Archive for the ‘UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ Category

Statement from the family of Arthur Manuel on his passing

Wednesday, January 18th, 2017

Arthur_ManuelOn Wednesday January 11, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Arthur Manuel, our beloved father, grandfather, husband, brother, uncle, warrior, and teacher passed away. Arthur was one of our most determined and outspoken Secwepemc leaders and activists—a pillar in the resistance, known globally for his tireless advocacy for Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination. He passed on into the spirit world surrounded by many generations of his loving family.

Arthur was the son of Marceline Paul of the Ktuanaxa Nation and George Manuel of the Secwepemc Nation. George was a political leader and visionary who served as president of the National Indian Brotherhood and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples.

Arthur was born into the struggle and groomed to be a leader and defender of Indigenous rights and title. Coming up as a young leader in the 1970s, he served as president of the National Native Youth Association, leading the occupation of Indian Affairs. He attended Concordia University (Montreal, Quebec) and Osgoode Hall Law School (Toronto, Ontario).

He returned to his community and was elected Chief of Neskonlith Indian Band, Chair of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and Chair of the Assembly of First Nations Delgamuukw Implementation Strategic Committee. He was a long-time co-chair of the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and former co-chair of the Global caucus. He was active in the Defenders of the Land and Idle No More movement and as a board member of the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples. He was one of the main strategic thinkers of the decolonization movement in Canada. As the spokesman for the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, he convinced the World Trade Organization to recognize that Indigenous peoples are subsidizing the BC lumber industry through the non-recognition of Aboriginal title. He was co-author, along with Grand Chief Ronald Derrickson, of the award-winning Unsettling Canada: A National Wake-Up Call, with a foreword by his friend and fellow activist Naomi Klein.

He worked selflessly in defence of Indigenous territorial authority and he fiercely opposed any termination of Indigenous land rights. He rejected provincial and federal authority over unceded Indigenous land, and challenged the extinguishment of Indigenous title through the BC treaty process. He fought climate change, battling the imminent threat of pipelines across Secwepemc territory.

He was a world traveller who connected Indigenous nations across the globe to unite in a common vision and defend their rights. He was gifted a button blanket by the Nuxalk nation and has received countless honours for his work around the world.

Arthur was also a teacher and a mentor to many. He was a source of knowledge for youth and young leaders. Through his fierce love for his people, he shone a light on the path to justice for a new generation of activists.

He’s a residential school survivor, having attended the Kamloops (Kamloops BC), St Eugene’s (Cranbrook BC) and St. Mary’s (Mission BC) residential schools.

Arthur is survived by his life partner, Nicole Schabus, by his sisters Emaline, Martha, Doreen, and Ida, his brothers George, Richard, and Ara, and by his children, Kanahus, Mayuk, Ska7cis and Snutetkwe. He is predeceased by his parents, sister Vera, brother Bobby, beloved son Neskie and his grandchildren Napika Amak and Megenetkwe.

In his most recent article on Canada’s 150th celebration, published only a week before his death, Arthur insisted again that Canada was built entirely on the theft of Indigenous lands.

“Our Indian reserves are only .02% of Canada’s land and yet Indigenous peoples are expected to survive on them. This has led to the systematic impoverishment of Indigenous people and the crippling oppression that indigenous peoples suffer under the current colonial system.

The .02 land based is used to keep us too poor and too weak to fight back. It is used to bribe and co-opt the Indigenous leadership into becoming neocolonial partners to treat the symptom of poverty on Indian reserves without addressing the root cause of the problem, which is the dispossession of all of the Indigenous territory by Canada and the provinces.” – First Nations Strategic Bulletin, August-December 2016 Issue

Wake: Friday, January 13th 5:00 PM and Saturday, January 14th, Adams Lake Indian Band Gymnasium, 6349 Chief Jules Drive, Chase, BC

Funeral Services: Sunday, January 15th 10:00 AM, Adams Lake Indian Band Gymnasium

Media contact: Russell Diabo at 613-296-0110 or rdiabo@rogers.com
Donations to support Arthur’s service can be sent to jacksoncrick7@yahoo.ca
Condolences to the family and photos of Arthur can be sent to erfeltes@gmail.com

Earth Peoples co-founder Arthur Manuel passed away, 66-years-old.

Friday, January 13th, 2017

Dear Earth Peoples.
Arthur Manuel was always working hard.
Tiokasin Ghosthorse brought me to collaborate with Rebecca Sommer, one of my best friends… and this is where I met Arthur. I was very glad to from the start. I was in line with him in the cafeteria at the UN during the indigenous peoples caucus for the Earth Peoples partners event. I got some coffee and was going to sit down at the table he was at. Arthur said with warning…you might not want to sit there. I said oh is this seat taken? He said no its just that you might not want to be associated with me. A lot of people do not like me.
I looked around over my shoulders and said.. jokingly I said….want me to beat them up for you? He laughed a lot. That was the comical and genuine relationship that I had with him from the start. He is someone I am honored to say has changed my life and i can call him my favorite person and a best friend. I am so thrilled that I had the opportunity to know Arthur.
Arthur was my Earth Peoples brother, a child of our mother Earth and I loved him very much. I always looked up to him for saving the world. I remember saying to Arthur that I hope that I can somehow make a difference in the world like he does. I would like to make my life meaningful. He said Elaine, You don’t want to do what i do. He said… I am not complaining but Elaine, you have the creative arts and you can work in that medium and be effective. As you do…. and it seems more fun. That meant a lot to me. I appreciate that with all of my heart. I hope that i can send that message through my art so that I can make him proud and maybe send some laughs too.
He lives forever in our hearts. He lived. I only hope that I can too live a life that makes the ancestors proud  as was well.

Book Arhur ManualHis last writing to me was when he signed his book
Unsettling Canada
for me with the words “May the world be good to you my friend.
-Arthur”

He will be greatly missed!!!

Elaine+Arthur

Racism in the Arab world

Tuesday, November 24th, 2015

Racism in the Arab world covers an array of forms of intolerance against non-Arab groups, minorities in Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa.

The previously forbidden topics of race and racism in the Arab world have been explored more since the rise of foreign, private and independent media. In one example, Al-Jazeera’s critical coverage of the Darfur crisis led to the arrest and conviction of its Khartoum bureau chief.
Read more . . .

DECLARACION DE V CUMBRE ABYA YALA: “DEFENDIENDO EL FUTURO DE NUESTRAS NACIONES”

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

“Del 9 al 11 de abril las organizaciones indigenas realizaran una cumbre indigena paralela a la de los Estados. Adjunto borrador de la declaracion para sus contribuciones” Hector Huertas, coordinador de redacción de la declaracion

 

DECLARACION DE V CUMBRE ABYA YALA: “DEFENDIENDO EL FUTURO DE NUESTRAS NACIONES”

 

Nosotros, los representantes de los Pueblos y Naciones indígenas de Abya Yala de las regiones de Sudamérica, Centroamérica, Norteamérica y el Caribe, en el ejercicio del derecho a la libre determinación y en defensa de la Madre Tierra, hacemos de conocimiento de los Estados nuestra posición frente a la VII cumbre de Jefes de Estados y Gobierno de las Américas a celebrarse en Panamá del 9 al 10 de abril de 2015.

 

 

CONSIDERANDO

 

Que nosotros los Pueblos y Naciones indígenas originarias de Abya Yala, teniendo como base la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas (2007), La resolución 1514 (XV) de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el 14 de diciembre de 1960 (Numeral 1 de la Declaración sobre la Concesión de la Independencia a los Países y Pueblos Coloniales); el convenio 169 de la OIT (1989); La Declaración de Viena 2003, la Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación Racial y el Documento final de la reunión plenaria de alto nivel de la Asamblea General de la ONU, Conferencia Mundial sobre los Pueblos Indígenas y otros instrumentos Internacionales relacionados a pueblos indígenas y el ambiente.

 

Que a través de estos instrumentos internacionales, los Estados de las Américas, se han obligado adoptar decisiones de carácter legislativo, administrativo y judicial, para la erradicación de la desigualdad, no discriminación, y la exclusión histórica de los Pueblos Indígenas reconociendo la dignidad inherente y nuestra contribución desarrollo, en especial de la mujer indígena.

Que en las Seis Cumbres de las Américas y sus sesiones extraordinarias los jefes de Estado y de los gobiernos de la región han aprobado compromisos a través de la adopción de declaraciones y planes de acciones, para igualmente erradicar la exclusión, desigualdad, el respeto a los derechos humanos, la consolidación de la democracia, libre comercio, la adopción de la carta democrática, empleo, prosperidad humana, seguridad energética, sostenibilidad ambiental, integración de las Américas, pobreza, desigualdad y seguridad ciudadana que alcanza la situación de los Pueblos Indígenas.

Que a pesar de la existencia de todos los instrumentos y legislaciones internacionales existentes prevalece y recrudece la pobreza, marginación y exclusión de los Pueblos Indígenas en las Américas.

Los Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas llamamos, la atención a los Estados a establecer compromisos serios de corto plazo a fin de cumplir con el mandato internacional por lo que proponen las siguientes Acciones y Compromisos ante los Jefes de Estados y de gobiernos:

Que en las actuales negociaciones de la Declaración Americana sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas existe un marcado desinterés de parte de los Estados de no contribuir con el fondo de contribuciones voluntarias para apoyar la participación plena y efectiva de los representantes indígenas de las Américas, y los obstáculos a no querer aprobar una declaración fuerte por arriba de los estándares de la declaración de la ONU.

COMPROMISOS

1.     Que los Jefes de Estado y Ministros de Estados se comprometan a financiar el fondo de contribuciones voluntarias para permitir la participación indígenas en el Grupo de Trabajo que prepara la Declaración Americana sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y su compromiso a adoptar una declaración fuerte y no por debajo de los estándares de la DNUDPI.

2.     Los pueblos y naciones indígenas pedimos a todos los Estados, se hagan las reformas constitucionales para desmantelar la doctrina del Res Nullius del sistema jurídico, la propiedad del Estado sobre los recursos del suelo y subsuelo en detrimento de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, implementar con carácter de prioridad los derechos establecidos en la declaración de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas adoptado por la Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas.   Solicitamos se establezca un comité de expertos independientes designados por la Asamblea General cuyo mandato es la verificación de la implementación de la Declaración sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas de la ONU.

3.     Se impulse el derecho a la libre determinación de los Pueblos Indígenas, en ese sentido se desarrollen los regímenes autónomos necesarios que le permitan a los Pueblos Indígenas, ser los sujetos del desarrollo, la democracia y la gobernanza sobre sus tierras, territorios y recursos naturales.

4.     Se implemente, el Buen Vivir como derecho humano y principio rector de las políticas públicas de los Estados en los proyectos y planes de desarrollo económico y social que impulsen.

5.     Se implemente los derechos colectivos sobre las tierras, territorios y recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas, el carácter colectivo, inalienable e inadjudicable de los mismos a fin de garantizar la pervivencia de los Pueblos Indígenas en los Estados y en particular a los Pueblos Indígenas no contactados.

6.     Que el derecho al consentimiento previo libre e informado sea desarrollado en la mayoría de los Estados no como un mero trámite para obligar a los Pueblos Indígenas a dar su consentimiento, si no para garantizar el respeto a nuestros derechos humanos, desarrollando los mandatos de la declaración de la ONU en esta materia.

7.     Los Estados deben insertar en todos sus procesos educativos el aporte de los Pueblos Indígenas en la historia, ciencias, artes, filosofía e identidad de Abya Yala e impulsando la educación intercultural en todos los niveles a fin de reflejar la identidad cultural de las naciones, garantizando su participación activa en el proceso, acorde a su cultura, tradiciones e identidad, mediante acciones afirmativas. La Comisión Interamericana de Educación observar el cumplimiento de este mandato hasta que se elimine el racismo, en los textos escolares y en los sistemas de educación. La educación intercultural será una prioridad de los programas de educación.

  1. Los Estados deben en sus programas de salud insertar la visión colectiva holística de la salud indígena, evitar proyectos que comprometan la salud colectiva de los indígenas, reconociendo su medicina tradicional y protegiendo sus recursos y conocimientos de la piratería. Los programas de salud de carácter universal deben insertar la visión holística tanto como colectiva como individual de los Pueblos Indígenas de modo que no se pueden aprobar proyectos de desarrollo en territorios indígenas que afectan la salud indígena de modo que se genere equidad. Por otro lado, en ejercicio a la libre determinación los sistemas de salud tradicional de los Pueblos Indígenas deben formar parte de la estrategia de desarrollo.

 

  1. Se debe adoptar en corto plazo el desarrollo energético propio de los Pueblos Indígenas a través del financiamiento de estas iniciativas a fin de que la energía alternativa llegue a nuestras comunidades. Las instituciones financieras deben condicionar el financiamiento de proyectos energéticos al respeto de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y la participación de los beneficios se deben adecuar antes los marcos legales de carácter nacional y regional.

 

  1. Reconociendo las graves consecuencias del cambio climático y que dicho fenómeno es producto de la utilización indiscriminada de los recursos de la madre tierra por los países industrializados los Estados deben exigir a los países responsables a reducir sus emisiones y no pretender usar los recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas como excusas para no cumplir con sus obligaciones internacionales. Rechazamos, los proyectos que tiene como justificación atacar el cambio climático que afectan las tierras, territorios y recursos de los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

ACCIONES

 

  1. Solicitar a la reunión de Ministros y Altas Autoridades de Desarrollo Sostenible de la OEA que exija el cumplimiento e implementación de la DNUDPI a los Estados miembros de la Conferencia de las Partes de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP 20) en todas las medidas que afecten a los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

  1. Que los Estados se obligan a financiar las medidas de adaptación al cambio climático para los sectores más vulnerables, en especial los Pueblos Indígenas y cuantificar los impactos económicos del cambio climático de manera desagregada sobre sectores clave para los países de la región, como las tierras y territorios indígenas, la agricultura, los recursos hídricos, los asentamientos humanos, las zonas costeras, la biodiversidad, la salud entre otros. En este contexto, prestar especial atención a las políticas y acciones relacionadas con la mitigación y la adaptación del cambio climático presentadas o realizadas por los Pueblos Indígenas.

 

  1. Apoyar los procesos de planificación, ordenamiento territorial y titulación de los territorios indígenas que se realizan a nivel nacional y sub nacional incorporen de manera prioritaria la prevención y mitigación de riesgos ambientales. Asimismo, a través de inversiones y políticas promover un desarrollo sostenible. Encomendar a las instituciones financieras y a la OEA que apoyen este esfuerzo.

 

  1. En el marco de la declaración de la naciones unidas sobre los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y el Convenio sobre los derechos de los trabajadores migrantes y sus familias aprobado por la Asamblea General en su resolución 45/158, de 18 de diciembre de 1990, y entró en vigor el 1º de julio de 2003, se debe tomar en consideración la situación de los indígenas migrantes. El Grupo de Trabajo migrantes en Conjunto de las Cumbres (GTCC), particularmente a los representantes de los Pueblos Indígenas e Instituciones Financieras, que continúen apoyando los esfuerzos de los países para crear las condiciones económicas y sociales para generar más y mejores oportunidades que permitan el desarrollo y el arraigo de la población en sus países. En particular, los desarrollar programas en las regiones de fronteras a fin de regularizar la situación de indígenas migrantes y transfronterizos y el desarrollo de las capacidades propias del territorio de modo que puedan satisfacer sus derechos humanos.

 

  1. Reconociendo que el desarrollo integral y equitativo contribuye a crear condiciones de seguridad y que a su vez mejores condiciones de seguridad propician mayor prosperidad, solicitamos las siguientes acciones:
  • Se deben reconocer los mecanismos propios de seguridad de los Pueblos Indígenas
  • Se debe prohibir la militarización de los territorios indígenas
  • Se debe apoyar a los Pueblos Indígenas en la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas.

 

  1. Desarrollar esfuerzos especiales dirigidos a reducir la violencia en contra de la mujer, particularmente a través de implementación de políticas públicas eficaces, de capacitación de funcionarios y la recolección de datos e información estadística, particularmente en el marco de la Convención Interamericana para Prevenir, Sancionar y Erradicar la Violencia Contra la Mujer (Convención de Belem do Para). Encomendamos a la OEA, a través de la Comisión Interamericana de Mujeres que continúe sus esfuerzos en este ámbito, especialmente a través del fortalecimiento del mecanismo de seguimiento de la Convención.

 

  1. Crear, sin restricciones ni limitaciones de participación, el Foro Interamericano de los Pueblos Indígenas, de tal forma que haya un proceso continuo de participación y consulta con los representantes de los Pueblos Indígenas y no solamente en la época previa a la celebración de una Cumbre de las Américas. Encomendamos a la OEA que establezca y gestione el Foro.

 

  1. Implementar la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas, particularmente a través del uso de la tecnología y soluciones digitales. En función de ello, promover el gobierno abierto y el derecho a la información como herramientas claves para lograr mayor transparencia e inclusión.

 

  1. Fortalecer el Estado de Derecho Democrático, la separación e independencia entre los Poderes del Estado, la libre determinación y autonomías de los Pueblos Indígenas, el respeto a los derechos humanos, la transparencia, integridad y eficiencia de la gestión pública, así como la creación de condiciones que hagan posible la implementación de la declaración de la ONU en la participación plena y efectiva en todo el ciclo de las políticas públicas, principalmente mediante la democratización del acceso a las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Encomendamos a la OEA que le dé seguimiento a este tema.

 

  1. Promover el derecho a la participación plena y efectiva de los Pueblos Indígenas de acuerdo a sus formas de representación en las contiendas electorales.  Financiar las autonomías indígenas como una forma de fortalecer la democracia.

 

  1. La situación de las mujeres indígenas y los niños indígenas es alarmante en las Américas, se propone realizar acciones urgentes con la participación de los pueblos indígenas para promover el respeto de los derechos de las mujeres, jóvenes y niños, niñas indigenas.

 

  1. Promover y visibilizar la participación de las mujeres indígenas en la agenda política nacional de género, en los programas de salud y educación como protagonistas generadoras de cultura.   Promover acciones educativas concretas dirigidas insertar a la mujer indígena en el ámbito laboral acorde con su realidad sociocultural.

 

  1. Fortalecer los programas nacionales en donde los haya y donde no crearlas para atender la seguridad alimentaria, y la atención primaria de los niños y juventud indígena en su integridad física, como psicológica. Promover el empleo de la juventud indígena.

 

  1. Los Pueblos Indígenas son los más marginados en el derecho de acceso a la información y comunicación, muchos proyectos de desarrollos o decisiones administrativas se toman sin la debida información a las comunidades indígenas, la participación es uno de los pilares para la democracia , no se puede participar si no se sabe o estaba debidamente informado: Proponemos

 

  • El desarrollo urgente de programas de acceso a la información y comunicación en el idioma de los Estados y los idiomas indígenas

 

  • Se debe fortalecer en los programas de desarrollo de redes comunitarias en lengua indígena que permitan el acceso a la información

 

  • Se deben desarrollar programas que permitan a los Pueblos indígenas a tener acceso a tecnología de la información.

 

Dado el 10 y 11 de abril de 2015, en la ciudad de Panamá.

 

Indigenous Peoples Statement to UNPFII Expert Group Meeting: Dialogue on an optional protocol

Thursday, March 5th, 2015

“We cannot allow procedures that will allow for states to move disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources from international processes to domestic judicial and political forums.” *Tonya Gonella Frischner, Onondaga Nation*

Statement to the UNPFII Expert Group Meeting:
Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
28-29 January 2015, UN Headquarters
Presented by the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA)

*Current and Historical Context*

1. We recall that Indigenous Nations and Peoples came to the United Nations in 1977, in part to have our nation-to-nation treaties upheld by UN bodies. We note that some of those courageous leaders are still with us today and still fully engaged in the fight to have our treaties upheld. At the time, Indigenous Nations and Peoples felt that this international forum would be one place to ensure enforcement of treaties between our Indigenous Nations and other governments such as the United States and Canada.

2. We further recall the statement of Ms. Navi Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking at the time in her official position, on the central importance of treaties on August 7, 2013: “Even when signed or otherwise agreed more than a century ago, many treaties remain the cornerstone for the protection of the identity, land and customs
of indigenous peoples, determining the relationship they have with the State.” The statement marked the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples on August 9, 2013.1

3. With that current and historical context, we take note of the “Study on an optional protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples focusing on a voluntary mechanism” (E/C.19/2014/7)2 which was prepared by Permanent Forum members Professor Dalee S. Dorough and Professor Megan Davis for the Thirteenth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) with the Special
Theme: “Principles of Good Governance consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, articles 3 to 6 and 46,” held May 12-23, 2014 at UN Headquarters.

4. The Haudenosaunee intervention on ‘Principles of Good
Governance,’ delivered by Chief Oren Lyons (Onondaga Nation), under Agenda Item 3 at the Thirteenth Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) delivered on May 14, 2014 in paragraph 21, expressed the concern that a proposed optional protocol “*may allow procedures for states to move disputes regarding lands, territories and resources from
international processes to domestic judicial and political forums*.

5. We take note that the upcoming Fourteenth Session of the UNPFII to take place April 20- May 1, 2015 at UN Headquarters lists as its proposed Agenda Item 5: Half-day discussion on the expert group meeting on the theme “Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People”. We encourage this to be an
open dialogue on the various proposals and drawbacks for an optional protocol, considering these proposals from all angles, and including the “full, equal, and effective participation” of Indigenous Peoples.

*Full, Equal, and Effective Participation*

6. A separate but related issue under consideration at this Expert Group Meeting is the proposal to revise EMRIP’s mandate, which emerged from the negotiations of the HLPM/WCIP Outcome Document. Paragraph 28 of the Outcome Document of the HLPM/WCIP states: “We invite the Human Rights Council, taking into account the views of indigenous peoples, to review the
mandates of its existing mechanisms, in particular the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, during the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, with a view to modifying and improving the Expert Mechanism so that it can more effectively promote respect and the enforcement of the Declaration, including by better assisting Member States
to monitor, evaluate and improve the achievement of the ends of the Declaration.”

7. We note the HLPM/WCIP process arose between the annual sessions of the UNPFII. As a result, the proposed revision of EMRIP has not had the benefit of the full, equal, and effective participation by Indigenous Peoples. We are concerned that an essential Indigenous mechanism within the
UN system is being revised without the full participation of Indigenous Peoples. *We are concerned that a lack of full, equal, and effective participation is the new norm within the UN system*.

8. This lack of full, equal and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples contradicts the Modalities Resolution of the HLPM/WCIP and UNDRIP Articles 3, 18, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38 42 43 and 46. The full, equal, and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples is a clearly established requirement.

*Areas of Concern*

9. We acknowledge and appreciate all the papers submitted to this Expert Group Meeting by each expert and we have carefully reviewed each paper. We share the view as was laid out in the initial “Study on an optional protocol” and in some of the subsequent expert papers submitted for this Expert Group Meeting, that an implementation gap exists for the
UNDRIP. We also share the view that there is a lack of adequate knowledge and understanding of the UNDRIP. Part of AILA’s work since the adoption of the UNDRIP in 2007 has been to continually educate on its content and advocate for its implementation on local, continental and global levels.

10. We continue to be concerned about the desire for UN Member States to ‘domesticate’ our rights, rather than maintain relations with Indigenous Nations and Peoples in the international arena, on a nation-to-nation basis, which was the original purpose of Indigenous Nations and Peoples in coming to the UN. It should be duly noted that international law supersedes domestic law. We are concerned about moving disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources to an optional protocol, which would rely on governments to do the right thing and ratify this optional protocol.

11. We find a few proposals, presented in the expert paper submitted by Professor Mattias Åhrén to the Expert Group Meeting, relating to a possible new role for EMRIP to be particularly troubling.

12. The suggestion that only Indigenous Peoples recognized by states would be eligible to submit complaints to a new optional protocol body, is
in direct violation of the UNDRIP, our right to full, effective and equal
participation, and violates the right to self-determination. This is non-negotiable. We have been fighting against the perception that states
decide who is or is not Indigenous for hundreds of years.

13. A six month time limitation to raise human rights issues in international fora after exhausting domestic options is damaging and overly burdensome for our Peoples. We are unclear who determines what rights could be deemed principally important.

14. As we all know, UNDRIP was the result of an over twenty year negotiation process and sets the minimum standards for the “survival,dignity and well-being” of Indigenous Peoples around the world. Article 43 of the UNDRIP states: “The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples of
the world.” It has been established that the UNDRIP, along with the UN Charter, the human rights covenants and other applicable international human rights laws must be the basis for discussing the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP has a strong norm setting role in international law, and member states cannot pick and choose when and which Articles they comply with of UNDRIP. Additionally, for Indigenous Nations
and Peoples, our treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements are the basis for the protection of our lands, territories and resources.

15. This proposed new role for EMRIP could lead to a claim of a ‘duplication of work within the UN system.’ We were happy to see that the original “Study on an optional protocol” stressed that “a voluntary mechanism cannot serve as a way for States to avoid being monitored by existing international or regional human rights bodies and mechanisms” (paragraph 40).

16. The work of the UNPFII is of paramount importance within the UN system. The American Indian Law Alliance, and the Nations and communities we serve, have always supported and continue to support the work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Our Founder and President, Tonya
Gonnella Frichner, Esq. (Onondaga Nation), served as the North American Regional Representative to the UNPFII for a three year term from 2008-2011, brought forward by Indigenous Peoples. As a result of that role, she has direct experience and participated first-hand in the indispensable work of the Forum.

17. Indigenous Peoples have a voice and we must be recognized as our own experts in any forum concerning us.

*Recommendations:*

1. We cannot allow procedures that will allow for states to move disputes regarding our rights to our lands, territories and resources from international processes to domestic judicial and political forums.

2. In line with established international law, the UNDRIP, the UN Charter, and all other applicable international law must be the framework for the realization of the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples, including Article 37 of the UNDRIP:

1. 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.

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

*3. All deliberations* concerning a proposed optional protocol for the UNDRIP, including any proposed overhaul of the mandate of EMRIP *must include the full, effective, equal participation of all Indigenous Peoples in line with the UNDRIP*.

4. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is an integral, international human rights instrument that recognizes the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right of self-determination, must be continually implemented on all levels. Further education on the content of UNDRIP is needed for
Indigenous Nations and Peoples, UN member states, UN agencies, civil society, governments at all levels and society at large. Adequate financial resources must be made available to further these goals.

Docip VIDEO: Bridge to the Future / Un Puente al Futuro / Un pont vers l’avenir / МОСТ В БУДУЩЕЕ

Sunday, February 1st, 2015

Published on youtube May 6, 2014 by DOCIP
VIDEO: Bridge to the Future / Un Puente al Futuro / Un pont vers l’avenir / МОСТ В БУДУЩЕЕ

Indigenous Youth document the achievements of the First Indigenous Peoples’ delegates at the United Nations / La juventud indígena documenta los logros de los primeros delegados de los Pueblos Indígenas en las Naciones Unidas / La jeunesse autochtone documente les succès des premiers délégués des peuples autochtones à l’ONU / Молодежь из числа коренного населения запечатляет достижения первых делегатов от коренных народов в Организации Объединенных Наций

Indigenous Peoples: REPORT CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Sunday, February 1st, 2015

REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
In regard to the
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW CONCERNING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Second Cycle-22nd Session
April-May 2015, Geneva, Switzerland

Submitted by Indigenous World Association (IWA) an ECOSOC NGO and the Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment
This Report is submitted by the Indigenous World Association (IWA), an ECOSOC accredited NGO, together with the Laguna-Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment (LACSE). LACSE, an organization of Laguna Pueblo and Acoma Pueblo residents, in New Mexico, USA, is committed to addressing uranium mining legacy issues, including protection of sacred areas, affecting both indigenous nations, and is a member of the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment (MASE, masecoalition.org)., which addresses issues of environmental justice related to uranium mining in the Grants uranium belt in Northwestern New Mexico.

Summary

Despite the 2010 statement in support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by the United States, the United States has failed to provide meaningful implementation of the rights contained in the UNDRIP. Perhaps in response to the calls by this body in the last UPR cycle in March 2010, as well as that of other UN Human bodies, the United States issued a statement in support of the UNDRIP in December 2010. However the United States continues to insist that the UNDRIP is “a non-binding, aspirational document” and renders the UNDRIP ineffective through federal, state and local actions that deny indigenous peoples the exercise of rights contained in the ICCPR, the ICERD, and the UNDRIP.

This report addresses the United States’ failure to provide substantive protection for sacred areas and landscapes, in the face of recommendations by the Human Rights Committee in the 2014 ICCPR review, by the CERD committee in the 2014 CERD Review, and by several UN special rapporteurs. Related to these rights are those impacted by extractive activities that impact sacred areas and discriminatorily deprive indigenous communities of essential human rights such as the right to free prior and informed consent and rights related to religion and culture.

1. Mt. Taylor (“Kaaweesthiimaa” in the Acoma language, “Tsibiinaa” in the Laguna language), a sacred landscape and area to Acoma, Laguna, and other Indigenous Nations in the region, is under threat of irreparable harm should proposed uranium mining by Roca Honda Resources, LLC, and others proceed in the area. Despite the recognition of this area as a traditional cultural property under federal and state law, the United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States government, has taken actions which substantively disregard United States obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), especially rights with regard to property, health, and participation in cultural activities provided in Article 5 of the ICERD. Despite the Recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “CERD”) in 2008, to ensure that activities carried out in areas of spiritual and cultural significance to Native Americans do not have a negative impact on the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention, the United States has failed to observe its human rights obligations in this situation.

2. Current federal law purporting to provide protection for cultural rights, and policy on consultation in cases affecting protection of cultural rights, including Executive Orders, have provided no substantive protection for cultural rights. Both the federal and state governments are responsible permitting agencies for mining activities. However, the United States has not taken sufficient steps to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure a coordinated approach towards the implementation of the Convention at the federal, state and local levels, which are all implicated in the case of Mt. Taylor.

3. The United States Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department have failed to clean up 97 abandoned uranium mines and 5 former mills in the Grants Mining District in New Mexico after 30 plus years. This includes the Homestake-Barrick Gold mill site now a U.S. Superfund site.

4. The United States Department of Agriculture, and its subsidiary the United States Forest Service, is seeking to permit new uranium mining which will irreparably impact the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property. The free prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples impacted, including Laguna Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Zuni Tribe and Navajo Nation has not been fully obtained for new proposed uranium mining at Mt. Taylor, which is within the aboriginal lands of these indigenous peoples in New Mexico. obtained.

5. Human rights violations of affected indigenous people in New Mexico have been presented in reports to the Human Rights Committee in the United States Review under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to the CERD Committee as part of the United States review under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) during 2014. In both reviews, the United Nations monitoring committees issued conclusions and recommendations regarding protection of sacred places and the need to provide free, prior and informed consent especially in cases regarding extractive activities.

6. The United States has failed to implement existing laws in a manner that fully implements the rights contained in the UNDRIP, including access to sacred sites and cultural rights. These laws include the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000 bbl), and the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) It also violates Executive Order 13007, which directs federal agencies to “accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practioners.”

7. The United is ignoring established federal laws and policies protecting indigenous sacred sites when it permits new extractive mining. Specifically it ignores Cite: See Shadow Reports referenced herein and submitted to ICCPR and CERD. See also, Letter of Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, dated June 13, 2013, pp. 5-7.

8. The United States continues to apply discriminatory laws, such as the General Mining Act of 1872, the 1897 Organic Act, and the 1955 Multiple Use Mining Act, all of which preference mining activities over cultural practices on public land.

9. The United States has so far failed to educate federal agencies, state agencies, and local governments on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The UPR Working Group, in the first UPR cycle for the United States, urged the United States to incorporate human rights training and education in their public policies.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That the United States follow the recommendation of several human rights bodies and establish a National Human Rights institution.
2. That the United States fully implement the UNDRIP.
3. That the United States undertake a comprehensive review of domestic laws and policies, which some U.S. and state agencies interpret to privilege extractive activities over the rights of indigenous peoples, and bring them into compliance with international human rights standards.
4. That the United States adopt effective measures to protect cultural landscapes and sacred areas of indigenous peoples against desecration, contamination and destruction and ensure that consultations are held with the communities that might be adversely affected by State party’s development projects and exploitation of natural resources with a view to obtaining their free, prior and informed consent for the potential project activities.
5. Recommend that the United States take steps to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure a coordinated approach towards the implementation of the Convention at the federal, state and local levels.”

Panel finds corporations, United Nations and governments guilty of violating nature’s rights

Saturday, December 13th, 2014

By Indigenous Environmental Network.

Lima, Peru (Dec. 7, 2014)– The International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature judged twelve international and domestic cases; examining the violation of the rights of peoples and nature committed by corporations, The United Nations, and governmental entities. The judgments reference the legal framework of the Rights of Nature and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. The cases were reviewed on Dec. 5th and 6th in Lima’s Gran Hotel Bolivar.

According to Alberto Acosta, president of the Tribunal and former president of the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador, the rights of nature must have a universal validity. “This ethical tribunal arises when States fail to fulfill their obligation to preserve the lives of living beings,” said Acosta. “As long as nature is seen as property in law, there can be no justice for communities, the climate or nature.”

Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases

The Tribunal was dedicated to Shuar leader, José Tendentza, who was found murdered just days before the Tribunal. Tendentza of Southern Ecuador was scheduled to present the Condor Mine case. Acosta led the 13 judges through 12 cases that were determined by the judges to demonstrate egregious violations to rights of nature and human rights. Cases included:

-False Solutions related to Climate Change and REDD+;
-Peruvian cases: Conga Mine, Bagua Massacre – Defenders of Earth, 4 River Basins of Peru;
-Ecuadorian cases: Condor Mine, Chevron/Texaco, and Yasuni ITT
Brazil: Belo Monte Dam
-USA and Bolivia: Hydraulic fracturing “fracking”
-Oceans: BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, coal mine and other threats to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Of the cases, the oil exploitation of the Yasuni territory of Ecuador was condemned in addition to the relentless persecution Yasunidos are facing for their dissent. Since 2013, the Ecuadorian government green-lighted oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, one of the most biodiverse areas in the world and home to two indigenous nations in voluntary isolation.

In protest, a group of young Yasunidos joined together to claim the rights of nature, which are guaranteed in the Constitution of Ecuador. They collected more than 800,000 signatures to call for a referendum on the oil exploitation, but their request was rejected by electoral institutions. The Yasunidos are now suing the Ecuadorian government, led by President Rafael Correa, and are waiting for their complaint to be reviewed by the tribunal of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CIDH).

Additionally, the Tribunal for the Rights of Nature found Chevron-Texaco in Ecuador to be guilty of using inappropriate technology and causing irreversible damage to the environment. They determined that the corporation must fully compensate those affected by the environmental impact.

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

The case of the mining project in the Cordillera del Condor was found by the Tribunal to be in direct violation of the rights of nature. They determined that mining must be suspended and those affected must be compensated. They urge the state to investigate and punish those responsible for the death of José Tendentza, the prominent social activist that was in opposition to the mining.

A widow of one of the four murdered activists shares her testimony

The Peruvian cases of Conga and Bagua were accepted as threats of violation to the rights of nature. An international special commission was appointed to visit the impacted Amazonian basins to collect more information on the contamination.

Shannon Biggs, director of Movement Rights, shared testimony on the impacts of fracking , a process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth. “You cannot do safe fracking,” said Biggs. “This technique should have never been invented. It is one of the most destructive activities against the environment ever seen.”

According to Biggs, 800,000 active oil and gas wells are being fracked in the United States, producing roughly 300,000 natural gas barrels per day. Severe water pollution and earthquakes have been linked with fracking. “We die from fracking. The population is suffering from cancer; my sister has died,” said Casey Camp-Horinek (Ponca) of Oklahoma in her testimony. “The water is contaminated; we cannot fish. We are in danger of extinction.”

Plans to develop large-scale hydraulic fracking in Bolivia were reported by Martin Vilela of Platform Climate Reaction. In recent years the country has increased the production and export of natural gas. 82.4% of its production is exported, generating more than six billion dollars a year. Bolivia has 8.23 trillion cubic feet of gas, and YPFB plans to invest over 40 million dollars between 2013 and 2015. Vilela explained that in 2013 this corporation signed an agreement for fracking in the Chaco area, a region with water scarcity to extract 48 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Estimates determine that this would consume between 112 and 335 billion liters of water.

Nnimmo Bassey, a Nigerian architect, environmental activist presented on the contamination and temperature rise affecting Nigeria. According to Bassey, oil fields and pipelines have caused deep environmental degradation, deforestation, and countless oil spills. Life expectancy in these impacted areas is 44 years.

Bassey warned that climate change will have catastrophic consequences. “For every degree the temperature rises globally, in Africa it will rise an additional 50%.” In 2012 floods in Nigeria led to the relocation of 6 million inhabitants. Bassey speculates that in 2030 Africa violent conflicts will increase by 54% due to the lack of access to natural resources.

At the hearing on “false climate solutions,” geoengineering techniques that seek to manipulate climate without changing the conditions that cause climate change were reviewed.

REDD+ was also put on trial. President of the Huni Kui people of Acre, Brazil, Ninawa Kaxinawá (Hunikui) testified that “REDD is a lie. We do not accept putting nature on market because it is our soul and spirit; it is priceless, it is our voice.”

According to Ruth Nyambura, of the Biodiversity Network Africa, says that in Kenya, evictions are occurring as a result of REDD. “Four indigenous people were arrested,” said Nyambura. “A woman was hit by the forest service because she was outside of her land.”

The Tribunal is calling for a special hearing in Paris in 2015 to coincide with the upcoming UN COP 21 summit.

This Greenpeace Stunt May Have Irreparably Damaged Peru’s Nazca Site

Saturday, December 13th, 2014

By George Dvorsky

The Peruvian government is planning to file criminal charges against Greenpeace activists who may have permanently scarred the Nazca Lines World Heritage Site during a publicity stunt.

As The Guardian reports, the Nazca lines “are huge figures depicting living creatures, stylized plants and imaginary figures scratched on the surface of the ground between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago.” The figures, which can only be seen from the air, are believed to have had ritual functions related to astronomy.

The ground around the site is so sensitive and so sacred that Peru has even forbidden presidents and top officials to walk where the Greenpeace activists went. Peru’s Deputy Culture Minister told the BBC: “You walk there, and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years.” Tourists generally get to see the site from the air, or, on rare occasions, are equipped with special foot gear.

“They are absolutely fragile. They are black rocks on a white background. You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years,” said the minister. “And the line that they have destroyed is the most visible and most recognized of all.”

Several Greenpeace activists entered into the prohibited area beside the figure of a hummingbird where they laid big yellow cloth letters reading: “Time for Change! The Future is Renewable.” They were also sure to leave a signature. The message was intended for delegates from 190 countries at the UN climate talks being held in Lima.

Peru is planning to file criminal charges against the activists before they leave the country.

Yesterday, Greenpeace apologized for the stunt, saying it was sorry if the protest at the historical site on Monday caused an “moral offense” to the Peruvian people. The environmental activist group said it would collaborate with the government to determine if any damage was done to the site, and that it would stop using photos of the protest in its campaigns. Greenpeace is also sending its Executive Director Kumi Naidoo to Lima to apologize in person to the Peruvian government.

About NAIPC and the High Level Plenary Meeting, which is not a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples

Thursday, April 10th, 2014
What the US Is Likely to Contribute to the UN HLPM State-Outcome Document

In September 2014 a United Nations High Level Plenary Meeting of the U.N. General Assembly is scheduled to meet at the United Nations headquarters in New York. The High Level meeting, that is falsely being labeled a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, will focus on nations and peoples which the U.N. system typically calls “indigenous.” By the end of the High Level Plenary meeting, the state governments are scheduled to produce an entirely state-constructed outcome document about how they will implement the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Within the structure of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, there are seven caucus regions of the world for Peoples termed “indigenous.” On March 1-2, the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus met and reached a consensus position to call for a cancellation of the U.N. HLPM “to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.”

On March 10 the U.S. Department of State held a “scoping session” with a number of other Indian people, most of whom did not attend the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus gathering in the Secwépemc Nation Territory in Kamloops, British Columbia. Most of the “scoping session” crowd expressed strong support for the convening of the U.N. HLPM and requested U.S. government support for “tribal nations” to gain a “dignified” status somewhere within the U.N. system so that they can take their “issues and concerns” to the United Nations.

Ironically, the vast majority of issues and concerns that the “scoping session” Indian attendees want to take to the United Nation have to do with the various ways that their nations and peoples have been, and continue to be, abused by the laws and policies of the United States, the very same United States government whose support they are seeking to find a status other than Non-Governmental Organization, in the U.N. system.

Most troubling about the March 10 U.S. State Department “scoping session” was that not one person attending the 90 minute meeting mentioned the upcoming U.N. HLPM state-outcome document. The fact that no one was focused on this most important part of the HLPM is deeply troubling. It demonstrates that those Indian leaders and Indian organizations that are strongly supporting the U.N. HLPM, and who say they want to be participants, seem oblivious to the high stakes involved in a negative state-outcome document, the drafting of which they are likely to be excluded from. Only 30 or fewer Indigenous Peoples’ representatives, out of some 370 million indigenous people worldwide, are scheduled to be allowed in the room during the “informal” phase of the drafting.

Regarding the likely United States’ role in the drafting of the HLPM state-outcome document, it is instructional to take language from the U.S.’ 2010 statement “supporting” the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.S. is not going to contradict what it has previously and officially said regarding its interpretation of the U.N. Declaration. One lie by the United States is particularly egregious regarding the right of self-determination. As the U.S. State Department said in its 2010 statement:

The United States is therefore pleased to support the Declaration’s call to promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration’s call is to promote the development of a concept of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples that is different from the existing right of self-determination in international law.

The United States has falsely stated, as its official position, the view that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes a “call” for developing “a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to Indigenous Peoples.” The document makes no such “call.” We must therefore assume that the U.S. will take every opportunity to advance this false position at any meetings it attends regarding the drafting of the HLPM state-outcome document. According to the United States, the U.N. Declaration calls for “the development” of “a concept of self-determination for Indigenous Peoples that is” not the same as the already “existing right of self-determination in international law.” The U.N. HLPM is a framework for working on “the development” of such a new concept of self-determination which the U.S. says does not yet exist in international law, but that it “supports.”

What will be the basis for the U.S.’ view of self-determination for those peoples the U.N. calls “indigenous?” It is the form of “self-determination” that the U.S. says is already existing in the context of U.S. federal Indian law and policy. The U.S. government said this in its December 2010 position: “For the United States, the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers of self-governance.” The U.S. is saying that all the U.N. Declaration is ever going to provide you with is what has already been concocted by the U.S. in the context of its federal Indian law and policy.

In other words, the United States is using the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a means of having its U.S. domestic self-determination policy framework, i.e. 638 contracting for goods and services, and the existing framework of U.S. federal Indian law and policy, recognized internationally at the United Nations. For as the U.S. government further said in 2010:

This [federal] recognition of [federally recognized Indian tribes] is the basis for the special legal and political relationship, including the government-to-government relationship, established between the United States and federally recognized tribes, pursuant to which the United States supports, protects, and promotes tribal governmental authority over a broad range of internal and territorial affairs, including membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, social welfare, community and public safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resource management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous governmental functions.

Whatever one’s opinion of 638 contracting under the U.S. Indian Self-Determination Act, one point is clear: it is not the same as, and is dramatically inferior to, the international legal right to self-determination.

Two years ago, at an Indian leadership gathering I was interrupted as I was explaining the U.S.’ interpretation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This person said rather impatiently, “You know you can’t let the United States interpret the Declaration.” Sorry, but “news flash”: the U.S. has already begun interpreting the U.N. Declaration, and we’d better wake up and pay attention. To support the U.N. HLPM erroneously “to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples,” is to support the U.S.’ effort to advance its false and self-serving interpretation in the form of a negative U.N. General Assembly State-Outcome Document. The foreseeable negative potential at the hands of the U.S. and its allies, is why NAIPC has called for the cancellation of the HLPM.

—————-

Watch and hear what the US was saying when the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted at the Human Rights Council: WATCH VIDEO