July 18, 2010 by Mirjam Hirch.

“I hope this is a start of getting into a more intense contact,” the representative of the World Health Organization stated at the organization’s Geneva headquarters during a meeting with indigenous delegates from around the world on July 14th. ” You have to come see us, speak to us,” he admonished. “It is a two way road…. You are the best to judge what works in your communities…. We need case studies…. To be honest we have done much too little, the more we can hammer away the better.”

Clearly, as these comments emphasize an indigenous health in human rights initiative is highly needed. Health needs to be discussed as an important agenda item at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
There should be an Indigenous World Health Report put together to link work at the WHO with indigenous work and bring about change. Developping policies that are institutionally embedded are absolutely vital.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Mirjam Hirch, Health, Daily | Print | 4 Comments »

May 16, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

Corporations and states’ governments have created a profoundly desperate situation for hundreds of millions of people that is already made more complicated by human induced climate change. Huge numbers of people are continuing to be displaced economically as a result of Reagan/Thatcher financial liberalization that began about thirty years ago. What was celebrated for decades as the globalization of economies created a hugely wealthy global elite leaving millions of subsistence and work-a-day laborers at the economic bottom or completely outside of any viable economy.

In Mexico, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement was hailed just a few years after it was instituted as a great boon to the US and Mexican economies.  The truth is that a few corporations and a selected elite became incredibly wealthy and many millions of labors on the US and Mexican sides got pushed aside. NAFTA created a corporate/crime zone along the Mexico side of the US/Mexican border. Lands established for communal use of multiple families in Mexico produced foods and social support systems before NAFTA, but after that agreement the Mexican government removed protections from ejitos (lands set aside for groups of people to grow crops, raise animals and support themselves by producing foods and goods from the land). These lands were originally protected under the constitution from being sold, but the constitution was amended to allow sale of the ejito.  The biggest buyer of these lands turned out to be large (usually) US-based corporations. People who once produced their own food were removed to become laborers along the US/Mexican border or migrants traveling to the US in search of work (to earn money that can be sent back to families in Mexico).

What happened here?  People in the US lost the jobs after the Reagan Administration and subsequent administrations set about breaking up labor unions and firing large numbers of people so as to move physical plants to Mexico or China or some other country. Similarly, so called “free trade agreements” extended the capacity of corporations to buy up lands (with the help of the local government) to produce trade items that make money for the corporation, but that do not feed the people who originally owned the land.

As US President Bill Clinton once observed, “globalization will have winners and losers.” With the corporations and states’ governments cooperating they are separating people from the land and separating people from employment…both of which create vast numbers of economic migrants.

Increased migration has increased nativist attitudes in the United States and resulted in increased authoritarian behavior where migrants are badly treated, civil rights and human rights are being violated with impunity and levels of violence have been increasing.  Desperation is met by authoritarian violence and the invocation of police power against migrants protects the corporate profits resulting from NAFTA and leaves millions of ordinary people wondering what happened to their livelihood. Meanwhile, the migration from Mexico and states farther south continues and unemployment in the United States grows.  The financial and corporate gamblers count their profits.

Neither financial liberalization nor globalization has served to support life for more people, but rather for only a few. Migration is the only option available when the state and the corporations turn against the people in a selfish drive to profit. These same interests fail to recognize that their waste (carbon emissions, green house gases, poisons) contributes to an increasingly toxic atmosphere; and oceans, rivers, and land are spoiled as well. Human beings are being forced from their productive lands (where they are producers in support of their life) as “climate migrants.”  The alarm is being sounded (US Defense Department) calling the emerging migration of huge populations a threat to state security.

Human beings are like all other beings on the planet.  They need clean water, clean air, diverse foods sources and social and cultural balance. Human induced acts like financial liberalization, globalization and climate change destroy human habitation and give rise to pressures for migration. The pain is already apparent. The conflicts between humans in need and states protecting profit is on our horizon.

financial liberalization, economic liberalization, Reagan, Thatcher, migration, security, carbon emissions, climate change, green house gases, Human Rights, civil rights, labor

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, Political Economy, Environment | Print | 1 Comment »

April 25, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

I sat in the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations at the 9th Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues last week listening to speakers from North American Indigenous organizations, and the US and Canada governments, and I was dismayed at what I heard.

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.

Posted in Human Rights, Law & Justice, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, FW Geo-Politics | Print | No Comments »

April 21, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

UN Headquarters, United Nations. New York City

a) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by Indian tribes, the Federal Government shall grant Indian tribal governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. On issues relating to tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, or Indian tribal treaty and other rights, each agency should explore and, where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.

            (b) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have tribal implications, agencies shall:

(1) undertake consultation with designated officials of the relevant Indian tribes;

(2) encourage Indian tribes to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives;

(3) where possible, defer to Indian tribes to establish standards; and

(4) in determining whether to establish Federal standards, consult with tribal officials as to the need for Federal standards and any alternatives that would limit the scope of Federal standards or otherwise preserve the prerogatives and authority of Indian tribes.

            (c) With respect to legislative proposals, Agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation or comments on legislation that may affect tribal rights or interests without undertaking government-to-government consultation with relevant Indian tribes.

            (d) With respect to providing comments or recommendations on proposed federal actions or legal positions of the United States on matters that may affect tribal rights or interests, Agencies shall not submit such comments or recommendations without undertaking government-to-government consultation with relevant Indian tribes.

 (e) When undertaking to engage in government-to-government consultation with an Indian tribe or with an agency of the Indian tribe to formulate or implement policies that have tribal implications in accord with the principle of free, informed and prior consent guaranteed to Indian tribes

This process is in its development stages in the United States and elsewhere in the world.  It is a slow and sometimes thankless process, but it is crucial to the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

UNDRIP, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Consultation, Article 32, Land, territory, resources

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, FW Geo-Politics | Print | No Comments »

April 21, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

I am today attending the 9th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the UN Headquarters in New York City.  It appears this session promises to have some important influences on the directions of states’ government policies.

When the UN General Assembly considered the final draft of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September 2007, four states (US, New Zealand, Canada and Australia) rejected while 11 abstained and 144 agreed.  Since that decision nearly three years ago Australia and New Zealand have announced a reversal of their vote and stand now in favor. Canada is slightly equivocating, but inching toward approval. Only the United States is “studying” how it might respond to the trend of reversals.

On the first day of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on the 19th of April, New Zealand announced its reversal.  The United States representative Ambassador Rice indicated that the United States is “pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our
position.”

The central question for the United States is and has been “land rights” verse “territorial rights” and the exercise of self-determination.  While the US has given lip service to these concepts as relates to American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Hawaiian Natives its actual position has been that all this land must be under US control.  The problem is that most of the land and its status is really up in the air since the US has not actually made treaties or agreements to secure the land.  In Nevada, for example, that whole state and part of California and Idaho are actually Shoshone territory since the Treaty of Ruby valley never conferred ownership through transfer from the Shoshone to the United States.

Whether the US agrees to the Declaration or not, it is a defacto statement of international policy. Indigeous peoples and states’ governments are free to development implementation laws and actions as they wish.

The US and Canada had better get on board….the ship has already left the dock.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopels, UNPFII, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, FW Geo-Politics | Print | No Comments »

March 23, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

For many years the Center for World Indigenous Studies has pioneered education, research and public policy concerning the restoration of native foods and medicines as a part of a wider program to strengthen tribal culture while reducing and eliminating chronic disease.  A large gathering at the Tulalip Tribes in March proved the wisdom of our efforts.  Here are remarks I offered to the group attended on my behalf by CWIS Deputy Director Tiffany Waters and Research Associate Renee Davis.

“Diabetes and Holistic Medicine”

Sponsored by Northwest Indian College and the

Diabetes Prevention through Traditional Plants Program

6-7 March 2010

Tulalip Tribes’ Kenny Moses Sr. Building

Tulalip Tribes

Chairman Mel Sheldon, Hank Gobin, Inez Bill, Elise Krohn and all participants gathered here today.  It is with deep respect and satisfaction that I am able to convey my thoughts on this Day of Diabetes and Holistic Medicine at the Tulalip Tribes’ Kenny Moses Senior Building.

It seems like only yesterday that the Nisqually Elder Center hosted our first Culture, Foods and Medicines Workshop—though that great gathering was seven years ago.  After that three-day feast we at the Center for World Indigenous Studies and Center for Traditional Medicine had the great pleasure of presenting similar workshops at Lummi, Sto-Lo, Lower Elwah, Quinault and other locations as well.  Our thinking all along was that restoring the foods and medicines around the Salish Sea and the coastal zones would be the best path to reversing the growing trend of chronic diseases (diabetes, obesity, heart disease and cancer) experienced by more and more people in our region. Along that path we believed that restoration could only take place if the people reclaimed their ancient knowledge, began to harvest, and care for the plants and animals and hold feasts once. Active remembering of the great body of knowledge held in the deep heritage of the people was and is the essential requirement for restoring the balance between the people and the earth.

I am pleased to announced that we at the Center for Traditional Medicine have just published a new book entitled “Preventing & Treating Diabetes Naturally: The Native Way.” A product of more than ten years of research, and drawing from traditional knowledge this book is available from the Center for World Indigenous Studies DayKeeper Press. You can talk to Tiffany about getting a copy.

Bruce Miller and Vie Hilbert, Willie Sam and Michael Pavel, Monica Charles, Theresa Parker and of course Hank Gobin and Inez Bill, and many others have brought us to this day. And now the young ones who have taken up the mantel are giving added strength to the restoration of our cultures, medicines, and foods. Look now all about you and notice that our efforts have shown great progress.

I credit Elise Krohn for working so hard to learn from Indian elders and for giving her knowledge to our communities throughout the region. I also credit Susan Givens and her efforts through the Northwest Indian College for creating a stable home for the teaching and learning efforts. I congratulate Elise and all who worked with her to produce a new book on foods and medicines and recipes for us all to learn from and use to further nurture our well-being.

When we are given the knowledge again as has happened so many times in our history, we are obligated to share that knowledge and to encourage others to use and benefit from that knowledge. The many people who are now called “plant people” have given me great hope that the sciences of our many peoples can once again restore the health of the people. I urge the plant people to learn about the animals too for they also have knowledge for us all. And, of course, I congratulate those who cook the meals for our gatherings and gather the food for their great skill and attention to giving good feelings to the people through their efforts.

Our health must truly be a community effort. We must all participate in the restoration of our culture, foods, and medicines giving the gift of health and happiness back to our communities.

Thank you for listening and thank you to my good friend and colleague Tiffany Waters for delivering this message to you. I hold this gathering and its purpose in my heart as I am now conducting field research in traditional medicine and only wish I could have been here in person. Thank you all for your great efforts

Northwest Indian College, Tulalip Tribes, diabetes, chronic disease, health, culture, medicine, traditional foods

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, Arts and Culture, Health | Print | No Comments »

February 24, 2010 by Renee Davis.

Climate refugees are people who are forced to relocated due to climate change. This may be specifically due to droughts, desertification, sea level rise and extreme weather. Some areas have already been identified as likely to produce climate refugees: the South Pacific islands (Vanuatu, Kiribati and the Maldives), Southern Africa and Arctic islands and villages.

And the issue of climate-related relocations could be significant. Professor Norman Myers of Oxford University has estimated climate change will increase the number of environmental refugees sixfold over the next fifty years to 150 million. The IPCC has also predicted 150 million climate refugees by 2050 if warming trends continue.

A new documentary film by Michael Nash, Climate Refugees, details the human face of climate change. On the website the poster for the film can be viewed. It has a special message: “To the residents of America….Within the next few years millions of people are going to have to leave their homes because changes in the world’s climate will destroy the basis for their livelihoods.”

It’s interesting to note that this message is directed to America. There may be a dual reason for this: perhaps assigning some of the blame of climate change and looking to the United States to prepare to house these anticipated climate refugees. But it’s not only the U.S. who should begin to consider this trend. States and nations worldwide need to begin to plan how they would deal with so many displaced people, lest climate refugees become a very destabilizing force worldwide.

Posted in Artby - Renee Davis, Human Rights, Environment | Print | No Comments »

February 23, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

The US Supreme Court heard arguments today reported by the news media as an issue of US Constitutional First Amendment Rights. The Courts decision will have much larger implications if it decides in favor the US Justice Departments arguments that seek to enforce the US Government’s Patriot Act (hastily enacted by the US Congress after nineteen Saudi Arabian nations crashed two civilian passenger jets into the symbol of US Capitalism–World Trade Towers–in September 2001) against the Humanitarian Law Project.  If the court agrees with the US government lawyer, anyone who attempts to assist indigenous peoples’ organizations listed by the US Department of State as terrorists shall be considered in violation of provisions of the Patriot Act.

The case before the court involves the Humanitarian Law Project that has worked to promote non-violent effort by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an indigenous Kurdish organization seeking separation from Turkey, to bring before the United Nations human-rights complaints against the government of Turkey.  The argument is that such assistance by human rights workers and attorneys constitutes “training” of persons identified by the US Department of State as terrorists–an act prohibited by the US Patriot Act.  The Humanitarian Law Project also had the temerity to offer similar help to another indigenous group–the Tamil Eelam–seeking to file a human rights petition to the UN.

If the court decides in favor of the US government’s position, many individuals, organizations and even governments will be designated as giving aid to terrorists when they attempt to arrange peaceful solutions to state and indigenous conflicts where the US government has itself designated the indigenous group a “terrorist organization.” (It should be noted that the US government does not actually have a consistent criteria for listing organizations.)

In 2001 I became deeply worried when the US Department of State under the George Bush Administration began compiling a list of “terrorist organizations.”  This list originally had only one organization–al Qaeda.  It was later amended to include Hamas and then eventually even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This list is the equivalent of a “witch hunt list” or “red communist” list of the 1950s.  It is borne from hysteria … not clear, well thought out policy.  The Tamil Eelam never threatened the United States government.  It is and was an organization originally created to defend the Tamil from the majority Sri population.  Tamil Nadu–just across the straits in India–is a large population of Tamils with a distinct culture that reaches deep into the ancient past clearly related to Tamil Eelam.  The Kurds have never threatened United States security either directly or indirectly.  Despite the fact that both are indigenous groups fighting or seeking separation or self-determination in relations with a state created on top of them the US government has unwisely chosen to invoke its laws to prevent peaceful solutions to longstanding disputes.

The US Supreme Court risks creating a new legal regime that effectively outlaws political self-determination. In the instance of Uygurs in China, Kurds in Turkey and Iran, Baluchis and Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan and hundreds of others seeking to elevate their political status under the universally recognized principle of self-determination, the United States Administration and judiciary stand perilously close to undermining international law and the fundamental rights declared in both the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  If the court chooses to ignore international law and instead favor the application of an hysterically conceived domestic law the decision will undermine the US Constitution and the United States place as a lawful member of the international community.

The United States will make indigenous peoples its enemy instead of allies. The United States government should be working to find peaceful solutions to self-determination disputes instead of punishing those who work to apply human rights principles, the rule of law and non-violence.

Humanitarian Law Project, Turkey, Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Sri Lanka, foreign terrorist organizations, United Nations, Ralph Fertig, September 11, Patriot Act, indigenous peoples, Uygurs, China, Tamil Nadu, Hamas

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, FW Geo-Politics | Print | 1 Comment »

February 17, 2010 by TiffanyWaters.

An article recently surfaced in Indian Country Today entitled “A Sorry Saga,” in which the author brings attention to the Native American Apology Resolution signed by President Obama on December 19^th, as part of a defense appropriation spending bill. While the Resolution had passed as a stand-alone piece of legislation in the Senate, it was attached to and passed with a defense appropriations spending bill within the House before making its way to President Obama. The final version of the resolution shifted from being an official apology from the US government to an apology “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native peoples by citizens of the United States.” The real crux of the Indian Country Today article revolves around the lack of publicity surrounding the apology and asks the question, “Is an apology that’s not said out loud really an apology?”

Prior to this apology, President Obama has been largely lauded for keeping his prior commitments to Indian Country (convening a tribal leaders summit in November to hear concerns; appointing tribal leaders to IHS and Native American Affairs posts; largely maintaining and even, in some cases, increasing funding to Indian Country for this year’s budget). Ironically, it is this hidden apology that has caused some to backpeddle their vocal support for the Obama Administration. I would argue that many may view this obscure and amalgamous apology as a step backward rather than forward as it provides the perfect metaphor for the US’ longstanding nebulous public policy toward American Indian people. The US, throughout the years, has managed to promote a half in half out relationship with Indian Country in which sovereignty is recognized in pieces rather than in whole (as a long-standing continuation of the Western colonial reductionist vein of thought that brought us the Dawes Act, etc). Thus this apology, passed with no public acknowledgement, coming from the “American people” rather than the US government, and with a caveat to ensure that it cannot be construed to allow legal culpability, reeks of this prior paradigm that many in Indian Country counted would change and were hoping was changing with the election of President Obama.

Revisiting Indian Country Today’s question, I would propose what I believe to be a more pertinent question: Is an apology without subsequent action really an apology? A true apology, publicized or not, must be followed by real demonstrable action that marriages sentiments to words, words to policy, and policy to action. I laud this apology as long as it is a step toward such action. A relevant and pressing issue of substance is the current US stance against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In 2007, the US, along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, were the only countries to vote against the adoption of the UNDRIP. Australia has since overturned their decision in early 2009 and did so only two months after their official governmental apology to the Aboriginal populations. A true test then of the intent of the Native American Apology Resolution will be if the Obama Administration utilizes this apology as a foothold for reversing the current US position opposing the UNDRIP. Such an adoption would truly demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to and respect for Indian Nations and for creating a new paradigm in which true nation to nation relations can begin.

Posted in Artby - Tiffany Waters, Human Rights, Political | Print | 1 Comment »

January 31, 2010 by Rudolph Ryser.

Afghanistan and Pakistan stand as two semi-organized states with Pashtunistan and other nations astride their mid-sections. Violently attacked by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the 1980s, undermined by the United States government that busily supported and financed the rise of the Taliban in its opposition to the USSR, viciously attacked by the Taliban seeking to destroy tribal structures and replace them with Wahhabi Fundamentalism the peoples of Pashtunistan persist as the central political reality of west Asia.  While all around the Pashtun there are bankrupt, unstable, collapsing and failed states the nation of Pashtunistan continues to resist external violations of its leadership, communities and families.  When state leaders in Pakistan, the United States, Britain, and Russia claim the Pashtun territories are “lawless,” they are really saying the surrounding states do not and cannot enforce their laws in Pashtunistan–a country that has legal structures that predate virtually all of those states.

Ruhulla Khapalwak and David Rohde penned a well informed essay for the January 31, 2010 New York Times (Wk 3) making the important point: Pashtunistan is the key to the successful stabilization of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is essential as an ally to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  Led by the Americans, NATO forces must finally come to recognize that the work of a peaceful western Asia is only possible with the support of Pashtunistan. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan has the capacity, political will or historical credibility to defeat the American invented Taliban and their cousin al Qaeda.

Central to the persistence of Pashtun is the family and its extended tendrils. The cultural reality is that Pashtun are of the land and cannot be displaced. They are the bedrock nation of the region.

I noted in a posting several years ago that al Qaeda would seek to divide and dismember indigenous nations and then replace the cultural reality of these nations with their brand of distorted Islam.  They are indeed attempting to do just that in Pashtunistan and in the neighboring nation of Baluchistan.  They are also attempting to undo indigenous nations in Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, as well as Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Turkestan, Ingushitia and the Russian battered Chechnya.

Indigenous nations are the subject of the September 13, 2007 General Assembly Resolution of the United Nations entitled the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The Russians abstained and the Americans voted against the declaration.  Both states are guilty of doing violence against indigenous nations inside their own territories and in the territories of other states.  The United States government is the source of the principle of Self-determination as expressed in President Wilson’s famous 14 points aimed at settled Central Europe - particularly the former state of Yugoslavia–at the end of World War I. The United States also served as the original base and principal author of the United Nations and she gave us the UN Declaration on Human Rights under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt.  Despite these notable contributions to peaceful development in the world, the United States has led wars essentially against indigenous nations in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia…all in the name of fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The United States  must take heed of its own internal analysis by the US Department of Defense (the DoD Quadrennial Defense Review) that will publish a report that finds Climate Change to be the source of major security threats in the next fifty years. At the center of these security threats are massive population movements as a result of adverse climate conditions. Indigenous nations are in the forefront of the emerging security conditions. Colin Fleming echoes this warning in his Huffington Post article when he writes: “If America’s leading military think tanks are correct, climate change will, in addition to wreaking havoc through environmental disaster, become one of the greatest national security threats of the 21st Century.” While there are detractors from this analysis (see Justin Logan and Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute) the weight of evidence over the last forty years clearly shows a growing trend toward growing security problems.

This means that indigenous nations will have to become a major factor in the foreign policy of the United States and other states.  This also means the United States government must reverse its opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  If it fails to do so, it cannot be considered a credible ally or partner for indigenous nations who ultimately decide the stability or instability of major parts of the world.

Pashtunistan provides the United States an opportunity to receive lessons it must successfully learn. The conventional wisdom that all foreign policy must be “state oriented” is now obsolete. The Pashtun are offering the lessons for the 21st century foreign policy. States’ governments have much to gain by sitting down at the same table with indigenous nations, entering into a dialog and begin creating new institutions that joins states and nations in a common effort to define best approaches to peaceful settlement of present and future conflicts.  The Pashtun know about war and peace. Learn from them.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Pashtun, Pashtunistan, United States of America, USSR, Russia, Tadjikistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Uzbekistan, Turkestan, Inguishitia, Chechnya, bedrock nations, indigenous peoples, indigenous nations, self-determination, human rights, Taliban, al Qaeda.Wahhabi Fundamentalism, Islam, Britain

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in Human Rights, Artby - Rudolph Ryser, FW Geo-Politics, Environment | Print | No Comments »