Fourth World Eye Blog » Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D.

“We Decide”

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:37:47 +0000

When indigenous nations ask that their knowledge, their territories, their way of life receive the respect that all humans expect they ask that other societies act as mature human organisms. For the better part of eight years, indigenous peoples’ representatives to international climate change talks aimed at forging a new treaty have called on states’ representatives and representatives of non-governmental organizations to respect indigenous knowledge systems, territories and the many different ways of life expressed by indigenous societies. That respect has not been forthcoming. As Dina Gilio-Whitaker writes in Indian Country Today there is a general unwillingness by states’ governments to respect indigenous peoples as serious political societies with the capacity to exercise governing powers. Indeed, when the United States government under President Barack Obama decided a little more than a year ago to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (already approved by the UN General Assembly in 2007) Obama’s government noted several reservations limiting that endorsement. The United States is unwilling to accept the principle of “free, prior and informed consent” mentioned three times in the Declaration, as a requirement for applying its laws and regulations to Indian nations and Alaskan and Hawaiian Natives. The reservation once taken in reference to the principle listed in the Declaration basically asserts that no indigenous nations can “veto” decisions taken by the US government even if they do not consent to US actions that affect them.

The “free, prior and informed consent” clause written into the UN Declaration is the most fundamental principle of freedom and democracy that means simply: “we decide.” This is the essence of the self-determination principle (Article 3) in the Declaration that appears in the UN Charter, and virtually all international conventions and agreements between states. Despite this widespread acceptance of the principle of self-determination, the United States of America (whose President Woodrow Wilson introduced the concept at the end of World War I) essentially rejects the operable part of self-determination….the free right to decide the social, economic, political and cultural future without external interference–based on “free, prior and informed consent.” When a nation seeks to formulate its own policies it must exercise the power of decision based on not being coerced, and clear and unbiased information.

For Europe’s Popes, Kings and potentates sovereignty is the word for the authority to rule granted by God rendering the rule absolute. For Indigenous nations in Europe, North America and elsewhere in the world, the simple statement “We Decide!” carries the same weight and authority, but to do so they must decide freely and with prior, informed knowledge.

UNDRIP, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, sovereignty, self-determination, Dina Gilio-Whitaker, Indian Country Today,

The Transition: Life, Death and Rebirth

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:03:00 +0000

December 21, 2012 is marked in Mayan calendrical measurement as 13.0.0.0.0 or the end of the 26 thousand year Great Cycle. In the knowledge system of America’s original peoples this is a point of transition where for thirteen years before this point we know this as the period of life meeting at the point of death and beginning the rebirth during the next thirteen years. This is a entirely optimistic understanding of time and space and the meeting of the two as a part of a great continuum. In other words, instead of a cataclysmic crescendo as some believers in Christianity might call the “end time” this moment in celestial time sets about restoring the balance that is lost over the previous 26000 years.

Life on this minor planet is, as many peoples in the world know well, influenced and regulated by movements in the universe–big and small movements that penetrate into our very being and into the mixture of the physical and metaphysical aspects of all things. While this all sounds other worldly, it is merely a statement of how things actually are; and the Mayan peoples along with many other peoples in the hemisphere and elsewhere in the world have an acute awareness of the big and small movements that influence and regulate our little planet and all of its animate and inanimate beings (as some would tend to separate living stone from organic life).

Think of this moment as merely the midpoint of a 26 year segment of time where thirteen years lies on one side of the moment and thirteen years sits on the other side. It is this 26 year period that is meant to be understood as the transition from the cycle’s period of life to its moment of death and to its period of rebirth.

Death is therefore only the moment of time through which one transits from life to rebirth.

Celebrate the moment of 13.0.0.0.0 (21 December 2012) and know that a new beginning marks the period of rebirth into the next 26000 years of the Great Cycle. Have a feast and then take a moment to pause, reflect and then begin on a new path.

Great Cycle, Life, Death, Rebirth, Mayan calendrics, knowledge system of America’s original peoples

Dina Gilio-Whitaker Joins FWE & CWIS Research

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:16:57 +0000

Dina Gilio-Whitaker joins contributors to the Fourth World Eye with a background in American Indian culture, education and history with a Masters degree in Native American Studies and American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her research interests emphasize decolonization theory, indigenous environmental justice, and international indigenous issues. As an undergraduate she graduated summa cum laude, and graduated with distinction from her master’s program.

Though she lives in Southern California Dina is a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes where she lives as a freelance writer. She is a frequent op ed and story contributor to Indian Country Today news magazine, appeared on Huffington Post, Indianz.com and she is an accomplished essayist and American Indian artist.

She is deeply interested not only in how the processes of history has affected today’s American Indian people, but in how those processes play out in American history narratives. Histories are subject to change depending on the particular historical moment, who is telling the history, and for what reason. She says, “American historical narratives of American Indians have been incomplete but fortunately are being filled in by Native people themselves, giving a much more nuanced and accurate understanding of American history.” Dina’s contributions to the FWE promise to enlighten and inform readers.

We welcome Dina as a contributor to the Fourth World Eye and we also welcome Dina as a new Research Associate at the Center for World Indigenous Studies.

Dina Gilio-Whitaker, Indian Country Today, freelance writer

Extreme Violence against Bedouin village of Bir Hadaj

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:01:59 +0000

In the early morning hours of November 12, hundreds of Israeli police stormed the recognized Bedouin village of Bir Hadaj. The police officers were accompanied by representatives of the Israeli Ministry of Interior, who attempted to distribute home demolition orders to village residents.

In Bir Hadaj, the Israeli police used tactics usually saved for the occupied Palestinian territories, including the use of undercover forces disguised as Arabs, known as Mistaravim in Hebrew, whose goal it is to create provocations and incur a violent response from the Israeli security forces.

Indeed, soon after their arrival in Bir Hadaj, the Israeli police fired tear gas, and rubber and sponge bullets at residents, injuring many people, including women, children and the elderly. 19 residents –including 7 minors– were arrested in the clashes that ensued, and 29 children were subsequently taken to Soroka Medical Center in Be’er Sheva to be treated for tear gas inhalation.

There was to be a demonstration by Israelis, Bedouins and other supporters, but it was announced on 14 November that the Israeli police canceled the demonstration permit in the Bedouin village of Bir Hadaj due the Israeli/Hamas-Gaza conflict that is heating up over the assassination of the lead Hamas military leader which in turn was said to have occurred due to rockets being fired into southern Israel.

Report as received from: NegevBedouin@googlegroups.com [NegevBedouin@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Yeela Raanan [yallylivnat@gmail.com]

CWIS Monitoring Adaptation Committee

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:34:01 +0000

The CWIS Climate Change Monitor continues to monitor meetings of states’ governments and indigenous peoples throughout the year between sessions of the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The annual December sessions have been disappointing in terms of their productivity since the failure to establish a treaty agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. Since that failure (mostly associated with differences between China, India and Brazil on the one hand and the United States of America on the other) smaller states and more drastically affected states (island states for example) have shifted their frustrations to addressing aspects of the treaty such as adaptation strategies. We have concluded that insofar as the interests of indigenous peoples are concerned adaptation strategies, limiting states’ government control or influence over indigenous peoples’ decisions and the incorporation of ancient indigenous knowledge systems into the definition of mitigation and adaptation strategies must be the focus of indigenous peoples’ diplomatic and internal efforts. Consequently we will focus our attention on these aspects of the local, regional and global dialogue as we continue to monitor efforts to address the adverse effects of climate change in the Fourth World.

The Government of Qatar to host 18th Conference of Parties negotiations

Soon the 18th Session of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties will be convened in Qatar from 27 November to 7 December 2012 where the Conference of Parties (states’ government delegations) will consider reports from the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action and proposals from participating governments for adjustments in the current draft treaty language.

While the reports of these bodies will be important to advancing the discussions and perhaps move parties to closer agreement…the issues of incorporating “traditional knowledge” and respect for the “free, prior and informed consent” of indigenous populations language urged into consideration by the listed bodies to report to the Conference will probably not see the light of day. At least, the language advocated by indigenous peoples’ representatives over the last six years has not seen the light of day in previous COP sessions.

One possible new light of importance is the introduction of the newly formed Adaptation Committee. The Committee held organizing sessions in September and will report as agenda item #8 in the December Conference. Zimbabwe’s Margaret Mukhanana-Sangarwe and the US government’s Christina Chan sit as the cochairs of the Adaptation Committee.

Margaret Mukhanana-Sangarwe served as the chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (a sub group of the UNFCCC)

Christina Chan is a Foreign Affairs Officer at the US Department of State responsible for representing the US government in climate change negotiations. She is a former Senior Policy Analyst at CARE USA with connections to the Climate Action Network, and AdaptAbility Climate Adaptation Network.

Adaptation to Climate Change is no longer an option, but a necessity

A key task was to start developing the three-year work programme. The COP in Durban has provided the Adaptation Committee with an initial list of activities, which include establishing linkages with other UNFCCC bodies such as the Standing Committee on Finance and the Technology Executive Committee), preparing an overview of regional centers related to adaptation, preparing an overview of the international institutional adaptation landscape, and preparing a periodic overview of issues related to adaptation internationally.

The Adaptation Committee has the opportunity to help raise the profile of adaptation substantially in coming years and also to contribute to a more efficient negotiating process . An important question is how the Adaptation Committee engages with outside actors. Here, the committee had quite an ambiguous start. Publicly, almost no information was available in advance of the meeting on the website of the UNFCCC. The gathering was not even announced the UNFCCC home page, where all the other committees are listed. No background documents and no agenda were published prior the event. This compares to the start-up of the Standing Committee on Finance, where at least the agenda was available before the meeting. The Adaptation Committee’s adopted rules of procedures are another disappointment. For example, the committee could not formally agree to webcast the sessions. This would be an important step to achieve transparency and engagement with outside stakeholders.

Also the adopted rules of procedure lack a clear process to systematically engage with observers. Comparing the Adaptation Committee procedures to the more progressive ones of the Technological Executive Committee, an institution that was also launched in Cancun, this can only be seen as a missed chance. On the other hand, the actual work carried out during the initial meeting was quite open and refreshing. Observers could make interventions and were even consulted as experts in the working groups.

We shall monitor the Adaptation Committee closely in the coming months.

Ancient Knowledge Systems and IGC Bioethics

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:18:18 +0000

The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee and the member states of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee commenced the 19th Session of the IBC at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris on the 11th and 12th of September to consider the “Draft Report of IBC on Traditional Medicine and its Ethical implications.” The draft contains numerous flaws and perhaps most importantly it lacks a scholarly foundation from indigenous peoples.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization International bioethics Committee (IBC) had asked more than 100 specialized research institutes throughout the world to answer questions intended to secure information about traditional medical practices, their institutional framework and legal regulation. The IBC also called upon traditional health practitioners from different regions of the world to participate in discussions presenting their points of view and experience with traditional medicine. Absent an understanding of ancient knowledge systems, their structures and how they work, and relying on only what can be called a cursory and largely superficial consideration of the present state of existing scholarly understanding about ancient knowledge, the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO may now only draw one conclusion:

1) Seventy percent to 90% of the peoples living in developing countries and perhaps 40% to 60% of the citizens living in so called developed countries rely on traditional medicines and healing practices as a primary source of health care or in the case of developed countries as a frequent source of health care.

2.) In many countries there are more traditional healers than there are conventional medical practitioners,

3) The effectiveness and benefits of traditional medicines and healing practices are not measured or understood by conventional medical systems,

4) Users of traditional medicines and healing appear to benefit from treatments for mental disorders, chronic health conditions including rheumatism, metabolic disorders, neurological anomalies and conditions including diabetes, heart disease, arthritis and obesity, abdominal pains, diarrhea, jaundice and malaria.

Concerned that traditional medicine may forestall access to “modern medicine” the IBC suggests that “cultural familiarity” cannot be used to obstruct such access. In reality, like the World Health Organization that also seeks to classify traditional medicines and healing practices and argues that such practices “should be respected, preserved, promoted and communicated widely and appropriated based on the circumstances in each country” (Beijing Declaration), the argument is that states’ governments should “ensure appropriate, safe and effective use of traditional medicine” under state laws and standards.

The problem with the IBC approach and ultimately that of the World Health Organization is that they conclude that states’ governments should assume regulatory control over traditional medicine and healing practices when UNESCO, the WHO or states’ governments do not understand, have no means to understand or seems unwilling to understand the ancient knowledge systems that are foundational to traditional medicines and healing practices anywhere in the world. How can a State respect, preserve, promote and communicate traditional medicines and healing practices about which they understand virtually nothing?

The ultimate violation of ethical practice would seem to be inherent in the UNESCO, WHO and states’ government approach to relegating traditional medicine and healing practices to a “precious resource” that is only useful if it is placed under the guiding hand of “modern medicine” so such practices can be clarified. This approach, of course, ignores the infancy of “modern medicine” and the confounding errors of modern medicine–witness the inability to heal and prevent chronic disease-representing 80% of human illness. Achieving the “highest attainable standard of health” so urgently and earnestly sought by the International Bioethics Committee might well be best achieved by first seeking to understand the structures of ancient knowledge systems on which traditional medicine and healing practices are based before urging state institutional control over the very thing it does not understand.

Discussions of traditional knowledge in the international arena and in academic institutions have only begun to scratch the surface of understanding the structures of ancient knowledge systems. The systems of knowledge provide not only health and healing (and has been done so for thousands of years), but created the very basis for civilization: architecture, water engineering, agronomy, astrophysics, quantum physics, the hugely fragmented sciences, social order, political organizations, mathematics, music and the arts, and much more.

A good prescription for the International Bioethics Committee would be to directly engage indigenous scholars around the world who individually and collectively contribute to defining the fabric of ancient knowledge on which communities and civilizations base their traditional medicines and healing practices. Perhaps the best model for proceeding is to consider the examples of Ghana, Tibet, the Diné, the Mayan DayKeepers, Mapuché healers and support a sustained effort to have these and thousands of other indigenous peoples explain the structures and elements of the ancient systems of knowledge on which they base their medicinal and healing practices.

At the moment, UNESCO, IBC, the WHO, states governments and academic institutions interested in benefiting from ancient knowledge act as if they are “one hand clapping.” To make a full and effective sound they must work with indigenous peoples, their scholars and their practitioners in a concerted effort as collaborators–not controllers. Now, that would be ethical.

Nasa People in the Crossfire

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 20:30:47 +0000

As reported by the Colombia Support Network today, the Nasa people living in and around the municipality of Toribio about 200 kilometers south east of Cali, Colombia have been caught in a cross fire for more than a week between the forces of the Colombian military and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Both the Colombian government and FARC are fighting to gain or maintain control over Nasa territory (see map). Nasa territory is located in the bitterly fought jungle region where FARC has centered much of its activity for years. The Colombia Support Network release notes, “that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has ordered the Colombian government to take measures to protect the community of Toribio, but that no such measures have been taken, the indigenous community and the Association of Indigenous Communities of Cauca (ACIN) are demanding the departure of the combating forces.”

(Nasa community territory located in the Colombian Army/FARC contested jungle region)

As with many indigenous communities in Colombia, violence not of their making has contributed to death and dislocation for many years. The fact that the Colombian/FARC conflict continues raises the question of how beneficial such a conflict is to the people…in particular since indigenous communities suffer the brunt of violence.

Here are the words of the Association of Councils of the North of Cauvca, ACIN-CKHAB WALA KIWE

(the territory of the Gran Pueblo):

(Translated by KAITLAN DEVINE, a CSN volunteer translator edited by John Laun)

We declare ourselves to be in permanent resistance until all armed groups and armies leave our homelands. We are at home and we are not going to leave. Those who must leave are the legal and illegal armed groups and armies which come sowing death in our territory.

More than 400 takings of Toribio by the guerrillas plus the deaths, injuries, displacement, destroyed homes, mined fields, lost crops, students without classes, pain, impunity, sadnesses, orphans, widows, threats, targetings and all kinds of abuses which go against life, norms, dignity and justice. This is reason enough to say NO MORE WAR, NO MORE ARMED GROUPS AND ARMIES WHOEVER THEY MAY BE, NO MORE ABUSES, NO MORE DISRESPECT, NO MORE RAPES AND NO MORE INVASIONS OF OUR LANDS.

LET US HAVE CALM, LEAVE US IN PEACE, MEN OF WAR. This is the requirement which the indigenous communities and authorities of the Nasa People determine to make in a collective order to the armed groups and armies who have been fighting in the midst of the population in the municipality of Toribio, Cauca for the past 8 days.

We are not going to stay with our arms crossed watching how they kill us and destroy our territories, communities, Plans of Life, and our organizational process. Thus, rooted in the word, reason, respect and dignity, we began to walk in groups toward where the armed groups and armies are entrenched to tell them face to face that, in the context of the autonomy which belongs to us, we demand that they LEAVE, THAT WE DO NOT WANT THEM, THAT WE ARE TIRED OF DEATH, THAT THEY ARE WRONG, THAT THEY LET US LIVE IN PEACE.

We began today in Toribio, but the people are preparing to move in a peaceful manner throughout the whole territory which has been invaded and present themselves to the armed groups and armies. The idea is to develop the day marches in an alternating manner in all of the communities. We will evaluate the resistance in Toribio and act again if it is necessary until there is harmony in the whole territory.

As this is a risky move given the context in which it takes place, we exhort the public forces and guerrillas camped in the region to detain military operations in order to avoid risks to people who traverse the settlements, bases, and military encampments.

Since Toribio is one of the resguardos (reservations) which has Protective Measures issued by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (ICHR), since last September, the ACIN and indigenous authorities hold the national government and the commanders of the guerrilla armies of the FARC responsible for what may happen to the people, given that never has the community received a response of adequate protection, nor have the measures requested by the ICHR been implemented.

CXHAB WALA KIWE-Territory of the Gran Pueblo

Association of Councils of the North of Cauca, ACIN-CKHAB WALA KIWE

For more specific information see : http://colombiasupport.net/2012/07/odyssey-of-and-peaceful-resistance-by-cauca-indigenous-communities-faced-by-continued-armed-conflicts/

Lend your support to the Nasa People by calling public attention to the depredations being committed against them. Write to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. Write to the president of Colombia. Write to the US Department of State explaining your deep concerns about US policies that get translated into violence against people like the NASA.

Aymara Delegation Visits Center

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:38:35 +0000

A delegation of education and cultural leaders from Bolivia sponsored by the US Department of State People-to-People Program met for a briefing at the Center for World Indigenous Studies on 3 July 2012. Dr. Rudolph Ryser, Dr. Leslie Korn and Marlene Bremner met the delegation.

As a part of an ongoing collaboration between the Center for World Indigenous Studies and the World Affairs Council (in cooperation with the US Department of State) the Center’s Chair, Dr. Rudolph Ryser, engaged in a two hour colloquy with members of a delegation visiting the United States from the Plurainational State of Bolivia. Traveling to venues throughout the United States, the delegation included representatives from Aymara and Quechua communities concerned with the development of relations with Indian nations in the US and exploring methods for improving hemispheric cooperation. The talks ranged from discussions about the Museo Nacional de etngrafia y Folklore in La Paz, to intercultural cooperation and the Saririn Suma Wiñay Thaqipa , preventing the loss of native languages, and cultural research in the Andes.

From left: Marcelino Machiacado Montano, Milton Eyzaguirre Morales, Dr. Ryser, Iris Anabel Ortega Balboa, Marianeta Machiacado Machiacado, Gregorio Callizaya Apaza

Members of the Bolivian delegation included: Milton Eyzaguirre Morales, Head of the Cultural Promotion and Dissemination Office, National Museum of Ethnography and Folklore; Ms. Marianeta Machiacado Machiacado Educator for Sariri Center for the Studies of Andean and Amazonic World Views, La Paz from the Comunidad Sariri); Gregorio Callizaya Apaza Professor, School of Linguistics, National University of San Andres, La Paz; and Ms. Iris Anabel Ortega Balboa, Educator and Researcher at the Sariri Center for the Studies of Andean and Amazonic World Views and Marcelino Machiacado Montano, General Project Coordinator, Jatha (Seed) Cultural Group in La Paz.

It was agreed after exchanging gifts that the Center and the various Bolivian organizations will continue to exchange and seek opportunities for collaboration in the future.

Deforestation & Indigenous Peoples’ Rights

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Fri, 18 May 2012 20:17:27 +0000

SBSTA Session Bonn, Germany – Indigenous Peoples’ concerns on Deforestation

The International Indigenous Peoples’ forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) is meeting in Bonn, Germany during the current intergovernmental session where the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and technological Advice (SBSTA) ** is convened to consider proposals and recommendations for explaining the factors that promote and drive deforestation in bioculturally sensitive regions in the world. Participants in the IIPFCC ad hoc sessions have drafted and presenting recommendations to government delegations on deforestation, Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) of adverse effects, and a safeguard information system.

Still unable to sit at the table for discussions to enter into colloquy or directly present recommendations, the IIPFCC participants from many different indigenous organizations and communities press their diplomatic efforts with representatives of governments.

FACTORS THAT DRIVE DEFORESTATION

In its 17 May statement intended for the SBSTA session being held in Bonn, Germany the consensus position being offered on deforestation asserts that the survival of indigenous peoples in forests depends on a healthy forest. The consensus position goes on to argue that development activities (monoculture tree planting, mining, construction of large dams, large scale infrastructure projects including roads, and illegal logging of precious wood) are responsible for the pervasive deforestation. The IIPFCC also argues, “unsustainable demand and consumption of natural resources…” should be considered significant factors in deforestation. Concerned that SBSTA’s consideration of factors causing deforestation may be the sole consideration, the IIPFCC stated that deliberations concerning factors that drive deforestation, “cannot be separated from policy and legal reforms aimed at the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territories, resources, traditional knowledge” and broader rights to live and survive. Noting that states’ governments and businesses often claim to identify the application of traditional knowledge and traditional ways of living as the driving factors that cause deforestation, the IIPFCC asserts that such “erroneous” claims are simply evidence of an effort to undermine indigenous peoples’ rights as recognized under international law.

MONITORING, REPORTING AND VERIFICATION (MRV)

The International Institute for Sustainable Development’s “REDD Development Dividend Task Force meeting in January 2011 in Manila, the Philippines described the MRV as the “central issue in the Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) negotiations.” The UNFCCC Conference of Parties meeting in Cancun, Mexico (2010) mandated a way to measure green house gas and CO2 emission levels along with forest condition levels through a “transparent monitoring system.” Notably, the people most directly concerned with deforestation and greenhouse gas levels remain marginalized by states’ governments–indigenous peoples.

The IIPFCC offered several recommendations that featured the importance of “Indigenous peoples’ full and effective participation in developing, planning and implementing MRV activities….” The consensus document argues that indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge systems, local knowledge and resource management practices should be “fully acknowledged and respected” to make contributions to strategies and solutions. Of particular importance to the MRV question is the IIPFCC proposal that indigenous peoples engage the process through “independent review and active engagement…through a parallel review based on traditional knowledge” supplemented with technical assistance and financing.

SAFEGUARD INFORMATION SYSTEM

Finally, in their message to SBSTA the IIPFCC urged that the body formulate stronger guidance to states’ governments so they can align their policy and laws with international laws and in particular the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Since many indigenous people do not have legal or political recourse for redressing grievances with the state government the IIPFCC urges that the SBSTA encourage formation of mechanisms that are independent and accessible for complaints.

These recommendations are consistent with previous submissions to other intergovernmental mechanisms, but as always, SBSTA remains a distant interlocutor. Indigenous peoples representatives remain very much on the margins even as there is considerable effort to engage in dialogue with states’ government representatives and leaders of SBSTA.

________________________________
** Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) meets at least twice each year to develop recommendations and advice to states’ government members of the Conference of Parties that acts as the decision-making body on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The SBSTA is a subordinate body that provides advice on matters of science, technology and methodology and it offers guidelines for improving standards of government communications and greenhouse gas and CO2 gas emission inventories.

Ogoni Political Restoration – OCIA

Rudolph C. Rÿser, Ph.D. — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:43:17 +0000

The Ogoni Nation voted with 813,000 favoring votes (98% of the electorate) to establish the autonomous Ogoni Centeral Indigenous Authority (OCIA) as their government empowered to regulate Ogoni social, economic, political and cultural life in their Niger Delta country. The Ogoni Nation led non-violent opposition to the Shell Oil company’s criminal degredation of their river delta country. This is the second vote for political autonomy by the Ogoni people since 2009. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), led by the Honorable Chrsitiana Nwiko administered the plebicite declaring the voting process peaceful. From December 15, 2011 to March 14, 2012 volunteers working under MOSOP’s oversight worked to verify the nearly unanimous vote favoring autonomy and self-government.

_{Ogoniland and its six Kingdoms: Babbe, eleme, Gokana, Ken-Khana, Nyo-Khana, Tai and the administrative units of Bori and Ban Ogoi.}

The Ogoni Nation joins numerous indigenous nations (Yapti Tasba in eastern Nicaragua, more than five hundred American Indian nations, Igbos’ Biafra, the Hawaiian Nation, the Paiwan, Taroko and Tsao in Taiwan, Catalonia in north eastern Spain, and scores of other nations) voting plebicites to establish or reaffirm their powers of self-government. The Ogoni Nation invoked provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (13 September 2007) and pointed to Article 5 in the declaration supporting their reserve right to exercise self-government whil retaining their right to participate in the politics of the State of Nigeria.

In my book, Indigenous Nations and Modern States (that will be released in April) I document how indigenous nations around the world have been increasing the pace of changes in their political status creating a new international dynamic in the relations between nations and states. Some nations have pressed for independences (i.e., South Sudan and Federation of Micronesia) while many have pressed for autonomy, free association, and others have agreed to absorb into a state (Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu). Indigenous nations like the Ogoni are taking the initiative to affirm there original powers of self-government recognizing that the state surrounding their territory has taken from the indigenous people instead of ensuring their happy and satisfying life. The Ogoni, as with indigenous peoples around the world, exercise their right to freely choose their social, economic, political and cultural future without external interference, and by so doing they exercise their inherent right to govern themselves.

The Ogoni know instinctively recognize that they have a long and difficult road to travel as the future unfolds. Both external challenges and internal challenges await. Allies are now needed more than ever and for the Ogoni the Igbibo can help, but indigenous nations elsewhere in the world must lend a hand to support the renewal of Ogoniland.