous people at the last World Conference on Racism, indigenous people accused the world’s nation-states of being racist by refusing to recognize indigenous people to be as peoples. This struggle for self-determination continues at the Organization of American States as they work to adopt an Inter-American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In it we are not considered to be indigenous peoples with the full right of self-determination.

So, what is our future today? There are difficult questions to ask of ourselves, as the conquerors and the conquered. Do we accept the legacies of the conquerors and remain treated as the conquered? I think not. In order for me to be here speaking today, someone, somewhere in the past, stood up and died for me to be here. Now it is my turn and our responsibility to carry on that struggle to be free as indigenous people. It is no easy task and the challenge is before us all. Especially now that we, as warriors fighting against the domination of the United States, are considered as terrorist. Well, we as indigenous peoples have been fighting terrorism for over 500 years and we will continue on. So, did God bless Oñate and does God bless America? Does God bless conquerors, murderers and thieves? Does God bless a nation built upon the twin pillars of discovery and conquest? The conquerors think God does and that is what is wrong with people. Thus, we are still at war with the conquerors. It must change. We must learn to live in peace and respect.

What Form of Justice is Due Indigenous People

Apologies are easy to proclaim and they are easily forgotten. One such proclamation is in the works in Congress. In 2004 it is was called the HISTORIC RESOLUTION OF APOLOGY TO NATIVE PEOPLES INTRODUCED IN U.S. CONGRESS and it is now referred to as the NATIVE AMERICAN APOLOGY RESOLUTION. Both are quite meaningless. Some church groups have already apologized and it is now forgotten who did. Do indigenous peoples want all of America back? I think not. Indigenous people are realistic and they know this is impossible. The foreigners are here today and we must now survive together. Albeit, we want to keep our homelands in our possession without the fear of loss through the laws and policies of the conquerors. Are we seeking some form of reparation for genocide and theft of land? Perhaps. Some indigenous people are demanding it and dollars are appropriated by congress to rid itself of the Indian problem. It is done and can be done in order to alleviate the fears and embarrassment of genocide and land theft. Pay the Indians off and forget them. Let them be American citizens like everybody else. Life goes on. A more appropriate form of reparation is allowing our human right to be as peoples. As peoples to peoples we can be both sovereign and self-determining. We must respect and understand all this. That is our challenge today for us all.

Poutūterangi 2013

To the United Nations, Todd Energy, Cue Energy, New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Department of Labour, the Energy Minister, the Taranaki Regional Council, the New Plymouth and South Taranaki District Councils and all companies holding permits or contracted to operate or profit from Petroleum works in our environment:

Ngā mihi,

We are the people of Parihaka, the descendants, morehu and followers of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi who gather and continue to meet at Parihaka every month on the Rā since the 1870s.

In July 2011 we sent out a Statement of Position outlining our non-consent to the mass expansion of exploratory surveying and drilling for petroleum products in the environment around our papakainga and coastal reserves. This was based on five points that we wish to reiterate here again:

the use of our papakainga and tupuna’s names for permit blocks held by Todd Energy is without our consent and for an activity in direct contrast with our tikanga
We have serious concerns about pollution of our coastline and moana from yet another oil spill, dumping of offshore drilling waste and seismic surveying
We have serious concerns about pollution of land, water, air and aquifers from onshore drilling, disposal of associated wastes, seismic surveying and transportation and storage of hazardous substances such as explosives and drilling additives.
We have grave concerns around the continued and accelerated extraction of fossil fuels and it’s impact on the entire world through pollution and climate change
We have serious concerns for the safety of the drill-site workers and those who transport the hazardous wastes, and especially for those communities who endure the increased traffic, noise, light, threat of well blow-outs and have the wastes dumped in their environment.
We recently discovered that Todd Energy and Cue Energy have removed the names of Tohu and Parihaka from the two aforementioned permit blocks. While we welcome this, Todd and Cue did not come to our table to discuss the matter. Replacement with the names Te Kiri and Kanuka does not appear to have been in consultation with iwi or hapu either. This is not acceptable behaviour.

We welcome Todd and Cue’s surrender of the Tohu and Pungarehu leads in the now labelled ‘Te Kiri PEP 51149′ permit block within which we reside. We however strongly request surrender of the entire permit block and thorough decommissioning of all drilled wells and clean up of those well sites and any dumping grounds associated with them.

In light of these changes, this letter of Response is to reiterate our stance in opposition to these fossil fuel exploration and extraction activities onshore and offshore, especially around our papakainga and coastal reserves.

While there may be short term benefits from petroleum for some, the long-term effects are detrimental to local communities and the world as a whole. Continuing fossil fuel extraction is no longer socially acceptable in the light of these very serious problems. We must all transition to sustainable living now.

We remind you also that under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tirini and the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we retain our rights of “tino rangatiratanga” (sovereignty) over our “whenua” (lands), “kainga” (homes) and “taonga katoa” (all that we treasure). Under The Treaty of Waitangi the crown also guaranteed all Maori “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties.” All the activities in the five points of this letter are in direct breach of these agreements with the crown. Many wāhi tapu have been damaged or destroyed in Taranaki from earth works for well sites and other activities. At least four oil spills in the last ten years have damaged the ecosystem and denied hapu the ability to eat kaimoana in their rohe for some period of years. The activities also breach international laws of human rights by threatening surety of the necessities of life such as safe, clean drinking water and healthy food. They also breach international laws of the seas which protect these fragile and dwindling ecosystems. They surely breach international agreements around prevention of climate change.

We have had over a hundred years of petroleum exploration and production in the greater Taranaki region which has contributed to the country’s economy and resource base. Councils and government have had the imposed governance of these areas in this time and they have failed to protect the people and environment sufficiently, instead leaving communities subject to company non-disclosure (silencing) orders in return for minimal compensation when things go wrong. We still do not know the true extent of the damages from this industry as the industry is left to monitor itself in most instances. Meanwhile at least one local community in a drilling zone has the highest cancer rate in the country. This is especially worrying as resources dwindle and extraction techniques become more and more dangerous.

To the government: we suggest you cease the permitting of petroleum mining and exploration in our environment. To the regional and district councils: we suggest you cease the granting of resource consents for those mining activities. To the companies: we suggest you cease exploration, extraction and investment in drilling in our environment now.

We call on the United Nations to investigate these breaches of human rights and we call on our thousands of whānau and supporters nationally and internationally to join us in opposing this current mass expansion of petroleum exploration.

Witnessed by:

Rangikotuku Rukuwai, Kaitiaki o Toroānui Marae Maata Wharehoka, Kaitiaki o Te Niho o Te Atiawa Ruakere Hond, Kaikorero o Te Paepae o Te Raukura