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]

In an al Jazeera video entitled “Fault Lines”, reporter Josh Rushing investigates claims that Mexican security forces, supplied with ammunition and oversight from the United States, are using the narco-economy as a pretext to repress rural indigenous campesino communities.  Numerous indigenous communities are caught between the narco-trafficantes, who forcibly remove them from their lands, the Mexican military and police, who are quick to label them as narco-growers, and transnational corporations—such as Canadian-based Goldcorp Inc.–seeking to exploit the land and abundant resources these communities have depended upon for generations.  In addition to forced turnover of lands and false imprisonments, Rushing’s investigation confirmed countless cases of extra-judicial killings and other abuses by Mexican military and police forces which continue to go unchecked.

Why did these “veto wielding” states take such an obviously negative position regarding an obviously favored affirmation of human rights extended to marginalized populations?  While none of these oppositional states revealed their reasoning–for it is likely their actual positions would either offend popular sensibilities or these negative positions might reveal substantial political weakness–their opposition seemed utterly contrary to the spirit of the United Nations and its announced goal favoring global comity.

China seems to have abstained due to its fear of Tibet. Though Tibet has worked mightly to avoid being referred to as an “indigenous people” preferring instead to be known as an emerging “nation” Tibet poses a serious strategic threat to the central authority of China.  Tibet sits on the border of states that have threatened China.  It has therefore served as a “buffer” to perceived and actual threats.  China is also worried about the Uygurs of its far west flank.  Uygurs have their territory split between China and the Russian Federation and they consider the “Han” their mortal enemies. The Manchurians of the far northeast raise a similar border concern since they, along with Tibet and the Uygurs formed a short lived alliance some many years ago as they all seek separation from China.  Not wanting to call attention to its weakness, China chose to abstain and not oppose the Declaration to avoid controversy.

The Russian Federation has a similar, but much more complicated problem with “indigenous populations” inside its territory. Russians occupy a “minority” space in the Russian Federation.  By this I mean Russians are mainly located in an around St. Petersburg and Moscow and from those locations they trickle out along the east west rail line.  Indigenous peoples like the Komi, Sakah, Even, Nentsy, Tatars, Chechens, and Ingushitians actually occupy most of what Russia calls its territory and virtually all of the valued natural resources. Many of these peoples–notably the Chechens–have not been eager to remain a part of Russia.  Indeed, since the indigenous peoples of Russia actually have in their territories most of the natural wealth (timber, minerals, oil, etc) inside their territories Russia needs their territories more than it needs their people.  If the Chechens (who declared their independence in 1991) achieved their political goal many others would seek to join the “train out of town.”  Russia has used authoritarian and dictatorial rule to keep control over vast wealth that has mainly benefited Russians at the expense of indigenous peoples.  The Russian government does not want to call attention to this very serious weakness in its strategic profile so it abstained.

The United States government, long the “champion of human rights in the UN” has openly and quietly opposed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from the very beginning of efforts to develop it.  It was not, therefore, surprising that the “English Speaking Consortium” of the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia stepped forward as the most notable opponents openly oppositing the Declaration in 2007.  The United States is “wobbly” about indigenous peoples having international standing since much of US claimed territory remains largely contested by indigenous peoples.  “Land Rights” or land claims remain unresolved after wars between the US and Indian nations, land confiscations by the US, land annexations by the US and broken treaties mainly by the US.  The UN declaration challenges the US to restore the balance by recognizing the “rights of indigenous peoples,” but to do so the US would have to relinquish control over territories it stole.  The US is openly opposed to recognizing the right of indigenous peoples to “free, prior and informed consent” calling that right a “virtual veto” power.  Being a letigious country, the US fully understands thatq the exercise of this right to consent on the basis of prior knowledge also means to withhold consent knowing the adverse consequences of a decision.  The US fears indigenous peoples’ decisions based on informed consent.  The US fears that indigenous peoples will want their land and resources back, which would put a “monkey wrench” in the corporate exploitation of oil, timber, minerals, natural gas, and water in indigenous peoples’ territories. This is a weakness the US government does not want to expose.

Recognizing the “right” is not the same thing as “exercising the power” implied by a “right.” But, recognizing a “right” does mean that all parties must engage in discussions like adults to resolve any differences that a previously unablanced relationship might have created.  There are very real differences between indigenous peoples and the governments of Russia, China and the United States.  These differences are not resolved and continue to fester.  The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides a pathway for resolving differences and establishing comity so that those who wrongly acquired the wealth and resources of indigenous peoples can restore the balance so that benefits from wealth and resources can flow to the rightful owners.

Comity to ensure the full exercise of “indigneous peoples’ rights” as human beings is a difficult “pill to swallow” for those who covet the wealth of indigenous peoples.

It is time that China, Russia and the United States stop equivicating and instead join indigenous peoples at the negotiating table to begin resolving the longstanding differences.  It is time that states’ governments openly recognize that indigenous peoples are “peoples” and they are a political and strategic reality that must become part of the human family.  The UN Declaration is a tiny step in the direction of achieving that important goal.Technorati Tags: UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, informed consent, United States of America, Russian Federation, China, Human rights

Some of us have been promoting the concept of convening a world congress of nations and states to negotiate and establish new international rules of conduct for relations between indigenous nations and the now established international states.  In 1993, the Center for World Indigenous Studies proposed convening such a “Congress of Nations and States” to the recently collapsed Russian government and the governments of Germany, Japan and the United States as well as ten indigenous nations including the San Blas Kuna, Haudenosaunee, Tibet, Lummi, and the Sami. Our efforts were quickly embraced by the Russian and German governments and the indigenous nations also agreed.  Japan was reluctant and wanted to wait to see what the United States government said it would do.  After numerous meetings and finally a meeting in the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C. where representatives of the four states’ governments met with me representing the Center for World Indigenous Studies the possibility of convening a Congress of Nations and States under the guidance of a four state/ten indigenous nations steering body seemed well on its way. All parties except Japan and the United States seemed on board, and without much notice, the US Department of State signaled that the US could not agree to the Congress. To seal the sudden death of this hopeful process that had begun in the Spring of 1992 the Department of State Legal Affairs office dispatched a cable to Moscow saying the United States would not agree to the meeting of indigenous nations and states’ governments.

Perhaps the Congress of Nations and States was premature.

Now, however, there is new life to the idea that indigenous nations and states’ governments should meet and discuss protocols and procedures for implementing principles presented in the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Cobo Study took ten years to complete. The UN Working Group began its work in 1982, but only began working on what would become the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 1986.  That Declaration was finally agreed to by the UN General Assembly in 2007. In the mean time indigenous peoples’ issues have been embedded in numerous new international legal instruments and declarations including the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169, the Convention on Biodiversity, and the Convention on Intellectual Property.

A “World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference” was offered by the Gover

The UN Information Agency stated in its 16 November release that the Social, Humanitarian & Cultural Committee (the Third Committee) adopted a resolution proposing that the UN will sponsor a “World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference” scheduled to convene in 2014.  The Conference purpose is to: “adopt measures to pursue the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” The Committee requested the President of the General Assembly to begin consultations with member states to define the procedures and organization of the conference. The Third Committee’s resolution will appear on the UN General Assemblies agenda in mid-December, and request has been made that the resolution be adopted by consensus of the body.

The original nineteen co-sponsoring states’ governments of the Third
Committee resolution included: Argentina, Australia, Benin, Bolivia
(Plurinational State of), Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil gave favorable attention to the resolution and may become co-sponsors
even as Great Britain reluctantly said it would support the
resolution with major reservations.  Great Britain said its support
was subject to limiting the principle of “collective rights” to
domestic state law regulation despite recognition of the principle
in international law in such instruments as the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The British “reservation” sounds much like the language of earlier objections to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the United States and Canada.

Despite the wrinkles pushed up by Great Britain, the World Indigenous Peoples Conference is nevertheless a very hopeful prospect.  The government of Bolivia and her cosponsors should be congratulated for their courage and foresight.

Indigenous nations must now step “up to the plate” to begin offering suggestions and proposals for procedures, topics, and goals.  These should be offered to the UN and to states’ governments.  This will be a major test for the indigenous nations of North America…particularly those inside the US. Now would be a good time to form a Nation/State World Indigenous Peoples Conference Steering Committee responsible for facilitating the organization of this conference. The move by Bolivia and her sister states has to be considered a serious invitation to indigenous nations.  It is a serious invitation to states. Both must now get serious about clarifying how they will implement the UN Declaration within the framework of a congress of nations and states. A World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference in 2014 is needed.

Technorati Tags: José Martinez Cobo, UN Working Group on Indigenous Populatons, Congress of Nations and States, World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference, Bolivia, Argentina, Denmark, Cuba, Benin, dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finaland, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Urguay, Venezuela, Canada, Brazil, United States, New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, ILO Convention 169, Convention on Biodiversity, Convention on Intellectual Property

Mexico is a beautiful country as is Columbia and yet US government and citizen driven policies contribute to the desperate mess caused by those policies. Then Secretary of State Clinton makes the serious mistake of describing Mexico as another Columbia…a country messed up by US drug policies and gun policies.

It is without a doubt true what Mexico’s President Calderon means when he says of Clinton’s remark: “I think the main thing we have in common with Colombia is that both of our countries suffer from U.S. drug consumption,” * * * “We are
both victims of the enormous American consumption of drugs, and now the
sales of weapons.”

While Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan and other countries suffer from violence at unconscionable levels, the US continues to consume and demand the very drugs the US government has been saying for more than thirty years it wants to stop.  The United States’ Brain is on Drugs when it should be on cleaning up its own house to reduce and eliminate demand for weapons, drugs in the suburban communities that have all of the money to spend for these things. Legalizing marijuana and taxing it might just be a good start…the price would drop pretty quickly.

I heard Fred Caron begin the meeting by describing the $10 billion Loonies his government of Canada will spend on more than 600 reserves and how committed the Canadian government is to self-government. After 30 minutes of self-praise (accentuated by two gigantic power point projections on the front wall) this spokesperson for the Canadian government then spent a few minutes saying “we have a long way to go” since Indians in Canada suffer from the worst health conditions, bad water resources, lack of eduction, unemployment…and the horrors of being Indian in Canada. Then he turned to show a video of Canada’s proud moment in economic and competitive history: the Olympic Games near Vancouver earlier in the year.  The games were staged in the middle of Splutlamilx Country–lands so precious to native peoples in that area, but they were pushed aside for the winter games.

Fred Caron’s Canadian government continues to resist the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples even as the government of New Zealand reversed its opposition with an announcement before the the Permanent Forum earlier in the week. The Canadian government’s position is that it will approve the Declaration as long as it conforms to the Canadian Constitution and Canadian laws–just the opposite policy 144 other governments took in 2007 when they approved UNDRIP. Canada wants to look upon the Declaration as an “aspirational document” instead of the major Human Rights policy it stands for.  Canada’s Human Rights record continues to dip well below the standards of a civilized, modern state.

After Mr. Caron finished his scheduled 13 minute presentation in more than 45 minutes, the US government’s Obama Administration representative, Kimberley TeeHee piled a dismaying performance on top of Mr. Caron’s dismal act.

Ms. TeeHee was appointed in June 2009 as President Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor for Native American Affairs.  In other words, she is the President’s voice on Indian matters–different from Department of Interior Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Larry Ecohawk who now sits as an administrative functionary with little or no real voice in Indian Affairs policy.

Ms. TeeHee, bless her, spoke as if painfully in platitudes, hidebound economic and development aspirations for Indians, restatements of government-to-government commitments and–well that’s right–not a word to alter the disappointing pronouncement by the US government earlier in the week, that it will “review its position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”  What made this presentation so painful to listen to was Ms. TeeHee’s labored recitation of US case laws, antiquated descriptions of the “unique relationship between Indians and the US government,” and what I consider an unforgivable failure to offer new thinking, new ideas, and new statements of policy.  She simply repeated what had been said by every US administration since Richard Nixon in 1970: “we support Indian development.”

Neither Mr. Caron or Ms. TeeHee seemed aware that they were repeating what the Canadian and US government have been saying about their “Indian Policy” for the last forty years. They were demonstrating why both governments have earned the scorn of Indigenous peoples the world over for their hypocrisy, double speak and consistent confiscatory policies stealing Indian resources, lands, and the health and educational of future Indian generations.

Compounding the sins of Mr. Caron and Ms. TeeHee’s governments Canadian Indian spokespersons then commented and offered even more confusing repetitions of past speeches.  Instead of forward thinking, promotion of self-directed exercises of political authority by indigenous peoples, these spokespersons could only repeat the same kinds of platitudes as the two state government representatives.  Speeches by indigenous representatives were left undelivered – perhaps as many as fifteen speakers–because the three hours allotted for the meeting were largely taken up by the state government speakers. It is entirely possible the indigenous speakers would have said something worthwhile.

The Permanent Forum was an idea that I did not support when it was proposed and eventually authorized by the UN Economic and Social Council.  I feared that it would co-opt and deflate the process of political development–political energy–that had been growing over the previous twenty-five years.  I believe my fears have been born out.  The cumbersome “agenda” of the Permanent Forum and the complicated and time consuming bureaucratic  processes of the UN have clearly channeled indigenous peoples’ political energies into procedures, limited time presentations, and countless meetings at great expense.

I have observed the “cumbersome “agenda” of the international meetings since 1975 and instead of truly advancing the political development of indigenous peoples, I see little that constitutes true advances.  Just as “third world countries” remain trapped in an endless loop of potentials, indigenous peoples are now being drawn into the same trap.

I became impatient with the UN Permanent Forum when I learned that it did not consider Mexico a part of North America. I was told, “The UN defines these things.”  Still, the native peoples of Mexico and the United States and Canada are inextricably connected. I hold the view that the Permanent Forum should define regions according to actual relations between indigenous peoples and not relations between states or the language of the states.

Chief George Manuel believed that it was necessary for the international community to recognize indigenous peoples and he worked tirelessly to achieve that goal before he died in 1989. He would have been pleased to see indigenous representatives symbolically sitting in the General Assembly Hall (made necessary due to renovations of the smaller assembly room usually used). On the other hand, Chief Manuel would be irritated by the endless delays and obfuscations served up by the United Nations and states’ governments: the reasons things can’t be done–”we have much more to do.”

I like George Manuel am pleased to see the recognition awarded to indigenous peoples’ rights. Indigenous peoples must act, however, on their own to realize the promise of those rights.  They will not be given the rights even with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or the Permanent Forum.  Indigenous peoples will now have to reclaim the courage and strength to regenerate political capacity to force acceptance of their social, economic, political and cultural rights–as the Declaration says.

The symbolism of indigenous peoples sitting in the UN General Assembly Hall is powerful, but there is no substitute for the exercise of political authority.  States like Canada and the United States will continue to offer platitudes and tired expressions of confidence for the future development of native peoples, but only vigorous political action by indigenous peoples will force the respect and lawful acceptance of indigenous peoples sitting at the table of decision-making they so richly deserve.

Change has come at great expense to indigenous peoples even though the change has been slight and symbolic. I look to the day when indigenous peoples restart their political development to become true participants in the dialog among peoples.

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, UNPFII, Canada, United States, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous peoples’ political development, North America

Powered by ScribeFire.

Last Spring US Congressman Henry Waxman pushed through his Energy Committee a piece of legislation said to be a “revolutionary step” toward reversing the adverse effects of CO2 driven climate change. Well, actually Mr. Waxman’s legislation was compromised into “silly putty” shaped by corporations to fit their economic specifications.  The legislation includes a “cap-and-trade” system that promises to enrich electricity, coal, oil and other business while basically doing little or nothing to reverse CO2 and other Green House Gas emissions.

The National Congress of American Indians congratulated Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Waxman’s achievement, but some American Indian tribal goverments recognized the legislation for what it is: A corporate give away that actually makes things worse for Indian communities and other indigenous peoples in the world as well as everyone else.

Wednesday 30 September Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) released what they referred to as a “first step” for the Senate to consider climate change legislation.  Majority leader Harry Ried (D-Nv) frankly admits that there will be no time for the Senate to pass a climate change bill before the end of the year, so it is probable that the Senate will consider its Bill in the election year beginning in January. That will definitely cause the Bill to go into heavy weather, so to speak, against waves of opposition from corporate interests.  The House of Representatives is all up for reelection and a third of the Senate.  That will ensure tough going for a climate bill.

The Senate Bill does not include a “cap and trade” provision, but it does propose that the US should reduce its green house gas emissions by 20% by 2020.  The Senate Bill is marginally better than the House passed law, but it has little chance of becoming the law of the land.

Unlike the House Bill the Senate Bill recognizes the importance of tribal culture to the restoration of ecosystems.  This is important and could have far reach implications even if the Boxer-Kerry Bill fails to see the light of day.

In an international meeting of 180 state governments in Bangkok this week, a complicated “negotiating text” sits on the table for the countries to shape into a new Climate Change Treaty to replace the Kyoto Accords by 2012. Indigenous peoples (100 representatives strong) are actively pushing a policy paper in meetings with state’s government representatives urging them to incorporate indigenous traditional knowledge provisions, indigenous peoples’ land and forest rights; and indigenous government regulatory and cultural standards as part of the solution. While the indigenous delegates are working very hard, little progress on the treaty either for indigenous peoples or states’ governments is actually being accomplished.  The United States government is present, but it doesn’t really have a position to push and to lead with.  The US legislative body hasn’t acted, nor has it provided policy guidance.  So, things are kind of moving like slow mud.  It doesn’t appear that a climate treaty will be signed in Copenhagen this December as the United Nation schedule requires. That means that negotiations at the international level will have to continue for the next few years while the US Congress takes its time passing a climate change law…probably in 2012.

Indigenous nations are first and foremost the peoples in the world most immediately affected by the changing climate and the adverse effects of green house gases and other poison.  The simple truth is that indigenous peoples live closer to the natural world, and since the natural world is being polluted, and the climate changes are causing waters to rise, glaciers to melt, forests to retreat, tundras to change and deserts  to drift indigenous peoples living in these areas experience dramatic changes now. Adverse climate change affects are not in the future, for indigenous peoples they are a present day hazard.

Since the people who caused the ecological and climate mess are unable to respond sensibly, it is essential that indigenous peoples take the initiative and act on their own.  Reclaiming native culture and essential practices in relation to specific ecosystems can actually contribute to reversing the damage done by the industrial-money driven populations.  Indeed, it is increasingly apparent to me that reversing the adverse effects of changing climate may only be possible at the local eco-niche level instead of the global level.  If this is true, then indigenous peoples, their cultural practices and their understanding of the natural world may proved to be the main means for solving the problem.  Of course, those who are making the mess will have to stop making a mess, but it may turn out that that too will begin to happen as cities begin to choke themselves.  Global economic down-turns like the one seen for the last few years may be a surprising contributor to the solution.

Human culture re-balancing ecosystems and global economic recession may be the most power solution.  The smallest may have the strongest and best solution.

climate change, indigenous peopels, Kyoto Treaty, Senator barbara Boxer, Senator John Kerry, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, ecosystems, culture

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hopefully this unprecedented settlement will help to make drug companies stop this widely known and all too common practice of illegal drug promotions. Drug makers have to realize that their beautiful and responsible mission is to endeavor to bring better health and life quality to all people.

Following abstract news stories in the media on the new law I am shocked as a woman. Then I try to translate what I read on pieces of paper and the feelings this evokes into the very tangible meaning for and harsh reality of the Afghan women concerned in the news stories.
I start to see people in front of my eyes. Women whose realities I got a glimpse into for some hours or even weeks while staying at their homes with families in Central Asia.

I remember the abused Tajik woman during a visit to a traditional healer in Samarkand, Uzbekistan at six in the morning. Trying to get divorced from her alcoholic husband she was declared insane by him and her own family. Thus making it even more impossible for her to escape her situation. No money, the only possession being her wedding ring and clothes and nowhere to go. The only job to find in a country where there is almost no infrastructure for women’s paid labor is work as a prostitute in Tashkent hoping that a Russian would actually pay for her services- most likely unprotected.

I then remember the nervous cough I first could not understand and fearful but brave eyes of my host’s sixteen year old daughter Aziza when I asked her about the color of her future husband’s eyes. Before it dawned on my western trained mind she simply did not know. She had only seen him once from a distance. Her engagement party was a huge feast with songs, dance, a lot of food, a filming team and more than 200 people attending only Aziza and her fiancée were not allowed to show up.
After the party was over I helped to clean the tables. There were only five men who remained seated at one table. In order to clean the adjacent tables I moved one food plate onto the men’s table. How could I not have known that I might not dare to disturb these men by moving that plate. Wearing the traditional silk dress Aziza’s cousin had sown for me I quickly moved around and looked at the man who got up. How can a quick stare with hateful eyes feel so like rape? A breathless silence. Then feeling the protective presence of the remaining guests I defended myself in my own language as I had never before or ever after.

Travelling in my minds eye I then see Jacqueline who I stayed with for a month in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Proud and strong young Afghan woman. Disgraced through her divorce from an Afghan man she found personally repulsive and who it turned out later was the one who could not get children, blaming it on her and divorcing her after months of abuse. Living back with her mother and Russian step father who it turned out later was into smuggling drugs from Afghanistan to Russia and had severe alcohol problems, taking advantage of her, she was the lowest in the family hierarchy. Even her 10 years younger half-brothers and sisters she had to obey.

The latest I heard from Jacqueline months after my return was she reported her stepfather to the police and the embassy protected her sending her to Russia. And then she had to go back.
Now I have not heard from her for a long long time and I wonder….

The remarkable fact is that Bolivia is the first country in the world to substantially integrate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into domestic law.  Bolivia has responded to the Declaration by recognizing the rights of indigenous Aymara and 35 other indigenous peoples, recognized political power in indigenous communities, indigenous control over land and recognized officially the status of indigenous systems of justice as a part of the law and justice system of the state. These are now the law of Bolivia’s land.

Some countries look on Bolivia as a rogue state. Instead, Bolivia is now the leading state advancing human rights. Bolivia is leading the United States of America, Norway, Canada, Switzerland and virtually all other states that have long laid claimed to being the “free world.” Now Bolivia has set a new human rights standard for states’ governments to achieve.

Many Mistizo and most European descedant Bolivians in the eastern part of the country generally opposed the Constitution…they are currently in control of gas deposits, large landholdings and farms–the “power elite.” The descendants are immigrant populations that have long depressed the indigenous populations. The Indians have long provided the labor, land and resources to bolster the wealth and power of the elite.  This can now change.

Other countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Tanzania, Chile, Peru, and India could learn important lessons from Bolivia’s achievement.  In these states the majority population is the indigenous population and in each of them the minority wealthy control.  In states like the United States of America, Canada, Japan, People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and others, indigenous peoples are relatively small yet the wealthy minority controls even them.  All states must actively establish new laws internally to reflect the international consensus established in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Bolivia has advanced the rule of law with its new Constitution. It is time that those who resist the consensus on Indigenous Rights step aside.  They will not do so without resisting, but the time has come for the world to recognize Indigenous peoples as a part of humanity with all the social, economic, political and cultural rights that attach to that concept.

Bolivia, Evo Morales, UN, indigenous peoples, rule of law

Powered by ScribeFire.