Cultural Survival Quarterly 39-2

Cultural Survival Q

U

A

R

T

E

R

Standing Strong from the Ground

Vol. 39, Issue 2 • June 2015 US $4.99/CAN $6.99

L

Y

J une 2015 V olum e 39 , Issue 2 Board of Directors President

Sarah Fuller vice president

Duane Champagne (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa) Treasurer

Steven Heim

F e at u r e s

10 Breaking Barriers: International Indigenous Women’s Forum (FIMI)

Clerk

Nicole Friederichs Evelyn Arce (Chibcha) Alison Bernstein Joseph Goko Mutangah Laura Graham Jean Jackson Lesley Kabotie (Crow) Pia Maybury-Lewis Stephen Marks Stella Tamang (Tamang) Che Philip Wilson (Nga-ti Rangi) FOUNDERS David & Pia Maybury-Lewis Cultural Survival Headquarters 2067 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02140 t 617.441.5400 f 617.441.5417 www.cs.org Boulder Office 2769 Iris Ave., Suite 101 Boulder, CO 80304 Guatemala Office Calle Candelaria #5ª, Antigua, Guatemala Cultural Survival Quarterly

Copy Editor: Jenn Goodman Designer: NonprofitDesign.com Contributing Arts Editor: Phoebe Farris Managing Editor: Agnes Portalewska Copyright 2015 by Cultural Survival, Inc. Cultural Survival Quarterly (ISSN 0740-3291) is published quarterly by Cultural Survival, Inc. at PO Box 381569, Cambridge, MA 02238. Periodical postage paid at Boston, MA 02205 and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Cultural Survival, PO Box 381569, Cambridge, MA 02238. Printed on recycled paper in the U.S.A. Please note that the views in this magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Cultural Survival.

Writers’ Guidelines

View writers’ guidelines at our website (www.cs.org) or send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to: Cultural Survival, Writer’s Guidelines, PO Box 381569, Cambridge, MA 02238.

Cultural Survival recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have long been exploited by photographers and publications. This publication does not pay photographers for images and makes no money from publishing them. We also make a tremendous effort to identify every Indigenous individual in the images that appear here. From time to time, however, such identification is not possible. We apologize to the subjects of those photos and to any reader offended by the omission.

On the cover Nihígaal Bee Iiná. Young Diné (Navajo) walkers walking for clean air, water, viable lifeways, and to honor the legacy of their ancestors ii • 17). www. cs.by org (see page Photo Orlando Begay.

A delegation of Indigenous women participate at the 59th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

12 Maya Land Rights

The closure of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia prompts a global call to action (see page 14). Photo courtesy of Ingetje Tadros.

Danielle DeLuca

The Caribbean Court of Justice reaffirmed that the Maya people of southern Belize have rights to lands they have customarily used and occupied.

14 #SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA

D e pa r t m e n t s

Sam Cook

Activists call for global support to stop the forced closure of Aboriginal communities in Australia.

1 Executive Director’s Message

16 Nihígaal Bee Iiná: A Movement in Motion

2 In the News

Febna Reheem Caven

A group of Navajo walkers cover 200 miles in 26 days on a journey to reclaim the motherland.

4 Indigenous Arts An Interview with Maia Nuku

18 The Misappropriation of “Ka Mate”

Brendan Kennedy Unsanctioned performances of “Ka Mate,” a sacred, culturally protected rite of Aotearoa’s Nga–ti Toa tribe, must end.

20 Is an Optional Protocol Required in Relation to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

S. James Anaya

The question of whether a new international mechanism should be created to address the implementation gap in the Declaration.

22 Fast Track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership: What It Means for Indigenous Peoples CS Staff

Closed door negotiations of an opaque “free trade” agreement pose a grave threat to Indigenous Peoples in a dozen nations.

24 Construction of Nicaragua Canal Threatens Indigenous Lives and Livelihoods

Madeline McGill

A canal project linking the Caribbean to the Pacific promises environmental and human rights abuses to Nicaragua’s Indigenous communities.

6 Rights in Action Justice is Served: Achuar Celebrate Victory Over Occidental Petroleum

8 Women the World Must Hear Mainstreaming Indigenous Rights: Victoria Tauli-Corpuz 26 Indigenous Rights Radio 27 Bazaar Artist Elizabeth James-Perry 29 Get Involved

How to Maximize Your Effectiveness After the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

E xecut iv e Di rector’ S messa ge

Standing Strong from the Ground

W

hile many of us have grown up in our respective Indigenous communities, we also participate in the international discussions and forums convened to address the issues of Indigenous Peoples, which means our work often spans a complexity of spaces and challenges. I firmly believe that we must affirm our conviction, position, and representation by listening to the voices on the ground —those voices of our elders, parents, children, spiritual leaders, and leaders who are in the communities we come from. As Indigenous Peoples our advocacy ranges from the very local community level to the policy level in which international forums such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are convened. What constitutes advocacy actions at each level is distinctly different, but all levels join in common cause, struggle, and self-determination to achieve the recognition and fulfillment of our rights to lands and territories, resources, languages and cultures, and all rights outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is crucial that local or grassroots activism in Indigenous communities be visible and heard by all.

In this issue of the CSQ, “Nihígaal béé Íina” is a movement in which Navajo activists standing strong on the ground walk through communities in the Navajo Nation, building a platform of solidarity and collective voice among their people over the compounding socioeconomic and cultural concerns for environmental and resource degradation, development and sustainability, and cultural continuity. In Australia, another resistance movement was built strong from the ground using social media as a resistance platform to counter the forced closure of 150 Aboriginal communities

by the Australian government. The movement’s resulting growth was exponential; as Sam Cook describes, within five days, “every state and territory had mobilized, with 30 known community rallies of up to 30,000 people marching in the streets from remote communities, small regional towns, major cities and the capitals of Australia.”

In the same vein, by standing strong on the ground, the Achuar people of the Peruvian Amazon set an important legal precedent for Indigenous communities with their victory over the US-based corporation Occidental Petroleum, which has dumped toxic substances into rivers and caused hundreds of oil spills destroying hunting and fishing grounds and threatening the Achuar way of life. The Maya standing strong on the ground in Belize have also used the legal system to achieve a groundbreaking victory; the Caribbean Court of Justice reaffirmed that the 38 Q’eqchi and Mopan Maya Indigenous communities of southern Belize have rights to the lands they have customarily used and occupied, setting another important precedent in international law.

We must recognize and acknowledge the various spheres of social movements, from grassroots activism to legal action to international policy pressure. Our work is to make visible and illuminate the voices of Indigenous Peoples across these various spheres and to build the bridges necessary between them to realize and fulfill the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We must always stand strong from the ground.

Donors like you make our work around the world possible. Thanks so much for being part of Cultural Survival.

Cultural Survival Staff Suzanne Benally (Navajo and Santa Clara Tewa), Executive Director Mark Camp, Deputy Executive Director Kaimana Barcarse (Native Hawaiian), Indigenous Rights Radio Producer Ingrid Sub Cuc (Kaqchikel/Q’eqchi), Communications Assistant Jessie Cherofsky, Production Coordinator, Indigenous Rights Radio Danielle DeLuca, Program Manager, Advocacy Program and Distribution Coordinator, Indigenous Rights Radio David Michael Favreau, Bazaar Program Manager Sofia Flynn, Accounting & Office Manager Maria del Rosario “Rosy” Sul González (Kaqchikel), Indigenous Rights Radio Producer Jamie Malcolm-Brown, Communications & Information Technology Manager Cesar Gomez Moscut (Pocomam), Content Production & Training Coordinator, Community Media Program Agnes Portalewska, Communications Manager Angelica Rao, Executive Coordinator Alberto “Tino” Recinos (Mam),Citizen Participation Coordinator, Community Media Program Miranda Vitello, Development Associate Ancelmo Xunic (Kaqchikel), Community Media Program Manager

Sobreviviencia Cultural STAFF (Our Sister Organization in Guatemala) Elsa Chiquita de Pacache (Kaqchikel), Radio Producer, Community Media Program Ingrid Sub Cuc (Kaqchikel/Q’eqchi), Community Media Program Assistant Oscar Armando Xunic Rocal (Kaqchikel), Accountant

INTERNS AND VOLUNTEERS Gabriella Aguilar, Asia Alsgaard, Cori Baer, Don Butler, Febna Caven, Andrea Garza Erdmann, Alex Glomset, Brianna Gomez, Stephanie Guthridge, Madeline McGill, Carley Minkler, Ahalia Persaud, Shaina Semiatin, Kristen Williams

There are so many ways to Suzanne Benally, Executive Director (Navajo and Santa Clara Tewa)

S ta y connected www.cs.org facebook.com/culturalsurvival twitter: @CSORG culturalsurvival@cs.org

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 1

i n t he new s Ngäbe protesters blockade the Pan-American Highway in February 2012 in opposition to a proposed mining law that would open their traditional lands to mining and hydroelectric development.

Canada: Creighton No Longer Possible Site for Nuclear Waste Housing March 2015

Peru: Alto Tamaya-Saweto Community Gain Title to Native Land February 2015

The Alto Tamaya-Saweto community of Peru’s Amazon was granted legal ownership to approximately 780 square kilometers of forested territory following an ownership claim to the area since 2003, making them the second community in the Ucayali region to receive their land title. The success comes shortly after the assassination of their four leaders by illegal loggers.

In total, 488 Native communities in 10 regions are awaiting titles to their land.

US: Shell Ends Pierre River Mine Project February 2015

On February 23, the day before President Barack Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill, Shell Oil Company ended the Pierre River mine project, the largest of its kind in the Alberta oil sands.

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation communities had protested the project, which would have mined 21 kilometers of the Muskeg River and destroyed both cultural and environmental heritage.

The Jackpine mining project, also under protest, may be expanded as a result.

Panama: Barro Blanco Dam Suspended February 2015

Despite being almost complete, the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Dam was suspended by the Panama National Environmental Authority. The decision 2 • www. cs. org

was prompted by non-compliance in the project’s environmental impact assessment. The hydroelectric dam construction, while not built on ancestral land, threatens to flood the farming land of the Ngäbe Buglé people and potentially impact water and fishing access during the rainy season.

Canada: Court Reaffirms First Nation Treaty Rights March 2015

Twenty of twenty-two counts against the Batchewana First Nation in the Gargantua Harbour trial have been dismissed, reaffirming First Nation Treaty Rights and setting up the likelihood of affirmation of these rights in Provincial Court. At issue were access rights to the Gargantua Harbour between the Batchewana First Nation and the Lake Superior Provincial Park.

Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization announced that Creighton, Saskatchewan will not be a long-term storage site for nuclear spent fuel bundles. The announcement came after four years of work by the Committee for Future Generations and other members of the Saskatchewan community.

Nine communities in Ontario still face the threat of becoming home to the nuclear waste.

Colombia: Ecopetrol Leaves U’wa Ancestral Territory March 2015

In January, Ecopetrol, one of Latin America’s largest corporations, finished pulling gas drilling machines off of Magallanes, part of U’wa ancestral territory, after fierce protest and opposition from the U’wa people and human rights organizations such as Amazon Watch. The U’wa also continue to fight against the Cano Limon-Covenas pipeline and other mining concessions on their reserve. Ecopetrol retains the license to operate in this region and has called the suspension temporary.

Australia: Closure of Aboriginal Communities Prompts Call to Action

US: Navajo Nation Files Petition Against US Government for Religious Violation

March 2015

March 2015

Kimberley, Western Australia Aboriginal communities are declaring a global call to action in response to the forced closure of Aboriginal communities. In November 2014, Colin Barnett, the premier of Western Australia, announced that 150 Aboriginal communities would be closed as the government would be no longer able to provide essential services. Indigenous leaders say no formal evaluation has occurred, and they are asking for national and international support as they defend their rights.

The Navajo Nation has filed a petition against the US government with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding the San Francisco Peaks after learning that the city of Flagstaff, Arizona replaced a five-year reclaimed wastewater renewal agreement with a 20-year agreement. The Navajo Nation says they were not consulted despite the effect the waste- water agreement would have on their rights to religion, as the agreement impacts a culturally sacred site.

Campaign Updates Belize: Our Life, Our Lands— Respect Maya Land Rights Maya Win Major Land Rights Victory in International Appeals Court The Caribbean Court of Justice, Belize’s highest appellate court, reaffirmed on April 21 that the Maya Indigenous People of southern Belize have rights to lands they have customarily used and occupied. The judgement requires the government to demarcate and register Maya village lands and protect them against incursions by outsiders. Maya land rights have been upheld twice before by Supreme Court rulings, once in 2009 and once in 2013. However, the pre- vious ruling did not recognize the need for the government of Belize to observe Maya land rights. As a result, the Toledo district appealed for the recognition of these rights and to end oil drilling in the area (see page 12).



Guatemala: We Are All Barillas—Stop a Dam on Our Sacred River!

Unlawful Arrests of Q’anjobal Maya Protesters Continue Rigoberto Juarez Mateo and Domingo Baltazar were arrested on March 24 while denouncing human rights violations against community leaders and radio journalists during the re-opening of the Snuq’ Jolom Konob community radio station. This followed the February 26 arrests of Fransisco Juan Pedra, Sotero Adalberto Villatoro Hernandez,



Cultural Survival’s advocacy program launches international campaigns in support of grassroots Indigenous movements as they put pressure on governments and corporations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of their communities.

and Arturo Pablo Juan, who were peacefully blockading a road leading to the Hydro Santa Cruz dam site. Since 2012, 15 Q’anjobal Maya activists from Huehuetenango have been arrested and illegally detained without evidence.

The Q’anjobal Maya community contests that these members have been falsely charged in order to disrupt protests against human rights violations and protests against the dam which was planned by Hydro Santa Cruz without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the local communities.

Ethiopia: Stop Land Grabbing and Restore Indigenous Peoples’ Lands World Bank Program Led to the Forced Relocation of 70,000 Indigenous People from Gambella In a leaked watchdog report, The World Bank’s internal investigation panel found an “operational link” between the World Bank funded program and the eviction of 70,000 Indigenous People from the Gambella region of Ethiopia. While these evictions were designed to be accompanied by access to basic necessities and minimum health standards, the new villages are not equipped with access to these essential needs. Past World Bank projects have been linked to forced relocation across Africa, such as the eviction of the Maasai from the Rift Valley in Kenya. The World Bank is currently soliciting feedback on how to improve on its environmental and social framework after a 2013 statement that efforts were needed to safeguard land rights and hold governments accountable. In 2014 a new Environmental



and Social Framework was established, but it failed to include the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and did not effectively prevent World Bank funding from resulting in the forced evictions of Indigenous Peoples.

Peru: Force Oil Company to Clean Up Spills Indigenous Protesters Occupy PlusPetrol Oil Wells Indigenous communities in Peru are occupying 14 oil wells in Lot 192, part of the traditional lands of the Quechua, Quichua, and Achuar peoples. Protesters have also blocked a nearby road as well as a section of a river, impeding boats loaded with food and supplies bound for Pluspetrol’s encampment. Pluspetrol has lost an estimated 3,000 barrels of oil per day since the protest’s start on January 24. The company’s operations have resulted in decades of contamination affecting the daily food and water supply. An environmental and health state of emergency were declared in the area by the State, but there has been little response from the national legal systems. The renewal process for Lot 192 is scheduled for completion in August 2015. It requires the consultation of Indigenous groups, but the Indigenous federations have declared they will not engage in a consultation for a new era of extraction until the previous 42 years of contamination have been cleaned up.



Take action at www.cs.org/ take-action. Read more news at www.cs.org/news.

Cultural Survival Survival Quarterly Quarterly Cultural

June June 2015 2015 •• 33

indi geno u s a rts

Maia Nuku, associate curator of Oceanic art, is the first Indigenous Pacific person ever to be appointed curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Photo courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The Pacific Takes Center Stage An Interview with Maia Nuku

Cristina Verán

T

here is a long, uneasy history between Indigenous Peoples and museums fraught with complexity.

Controversies abound concerning misappropriated artifacts, collection of human remains, the lack of accurate contemporary representations, as well as the scarcity of Indigenous voices within institutional leadership. But change is on the horizon. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has appointed Maia Nuku (Māori, iwi Ngai Tai) as the Associate Curator of Oceanic Art, the first Indigenous Pacific person ever in a curatorial position there. She spoke with Cultural Survival about her background, interests, and expectations for this exciting new role.

Cristina Verán: Please share with us a bit of your family history and what is was like to grow up within –ori community.

London’s small, but noteworthy Ma Maia Nuku: My mother Esther Kerr (Ngai Tai) came from

Torere, in the Bay of Plenty region of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

In 1958 she sailed on a ship called the Rangitoto to London, where she met and married my English father, Jeff Jessop. The small London Māori community would meet regularly at a

4 • www. cs. org

flat re-christened ‘Putney Pā’ (village) to share news, socialize, and sing songs together; informal beginnings of the cultural group now known as Ngati Ranana (Tribe of London.) They’ve hosted many visiting Māori delegations over the years from artists to bishops, politicians, war veterans, even opera singers, and today meet at the New Zealand High Commission.

That building, with its impressive pou ihi sculpture by artist Inia Te Wiata in the foyer, is steeped in the wairua (spirit) of all those who’ve passed through its doors. Growing up I spent a lot of time there in cultural practices and listening to whaikorero (oratory), and so Ngati Ranana helped ensure that, despite being this London kid, Māori culture was always familiar to me.

–ori How did you connect with Aotearoa, being Ma yet so raised far away from it?

Well, we visited as much as possible; especially Torere, where we visited Nana (Hera Mio) and went on hikoi with our uncle through the bush, learning about the native plants and their healing properties. Our whanau’s beautiful whenua (family land) hugs the East Coast, looking directly at volcanic Whakaari Island offshore. It is truly home for me and I’m tied to it.

How did your Oceania-focused career path take shape, half a world away from the Pacific?

My BA was in Modern Languages (Spanish/French) and, inspired by the poetry of Pablo Neruda, I spent a year studying in Chile. I delighted in this nation of artists who embraced their landscape, their environment, and the complexity of Chile’s history—including its relationship with the Pacific. Through a course on the art of Rapa Nui (Easter Island; part of Chile’s Valparaiso state) I learned about its checkered colonial past, becoming more aware of such disjunctures of history. Then, upon returning to the UK and wanting to work with art in some capacity, I got a job as a broker at Lloyd’s of London insuring fine art, museums, and travelling exhibitions.

Tell us about an exhibition or other relevant experiences that made strong impressions on you early on.

In 1998, Māori opened at the British Museum, for which Dame Te Atairangikaahu, the Māori Queen, was present.

In her delegation was distinguished orator and artist Selwyn Muru, who addressed the audience with some whaikorero (formal speeches) I found very inspiring. He had an impressive breadth of knowledge and interest in European art, life, and culture as well. One day he, myself, and another Māori artist named Brett Graham took a daytrip to Paris visiting the Louvre and Musée Zadkine. I found it so refreshing, seeing European art through their Māori eyes.

What about art from the Pacific region?

Elizabeth Ellis organized a photo exhibition called Moko: 19th Century Portrait Photographs of Māori, featuring large black and white portrait images taken back in the 1870s by photographer Samuel Carnell. The women in each photograph from the Ngati Kahungunu iwi (tribe) totally inhabited the frame in black taffeta and moiré-silk Victorian style bustle dresses, offset by the dark ink of their moko kauae (tattooed chin markings), dramatic white-tipped huia feathers in their hair, and greenstone hei tiki around their necks. Beautiful, so bold and confident; their eyes met mine.

Was it the aesthetic qualities or something more that drew your interest?

I was fascinated by the clash of cultures; an encounter between history and art, fixed in a single photographic moment while hinting at otherwise untold stories behind them. I had always been drawn to old photos, but these affected me differently, more personally, than any before.

What made you shift from being an audience member to actively engaging with art in your professional life?

Approaching the millennium, I followed my heart and headed back to Aotearoa to live on our whenua for a while. It was there that I finally began to inhabit myself.

I yearned to do something that would really speak to my passions, and returning to the UK, did two arts-focused Master’s degrees followed by some hands on experience around art collections—notably, with Steven Hooper and the Polynesian Visual Arts project at Sainsbury called Pacific Encounters: Art and Divinity in Polynesia 1760-1860. This was followed by two Cambridge post-docs, with the Artefacts of Encounter 1765-1840 and Pacific Presences: Oceanic Art in European Museums projects.

In 1984, The Met hosted a groundbreaking exhibition –ori. How would you reflect on its legacy called Te Ma there, today?

It was indeed historic. For the opening, hundreds of Māori people gathered on the museum’s front steps and, as they entered its grand halls, led the audience through formal Māori protocols of ceremony. It really began to change the landscape of museums in terms of possibilities, which my work will surely build upon.

At the museum, what challenges do you see your work being able to address with regard to its Oceanic collections?

A key challenge, given the encyclopedic scope of The Met’s collections, will be to raise the profile within the museum for Pacific art overall, which remains relatively obscure within the New York art scene to this day. Fortunately, as Associate Curator for Oceanic Art I oversee [the establishing] of public displays, curating exhibitions, researching and writing about the collection, hosting artist visits, and also engaging different publics within educational programs.

Will your efforts focus primarily on visual arts?

I’m actually very interested in theater, dance, really any type of performance, and will look to involve such artists in a variety of ways; through digital media, for example. I want to convey a range of voices and soundscapes within our collection without necessarily disturbing the current displays.

Who is a visual and/or performance artist you would be especially keen to work with?

Lemi Ponifasio, the renowned Samoan dancer and choreographer who founded and directs the Mau Dance Company of New Zealand, is one. Throughout his body of work, Ponifasio reminds that our traditions don’t belong to only a single moment of history; they must negotiate with modern life. Last November I saw Mau’s Birds with Sky-Mirrors at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and it was nothing short of exhilarating, pushing boundaries while managing to bring that traditional past hurtling into the present.

Arts patron Leonard Lauder’s recent $1 billion gift to The Met has spearheaded a move to increase its focus on contemporary art well beyond the classic works for which it is perhaps best known. Might this bring new –ori and other Indigenous Pacific opportunities for Ma artists?

The Met is indeed exploring the legacies of Modern and Contemporary art within the contexts of its global collections, more and more. Just prior to my appointment I worked on Multiple Modernisms: Twentieth-Century Artistic Modernisms in Global Perspective at Cambridge, which aims to reconfigure the accepted narrative of Modernism to include concurrent narratives—including of the Pacific—long relegated to its periphery. I definitely look forward to introducing lots of exciting contemporary Oceanic art to our audiences.

—Cristina Verán is an international Indigenous Peoples’ issues specialist, research consultant, communications strategist, and multimedia producer.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 5

r i ght s i n a ct io n

Justice is Served Achuar Celebrate Victory Over Occidental Petroleum

Left: Jefferson Vilchez, a community environmental monitor from Pampa Hermosa, at an oil spill in Jibaro. Photo courtesy of EarthRights International.

Right: Adolfina Garcia Sandi, one of the plaintiffs being interviewed at the press conference announcing the settlement in Lima. Photo by Jessie Adler.

Madeline McGill

B

ig oil companies are notorious for their interest in maximizing return for their shareholders, but for too long Indigenous people have been paying the cost. The impact of extractive industries on Indigenous lands is indisputable, and no amount of money can compensate for the destruction of human life and contamination of water, air, and land. This holds especially true for the Achuar people of the Peruvian Amazon. Since the 1970s, the US-based company Occidental Petroleum (“Oxy”) has operated and drilled on Achuar lands in the Corrientes River Basin. According to the NGO Amazon Watch, for over three decades Oxy cut costs by dumping nine billion gallons of “produced waters” directly into rivers. These so-called waters contained dangerous and toxic substances such as barium, lead, and arsenic. Together with hundreds of oil spills, Oxy succeeded in destroying hunting and fishing grounds and leaving the Achuar with severe health problems.

“Adults and local children have tested positive for dangerously high blood-lead levels,” Amazon Watch found. “Local residents cite countless tales of unexplained diseases, tumors, skin ailments and miscarriages from oil exposure. Fish and local game are not fit for consumption and fraught with contamination, and the soil is also no longer fit to produce agricultural crops on which the Achuar depend for subsistence.”

Oxy and other extractive industries threaten a way of life that the Achuar have enjoyed for thousands of years. The Amazon headwaters along the border of Peru and Ecuador, where the Achuar make their livelihood, are home to over 11,000 Indig-

6 • www. cs. org

enous people. Indigenous communities rely on the Corrientes, Pastaza, and Morona River basins for agriculture, hunting, and fishing. The rapid change that Oxy brought to this biodiverse land threatened not only the livelihood of these remote communities, but also the integrity of the Amazonian ecosystem itself.

“Before, we could just drink straight from the river; we could drink from any stream. But it’s not like that now,” a man from Antioquía told NGO EarthRights International. “Now it’s a four to five hour walk to get fresh water. We knew something was wrong, because the animals and the fish had been large before the companies got here. But now the fish are…very skinny. And when we gut the fish, the petroleum floods out.”

The Achuar, like many Indigenous Peoples, were tired of seeing their lands exploited for the benefit of foreign extractive companies, which often disregard international protocols and Indigenous autonomy in their practices. With the help of international NGOs and devoted activists, the Achuar took action against Oxy in the form of a legal suit against the company’s unlawful actions.

EarthRights International was a crucial force in this fight as an NGO whose mission aims to combine the power of law and the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment. In 2007, EarthRights and its co-counsel brought suit on behalf of 25 Indigenous Achuar plaintiffs from the Peruvian Amazon alleging egregious harm caused by the company. In its 2007 report A Legacy of Harm, EarthRights International and Amazon Watch chronicled the impact of the damage Oxy had wreaked upon the traditional lands

of Achuar communities, including Pampa Hermosa, Sauki, Antioquia, Jose Olaya, and Nueva Jerusalem, and found that Occidental Petroleum had not only acted irresponsibly, but illegally. It did not conduct its oilfield pollution prevention practices in a manner consistent with US regulations (where Oxy is based), nor with any regard to the internationallyguaranteed human rights of the Achuar people. Like many extractive corporations, it failed to seek or obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous communities in the area. “The company came and put lots of chemicals in [the river],” an Achuar community member told EarthRights International. “Animals that drank the water died. The company said that the petroleum doesn’t cause sickness, but they tricked us. The chemicals are in the animals in the bush that we eat.”

This case, Maynas Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum, set an important legal precedent for Indigenous communities.

Marissa Vahlsing, a member of EarthRights’ legal team, explained that the case also established several historical precedents; primarily it is one of the first times that communities have sought remuneration directly from a company implicated in environmental damage. “For whatever reason, it has been rare for communities to seek reparations against the company that caused the harm,” she stated. “One reason might be because human rights lawyers and Indigenous rights lawyers are more accustomed to using mechanisms that focus on state responsibility rather than on civil litigation strategies that target private actors. This case changed that model.”

The case went through a winding appeals process after initially being dismissed by the Federal District Court in Los Angeles in 2008 under the doctrine of “Forum Non Conveniens” (FNC), a judgement meaning that the case should be litigated in Peru. “In my experience, companies often seek to dismiss a case on FNC not because the courts in the other country are more convenient, but because they hope to make the action go away altogether,” Vahlsing said regarding the Court’s initial decision. “We have seen little evidence that few, if any, corporate accountability cases that are dismissed on FNC grounds from a US court are actually refiled in the country proposed by the defendant company.”

The Achuar plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the case should remain in the US. In December 2010 the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s earlier ruling, finding that the case should be tried in Los Angeles. After filing two petitions for a rehearing to the Ninth Circuit with no change in opinion, Oxy filed a petition for review with the US Supreme Court. On April 22, 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition: the case would remain in the District Court of Los Angeles. Ultimately the case never came to trial as the Achuar reached a settlement with Oxy. In 2015, EarthRights International announced that the parties confirmed a mutual settlement of the claims in the litigation.

While this case was never litigated, Vahlsing concludes that it represents a success for Indigenous communities everywhere. “Oxy will provide assistance to enable these five Achuar communities to carry out community development projects for their benefit,” she said. “In March 2015, we were pleased to announce the creation of FODAC, the Fondo de Desarollo de Alto Corrientes/Upper Corrientes Development Fund, a registered Peruvian nonprofit association designed,

Adolfina Garcia Sandi, one of the plaintiffs in her village, Jose Olaya.

Sandi believes the two children she lost were victims of contaminated drinking water. Photo by Valentina Stackl.

(L-R): Plaintiffs at Lima press conference Lima: Julio Maynas (son of lead plaintiff Thomas Maynas), Apu Pedro Arly of Sauki, Apu Abel of Jose Olaya, and Hector Garcia Maynas of Pampa Hermosa. Photo courtesy of EarthRights International.

managed, and run by the Achuar. Through FODAC, these five Achuar communities will receive and administer funds for community development projects, health projects, and education projects. We are excited and thrilled to see the Achuar in a position to carry out their own visions for the future of their communities through these projects.”

EarthRights International and Amazon Watch will continue to stand with Indigenous communities in this fight, but hope that Maynas v. Occidental sends an important message to extractive companies regarding the power of Indigenous voices. The case should serve as an inspiration to all Indigenous people seeking to defend their rights and territories. “For me, one of the most powerful aspects of the case was the extent to which the communities drove the process from the beginning to the end, and how they will continue define their own future through the projects they undertake with FODAC,” Vahlsing said. “From the moment EarthRights International joined this case, the Achuar were organized, they had clear goals, and they understood both the possibilities and limitations of litigation. We worked alongside them for nearly a decade to find ways to help them bring their experiences and lived histories before the courts, but the Achuar were the ones who sought out and fulfilled their own goals—not the lawyers.”

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 7

women th e wo r ld m u st hear

Mainstreaming Indigenous Rights Victoria Tauli-Corpuz

Cultural Survival spoke with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Igorot from The Philippines), former Cultural Survival board member, at January’s Expert Meeting of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.

Danielle DeLuca What are your priorities for the next year during your term of Special Rapporteur?

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz Well, basically I would like to focus on the issue of collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, which of course focuses on the issues of lands, territories, and resources, as well as the right to self-determination. When I made my report before the Human Rights Council and General Victoria Assembly, I said I’ll be putting a focus on economic, social, Tauli-Corpuz. and cultural rights in general.

Photo by Danielle DeLuca.

Are there any new directions you’d like to take the position as Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples? Any areas that [the previous Special Rapporteur] hadn’t gotten a chance to explore?

I don’t know if he hasn’t explored it, maybe but not as deeply as I would like to, but one of the issues I’d like to look into is investments; both public and private investments and the impact of this on Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The directions of economic development that most countries will take depends a lot on the investments that are coming into the country.

Of course if these are investments are in relation to extracting resources, it’s almost always sure that many of these resources are found in Indigenous Peoples’ territories. So it makes sense to go more deeply into the conditions upon which these investments are attracted: what are the benefits or incentives provided to [Indigenous Peoples]? Will this mean that the respect for human rights of Indigenous Peoples, like their land rights and Free, Prior and Informed Consent will be undermined?

Many governments would like to attract to these investments, so that’s one area I would like to look into. I would also look into the situation of Indigenous women and children. Former Special Rapporteurs Rodolfo Stavenhagen and James Anaya haven’t really done thematic study on that, so I will put a little stress on that as well.

What suggestions do you have for Indigenous communities on the best way to make use of your position? How do they invite you to visit their country to investigate their issues?

8 • www. cs. org

Several ways. First, of course, there’s the communication procedure that my mandate alIows, of which I can receive allegations of human rights violations from Indigenous Peoples from all parts of the world. I can communicate with the [accused] governments, asking more questions and can also put forward some recommendations on how to deal with such situations.

Another way is through country visits where I have to be officially invited by the government. This allows me to look into the situations of Indigenous Peoples in various parts of the country, but it also gives me the possibility of talking with the highest officials of the country, with which I will be able to communicate the issues of Indigenous Peoples. So if Indigenous Peoples want me to go to their country, first they should push the government to invite me. In cases where it’s very difficult, there are also other ways like more neutral institutions (academic institutions, for example) inviting me. That would allow me to have the face-to-face dialogues with Indigenous Peoples.

What is your assessment of the Outcome Document from the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples? Were you happy with the way it turned out?

I think so. It does capture a lot of the key issues that Indigenous Peoples have raised. I have been part of the process of the World Conference as an Indigenous leader myself, and in fact I chaired the Alta Conference where the global preparatory meeting took place. I must say that it didn’t capture everything we had in the Alta Outcome Document, but in general terms it did capture the most basic issues of Indigenous Peoples whether it is related to lands, to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, or the need to look more deeply into how the Declaration is being implemented. For us to be able get the states to commit to those is already one big step. The next step is to really raise awareness of Indigenous Peoples and decision makers on this Outcome Document and get the duty-bearers to really do what they need to do, as well as Indigenous Peoples to assert and demand what the governments have committed to implement the contents of the Outcome Document.

You have talked about different governments going through a Free, Prior and Informed Consent process, but not necessarily abiding by the way it was supposed to happen. Can you talk more about that and what an evaluating body might look like?

It is incumbent on governments to go through a genuine Free, Prior and Informed Consent process, but in my work as an activist, I’ve seen how the process of obtaining this consent is very much engineered or that the corporations are the ones given the bigger say on how to conduct Free, Prior and

UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, at a high level side event of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples during the 69th session of the UN General Assembly.

Photo by UN Women/Lauren Hermele.

Informed Consent. In the Philippines, for instance, the government doesn’t have any money allotted for the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples who are supposed to obtain FPIC. They allow the companies to pay for everything to be able to get that consent.

In most cases, the complaints that I receive is that FPIC was not obtained in the right way. There were people who were bribed, there were some tribal councils which were artificially created to give the consent; these are the kinds of stories you hear. So my feeling is that there needs to be more objective monitoring on how this is obtained, and then there should be a grievance body where Indigenous Peoples can complain if they feel like the government has not done rightly.

There should be somebody who can assess objectively the whole process and say that this has really not been done in the right way. I think that kind of body will be important, [but] I don’t know which body that is going to be. When I was on the Permanent Forum we thought that maybe that would be one of [our] functions to a certain extent. The right mechanism would help make this process right in terms of involving the ones who are directly affected, as well as taking into account the views and concerns of States and third party organizations.

Is there anything you would like to share right now about an optional protocol?

I think that an “optional protocol” is a very loaded term. It’s always connected with a legally binding treaty. So, maybe we can think of other terms which can be used which are not that loaded, like calling for a voluntary guideline on how the UN Declaration can be implemented more effectively and that can

be a tool that governments can use in assessing their ways of adhering to the Declaration.

Would you comment on the concept of rights ritualism?

Have you seen that in your dealings with governments, and do you have any thoughts on ways to avoid it?

Well, I think that is always happening in many places, even in my own country, where governments will ratify many of these conventions because of course they would like to have a higher stature in the international community. In practice, it’s not very easy for them to comply with these treaties that they have signed in the UN Declaration, so basically that’s what rights ritualism means. Sometimes it’s also the meaning of the term “ritualism” that I am not so comfortable with. Indigenous Peoples have rituals which they really take seriously, so I would suggest another term be used: it’s more tokenism, as far as I’m concerned. You know, governments claim that they have ratified all these [conventions], that they are submitting reports, but when you see the substance of the reports, there’s virtually nothing that can be satisfactorily assessed. So I think that’s more the point—that we cannot just agree to token moves or steps taken to claim that they are adhering to their obligations, when in essence nothing has changed for Indigenous Peoples.

Visit the Special Rapporteur’s website: unsr. vtaulicorpuz.org, and follow her on Twitter @UNSR_VickyTauli and Facebook at goo.gl/iw7RcS.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 9

Voices of Indigenous women were heard at the CSW side event "Beijing+20."

Breaking Barriers M Indigenous Women Participate at the 59th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women

International Indigenous Women’s Forum (FIMI)

“Fears and tears bound women (and some men, too), Shackles that need to be broken.

Together in harmony and peace we can live, If we open the path for man and woman to walk hand-in-hand, If our mat welcomes both to sit together as equals, When we do not leave anyone behind, All together we can move forward to a life of bliss.”

— Maribeth Biano, Indigenous woman from the Philippines and first time participant at CSW 10 • w ww. cs. org

ore than 30 Indigenous women participated at the 59th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 59), also known as Beijing+20, at the United Nations. The International Indigenous Women’s Forum (FIMI) actively participated and supported the advocacy efforts led by Indigenous women from the Americas, Asia, Africa, the Arctic, and the Pacific, bearing in mind the Fourth World Conference on Women organized in Beijing, China by the United Nations; reaffirming the advancements achieved during the past 20 years in terms of political advocacy at an international level; and demanding more actions to be taken to ensure the full exercise of Indigenous women’s rights. Participation included organization of side events and presentation of political statements such as marching, lobbying, and engaging in the Regional Women Caucuses.

The International Indigenous Women’s Forum is an organization that brings together Indigenous women leaders and human rights activists from different parts of the world to coordinate agendas, capacity-build, and to develop leadership roles. It followed a delegation of Indigenous women from different countries including Argentina, Cameroon, Nepal, Philippines, and Sudan. Sisters from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico and Peru, among others, were also part of the delegation. The session opened on the morning of Sunday, March 8, International Women’s Day. Agnes Leina, an Indigenous woman from Kenya and founder and executive director of I’llaramatak Community Concerns, spoke on the urgent need to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She also emphasized the need to consider the demands of Indigenous women at the global level as stated in the Lima Position Document and Plan of Action.

In the afternoon, Indigenous women from Asia, Latin America, and Africa gathered for an initial coordination meeting at UN Church Center, where Mirian Masaquiza (Quichua) from the Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and Eleanor Solo, a former UN Women official, provided an introductory overview on advocacy strategies. After the session, some of the participants joined the March for Gender Equality and Women’s Rights organized by UN Women. Each day the delegation of Indigenous women convened coordination meetings in the UN lobby, exchanging their experiences and organizing activities and ideas for the day.

On March 9, FIMI organized a press conference on Indigenous women at UN Headquarters. It was an empowering experience for Winnie Kodi (Nuba) from Sudan and Maribeth Biano from the Philippines, two young Indigenous women attending CSW for the All photos courtesy of FIMI.

first time thanks to a UN Women scholarship. One of the speakers, Tarcila Rivera Zea (Quechua), president of FIMI, ECMIA, and Chirapaq, stressed Indigenous women’s key demands at CSW 59. She called on the Commission to focus on the empowerment of Indigenous women at future sessions by way of collecting disaggregated data by gender and ethnicity; paying special attention to violence specifically committed against Indigenous women; promoting their political and economic advancement; and considering the rights of all Indigenous Peoples in the elaboration of the post-2015 Development Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.

On March 11, FIMI convened a second session to share the results of research conducted in partnership with the Association of Women Rights in Development and International Funders for Indigenous Peoples on the question of funding for Indigenous women to organize. It was a space to share knowledge, experiences, and concerns. As an outcome of this session, the soon to be published research will include specific case studies illustrating its findings. The following day at midday, the side event “Political Participation of Indigenous Women: Leadership and Good Governance” was convened at the Salvation Army, followed by another side event sponsored by FIMI and co-organized by Tebtebba and Asia Indigenous Women’s Network.

The event on political participation focused on the results of a research study on political participation of Indigenous women, showing the challenges that they face for full and effective participation and the different ways they participate at the community, local, national, and regional levels. The results were presented by FIMI Program Coordinator Mariana Lopez and commented on by Begoña Lasagabster, acting head of the UN Women’s Policy Division; Rose Cunningham, director of Wangki Tangni in Nicaragua; Lucy Mulenkei, executive director of the Indigenous Information Network; and Chanda Thapa Magar, regional Indigenous Women Program Coordinator for Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact, all of whom helped shed light on the achievements, challenges, and next steps to enhance awareness on Indigenous women’s participation throughout the world.

By the end of the first and most intensive week of CSW, FIMI convened another side event at the UN in partnership with the Secretariat of Permanent Forum and the International Fund for Agricultural Development on the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action. It was also the occasion to present the results of the “20-Year Review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action and Beyond: Framework to Advance Indigenous Women’s Issues,” prepared by the secretariat of the Permanent Forum. Lakshmi Puri, assistant secretary general of the UN and deputy executive director of UN Women, gave the opening remarks centered on the key role that Indigenous women have as protagonists of the change in the social, economic, and political spheres.

María Cristina Perceval, permanent representative of Argentina to the United Nations, expressed her commitment and insisted on the need to overcome the gap between the international instruments and the real implementation at national level. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Igorot) and Rivera Zea highlighted the progress made at the local, national, and international levels, and also showed concern about the structural racism that still permeates the system and represents a barrier

to the full exercise of Indigenous women’s human rights.

To conclude, Gambo Aminatu Samiratu (Mboro), women’s coordinator at Lelewal Foundation in Cameroon, called on the Commission to consider the issue of empowerment of Indigenous women at a future session.

The Ivonne H. Fellowship, sponsored by UN Women, enabled participation of young women who were attending CSW for the first time. Five Indigenous women were supported this year with that fellowship, including Samiratu, who shared her perspective on gender equality in an interview with UN Women: “I think that to achieve gender equality we need to take proactive measures to train and place women in positions of political power while meeting their various needs and sensitizing the entire community about women’s rights and gender equality. To do so we need to focus on the social transformation required to eradicate poverty and employ the most marginalized and excluded peoples, such as the Indigenous and local communities, by removing all barriers to women’s empowerment.”

Indigenous women participate in a CSW plenary session.

Indigenous women’s participation at CSW 59 showcased the many efforts that have been made toward removing these barriers, evidenced by various meetings with governments and coordination of advocacy to demand that the empowerment of Indigenous women be considered as an emerging theme at CSW 60 in 2016. To this aim, a position document was presented by Dali Angel (Zapoteca) during the second week of the session. The document is one piece of an advocacy road map that is already being developed. It is a long road to be sure, one which will continue during the upcoming Permanent Forum and beyond, so that Indigenous women’s voices are heard and their rights are fully exercised.

For more information on FIMI (Foro Internacional de Mujeres Indigenas/International Indigenous Women’s Forum), visit: www.fimi-iiwf.org.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 11

Maya Win Unprecedented Land Rights in B eli z e at International C ourts Danielle DeLuca (CS STAFF)

“The struggle of the Maya is the struggle of all people.”

Alfonso Cal President of the assembly of traditional leaders

T

Maya leaders stand with their legal defense team, including former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, S. James Anaya (top left), and Senior Counsel Antoinette Moore (center), after the decision was made at the Caribbean Court of Justice, Belize City.

12 • www. cs. org

he Maya people of Toledo achieved a groundbreaking victory in international courts in April 2015.

After decades of lawsuits in the national courts in Belize, the Caribbean Court of Justice, Belize’s highest appellate court, reaffirmed that the 38 Q’eqchi and Mopan Maya Indigenous communities of southern Belize have rights to the lands they have customarily used and occupied. The court affirmed that these traditional land rights constitute property equal in legitimacy to any other form of property under Belizean law. The judgment is the culmination of litigation filed against the government of Belize by the Maya Leaders Alliance and the Toledo Alcaldes Association on behalf of the Maya villages. The government of Belize in the past has vigorously contested the assertion that the Maya have customary land rights. This agreement is historic in that the government has finally reversed this position and come to an agreement with the Maya people.

“We have been dragged through the courts for over 30 years, but today we are happy that the highest court again stood with my people to ensure that Belize gets on the right side of history,” said Alfonso Cal, the highest traditional leader for all the Maya villages. The Mayas’ claim to the land had been upheld twice in the national Supreme Court, once in 2009 and again in 2010, and once more at the appellate level in 2013, but was still not accepted by the government of Belize, prompting the move to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

The judgment requires the government to demarcate and register Maya village lands, and to cease and desist from any further interference, destruction, or use of the lands that would interfere with the Maya peoples’ enjoyment of their lands. The court also awarded damages to the Maya people in compensation for the moral and physical harm wrought by the bulldozing of crops and destruction of rainforests and watersheds caused by outside concessions granted by the State for logging, oil exploration, and other development without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Maya communities.

An interesting aspect of the decision is that the court retained supervision of the implementation of the ruling to ensure that the government complies, and could enforce fines if they do (Above L-R): Pablo Mis, Alfonso Cal, and Cristina Coc present at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues April 29, 2015 at UN headquarters in New York.

All photos courtesy of Maya Leaders Alliance.

not. In 12 months, both parties are required to report on the implementation process. Many see the decision in this case as gaining new and important ground for Indigenous Peoples globally by setting a precedent in international law.

The Maya Leaders announced the win in a press conference during a tour at the United Nations Permanent Forum in late April, but emphasized that their celebration was not just looking inward. “This isn’t about beating our chests with pride. The Maya peoples’ victory is a victory for all marginalized peoples in Belize and worldwide,” said Cal. The Maya are hopeful that other communities can make use of this decision to improve their own situations; the case has caught the attention of Indigenous Peoples fighting similar land rights battles with colonial governments around the world.

Senior Counsel Antoinette Moore, the Belizean lawyer who worked on the case, said, “The final appeal of the Maya communities of southern Belize before the Caribbean Court of Justice raises the important issues of Indigenous land rights, equality, and cultural integrity in the post-colonial Commonwealth Caribbean.” Professor S. James Anaya, former special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and expert lawyer at the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona, explained, “The judgment reinforces the international standard that Indigenous Peoples have collective property rights based on their own customary land tenure systems, even when they do not have formal title or other official recognition of those rights, and that states are bound to recognize and protect those rights.”

It hasn’t been an easy win for the Maya in Belize. Pablo Mis, program coordinator for the Maya Leaders Alliance, spoke of the heavy toll this antagonism has taken on the Maya people. “We have been dragged through the courts, we have been placed against each other, and we have been called immigrants to the lands where the sacred bones of our ancestors rest. Like the trees of our land we swayed under pressure but kept reaching out to the sunlight. Our spirit was never broken.”

The Maya have been fighting to legally establish their land rights, which they understand are guaranteed in international human rights documents like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since 1997 when several Maya villages learned that their ancestral land had been declared a national park by the government without their consent or involvement. A decade of domestic legal cases later, the Supreme Court of Belize handed a major victory to Indigenous Peoples by ruling that the Maya villages of Conejo and Santa Cruz have customary title to the lands they traditionally use and occupy in accordance with their ancestral land tenure system. In 2010 the court extended that title to all Maya villages of southern Belize. Meanwhile, the Belizean government tried to avoid implementing the decisions at each stage, bringing appeals to the decisions, and in 2010 used its authority over the Sarstoon-Temash National Park to grant oil concessions to the Texas-based oil company US Capital Energy, which is currently in the exploration phase.

Above: Caravans of residents from 38 Maya villages traveled from Toledo to Belize City for the hearing and celebrated the win with traditional Q'eqchi and Mopan dances and ceremony.

The international community has kept a close eye on the developments in Belize. A coalition of organizations working in solidarity with the Maya of Belize, including Cultural Survival, has helped to sustain international advocacy leading to international human rights bodies overwhelmingly ruling in favor of the Maya. Cultural Survival launched an advocacy campaign against the oil drilling without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the Maya people in 2013, and assisted in advocacy work with Maya leaders in spaces like the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Inter-American Commission, and the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.

These combined efforts have led to the UN Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights both calling on Belize to recognize Maya land rights and desist from issuing resource extraction concessions.

These recommendations came on the heels of similar pronouncements from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN Human Rights Council in its Universal Periodic Review of Belize, along with consistent support and recommendations from former UN Special Rapporteur Anaya.

Cristina Coc, Spokesperson for the Maya Leaders Alliance and the Toledo Alcaldes Association, sees a hopeful future relationship between the Maya and the government of Belize.

“This judgment marks an opportunity for Belize to rewrite its relationship with the first peoples of Belize...the government has finally accepted that they were wrong, and will finally get on the right side of history with the Maya people and put affirmative mechanisms in place that will protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” she said, adding that “this case is very important for the Maya people, but not just the Maya people—the young nation of Belize, and the rest of the world.”

The Maya are relieved to finally put the question of who owns the lands to rest, and have expressed a desire to begin the transition to a new model of living in harmony with nature and with one another. They also extend gratitude to those who believed in their struggle during these many years “for the support that grew stronger year over year from Belizeans, [and] the many Indigenous Peoples that sent their prayers and words of encouragement worldwide.”

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 13

#SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA Stop the Forced Closure of Aboriginal Communities Sam Cook

I

n the early hours of “Black Friday,” March 13, 2015, growing frustrations in the Aboriginal community had reached a pressure point. After the repeated failure of successive governments to honor Australia’s First Nations at the most basic levels, the perfect storm was brewing. Compounding this, the global lurch to the right under the guise of “austerity” had seemingly become a code-switch of government to normalize racism, bigotry, oppression, and genocide.

Since the appointment of Tony Abbott as Australia’s 28th prime minister in 2013, a cauldron of dissent has manifested across Australia. Labeled “One-Term Tony,” he has become world renowned for an ever-growing list of contentious and inappropriate comments. His unabashed concessions for mining alongside corporate interests are rampant, all the while sidestepping the clarification of his citizenship, which would determine whether he is indeed legal to hold office in the first place. The self-appointed Minister for Women’s Interests and self-declared Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs’ latest blunder was a denigrating remark toward Aboriginal people living on their traditional lands, which he referred to as a “lifestyle choice.” The remark was made on a surprise visit to a mining stronghold in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, on the traditional lands of the Maduwangka people, now forever scarred by the “Super-pit:” a viciously gorged open-cut gold mine approximately 3.6 km long, 1.6 km wide, and 512 meters deep. Such flippant disregard toward Aboriginal culture was the tinder needed to polarize a nation.

Abbott’s comment was in support of a position declared by the Western Australian State Premier Colin Barnett, who on November 12, 2014, announced that he would close up to 150 remote Aboriginal communities, saying the state could no longer afford to pay for essential services like electricity.

14 • www. cs. org

The premier’s comments were in response to the federal government’s decision to stop subsidizing these services in the middle of 2015, putting the financial responsibility on individual state governments. In direct response to this, the website www.sosblakaustralia.com was established and launched via social media, calling for Aboriginal communities to register their needs and for individuals to offer skills that could aid the community.

On the late evening of Thursday, March 12, a conversation thread on Facebook began among Darangah Nagarra Torres, Janine Dureau, Annette Kogolo, and Nelson Kurni Bieundurry with the view to holding a rally the following week, March 19, to coincide with Australia’s Closing the Gap Day—a government initiative claiming to deliver sound service and results for Aboriginal participation into the broader Australian social fabric. Over the course of the evening the thread gained momentum, as Ngigjingah Maryanne Skeen, Janella Isaac, Kelly Kitching, Jodie Bell, Kankawa Nagarra Knight, Lyn Shaw, Layangali Bieundurry, Lillian Chestnut, Jamie Davidson, Darren Mitchelson, Tjapanangka Paylrntarri, Nawoola Miriwoong, Ebony Hill, Venessa Poelina, Anne Poelina, Johannah Kitching, Danny Teece Johnson, and myself had joined the discussion. By 2:00 a.m. on Friday, the Facebook page “Stop the Forced Closure of Aboriginal Communities” was created.

It was hoped that by the morning there would be close to 1,000 “likes.” A mere 7 hours later, over 2,000 people had “liked” the page. It spoke loudly to those involved, affirming that Australians from all over the country were fed up with our government.

The exponential growth continued; 5 days later every state and territory had mobilized, with 30 known community rallies of up to 30,000 people marching in the streets from the most remote Aboriginal communities, small regional towns, major cities, and the capitals of Australia. A virtual protest raged online, with international celebrity endorsements

Protesters in Broome, Western Australia, demand their rights. Up to 274 remote communities in Western Australia could have their municipal and essential services cut.

coming from Bianca Jagger, Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Talib Kweli, Michael Franti, and Spearhead, among others.

Our Aboriginal Australian and Australian artists and athletes stood solid in their support with major statements made at their various events and public platforms. The artistic response started to take shape with artwork, songs, poems, writings, and street art campaigns underpinning a cultural revolution.

Importantly, there has been a reconnection with the Aboriginal rights movement and key activists in the United States (including the American Indian Movement), Canada, and Aotearoa New Zealand, with a powerful outpouring of support from all levels of Māori Iwi (people) who are strong in their public stance. This is of historical significance, as there are over 70 years of deep links forged between our civil rights and black rights movements. In the 21st century this is now being redefined, re-awakened, and garnering further strength.

In 30 days, “SOS BLAK AUSTRALIA, Stop the Forced Closures of Aboriginal Communities” created a social media platform with a reach almost the size of Perth, the fourth capital city in Australia. Subsequent local community actions have continued across the country in smaller regional and remote centers alongside individuals who contribute daily their personal messages in the virtual protest. On April 10, the cities of Melbourne and Sydney shut down to hold rallies, sit-ins, and cultural celebrations, showing how strong the Aboriginal continuum is in contemporary times. The following day, April 11, the mainstream Herald Sun, which has largely ignored the efforts, ran a headline concerning the actions in Melbourne, “Selfish Rabble Shut City.” Rather than be agitated by this, the community fought back online, initiating #SelfishRabble on Twitter. In less than one hour, it had trended to number one on the Australian Twitter feed, beating the Australian Football League, National Rugby League, and Coachella.

The second Global Call to Action took place May 1, 2015.

The event has made important and historical links to the union movements across Australia, which have come out in support and publicly stated they will defend the rights of Aboriginal people. As of this writing, there were approximately 98 known actions planned across Australia and internationally.

Actions involved remote Aboriginal Communities alongside

towns and major cities in all States and Territories, as well as Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, France, Brazil, the Philippines, and Aotearoa New Zealand. This has defied the combined imagination of the Aboriginal community roots who had come together just over a month prior. It is clear that there is a bigger responsibility to maintain and grow unity, being mindful that the obligation to our future leaders and elders is paramount to our peaceful actions.

At the back end, the plan goes far beyond calls to action.

What has been at the heart of SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA is a humanitarian effort we are aiming to drive alongside the communities. It is our plan to make all of our communities sustainable through alternative power, water, and waste solutions, as well as to repair years of neglected infrastructure.

This is in line with our sovereignty, and we have individuals in the community already looking into the potential to file a class action on behalf of our Aboriginal Nations against the state and federal governments. Our communities have issued a vote of no confidence in both state and federal governments, and we are all aware that this is an epoch of upheaval as the ongoing attack by the incumbent government has resulted in the defunding of significant organizations that are the lifeblood for our people. Yet we remain firm in our resolve and strong in our commitment to continue for as long as it takes to shift this supremacy regime off the backs of our people.

We will stand against the great land grab for our mineral-rich country that underlies the government’s attempts to remove Aboriginal people from our traditional homelands. We shall overcome.

—Sam Cook is a Blaktivist of the Nyikina Nation from the Kimberley Region of Western Australia.

All photos by Ingetje Tadros.

Follow the #SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA movement on facebook at goo.gl/MqcTe0.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 15

Nihígaal Bee Iiná A Movement in Motion

Indigenous resistance flag.

Febna Reheem Caven

O

n February 1 on top of Mt. Tzoodził (Turquoise Mountain), one of the sacred mountains of the Navajo/Diné, a group of young Navajo walkers arrived.

Their journey commenced 26 days earlier in Grants, New Mexico, and covered 200 miles of the dust-ridden, snowy, and industrially exploited land of Eastern Navajo Agency. It was a walk to reclaim the beauty and balance in the outer and inner landscapes of their ancestral land. Nihígaal Bee Iiná is what they called this walk, and a walk for existence is how they perceived it. This is a story on how it began, progressed, and inspired many in the heart of ancestral Navajo land in New Mexico.

The walk commemorated the 150th anniversary of the tragic Long Walk, during which nearly 9,000 Navajos were forced at gunpoint to relocate to Bosque Redondo, a small piece of arid land they called “The Land of Suffering.” The immediate impetus for the walk was the need to raise awareness of the exploitative nature of the mining and fracking industries, specifically the proposed Piñon Pipeline in Navajo territory. If built, the Piñon Pipeline would carry up to 50,000 barrels of oil daily across the Four Corners and Chaco Canyon region, pumping close to 8 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year while polluting the regions’ a quifers and threatening the community’s health. As Dana Eldridge, one of the core organizers of the walk, explained, “We are at the onset of this very large fracking boom. We just really want our communities to know we care…we are also walking to honor the resilience of our ancestors.”

16 • www. cs. org

Desperation quickly set in for many of the young activists in the region when lease signing drives were initiated by the fracking companies last year. With high rates of poverty and unemployment it appeared that the Navajo families would have little option but to make way for the fracking oil and gas boom, said Laura Red Elk, one of the walkers. However, many had strong objections to the project, and as the dissension grew, a core group was formed to rally the community against oil fracking. Crowdfunding was engaged to cover the initial expenses, and as soon as the target of $5,000, was met, the walk kicked off.

The Navajo reservation includes approximately 27,000 square miles, occupying portions of northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and northwestern New Mexico. Energy security in the southwestern United States has long been subsidized by the systemic degradation of the community and cultural health of the Navajo families who call this mineralrich area their home. The proliferation of poorly regulated mines has resulted in tremendous environmental pollution; it is estimated that there are over 520 abandoned uranium mines and over 400 abandoned coal mines in the region. The coal mine that is the highest emitter of nitrous oxide in the US is on Navajo land. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that over 30 percent of the Navajo population lacks access to uncontaminated water. Incidence of cancer is very high on the reservation, and many residents attribute it to mining. Sexual violence, trafficking, and sexually transmitted diseases are also high in areas where mining has boomed.

Nihígaal Bee Iiná walkers set out to document the totality All photos by Orlando Begay.

of the situation in their landscape and capture the links between environmental pollution and societal problems. A movement in motion, the walk provided excellent platforms for connecting geographic communities affected by mining across the Eastern Agency on varied themes of community empowerment. Among these themes were education, gender equality, language preservation, and community health. Many dialogues were initiated to counter decades of resource and cultural degradation.

The movement’s leadership openly invited residents of the communities they traveled through to join along the way, resulting in the interweaving of ideas, people, and even artwork into the flow of the journey. Seeds of Peace, a nonprofit organization that facilitates peace-building among youth, provided food for the walkers, and each community meal became yet another opportunity to collaborate on a unified vision of Navajo identity and prescription for future development. As one of the young organizers of the walk, Amber Hood, said, “I had an elder tell me the other day that through these walks we are breathing life back into Hozhó (inner/outer balance), and I think he is absolutely correct. I realized that this is bigger than fracking, this is bigger than the energy sector, it’s bigger than resource extraction and corrupt tribal government.

It’s truly a journey back to our original selves, where with every walk, hopefully every year that we do it, we are becoming more fluent in our language, we learn more stories about our land and our ancestors.”

The walk interwove the divergent paradigms typically seen within social movements: global vs. local; sacred vs. secular; top-down vs. participative leadership. Emphasizing the larger context, co-organizer Kim Smith noted that the walk was not just for the cause of the Piñon pipeline but also a protest against the larger development paradigm itself, represented by projects including the Pacific connector, Sandpiper, Bluegrass, and Exxon pipelines. According to Smith, the walk is a resolute call for an alternative model of development everywhere.

Another remarkable feature of Nihígaal Bee Iiná is the way the sacred and the secular both found a place in the discourses. The walkers engaged in legislative action in Bureau of Land Management meetings and conducted awareness

Walkers on Highway 550 to Nageezi, New Mexico.

camps at schools and community centers, and also held sacred prayer ceremonies to honor the animals they have historically relied on. The walk through the terrain of the agency was one that evoked powerful experiences for the walkers, who were getting to know their land and people thoroughly.

The vibrancy of such an engagement was instantly and effectively communicated via social media through stun- ning photographs and Facebook updates.

Upon completing the journey, Eldridge said, “When we were at Tzoodził today, I felt this surge of overwhelming positivity. We saw a lot of really bad, terrible things on our journey.

Things that hurt physically, emotionally, and mentally. But this journey has shown me that Nihima Nahasdzáán (Mother Earth) really does have the power to heal. Being outside, walking outside, it really does uplift you. Going up the mountain today, that’s all I felt. I wasn’t thinking about the negativity. I wasn’t thinking about how awful all this destruction is.

I was just thinking about how beautiful everything is and how thankful and happy I am that I got to experience this.”

This sentiment was reflected by many in the Navajo community. Land is more than just land for the Navajos; it is family—a mother, provider, and sustainer. Mt. Huerfano, where the walk started, is the very place of emergence for the tribe.

Mt. Tzoodził, where the walk ended, has deep connotations in the Navajo psyche. A healthy land in the Dinetah is essential for Navajo families to raise their children in the traditional way. By way of Nihígaal Bee Iiná, the Navajo youth of New Mexico showed they are ready for a new model of development: one that combines the wisdom of their ancestors with sustainable systems to ensure economic security. It is indeed a hopeful world when courage and conviction walks with such zeal for the motherland.

— Febna Reheem Caven is an independent researcher and writer on communities in contested environments.

Follow Nihígaal Bee Iiná at www.facebook. com/walkforexistence.

Walkers leaving Whitehorse Lake in north central Arizona.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 17

The Misappropriation of “Ka Mate” Brendan Kennedy

N

ew Zealand’s national rugby team, the All Blacks, are famous for two things: their winning record and for performing the haka before their games. While haka is in part an Indigenous performance art using chant and movement to challenge, welcome, exult, or defy, it is also a vessel that contains sacred elements of Māori worldview, or Mātauranga Māori. Over the years, the All Blacks have primarily performed “Ka Mate,” a haka that was composed

by Te Rauparaha, who was chief of the Ngāti Toa tribe of the North Island of New Zealand.

In the 1980s the All Blacks were led by Buck Shelford, who was a widely respected Māori player. As captain of the

mockery...some of the audience around me laughed. I was hurt by the laughter because to us, the haka is symbolic of one’s prestige, or mana. Māori take the haka seriously, we learn it as children, and strive to perfect it as we grow older.

The ‘Ka Mate’ haka was composed by a great warrior chief, a fighting chief: Te Rauparaha—one for whom any slight on his mana would foretell one’s death.”

Not only does the University of Arizona’s football team perform “Ka Mate” before their games, but they have also created two videos on the school’s YouTube channel that try to “teach” the haka. A representative from the athletics department said that “Ka Mate” was brought to the University “by student-athletes of Pacific Islander origin who wished to share this aspect of their culture with their teammates and commu-

The New Zealand national rugby union team, officially nicknamed the “All Blacks,” performing the haka before a match.

Photo courtesy of Alessio Bragadini.

team and leader of the haka, Shelford told his team that if they were going to do “Ka Mate,” then they better do it right (expletives deleted). So what does it mean to do the haka right? It means that the pronunciation must be perfect and actions must be executed with precision. You must memorize the words, understand what they mean, and recognize why a particular movement corresponds with a word or phrase.

The tradition of performing “Ka Mate” and many other haka at sporting events has migrated from New Zealand to other countries around the world. In America they are now being performed at many college sporting events, including football games at the University of Arizona. Sharon Toi is a Māori Fulbright Scholar at the University of Arizona who went to one of these games and thought the performance of “Ka Mate” was a joke. She recalls, “I was surprised at the depth of the hurt I felt when I saw what I believed to be a

18 • www. cs. org

nity, and make it a part of the team’s pre-game preparation.”

That statement illustrates an ignorance of Māori culture. It is irresponsible for the University of Arizona to sanction a performance and production of “Ka Mate” that is offensive and inaccurate, and which violates the intellectual property rights of Māori when it is performed without permission.

Honor the Treaty

“Ka Mate” enjoys the protection of the Treaty of Waitangi, which is the primary source that governs and regulates the partnership between Māori and the New Zealand government. The Treaty contains promises, and one of the promises is the recognition that Māori have rangātiratanga, or “the greatest or highest chieftainship” over o ratou taonga katoa, “all of their treasured things.” It has also been said that rangātiratanga means authority and control over taonga.

–ori elder performing the haka. Photo courtesy of DDH Photos.

Ma

The reason “Ka Mate” is regarded as so special and entitled to Treaty protection is because it is the intellectual creation of Te Rauparaha, the Māori chief who conjured the famous haka when he was hiding from his enemies in a sweet potato pit.

As the descendants of Te Rauparaha, the Ngāti Toa tribe are the guardians, or kaitiaki, of his creation. And as kaitiaki, the Ngāti Toa tribe are obligated to do more than police the accuracy of any given “Ka Mate” performance. They are required to protect, among other things, the whakapapa, the korero, and the mauri that are embedded in their taonga. “Ka Mate” has whakapapa because it brings the Ngāti Toa tribe’s ancestors to life. It has korero because it speaks and tells an important lesson. And it has mauri because it has its own life force. Even though the University of Arizona is clearly not bound by the Treaty of Waitangi, it should not be party to any violation of the rights that the Treaty protects. As an institution of higher learning in a country that has its own troubled history with Indigenous Peoples, the university should demonstrate solidarity by respecting the rights the Ngāti Toa tribe.

One of the ways they can do this is by consulting with the tribe before they use “Ka Mate.”

Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse

To its credit, the New Zealand government recognized the Ngāti Toa tribe’s rights when it passed the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act. Under this law, if “Ka Mate” is being published for commercial purposes, communicated to the public, or used in film, the Act requires a statement of attribution declaring “Te Rauparaha was the composer of ‘Ka Mate’ and a chief of Ngāti Toa Rangatira.” Even though they now have statutory rights, the Ngāti Toa tribe doesn’t want to stop spontaneous performances of “Ka Mate.” According to Te Ariki Kawhe Wineera, who is a direct descendant of Te Rauparaha, the Ngāti Toa tribe is proud to have their haka used by New

Zealanders “as a unique expression of emotion—for example, when national teams win at sport. Most other uses of ‘Ka Mate,’ however, reflect an ignorance of the cultural values inherent in it; occasionally they are downright insulting.”

Unfortunately, the actions of the University of Arizona’s athletics department demonstrate the kind of ignorance that Wineera talks about. In the YouTube video, the pronunciation is so poor that the words no longer have meaning. The All Blacks themselves would not recognize the actions used by the players. Also, the “teaching” portion of the video conveys an attitude that disrespects the kaitiaki and Te Rauparaha by insinuating that you should “get down” and do the haka.

There are many options apart from training the football players to perfect their performance and consulting with the Ngāti Toa tribe before the team performs “Ka Mate.” Given that the team has players from all over the Pacific, for example, the Samoan players could teach everyone performance art from their own culture, like the siva tau. Similarly, Arizona is surrounded by Indigenous tribes, so they could also work with Navajo, Hopi, or the Tohono O’Odham to incorporate their cultural traditions into the Wildcats’ pre-game preparation. And if the team still wants to perform a haka, they could follow the example of Brigham Young University’s rugby team, which commissioned a haka to be written specifically for them that reflected the spirit and the culture of their University. Cultural misappropriation happens all the time, but we don’t have to accept it. The athletics department can live up to the reputation of its peers by ensuring “Ka Mate” is performed respectfully and with the consent of the Ngāti Toa tribe.

—Brendan M. Kennedy lives and works on the Navajo Nation for DNA People’s Legal Services. He was born and raised in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 19

Is an Optional Protocol Required in Relation to

the UN Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Many heads of states and government representatives took part in the UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples affirming their commitment to Indigenous Peoples; however, implementation of rights is needed on the local level.

The following is an abridged version of Professor S. James Anaya’s paper submitted for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Expert Group Meeting Dialogue on an optional protocol to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which took place January 27–29, 2015.

The meeting discussed whether a new mechanism should be created to address the implementation gap in the Declaration.

of Indigenous Peoples’ rights particularly in relation to lands and resources, and especially in the context of extractive industries. A persistent problem was the absence of domestic legal protections for those rights and, in many cases, legislation and regulatory practices inconsistent with those rights. In my last report to the General Assembly, I expressed fear “that the wide gap between the rights mentioned in the Declaration and its effective implementation will persist, leading to a certain complacency and acceptance of that condition by dominant actors and within the United Nations system,” and emphatically cautioned, “this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The Insufficiency of Existing Mechanisms

Professor S. James Anaya

Is There an Implementation Gap?

It can hardly be debated that there exists on a global scale a wide gap between the standards expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their implementation. In most cases, the infringement of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and the absence of adequate protection for those rights are systemic within the States in which they live. Adoption of the Declaration highlighted the need for legal and policy reforms at domestic and international levels in order for the conditions of Indigenous Peoples to be brought into line with that now-achieved consensus about their rights. The Declaration requires that States not just subscribe to the articulated rights, but ensure and establish a domestic legal order in which the rights are respected, protected, and fulfilled.

In my work during two terms as the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I was confronted by many instances of infringements 20 • ww w. cs. org

Three UN mechanisms currently exist with mandates specific to Indigenous Peoples: the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Each of these mechanisms works in one way or another within their respective mandate spheres to advance implementation of the Declaration. Various additional existing mechanisms within the UN and regional human rights systems are relevant to Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Peoples have used these other mechanisms to bring attention to their concerns.

Despite important advances made by the existing mechanisms in raising awareness about Indigenous Peoples’ concerns, providing guidance on how to address those concerns, and setting important precedents, the implementation gap has persisted. Existing capacities within the international human rights system are insufficient. It must be asked whether the best way to address this insufficiency is to create an altogether new mechanism, or if the objectives behind the proposal for an optional protocol can better be met by strengthening and expanding upon the capacities of existing mechanisms.

Any consideration of an optional protocol must be joined with the discussion of an expanded mandate for the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Limitations of a New Complaint Procedure

The proposal for an optional protocol focuses on the creation of a new procedure to receive and adjudicate complaints of

Photos courtesy of Global Coordinating Group Media Team.

alleged breaches of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, in particular rights to lands and resources. I am skeptical of the utility of yet another complaint mechanism unless it is devised to have features of engagement with States, Indigenous Peoples, and others significantly beyond those of existing complaint procedures. A deficiency of existing procedures is that they are optional or limited to the States that have ratified the relevant treaties; the proposed optional protocol relating to the Declaration will be similarly limited. During my two terms as Special Rapporteur, I communicated with governments, Indigenous Peoples, and others in examining and reporting on dozens of cases. I issued detailed observations and recommendations, and in several I conducted site visits specifically to investigate the complaints—most involving violations of rights over lands and resources. This work was constrained by the limited support resources available to me, a problem that is common to all existing international human rights mechanisms.

It may be argued that a new complaint mechanism under an optional protocol that is specifically linked to the Declaration would have greater relevant expertise and authority to address Indigenous issues than existing procedures. Further, the new mechanism, which would presumably be constituted by a collegial body of experts rather than a single individual, would have greater resources at its disposal and its decision would carry more weight as compared to the Special Rapporteur. I find some merit in these arguments. Still, the problem of limited resources for the effective functioning of existing mechanisms is not remedied by the creation of a new one. Moreover, even if adequately resourced, a new complaint mechanism may provide limited added value to the existing system of complaint mechanisms. This is because a new complaint procedure, with the features of formality typically associated with the denomination of optional protocol, would likely tend toward the same “rights ritualism” that has limited the utility of existing international human rights complaint procedures. The idea of rights ritualism refers to formal processes in which States willingly engage and by which they are able to espouse formal adherence to human rights norms without effective local implementation of the norms.

As Special Rapporteur I was witness to, and enabled, a good deal of rights ritualism. I would transmit the allegations of rights violations in an official letter to the government concerned, laying out the details of the allegations and the relevant provisions of the Declaration and other applicable instruments. In most cases the government would reply through a formal diplomatic note, often with detailed information laying out its version of the facts and human rights responsibilities, but rarely admitting any wrongdoing or committing to doing anything different. Through such exchanges governments were able to portray cooperation with the Human Rights Council’s system of special procedures while usually avoiding imme-diate substantive changes in behavior. I became increasingly conscious of such rights ritualism and tried to overcome it by the use of multiple avenues of engagement beyond formal procedures.

Setting forth my inquiries, observations, and recommendations in formal documents were an essential component of engagement.

However, advancing compliance with international standards in particular cases was most effective when I went outside of formal exchanges and engaged informally with State officials in a problem solving, cooperative manner, especially when I was able to engage local actors. International complaint procedures provide avenues for victims of human rights abuses to be heard, with the possibility

of at least a moral victory that itself can have significant restorative effects. Favorable decisions can be an important factor, although rarely a singular one, in actually bringing about change, as Indigenous Peoples have experienced on a number of occasions. But experience has shown that something more than what a formal international complaint procedure can offer is required to genuinely enhance international capacities to effectively advance implementation of the Declaration.

The Need to Better Assist Local Actors

In order to bridge the implementation gap, any international mechanism must ultimately have some measure of influence on domestic authorities. The question is how is that influence best achieved. The limitations of formal international complaint procedures are related to the structure of the broader system of international law, policy, and institutions, which strongly favors local decision making on local matters. To be effective in advancing implementation of the Declaration, international mechanisms must catalyze local dynamics toward local acceptance and application of those standards.

I explained in my last report to the General Assembly that implementation of the Declaration is impeded by a lack of understanding by government officials operating at the local level and other local actors about the standards of the Declaration and their governance implications. Lack of awareness is compounded by misconceptions, such as the deeply flawed notion that the Declaration somehow privileges Indigenous Peoples, which can generate resistance to the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Then there is the sheer complexity of the domestic legal, policy, and regulatory reforms that the Declaration calls for, especially in regards to lands and resources. More needs to be done to raise public and official awareness at the local level about the rights of Indigenous Peoples as enshrined in the Declaration, and to assist domestic policy and lawmakers to generate practices and regulatory regimes that are in keeping with the Declaration.

In my view, what is needed is a robust program of awarenessraising about Indigenous Peoples and their rights aimed at the relevant government officials and the general public, along with an effective and well-resourced program of technical advisory services. The latter should be established with the expertise and capacity of engagement to assist governments and Indigenous Peoples with the development of needed regulatory reforms and remedies for rights violations, consultations over those reforms, and other matters relevant to the effective realization of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Some elements of these programs could be developed within existing international mechanisms and agencies, or it may be that an entirely new mechanism would best facilitate the development of such initiatives. I will leave that complex discussion to another day.

— S. James Anaya is a Regents Professor and the James J. Lenoir Professor of Human Rights Law and Policy at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. From 2008–2014 he was the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

To read Professor S. James Anaya’s full paper, visit: goo.gl/mosFLp

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 21

Fast Track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership What It Means for Indigenous Peoples CS Staff

T

he Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a massive, controversial free trade agreement currently under negotiation behind closed doors by officials from the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

The TPP would elevate multinational corporations and private investors to equal status with sovereign nations, and therefore above individual citizens, empowering these entities to sue nations via private tribunals. The TPP has been marked by an alarming lack of transparency and public input.

The public has not been allowed to see the draft text, and the majority of information that is available is the result of leaks.

Even members of Congress have been provided only limited access to the proposed agreement. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called for increased transparency in trade negotiations for the TPP, warning that “without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation— an open marketplace of ideas—is considerably reduced.”

Meanwhile, more than 600 official corporate “trade advisors” have been given special access to the draft text.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: What Does It Mean for Indigenous Peoples?

In the same vein as deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, the TPP is being drafted with no input from the Indigenous Peoples who live in countries that will be affected by the deal. The TPP could have broad implications for Indigenous Peoples living

22 • ww w. cs. org

in the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.

The secrecy of the TPP entirely disregards the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, a tenet of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which states that policies affecting Indigenous Peoples should not move forward without the full understanding and approval of those it might affect.

Corporate Rights Over Human Rights

The TPP threatens to dramatically affect Indigenous Peoples by ramping up trade policies that have allowed for transnational corporations to engage in oil, gas, and mineral extraction without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of their communities. TPP policies would encourage the natural gas industry, which has already severely impacted Native and First Nations communities in North America. According to the Sierra Club, “The TPP would facilitate increased exports of liquefied natural gas by requiring the US Department of Energy to automatically approve all natural gas exports to TPP countries. Increased exports would mean an increase in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the dirty and violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations.’’

Natural gas companies have already begun encroaching on otherwise off-limits Native lands. Native women are particularly victimized, as fracking operations have been (Below) Rally and march protesting the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement in Wellington, New Zealand.

Photo courtesy of Peg Hunter.

Suing for Lost Profits

Activists all over the world are making the connection between the TPP and other disastrous free trade agreements like NAFTA. Photo courtesy of Caelie Frampton.

correlated with increased sex trafficking, rape, missing women, and influxes of drugs and alcohol into communities, in addition to environmental contamination of local water and air quality. The TPP would also allow companies to evade financial responsibility for environmental contamination, even when it occurs on Indigenous Peoples’ lands. Under the proposed agreement, investors could demand taxpayer compensation for imposed fines, effectively burdening the public with the cost of environmental cleanup. According to Professor Jane Kelsey of New Zealand, the TPP draft chapter on environmental regulations fails to define its key terms, leaving vagueness that will allow for inconsistent interpretation and implementation of regulations. Nowhere in the chapter does it detail a mechanism for setting penalties for environmental offenders. It also excludes resource management practices and ignores standards set by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Trademarking Mother Nature

The TPP’s draft article on Trade and Biodiversity recognizes the rights of states over natural resources and genetic material.

This would allow for multinational corporations like Monsanto and industries like Big Pharma to benefit enormously by allowing them exclusive rights over seeds and traditional plant-based medicines found in biodiverse areas managed by Indigenous communities. The draft flagrantly ignores Article 31 of the Declaration, which states that “Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop… the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora.”

The patenting of plants that have been used traditionally by Indigenous Peoples without their consent or benefit sharing has been called bio-piracy, and would conceivably snowball upon the approval of the TPP. Indigenous activist Te Kaituhi, a Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand, exhorts us to “imagine a world where Indigenous knowledge, language, and customs are outright owned by multinational corporations and copyright enforcement is heavily backed by government police forces.” Kaituhi argues that “the TPP won’t only affect Indigenous freehold land, nor will it just push our people further into poverty. The TPP will give multinationals the right to exploit the ecosystem and further aid them in the acquiring of enforced trademarking and copyrighting of Indigenous intellectual property and cultural or traditional knowledge;” in other words, a new form of colonization.

One of the most troubling aspects of the TPP is found in the draft chapter on investment deals with investor-state dispute settlement, which gives corporations the right to sue a government for unlimited cash compensation in private and non-transparent tribunals over nearly any law or policy that a corporation alleges will reduce its profits. Kelsey notes that “the vast majority of investment arbitrations under similar agreements involve natural resources, especially mining, and have resulted in billions of dollars of damages against governments for measures designed to protect the environment from harm caused by foreign corporations.”

Under the proposed TPP, the investor-state clause can be used to pressure governments into allowing the continued operation of severely polluting industries out of fear of being sued for lost profits. Governments around the world are already reluctant to regulate industries like mining and oil, which can bring large revenues. With the potential for States to be held financially responsible for reigning in harmful business practices, corporate profits will gain an even stronger precedence over disenfranchised Indigenous Peoples living with destructive industries in their backyards.

Fast Track

Fast track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, is a process that rushes trade deals through Congress and removes the ability of elected officials to ensure that trade pacts protect workers, communities, and the environment. Fast track would allow the president to send already signed trade pacts, including the TPP, to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote with no amendments and a maximum of 20 hours of debate.

Despite mounting opposition, the Obama administration is supporting the fast tracking of the TPP. Cultural Survival has signed on along with over 550 organizations in a letter to former US Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), firmly rejecting fast track trade promotion authority in the United States and calling for a new system for negotiating and implementing trade agreements. In the letter, this diverse coalition stated that fast tracking is an outdated mechanism that would limit Congressional and public oversight over trade negotiations. Communities, workers, and especially Indigenous Peoples must have a say in these deals. Fast track is the clear opposite of the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, the human rights standard in negotiating deals that affect Indigenous Peoples as the TPP will in a dozen countries.

What can you do?

1. Get in touch with your area Representatives and Senators: goo.gl/VI1nkJ 2. Share on social media: Fast tracking the TPP ignores the rights of #Indigenous Peoples across Pacific nations. #NoFastTrack for #TPP At @RonWyden @BarackObama 3. Learn more at publiccitizen.org

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 23

Construction of Nicaragua Canal

Threatens Indigenous Lives and Livelihoods Lake Nicaragua (Lago Cocibolca), the largest drinking water reservoir in Central America, would make up the center of Nicaragua’s planned interoceanic canal.

Photo courtesy of Amir Illusion.

M

any remember the controversy of the Panama Canal, a 77.1 kilometer canal that cuts through the Isthmus of Panama. The project was marred by decades of debate, thousands of worker deaths, a US-backed coup d’etat, and years of violent riots from Panamanians before it reached completion.

Now, a similar project stands to exceed the scope of the Panama Canal in both size and depth. In June 2013, Nicaraguan officials approved a $50 billion (US) deal with a Hong Kong firm to oversee the construction of a 278-kilometer long canal. The HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Company’s proposed project would attempt to link the Pacific to the Caribbean, allowing the passage of container ships too large for passage through the Panama Canal.

The construction of the canal promises environmental abuses and human rights violations as the proposed route cuts through the land of multiple Indigenous territories on Nicaragua’s coasts and within its mainland. Thousands of people are expected to be impacted with many being forcibly displaced, primarily including the Kriol and Indigenous Rama people, in a clear violation of Indigenous autonomy laws in Nicaragua and international human rights documents. The area in question for Indigenous communities is no small range; 52 percent of the proposed route passes through traditional lands belonging to the Indigenous Rama and the nearby Kriol community. The lands that make up the majority of the canal’s route are deeply intertwined in the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples of the region, including precious forests, biodiversity, and water systems. Many fear that the construction of the HKND canal will severely affect the communities’ ways of life.

The Nicaraguan Government has failed to properly consult Indigenous communities regarding the canal’s construction.

Rama-Kriol officials have demanded that their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent be respected, but the government has failed to engage leaders at every stage of the process. Many Indigenous community members fear that their options are limited. “We are fighting a big monster,” said Carlos Wilson Bills, president of the Bangkukuk. “I feel like that big monster cannot just come and take us out of here. We have the last word about this issue of the canal, because if we say we want it, they could come. But if we say we don't want it, it cannot come, because the land belongs to the Indian people. And we have the last word,” he said in a documentary produced by the Center for Assistance to Indigenous Peoples, (CALPI).

24 • ww w. cs. org

The Nicaragua canal is a 278-kilometer shipping route under construction connecting the Caribbean Sea with the Pacific Ocean. Map courtesy of nicaconexiones.com.

The Nicaraguan Constitution of 1987 recognizes the Indigenous cultures that reside on the land and their right to maintain their languages and cultures. Two additional laws, 28 and 445, grant autonomy and “the use, administration and management of traditional lands and their natural resources” to Indigenous people. Additionally, Nicaragua signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2008 and ratified ILO Convention 169 in 2010, a legally binding document guaranteeing prior consultation before such projects. By failing to consult their Indigenous population, the government has repeatedly failed to respect their rights to autonomy and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. In June 2013 Canal Law 840 was passed, amending this legislation to further the government’s interests by accommodating the construction of the canal and giving the development firm the right to expropriate land and natural resources.

“Those who suddenly find themselves landless will be reimbursed for their ancestral lands based on the assessment of the land’s value for tax purposes, as of June 2013,” stated Axel Meyer, president of the Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences, in an interview with National Geographic. “These individuals can register a complaint about the amount of compensation being offered to them, but they cannot register complaints about the land being taken from them.”

For many Indigenous Peoples, this law might as well be a death sentence for traditional cultures, languages, and lands.

In an address to the Washington, D.C.-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Rama leader and lawyer Becky McCray further conveyed the damage the canal would have to the culture of the region’s Indigenous, whose livelihoods and ways of life are deeply entwined with their lands: “If this project gets implemented, there is a strong possibility that the Rama language spoken in Bankukuk Taik will disappear as the last people who speak that language get forcibly displaced from their land.” A language only spoken by several dozen, many fear the multi-billion dollar project will drive the fragile language into permanent extinction with the displacement of its few remaining native speakers.

The government is reportedly anticipating that 7,000 homes may be expropriated to make way for the 278-kilometer canal.

However, an independent report by the Centro Humboldt states that the impact will be much greater. The report found that 282 settlements and 24,100 homes were identified within the direct area of influence, estimating that the number of people anticipated to be directly affected by construction at over 119,000. The canal’s construction will not only bring the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, but also irreversible environmental damage. The loss of Indigenous communities will be accompanied by the loss of some of Nicaragua’s most precious and rich resources: its ecologically diverse lands and waters. Included in the project’s concession are the rights to build an interoceanic canal, industrial centers, airports, a rail system, and oil pipelines, and most concerning, the right to expropriate land and natural resources found along the canal route.

Lake Nicaragua, which the proposed route crosses, is the largest drinking water reservoir in the region. Meyer warns that the canal could destroy 4,000 square kilometers of rainforest and wetlands, including hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, reserves, wetlands, and regions Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean coast rely on for sustenance and farming.

“The effects of construction, major roadways, a coast-to-coast railway system and oil pipeline, neighboring industrial freetrade zones, and two international airports will transform wetlands into dry zones...remove hardwood forests, and destroy the habitats of animals including those of the coastal, air, land, and freshwater zones,” he said in his interview with National Geographic.

Environmentalists and local communities fear that should they be able to keep their traditional lands, environmental damage will be so severe that the region will no longer be able to sustain traditional livelihoods. “It will destroy we,” said Edwin McCream, an Bangkukuk community member, in an interview with Al Jazeera America. “When I mean it destroy we, we’re not going to get turtle, we’re not going to get fish, we’re not going to get lobster, we’re not going to get shrimp, and from the bush we’re not gonna got deer, we’re not gonna got gibnut, we not have no kind of animal if the canal come.”

The Nicaraguan government has not been upfront regarding anticipated environmental damage from the canal. With environmental impact assessments still underway, construction on access roads has begun in anticipation of the assessment’s completion. Meanwhile, the social impact assessment conducted by the Nicaraguan government, if being conducted

Rama Kriol community of Bangkukuk Taik during a public consultation about the canal. Photos by Vera Narvaez-Lanuza.

at all, has lacked any transparency. While quick to boast the economic impact of the canal, officials have blatantly disregarded the needs and fears of community members from coast to coast. A coalition of 11 groups including affected Indigenous communities and environmental and legal organizations submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights criticizing the rights violations inherent in the Canal Law. In a hearing on March 16, 2015, McCray declared to the Commission, “The state’s omission of material in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendents denies our relationship to our lands and our social structures, flagrantly violating our territorial rights, our right to participation, and our right to self-determination.”

Since confirmation of the project was announced, citizens from diverse sectors of Nicaragua have been rallying and protesting to voice their concerns about the canal plans. Meanwhile, the government has blazed forward with a project that it hopes will bring rapid and lasting economic growth to the country. Following a long history of dictatorship, a brutal USbacked civil war, and natural disaster, Nicaragua is currently one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. At the beginning of the project, the Nicaraguan government stated that it hopes the project will boost economic growth in the country from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 14.6 percent in 2016. It remains to be seen how this economic growth would trickle down to the country’s poorest, and how it could ever compensate for the real loss of lands and resources that have been traditionally held by Indigenous Peoples for generations.

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 25

i ndi geno u s r ig h ts ra d io

Indigenous Rights Radio Launches at UN Permanent Forum 2015 ‘’It’s a powerful means of communication because all of us come from a culture of storytelling.’’

C

ultural Survival’s newest program, Indigenous Rights Radio, has produced over 350 radio programs and counting on Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

We highlight stories with Indigenous leaders who share the victories and strategies for defending their lands, languages, and cultures across the globe. We distribute the programs to a growing database of over 1,400 small community radio stations to get the message out to millions of Indigenous listeners around the world. Programs are recorded and produced by Cultural Survival’s Indigenous Radio Producers, Kaimana Barcarse (Kanaka Hawai’i), and Rosy Gonzalez (Kakchiquel Maya) of Sumpango, Sacatepequez, Guatemala, in English and Spanish and have been translated into almost two dozen Indigenous languages.

At this year’s United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York, Barcarse and Gonzalez had the chance to present some of our newest radio programs to an audience of their peers for feedback on the content and directions of the radio programs.

After listening to our programs in Quechua, Felicia Huarsaya of Peru told us that she was very happy to have programs available in her native language: “It’s excellent that you are informing communities on these topics in Quechua; for us, Spanish is a language of colonization, and we don’t understand it well. With programs like this that speak about how governments are supposed to be behaving towards Indigenous Peoples, we will be able to demand that they implement our rights. We will be able to rise up with one voice. These programs will be of great use in my community. I will bring copies home and hand them out so that everyone learns about the rights we have that are enshrined in Convention 169 of the ILO and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.’’ Adam Ole Mwarabu (Maasai) from Tanzania, shared, “This is a really important initiative. Most of my tribe cannot read or write, so the radio is important for us. It is a good tool because many people do not have access to the internet. It’s also a powerful means of communication 26 • ww w. cs. org

Martín Delgado Cultezzi, youth representative of the Charrúa Nation Council of Uruguay, displaying his support for Indigenous Rights Radio with a sticker on his canteen of Yerba Mate tea. Photo by Danielle DeLuca.

because all of us come from a culture of storytelling.’’

Barcarse shared an interview with Dalee Sambo (InuitAlaska), former chair of the Permanent Forum. Sambo had expressed her shock and dismay to Brazilian state officials at their failure to address the concerns brought by Indigenous Peoples of Brazil at the 2014 Forum, which she chaired. She specifically had asked the Brazilian officials to dialogue with the Indigenous Peoples on their own turf and reprimanded them for not following through. Our Indigenous producers caught up with her right after her statement to Brazil in which she shared her vision for the Permanent Forum being a place from which positive change can come for people on the ground. A listener responded, “I like what you did with her interview. It was a good way of bringing the message home, so a grandmother or a young one could hear it.’’

Listen to Dalee Sambo’s interview at: goo.gl/ylYokG

Suggestions for future programming on Indigenous Rights Radio include: • A focus on climate change and its impacts on all of the people, plants, and animals in Indigenous lands • Traditional songs, music, and storytelling from Indigenous communities • Selected ancestral and family medicinal practices, given that these have been approved for sharing with those outside of the community • Family violence, depression, and suicide within Native communities • Inter-generational dialogue • Updates, conclusions, and outcomes from key United Nations events • Legal issues or cases that can illustrate and promote Indigenous courts and forms of justice • Continued emphasis on tribal and Native languages What kind of programing would you like to hear from Indigenous Rights Radio? Visit cs.org/rights to listen to what we’ve produced so far and to send your comments.

Ba za a r a rt ist: I nterlacing the past and present

Elizabeth James-Perry during a textile residency at the Peabody Essex Museum.

Elizabeth-James Perry Asia Alsgaard

E

lizabeth James-Perry (Aquinnah Wampanoag) is a traditional Native artist specializing in wampum jewelry, textile arts, and illustration from Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. In 2014 she received a prestigious Traditional Arts Fellowship from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. Using the traditional depiction of North America as Turtle Island, she produced the drawings for the turtle mural installed in the Aquinnah Tribe’s educational kiosk.

“My family encouraged us to be creative, resourceful, and brought us up to be mindful of our Native heritage,” James-Perry says. “I have good childhood memories associated with the island and mainland Native scene of waiting for the ferry to get us out to our spring social on the Vineyard, how lively and crowded those gatherings always were...gatherings we used to hold with my brother’s drum group, and even of being brought as a youngster to tribal m eetings with my mother. My grandmother was a wonderful cook, and she and older aunts came to stay with us and shared family histories. Most weekends we spent enjoying the outdoors.”

James-Perry credits her cousins with teaching her the crafts of spinning, weaving, and beadwork as a teenager, after which she gradually made the transition into finger weaving wool and jewelry design with purple quahog and white oyster shell from local waters. Wampum is a challenging medium, so she found it “heartening to see how talented tribal folks on the island and Cape Cod successfully and consistently worked the shell in various forms, combining it with brass, sinew, and other materials.” She says she draws inspiration from the ghost images in shell, sometimes seeing a mysterious bear or whale emerge from the first cut oval or square.

Historically, wampum belts have been used in tribal storytelling and as alliance-making gifts. It is an important Native material that is part of ceremonial culture, and so, James-Perry says, wampum will always be relevant. “It acts as a reminder to consider our past and future here in our homelands by the sea. And it connects us with other tribal Nations throughout the northeast in the United States and Canada that still hold the material in high regard. Artists are tactile: we generally learn as much through our hands and other senses as we do visually. You can only do so much explaining or reading. Much is experiential, and can only be deeply understood with years of practice.

At some point it’s crucial to be quiet and just experience the art.”

To James-Perry, there is a marked difference between machine and handmade; artists put themselves into their art, and age-old techniques for crafting wampum ensure the time is worth the investment. These are heirloom pieces, meant to be handed down for generations. She explains that the wild-harvesting supplies necessary for weaving require hunting for plants in a time when private property rights make it challenging. And in New England, of course, there is also the matter of short gathering seasons to contend with.

Still, she says, “it is enjoyable to spend an autumn weekend picking rhubarb leaves, sunflower, and Jerusalem artichoke petals, or dry crunchy oak galls in the woods.”

One of James-Perry’s current projects is to twine-weave a colorful women’s yarn sash for the Native Fashion Now Exhibit at Peabody Essex Museum later this year. Along with the sash, a curved wampum beaded bias collar with a small hand effigy, referred to in early sources as a friendship collar, and softly colored purple wampum earrings, will also be part of the traveling exhibit.

See more of her work at www.elizabethjamesperry.com.

Timeless style: a traditional wampum friendship collar.

Small hand sculpted wampum whale effigies for special gifts.

Long earrings of the artist's design at the first Indigenous Fine Arts Market in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

All photos courtesy of Elizabeth James-Perry.

Check out our upcoming schedule of Cultural Survival Bazaars at www.bazaar.cs.org.

July 18–19: Falmouth, MA July 25–26: Tiverton, RI August 1–2: Cambridge, MA October 10–12 : Amherst, MA

get i nvo lve d

How to Maximize Your Effectiveness After the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Joshua Cooper

T

he United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council that meets annually to discuss Indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health, and human rights. The intensive 10-day session brings together Indigenous Peoples, member states, UN agencies, programs, and funds as well as academics and activists at UN headquarters in New York to exchange best practices on advancing Indigenous Peoples’ rights. For many delegates, the personal measurement of successful participation is the delivery of an intervention on at least one agenda item, optimally with their specific situation being cited in the Forum’s concluding observations. While the months leading up to the Permanent Forum offer opportunities to ensure equality and dignity for Indigenous Peoples, (see CSQ issue 38.4), the time immediately afterward is equally significant. Adopting a strategy to prepare for the Forum can result in tangible improvements in the daily lives of Indigenous Peoples. Following are specific steps to help maximize the followup from the Forum experience.

May

Immediately after the Forum, it is crucial to take advantage of the opportunity to meet with officials from UN agencies, programs, and funds that participated in the session as well as other institutions that didn’t attend but have mandates pertinent to promotion and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. You can arrange meetings with these organizations when in New York, as most have offices located within a block of UN headquarters. These meetings are an opportunity for two styles of “asks:” one to immediately cease a project that has been harmful to Indigenous Peoples, and one to propose

a specific new program that would enhance respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It is also a good idea to request specific contact from the organization in-country upon return to one’s homeland. It is possible to outline the various organizations’ global gatherings to note the specific agenda items relating The International Labour Organization to Indigenous Peoples and organize opportunities to actively meets annually in June at the Palais participate to ensure Indigenous perspectives are part of the des Nations in Geneva. global decision-making progress on the themes significant to Indigenous societies. One example is the United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization meeting in Paris in the fall. It is possible to review the agenda prior and plan to participate if relevant related rights issues are being discussed.

July

Once the Permanent Forum Report is complete, it is presented at the annual UN Economic and Social Council, a meeting that is alternately hosted in New York and Geneva every year in July. The recommendations go forward with a resolution being adopted. Indigenous Peoples can follow and attend with Forum member experts in attendance to shepherd the resolution through the Council to ensure Indigenous intent is protected in the UN process. During the meeting, Indigenous Peoples can participate to ensure the original language and integrity of the Permanent Forum recommendations are protected.

August

Indigenous Peoples Day is hosted annually on August 9 at UN Headquarters in New York. It is an opportunity to follow up on specific recommendations and note new directions.

Indigenous Peoples can arrange followup meetings with UN specialized agencies, programs, and funds when attending this celebration. There is an annual theme that allows for Indigenous Peoples to direct attention toward specific situations affecting many Indigenous Peoples around the world. It is also a good opportunity to communicate with UN specialized

2015 UNPFII delegates stand in solidarity during an intervention on disappeared students in Mexico.

28 • ww w. cs. org

All photos by joshua cooper.

Cultural Survival Executive Director Suzanne Benally speaking with UNPFII member Joseph Goko Mutangah.

Catherine Murupaenga-Ikenn (Ma–ori) makes an intervention at the UNPFII in April.

agencies, programs, and funds to follow up on specific ideas and initiatives arranged during the Permanent Forum meetings.

September

In September there are two opportunities to advance Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The September session of the UN Human Rights Council focuses on Indigenous Peoples with a half- day discussion on a specific theme, as well as the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and also the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There are also many agenda items that could be creatively connected that allow Indigenous Peoples to speak directly to states about the situation in one’s homeland. Of the 10 agenda items, over half offer opportunities to organize an intervention around Indigenous rights. For example, Human Rights Council agenda item 6 is the Universal Periodic Review, which allows anyone to provide update on the implementation of past recommendations.

It is also important to continue one’s advocacy at UN Headquarters starting at the opening of the UN General Assembly on the third Tuesday of September. It is possible to begin to meet with the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly to see if specific resolutions will be priorities for Indigenous Peoples. At both the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly there will be resolutions that can build on the advocacy initiated at the Permanent Forum annual session.

October

October is an important month to apply for funding and begin thinking of an outcome that can be enhanced through Permanent Forum participation and can mobilize Indigenous Peoples to action in one’s community. The UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples will announce new funding cycles and deadlines. It is important to consider mentoring youth and including new voices to continue the legacy of Indigenous Peoples at the UN. It is also an opportunity to bring in new activists working at the community and country level to see influence of international institutions as additional advocacy tools to protect Indigenous rights. Other important institutions meeting in October are both in New York and Geneva.

The UN General Assembly Third Committee will be con- sidering current conditions in countries with many UN missions bringing their Geneva-based staff to serve in New York. There will also be many UN Human Rights Council special procedures participating, so it will be possible to review the country visits and All photos by Danielle DeLuca.

also thematic reports being presented. In Geneva, the UN Social Forum is a potential space to send representatives to speak. Each year it has a different theme utilizing a human rights framework to focus on denial of fundamental freedoms. Indigenous Peoples can examine the agenda and pursue participation by coordinating side events, and also be included on main panels to provide insight on current topics sharing firsthand information connecting the theme to the actual denial of dignity taking place in Indigenous nations.

November/December

It is imperative to consider the new mechanism of the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights. Many recommendations from the Permanent Forum can be raised and considered at this new winter meeting that examines how states and corporations are implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Since its inception, the annual UN Forum on Business and Human Rights has taken place in early December. In 2015, the fourth UN Forum on Business and Human Rights will take place November 16–18. It is crucial to continue campaigning in this new area at the United Nations. Indigenous Peoples have been successful in the early development of this new forum participating in opening, closing, panels, and side events.

Indigenous Peoples can also engage at the national level as states are starting to create National Action Plans to illustrate how the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights will be implemented at the country level. Another potential area of contribution is the new Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations that will hold its inaugural session July 6–10 in Geneva. This will be a binding treaty on business and human rights when it is concluded, and since Indigenous Peoples are at the forefront of abuses with transnational corporations, it is necessary to shape the legal language of this emerging field of international human rights law.

—Joshua Cooper is a professor at the University of Hawai’i, West Oahu, Kapolei and director of the Hawai’i Institute for Human Rights.

Keep track of dates of next year’s session and deadlines at the UNPFII website: goo.gl/yCXmVn

Cultural Survival Quarterly

June 2015 • 29

Indigenous Peoples Need Allies to Advance Their Rights and Protect Their Lands “This is a really important initiative.

Most of my tribe cannot read or write, so the radio is important for us. It is a good tool because many people do not have access to the internet. It’s also a powerful means of communication because all of us come from a culture of storytelling.’’

Adam Ole Mwarabu (Maasai) from Tanzania

“It’s excellent that you are informing communities on these topics in Quechua; for us, Spanish is a language of colonization, and we don’t understand it well.

With programs like this that speak about Indigenous Rights Radio Producer Kaimana Barcarse interviews UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Victoria Tauli-Corpuz for a program about Indigenous people with disabilities. Photo by Jessie Cherofsky.

For more than 43 years ,

Cultural Survival has partnered with Indigenous Peoples in their struggles for autonomy, cultural continuity, and protection of their territories. Our programs amplify the voices of Indigenous Peoples by broadening access to participation, information, and decision making; by supporting sustainable livelihoods; and by advocating for policy and legal reforms that respect, protect, and fulfill Indigenous rights. Through our programs and advocacy work, we address the global, national, and local demand for political and legal reform. Join us. Become a member and support our work.

how governments are supposed to be behaving towards Indigenous Peoples, we will be able to demand that they implement our rights. We will be able to rise up with one voice so that everyone learns about the rights we have that are enshrined in Convention 169 of the ILO and in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.’’

Felicia Huarsaya (Quechua) from Peru

Support Indigenous Rights!

We simply cannot do all that we do without you by our side. Please make your tax-deductible gift today.

Donate online at cs.org/donate Call us at 617.441.5400 x18 Thank you for all you do. You make our work possible every day!