La Doctrina de Descubrimiento y Colonialismo

La Doctrina de Descubrimiento:

 La Ley Internacional del Colonialismo

Documento de la Sala de Conferencia

11 ª Sesión del Foro Permanente para las Cuestiones Indígenas de las Naciones Unidas

7-18 de mayo 2012

Presentado por: Professor Robert Miller

            El 8 de enero de 1455, el papa Nicolás V emitió la bula Romanus Pontifex al rey Alfonso de Portugal y le ordenó que en lo que respecto a África:

"Invadir, buscar, capturar, vencer y someter a todos los sarracenos [los musulmanes] y paganos en absoluto, y otros enemigos de Cristo dondequiera que colocan, y los reinos, ducados, principados, dominios, posesiones y todos los bienes movibles e inmuebles en poder absoluto y poseído por ellos y para reducir sus personas a la esclavitud perpetua, y para aplicar y apropiado para él y sus sucesores de los reinos, ducados, condados, principados, dominios, posesiones y bienes, y para convertir a la suya. . . el uso y aprovechamiento. . . [Y que] poseen, estas islas, tierras, puertos y mares, y que son del derecho de poseer y pertenecer a dicho rey Alfonso y sus sucesores. . . "1

            El derecho internacional que autorizo y regulo los seiscientos años de la colonización europea de gran parte del mundo hoy se conoce como la Doctrina de Descubrimiento. A partir de las Cruzadas a Tierra Santa en 1096-1271, los países europeos y la iglesia cristiana comenzó el desarrollo de legalidades para justificar sus supuestos derechos a dominar y colonizar las naciones no cristianas.2  Específicamente, Portugal y España contribuyeron al desarrollo de esta ley a principios de los años 1400 en sus disputas sobre las islas cercanas la península Ibérica y la costa de África.3   La Iglesia se involucró y publicó bulas papales que se cobró la concesión de la soberanía de Portugal y la jurisdicción sobre los pueblos indígenas y la propiedad de las islas y las tierras de África que Portugal afirmaron haber "descubierto".4  Adicionales bulas papales proclamadas en 1493 pretendían conceder a España y Portugal derechos legales para colonizar y explotar el mundo entero.5 A partir de entonces, España y Portugal aplicaron la Doctrina de Descubrimiento en África y América6, y más tarde Inglaterra, Francia, Holanda, Rusia y España utilizan la Doctrina para reclamar por derechos en América del Norte.7  España, Portugal, Inglaterra, Holanda y Francia también utilizaron la Doctrina para reclamar derechos sobre los Pueblos Indígenas y sus tierras y recursos en Asia, el Pacífico y la Oceanía.8  La las sociedades coloniales que resultaron de la colonización europea de gran parte del mundo sigan aplicando la Doctrina del Descubrimiento en contra de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas en la actualidad.9

            En 1885, trece países europeos firmaron un tratado basado en varios de los elementos de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento en el que se acordaron la partición de enormes áreas de Africa.10 Los siete países europeos que colonizaron África, principalmente justificaron sus sistemas coloniales y el robo de tierras, bienes y los derechos humanos en los elementos del derecho internacional de Descubrimiento.11  Por ejemplo, los países europeos firmaron innumerables tratados con las naciones africanas que, al tiempo que reconoce la soberanía de África y sus gobiernos hasta cierta medida, en realidad se limitan la autodeterminación africana y su autogobierno, mientras que inició la explotación de los pueblos, tierras y recursos.12  Países europeos promulgaron numerosas leyes y creó las administraciones coloniales para gobernar y explotar África, y los sistemas judiciales europeos y coloniales tuvieron que resolver muchos problemas sobre la titularidad de los derechos indígenas, las tierras y los recursos en África.13

            Los países escandinavos también aplicaron los elementos de Descubrimiento contra los pueblos Sami para tratar de limitar los derechos de los Sami a la libre determinación y sus derechos territoriales y de propiedad.  La investigación preliminar establece que los casos judiciales de Suecia,14 y Noruega,15 y los materiales históricos muestran que los gobiernos de Suecia, Noruega, Finlandia, y Rusia se han violado los derechos de los Sami y los derechos humanos, también derechos de territorio y la propiedad.16 Los Sami siguen luchando para hacer valer sus derechos en la actualidad.17

            Es evidente que todos los pueblos indígenas necesitan comprender cómo la ley internacional del colonialismo se ha desarrollado; la forma en que se utilizó para denigrarles como seres humanos y luego como se utilizó para robar sus tierras, bienes y derechos, y cómo los ha afectado desde el inicio de la colonización hasta 2012.

            Un estudio de la Doctrina del Descubrimiento y su aplicación en todo el mundo se ve facilitada por la definición de los elementos constitutivos que conforman la Doctrina.  Estos elementos están bien definidos en el juicio principal sobre el tema de Discovery, en el caso del Tribunal de Supremo EE.UU. Johnson v M'Intosh, 21U.S.(8 Wheat.)543(1823).18  El caso de Johnson ha sido muy influyente en la definición de Descubrimiento y clave en decidir las cuestiones relativas a la colonización y los derechos de las Naciones Indígenas.  El caso ha sido citado cientos de veces por los tribunales de Australia19, Canadá20, Nueva Zelanda21, Estados Unidos22, y por el Consejo Privado de Inglaterra en los casos sobre la colonización en África y Canadá.23

            Estos elementos se reflejan, en diversos grados, en las leyes, tratados, casos judiciales, políticas, y las historias de todos los países coloniales europeos y en las sociedades de colonos que los europeos han establecido en todo el mundo.  Los diez elementos que constituyen la Doctrina son muy útiles en el análisis y la comparación de cómo las sociedades de colonizadores utilizan esta ley internacional contra las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.24

1. Primer descubrimiento.  El primer país europeo que descubrió tierras desconocidas por otros europeos reclamó derechos de propiedad y soberanía sobre las tierras y los pueblos indígenas. Un primer descubrimiento, sin embargo, se considera por lo general de crear sólo un título incompleto a esas tierras.

2. La ocupación real y la posesión.  Para activar un "primer descubrimiento" en un título completo reconocido por los demás europeos, un país europeo tenía que ocupar de hecho y poseer las tierras que habían descubierto.  La ocupación se demuestra por lo general por construir fuertes o asentamientos.  La posesión física debía llevarse a cabo en un plazo razonable de tiempo después de un "primer descubrimiento" para crear un título completo.

3. Derecho Preferencial / Título Europeo.  Países europeos que reclamaban un "primer descubrimiento", también pretendía haber adquirido el poder de la preferencia, es decir, el derecho exclusivo de comprar las tierras de los Pueblos Indígenas.  Se trata de una valiosa derecho de propiedad análoga al derecho una opción exclusiva para comprar la tierra.  El gobierno europeo que se cobró el derecho preferencial podría prevenir o adelantarse a cualquier otro gobierno europeo o individuo de la compra de tierras de los pueblos nativos.  La mayoría de las sociedades de colonizadores siguen reclamando este derecho de propiedad sobre las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas en la actualidad.

4. Titulo Indígena/ Nativo. Después de un "primer descubrimiento", los sistemas jurídicos europeos afirmaron que los Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas habían perdido de forma automática el derecho de la plena propiedad de sus tierras. Los europeos entonces afirmaron que las naciones indígenas sólo se conservaron el derecho de ocupar y utilizar sus tierras. Estos derechos pueden durar indefinidamente, sin embargo, si los pueblos indígenas nunca entregan su consentimiento para vender sus tierras al país europeo que reclamaban el derecho de preferencia. Pero si las Naciones Indígenas si optaron por vender sus tierras, sólo se esperaba la venta de tierras al gobierno europeo que pretendía mantener el derecho de preferencia.

5. Limitación de derechos indígenas soberanas y comerciales. Después de un "primer descubrimiento", los poderes europeos afirmaron que las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas perdieron varios aspectos de su soberanía y sus derechos inherentes al comercio internacional y la diplomacia.  Los europeos afirmaron que las naciones indígenas sólo podían interactuar con el gobierno europeo que los "descubrió".

6. La contigüidad. Los Europeos reclamaron una cantidad significativa de tierra contigua a sus descubrimientos y sus alrededores reales y los asentamientos coloniales. El principio de la contigüidad se reclama, por ejemplo, para que el descubrimiento de la desembocadura de un río supuestamente otorgó el país europeo una reclamación sobre todas las tierras regadas por ese río.

7. Terra nullíus. Esta frase significa que una tierra o la tierra que es nula, vacía o despoblada. Bajo la Doctrina de Descubrimiento, si las tierras no estaban ocupadas por cualquier persona o nación, o incluso si estaban ocupadas, pero no estaban siendo utilizados de una manera que los sistemas jurídicos europeos aprobaron, entonces las tierras se consideraron como "vacíos" y disponibles para solicitudes de Descubrimiento. A menudo los europeos se consideran tierras que eran propiedad de hecho, siendo ocupados y utilizados por las Naciones Indígenas, de ser "vacíos" y "abiertos" de estar disponibles para reclamar.

8. El cristianismo. La religión era un aspecto muy importante de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento. Los cristianos afirmaron que los pueblos no cristianos no tienen los mismos derechos a la tierra, la soberanía y la autodeterminación como tenían los cristianos.25 Por otra parte, los europeos afirmaron que tenían el derecho y el deber de convertir a los no cristianos.

9. Civilización. El “modelo” europeo de la "civilización" incluye la idea de que los europeos eran superiores a los Pueblos Indígenas y sus civilizaciones.  Los países europeos afirmaron que el Dios cristiano les había mandado a traer "la civilización" a los pueblos indígenas y ejercer las facultades de paternalismo y la tutela sobre ellos.

10. Conquista. Los europeos afirmaron que podría adquirir, a través de victorias militares, el título absoluto y la propiedad de las tierras de las Naciones Indígenas.  Por analogía, la "conquista" también fue utilizado como un término técnico para describir los supuestos derechos de propiedad y la soberanía adquiridos automáticamente en dominación sobre las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas sólo por pretender hacer de europeos el "primer descubrimiento".

            Las diversas formas y permutaciones de los elementos anteriormente mencionados están presentes en las historias y las leyes de hoy en día y las políticas de todos los países colonizadores y las sociedades coloniales que fueron establecidos por los colonizadores Europeos.  Estos elementos fueron utilizados, y se sigue utilizando, para tratar de justificar las afirmaciones de limitar la soberanía, la propiedad y los derechos humanos de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.  Apoyamos los esfuerzos continuos de los pueblos indígenas para oponerse a la existencia misma de la doctrina del descubrimiento y derogar sus efectos perniciosos.

Acciones propuestas para iniciar la eliminación de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento

Pedimos al Foro Permanente para que adopte estos pasos iniciales para comenzar el proceso de repudiar y revertir la Doctrina de Descubrimiento después de 600 años.

1. Adoptar la solicitud del Documento de la Sala de Conferencia sometido por la Confederación Haudenosaunee, y el American Indian Law Alliance, de que el Foro Permanente de Pueblos Indígenas convoca una reunión de expertos para crear un estudio internacional sobre la Doctrina del Descubrimiento y sus efectos sobre los pueblos indígenas, y que presente dicho estudio, junto con las recomendaciones, en el Foro Permanente en 2014.

2. Abogar que todos los Estados del mundo adoptan la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas como ley nacional de obligado cumplimiento.

3. Abogar que todos los Estados revisen sus leyes, reglamentos y políticas que afectan a naciones y pueblos indígenas y derogar leyes, reglamentos y políticas que reflejan los prejuicios etnocéntricos, feudales, y religiosos de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento.  Por otra parte, los Estados deben realizar estas revisiones en plena consulta con las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas y con su consentimiento libre, previo e informado.

4. Hacer un llamado a todos los estados para educar a sus ciudadanos en los programas escolares y por otros medios acerca de la historia verdadera y completa de la colonización y la aplicación de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento como ley internacional.

5. Hacer un llamado a todas las iglesias a unirse con los pueblos indígenas en el repudio de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento y cualquier papel que las iglesias pueden haber desempeñado en la creación de la Doctrina y en su aplicación en contra de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas.  Somos conscientes de que varias iglesias y organizaciones de la iglesia ya lo han hecho: la Iglesia Episcopal en el año 2009, la Iglesia Anglicana de Canadá en 2010, y el Consejo Mundial de Iglesias en 2012.  Pedimos a otras iglesias a seguir su ejemplo.

_____________________________

[1] European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, at 23 (Frances G. Davenport ed, 1917).

2 Anthony Pagden, Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500-c. 1800 (1995); Robert A. Williams, Jr., The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990).

3 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller & Micheline D’Angelis, Brazil, Indigenous Peoples, and the International Law of Discovery, 37 Brooklyn J. Int’l L. 1 (2011); Robert J. Miller, Lisa Lesage & Sebastian Lopez Escarcena, The International Law of Discovery, Indigenous Peoples, and Chile, 89 Neb. L. Rev. 819 (2011).

4 See, e.g., Williams, supra note 2, at 72 (bull of 1436 regarding the Canary Islands); European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (bull of 1455 regarding the west coast of Africa); Church and State Through the Centuries 146-53 (Sidney Z. Ehler & John B. Morrall trans. & eds, 1967).

5 European Treaties, supra note 1, at 23 (translating four bulls from 1493).

6 See, e.g., Brazil, supra note 2, at xx; Chile, supra note 2, at xx.

7 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt & Tracey Lindberg, Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies 26-170 (2010); Robert J. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny xx (2006).

8 See, e.g., Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at 171-246; Blake A. Watson, The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 34 Seattle U. L. Rev. 507 (2011); Robert J. Miller & Jacinta Ruru, An Indigenous Lens into Comparative Law: The Doctrine of Discovery in the United States and New Zealand, 111 West Vir. L. Rev. 849 (2009).

9 See, e.g., Robert J. Miller, The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 847 (2012); Discovering Indigenous Lands,  supra note 7, at xx; Brazil, supra note 3, at xx; Chile, supra note 3, at xx; City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005).

10 See, e.g., General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa (1885) (at http://africanhistory.about.com/od/eracolonialism/l/bl-BerlinAct1885.htm); S.E. Crowe, The Berlin West African Conference 1884-1885 xx (1942). 

11 See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, 1885-1939 xvii-48 (Toyin Falola ed., 2002); M.E. Chamberlain, The Scramble for Africa xx (2d ed. 1999); 6 The Cambridge History of Africa 1870-1905, at 26-729 (Roland Oliver & G.N. Sanderson eds, 1985); VII U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, General History of Africa: Africa under Colonial Domination 1880-1935, at xx (A. Adu Boahen ed, 1985); Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960, at xx (Peter Duignan & L.H. Gann eds, 1969-1975) (5 volumes).

12 See, e.g., 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 5-6, 8-9, 29, 33; 6 The Cambridge History of Africa, supra note 11, at 127, 442, 449, 453, 724-27. 

13 See, e.g., The Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion), Int'l Ct Justice 4 (1975); Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); 3 Colonial Africa, supra note 11, at 16-20.

14 Cf. North Frostviken Sami Village v. State, S.Ct. Decision No. DT 2, Case No. 324/76 (1981) (Supreme Court of Sweden).

15 Cf. Landowners and right-holders in Manndalen, et al v. The Norwegian State, Serial No. 5B/2001, No. 340/1999 (2001) (Supreme Court of Norway); Sirum et al v. Essand Reindeer Pasturing District, Seiral No. 4B/2001 (2001) (Norway); Riast/Hylling Sami v. Kjell Bendixvold et al, Frostating Lagmannsrett LF-1995-00034 A, Supreme Court HR-1997-00061 A, No. 96/1996 (1997) (Norway).

16 See, e.g., Lehtola Veli-Pekka, The Sami siida and the Nordic states from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 1900s, in Conflict and Cooperation in the North 183-94 (Kristina Karppi & Johan Eriksson, eds, 2000); Einar Niemi, History of Minorities: The Sami and the Kvens, in Making a Historical Culture: Historiography in Norway 325-46 (William H. Hubbard et al, eds, 1995); The Sami National Minority in Sweden 7-140 (Birgitta Jahreskog, ed, 1982).

17 See, e.g., Eva Josefsen, Norwegian Legislation and Administration - Sami Land Rights, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2007); Elisabeth Einarsbol, Some legal considerations concerning Saami rights in saltwater, Galdu Cala (No. 1, 2006); Henry Minde, Assimilation of the Sami – Implementation and Consequences, Galdu Cala (No. 3, 2005).

18 Johnson v. McIntosh is a very important case regarding the Doctrine of Discovery and Indigenous affairs as is demonstrated by the reams of books and articles written about it.  See, e.g., Michael C. Blumm, Why Aboriginal Title is a Fee Simple Absolute, 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 975 (2012); Lindsay G. Robertson, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of their Lands (2005); Eric Kades, The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v. M'Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1065 (2000).

19 A computer search reveals that ten Australia cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Western Australia v. Ward, [2002] 213 CLR 1, 76 ALJR 1098; Mabo v Queensland (No 2), (1992) 175 CLR 1, 107 ALR 1.

20 A computer search reveals that up to forty-four Canadian cases have cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 1 S.C.R. 1075 (Supreme Court of Canada); Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. British Columbia, [2011] 55 C.E.L.R. (3d) 165, 15 B.C.L.R. (5th) 322 (British Columbia Supreme Court). 

21 Several New Zealand cases have also cited Johnson v. M’Intosh. See, e.g., Attorney-General v. Ngati Apa, [2003] 2 NZLR 643; Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington, [1877] 3 NZ Jur (NS) 72; R. v. Symonds, [1847] NZPCC 387.

22 Johnson v M’Intosh has been cited hundreds of times by federal and state courts in the United States. See, e.g., City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203 n.1 (2005); Attorney’s Process & Invest. Services v. Sac & Fox Tribe, 609 F.3d 927 (8^th Cir. 2010).

23 Amodu Tijani v. Secretary, Southern Nigeria, 2 A.C. 399 (1921) (Privy Council); In re Southern Rhodesia, A.C. 211 (1918) (Privy Council); Canada v. Ontario, [1910] A.C. 637 (Privy Council); St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen, (1889) L.R. 14 App. Cas. 46 (Privy Council).

24 Native America, supra note 7, at 3-5.

25See Steven T. Newcomb, Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery (2008).

Request for Intervention to the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Professor James Anaya

Dear Special Rapporteur Anaya,

In furtherance of the objectives of the Conference and Consultation on the Significance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which you hosted today at the University of Arizona School of Law, please consider submitting a formal inquiry to the US Justice Department regarding the following issue, namely:

The continued persecution and discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in Maricopa County, Arizona including exclusion from the procedures of investigation and remedy involving racial profiling currently under way in Maricopa County by the US Justice Department.

*******

TONATIERRA

PO Box 24009

Phoenix, AZ 85074

Memorandum to the US Justice Department

February 7, 2012

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention via reports in the media today that the department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be opening up an office of community ombudsman to address issues of concern by the public relevant to the scope of law enforcement policies and operations of the agency.

We were also informed this morning that officials of the Justice Department are meeting with community leaders and organizations to discuss the current status of the US Justice Department Letter of Findings regarding the investigation of the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff, J. Arpaio.

The long march in defense of civil rights for All Peoples which began with the dismantling of discriminatory racial profiling practices that benefited the European American "white" constituencies with ethnic preferences in electoral, educational, economic, and legal systems has many chapters, but it begins with the basic recognition of universal Human Dignity and compassion.

The crossing of the Edmund Pettus bridge and the anguish of Bloody Sunday on March 7, 1965 are significant mileposts in this journey, and must be recalled now to contextualize the actions of yet another Sheriff in yet another state, for as Martin Luther King said after Selma in 1967 and before his assassination in 1968: "We have emerged from the era of Civil Rights to the Era of Human Rights."

Human Rights are inherent.  The United States of North America is a signatory of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  These two facts are realities that must be brought to bear to evaluate the scope of the issues mentioned at the beginning of the memorandum, but there is more.

On September 13, 2007 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The US was one of four governments that opposed the declaration including the anglophile states of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand who as derivatives, represent immigrant sovereignties that are residuals of the colonies of the British Empire.

Governor George Wallace of Alabama and Sheriff Clark of Selma also opposed the tides of justice, and in the name of the "Rule of Law" committed acts of atrocity and brutality that have left lasting wounds on the visage of the concept of America as "Land of the Free".

Therefore, in light of the fact that the issues of racial profiling and discriminatory policing that have begun to be addressed in the US Justice Department Letter of Findings regarding the Maricopa County Sheriff's office and the Melendrez vs. Arpaio decision by the US Court of Justice HAVE NOT mentioned the systematic practices of racial profiling against Indigenous Peoples in particular as fundamental to the overall violations of Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Indigenous Rights within the scope of law enforcement operations in Maricopa County:

We now request a meeting on the ground with the representatives of your department to discuss and explore venues to address this ongoing and pervasive pogrom of "ethnic cleansing" under the guise of the "Rule of Law."

Please contact me at your convenience to discuss this proposal.

 Sincerely,

Tupac Enrique Acosta. Yaotachcauh

Tlahtokan Nahuacalli

TONATIERRA

*******

"Stopping Mexicans to make sure they are legal is not racist.  If you have dark skin, you have dark skin! Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegal."

Files of Maricopa County Sheriff J. Arpaio,

quoted on page 28 of US District Court Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS

Document 494 12/23/11

The Geography of Self Determination

The Geography of Self Determination

Tupac Enrique Acosta

When the United Nations passed General Assembly resolution 1514 in 1960, declaring “All peoples have the right of self determination”, one of the arguments put forward by the member states of the UN was to clothe the concept of territorial integrity of the states themselves as being protected under the same principle.  In fact, section 6 of the same resolution GA1514 states:

“Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

In essence, these two statements from the seminal document that made colonization a crime for the first time in international law established an inherent conflict in the UN processes that now, half a century later, have come to a definitive point in terms of historical resolution. 

Nowhere is this more evident than by the blatant efforts by the anglophile bloc of government states (US-Canada-New Zealand-Australia) to block the full recognition of the Right of Self Determination in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The position of these government states is an attempt to place the right of self-determination of Indigenous Peoples as existing only within the parameters of domestic policy and legal systems, even though these same systems are products of colonization itself.

World Water One

www.www.www

The political arguments on both sides of the issue are in conflict, not just because of the doctrines of power that gave birth to the concepts of dominion which define the states and the social relations of their member constituencies, but also because the framework for resolution of the issues within the UN system is incompetent to address the spirituality of the earth based territorial reality of the Indigenous Nations, and the system itself is incoherent according to the geographic sciences of modern times.

What is lacking is a mechanism to define the issues in common terms, outside of the intellectual framework of colonization and dominion. What is missing is a clarification of the concept of territorial integrity, as a dimension of ecological and social sustainability and not a bastard relic from the intellectual Regime of Doctrines spawned by the Divine Right of Kings.

Emergence of the Fourth Principle

GA 1514 was followed by GA1541, which specified principles that defined three options for the attainment of “a full measure of self-government”, as the only contemplated political trajectories at the time for relief from colonization.  These are:

(a)           Emergence as a sovereign independent State;

(b)           Free association with an independent state; or

(c)           Integration with an independent state.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the transfer of territorial jurisdiction from Indigenous Nations authorities to dominion concepts of control and allegiance by the states is historically flawed and legally suspect.  There are unquantifiable elements. The case of the Western Shoshone is contemporary evidence that this is not just history but reality in the context of the hemisphere of the Americas, yet there is a larger issue.

The social and geographic realities of the Indigenous Peoples as Nations continue to exist as a political anomaly in terms of the international legal system of the United Nations.  Specifically, in this hemisphere of Abya Yala [the Americas] not only is this true in the face of centuries of colonization but also in terms of the options for relief from the crime.

Self definition being the precept of self determination, the three options of GA 1541 do not adequately describe the outcome of principles of self-determination which would define the Indigenous Peoples and our continuing relationship to our ancestral territories and surviving traditional societies.

The Emergence of the Indigenous Nations is a daily occurrence, one which is manifested in accord with natural laws of complementarity and harmony with the natural world, which includes our fellow human beings.  This ancient tradition is the shared cultural infrastructure of our confederations of families, clans, communities Pueblos and Nations. It could be characterized as a State of Integrity, which is not independent but interdependent within the network of ecosystems that describe our traditional homelands, sacred sites, territories and nations: the Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth.

Thus the Emergence of the Fourth Principle for decolonization: INTERDEPENDENCE, self-determination as an expression of community ecology and environmental sustainability. It is a particular and universal principle that may serve as a threshold concept to arrive at that ancient place once called the New World, if only we could create and travel guided by maps of the geography of self-determination.

NAHUACALLI

Embassy of Indigenous Peoples
802 N. 7th Street     Phoenix, AZ 85006

c/o TONATIERRA

P.O. Box 24009 Phoenix, AZ 85074
tonal@tonatierra.org

TONATIERRA
www.tonatierra.org


#TIMEisNOW
Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth 
******************

TIME is NOW:

Architectures of the States and the
Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth

As Peoples of Mother Earth, we collectively determine to regenerate our relationships among ourselves within a Cultural Climate of Mutual Respect, Inclusion, Complementarity, and Self Determination beyond the existing constrains of the international systems of state sovereignty and in responsibility to the well being of the future generations;

Recognizing that unless this fundamental dimension of international relationships among human societies at the planetary level is first recognized, established and affirmed, there will be no sustainable progress in addressing effectively and in timely manner the Climate Chaos scenario that now befalls all of Humanity due to the impacts on Global Climate exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions by industrial society and extractive industries in particular in complicity with national government states and existing international monetary systems and institutions.

Therefore we proclaim and hereby reaffirm in collective Responsibility as Peoples of Mother Earth, in Equality with all Peoples, our collective Right of Representation and Self Determination in addressing the issues before the COP20 beyond the constraints of the architecture of the States and their agreements;

We further affirm and proclaim in Full, Effective, and Complete exercise of our equally shared Right of Self Determination as Peoples of Mother Earth, that our Sacred Mother Earth is subject of the Right of Self Determination beyond the limited juridical constraints of the Westphalian System of State Sovereignty represented in UN system and the international architectures of personality and procedures of negotiation and agreements.

NAHUACALLI

www.nahuacalli.org

Embassy of Indigenous Peoples

c/o TONATIERRA

P.O. Box 24009 Phoenix, AZ 85074

Email: tonal@tonatierra.org

www.tonatierra.org

Draft Agenda: Indigenous Peoples Preparatory Meeting 2012

11th Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
May 5th and 6th from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Church Center for the United Nations
777 UN Plaza on the 2nd Floor - New York City
 
Draft Agenda
Saturday, May 5th 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
1. Opening Thanksgiving - Welcome and Words of Wisdom by hosts and Elders
 
2. Selection of Chairpersons (Co-Chairs fluent in Spanish and English)
 
3. Acceptance of Agenda
 
4. Permanent Forum Agenda:
 

• PF 3. Doctrine of Discovery
  Inclusion of indigenous peoples’ human rights in national constitutions
  Study of good practices in the Artic Combating violence against Indigenous women
   
• PF 4. Human rights:
  (a) Implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
  (b) Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and other United Nations human rights mechanisms.
   
• PF 5. Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds including WIPO.
   
• PF 6. Rights of indigenous peoples to food and food sovereignty Shifting cultivation and the sociocultural integrity of indigenous peoples
   
• PF 7. World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014
   
• PF 8 Half-day discussion on Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia
   
• PF 9 Indigenous peoples, transnational corporations and other business enterprises
   
• 5th anniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

5. Scheduling of Caucus meetings during the week
6. Recorder for Indigenous Caucus
7. Drafting teams for Caucus statements
8. Other matters
a) HRC Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – July 2012
b) OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
c) Earth Summit Rio+20
d) Indigenous Prep-com, June, 2013 Alta, Norway
e)
f)
g)
h)
 
Lunch Break 12:00 - 1:00 each day (lunch will be provided) 

Sunday, April 18th
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
 

8. Review by Chairs of first Caucus day

11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
9. Introduction of and discussion with the expert members of the Permanent Forum
 
10. Briefing by staff members of the Permanent Forum’s Secretariat
2:00 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
 
Continuation of Business
 
3:45 Closing Thanksgiving
Please note that the Church Center closes at 4:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday

Recommendations of the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus

Recommendations of the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus to the 11th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Organizational Details
 
1. The preparatory meeting of the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC) in anticipation of the 11th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) was held in the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee (Niagara Falls Ontario) from March 10 – 11, 2012, and hosted by the Chiefs of Ontario.

2. The NAIPC meeting was attended by 75 delegates representing Indigenous Nations and Peoples, Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, and communities from throughout Great Turtle Island. The meeting was opened by a traditional Haudenosaunee Thanksgiving Address.
 
3. The delegates confirmed the appointment of Debra Harry (Kooyooee Dukaddo) and Arthur Manuel (Secwepemc) to serve as Co-chairs of the meeting. The delegates selected Steve Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) and Richard Powless (Mohawk) to serve as Rapporteurs. Notetakers included Joshua Shoemaker, Diane Maracle Nadijwan, Neegann Aaswaakshin, Johanna Pardo Jiminez, Sara West (COO), and Marla Monague (COO).
 
4. North American Expert to the UNPFII, Ed John provided an overview of the upcoming Eleventh Session of the UNPFII, and UNPFII Secretariat Sonia Smallacombe provided logistical and procedural information to the meeting delegates.
 
5. In the final hours of the meeting, delegates were presented with a draft report of the meeting, reviewed and made amendments from the floor, and the amended report was adopted by consensus. The full report of the NAIPC is attached and is hereby formally transmitted to the UNPFII Secretariat for inclusion as an official document for the upcoming Eleventh Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
 
6. Kenneth Deer (Mohawk) a coordinator for the Global Indigenous Caucus Preparatory Meeting provided an overview of the Global Indigenous Caucus meeting that will take place before the 11thth at the UN Church Centre. The NAIPC recommends that the UNPFII Secretariat enable side events to be held during the day so that delegates who cannot get into the Permanent Forum meetings will be able to attend these events.
 
Agenda Item 3.
Discussion on the special theme for the year: “The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past conquests (articles 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.)
 
7. The special theme for the 11th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is “The Doctrine of Discovery: its enduring impact on indigenous peoples and the right to redress for past conquests (article 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).” Given a theme that encompasses the scope of more than five centuries of history, we are providing the following deep structure summary of that historical context for the benefit of the Permanent Forum members. It is this context that provides the accurate basis for the interpretation of this NAIPC report.
 
8. At the request of the Permanent Forum at its 9th Session, North American representative Tonya Gonnella Frichner delivered to the Forum at its 10th Session a preliminary study entitled:
“Impact on Indigenous Peoples of the International Legal construct known as the Doctrine of Discovery, which has served as the Foundation of the Violation of their Human Rights.” 
(E/c.19/2010/13). That report clearly documents “the Framework of Dominance,” which is a currently existing global structure of domination maintained by a language of domination and subordination. What has been commonly called the Doctrine of Discovery is an historical manifestation and outgrowth of that language and global structure.
 
9. Onondaga Faithkeeper, Oren Lyons, provided an historical overview of the creation of the UNDRIP starting in 1977. He said its all about land – we have it and they want it. He urged delegates not to be diverted from the Doctrine of Discovery. He said the work is to emphasize the global impact of the doctrine through the centuries, right up to the present day.
 
10. Steve Newcomb provided a background to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination.  The original free and independent existence of each and every one of our nations and peoples, and our cultural and spiritual relationship with our territories, long predates any assertions or claims of a right of discovery and domination by the monarchies and nations of Western Christendom during the fifteenth and later centuries. Our original free existence is the source of the sacred birthright bequeathed to us by our ancestors, traced to the beginning of time. Our sacred relationship with Mother Earth and the Sacred Laws of each of our nations and peoples is the basis for our declaration that we shall forever be rightfully free of any and all assertions or claims of dominance by states that trace their political heritage to a long succession of empires from Europe. The pretentious claims laid by states—such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States—to our lands and territories are traced back to self-acknowledged pretentions to create rights of sovereignty in our traditional territories through symbolic and ritualized acts (see Arthur S. Keller, “Creation of Rights of Sovereignty Through Symbolic Acts 1400-1800,” 1939), which are sometimes falsely termed “past conquests.”
 
11. The documents of domination that we have deeply examined in Latin and English—such as documents issued by the Holy See and royal crown charters of England and Great Britain- contain an underlying structure of domination and subordination that exists to this day and results in current, persistent, and lethal effects of domination on our nations and peoples. The following quote from the Inter Caetera papal bull of 1493 unequivocally expresses this structure: “omnes et singulas terras et insulas predictas, sic incognitas, et hactenus per nuntios vestros sub dominio actuali temporali aliquorum dominorum Christianorum constitute non sinct…” and refers to lands that had at no time been “under the actual temporal domination of any Christian dominator.” The pope gave Christian monarchs that authorization “imperii Christiani propagationem..” so as “to propagate the Christian empire.” The English Crown followed this model by promulgating its own royal crown charters of discovery and domination relative to non-Christian lands.

12. It was such language in many Church-State and State-Church documents that supposedly authorized monarchs of Christendom “to dominate” (‘deprimantur’ in Latin) non-Christian nations and peoples throughout the globe. Over more than five centuries this language system of domination and subordination has destructively impacted nations and peoples in Africa, Asia, Oceana and the Pacific Rim, South, Central, Northern Europe, and particular in our region of Mother Earth, North America. It was this ongoing and dehumanizing tradition of domination and subordination that caused our nations and peoples to enter the international arena in 1977, which resulting in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It was brought to the attention of the UNPFII representatives that the use of the word “conquest” has specific legal connotations, and some background information was requested on the use of this term.
 
13. Robert Miller, professor of law, raised case law in the US. He identified 10 constituent factors that he sees as making up the Doctrine of Discovery. He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (part of ‘the Marshall Trilogy’ of U.S. cases) has been used in common law countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.) and in other countries as well. He pointed out that the Doctrine of Discovery is global in scope.
 
14. The World Council of Churches should be commended for their steps towards denouncing the doctrine of discovery. The North America Caucus meeting in Niagara Falls strongly suggest that the members of the World Council of Churches go to the next step of implementing their denunciation of the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination. More specifically, their members should stop investing in any companies that are getting permits, licenses and permission from the colonizer states to go into our territories.
 
15. The NAIPC recommends that Indigenous Peoples push forward to take this framework of analysis to the next level and encourage an expert group meeting to examine the effects of domination on Indigenous Peoples.
 
16. The NAIPC recommends that a comprehensive panel of legalists and jurists be assembled to review all the actions under the doctrine of discovery and domination (e.g. residential schools, Indian Act, etc.). Fleshing out these concepts is important, and such an academic review would contribute to a general understanding of the doctrine of discovery and domination.
 
17. The NAIPC recommends that Indigenous nations and peoples that have relations with English common law countries use dominating society court systems to argue against the Doctrine of Discovery root principles that have been globally adopted from Johnson v. M’Intosh (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and U.S.A.)
 
18. Consistent with the UNPFII February 2010 preliminary study on the Doctrine of Discovery, the NAIPC recommends that an international expert group meeting be convened to discuss in detail the findings and global implications of this preliminary study of the Doctrine of Discovery and to present its findings to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its annual session.
 
19. The NAIPC recommends that the UNPFII urge States to repeal laws, policies and processes based on the Doctrine of Discovery and jointly develop with Indigenous Peoples laws, policies and processes consistent with Articles 28 and 37 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

20. We acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. M’Intosh referred to the “extravagant…pretension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country into conquest,” thereby claiming on the basis of that pretension underlying title to Indigenous lands and territories. We absolutely reject the idea that Indigenous Nations and Peoples are conquered. For this reason, we recommend that the term ”conquest” not be used by the UNPFII in a manner that suggests or implies that conquest has in fact occurred and that Indigenous Nations and Peoples have been conquered. NAIPC recommends that the use of the term conquest be removed from all statements and documents with any connection to the Doctrine of Discovery and that the NAIPC make a clear statement declare and affirm that Indigenous peoples are not conquered. NAIPC recommends that the use of the term conquest be removed from all statements and documents with any connection to the Doctrine of Discovery and that the NAIPC make a clear statement declare and affirm that Indigenous peoples are not conquered.
 
21. NAIPC recommends the Intergenerational impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on Indigenous children be taught in schools and that there needs to be educational opportunities to be informed of the Doctrine of Discovery so that they have an opportunity to resist and refute the doctrine.
 
22. The NAIPC calls upon the UNPFII to recommend that the appropriate UN body embark on an education campaign on the Doctrine of Discovery.
 
23. The delegates discussed the fact that Indigenous Peoples have inherent collective rights as Nations and Peoples that are beyond individual rights. The government of Canada has a comprehensive claims policy that does not explain or justify the basis for the Canadian government’s claim of underlying title to the territories of Indigenous Nations and Peoples.  Mining companies are requesting permission from provinces and governance under the guise that governments have authority and title to give such sanctions.
 
24. During the CERD Periodic Review 2012 the CERD asked the government of Canada “What is the legal foundation relied on by the state of Canada to justify their claim to the underlying title to the lands and territories of the Indigenous Nations?” Our research reveals that Canada’s assertion of sovereignty and Crown title is based upon the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination which is implemented through a policy negotiation framework and the Comprehensive Claims and Self-Government policies, with the objective of extinguishing aboriginal rights. Evidence of this connection in the Canadian context is found in the ruling The Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (also known as The Delgamuukw v. The Queen) (1997) 3 S.C.R. 1010, which is regarded as the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Court made its most definitive statement on the nature of aboriginal title in the context of the “assertion of British sovereignty,” and “the assertion of Crown sovereignty.” We recommend that the UNPFII conduct a comprehensive study of the use of the Doctrine of Discovery by states as an underlying basis for such state policies, practices, and laws.
 
25. NAIPC recommends the World Bank and other monetary institutions be made aware that companies that are mining or developing in Indigenous territories are acting in violation to Indigenous peoples’ rights and these companies should be boycotted and financially penalized.  Indigenous peoples must proceed with the mentality that these are all our territories, regardless of any occupation/colonial use of our lands and territories.
 
26. State claims of power to grant permits for mineral exploitation—e.g., tar sands oil exploitation, uranium mining, coal bed methane exploitation, and hydrofracking—on traditional territories of Indigenous nations is premised on the claim that Christian discovery gave the “discoverers” the right to “assert sovereignty” relative to the traditional lands and territories of Indigenous nations.  The Haudenosaunee calls for a complete ban on the method of natural gas drilling known as “hydraulic fracturing,” or “hydrofracking,” within the traditional territory and treaty lands of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and everywhere hydrofracking will contaminate land, air, and water. They also call for a complete ban on tar sands oil exploitation, coal bed methane exploitation, and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. We call for the UNPFII to convene an Expert Group Meeting on the issue of how to move off the current fossil fuel habit and how to move as expeditiously as possible to a global energy program that is based entirely on truly renewable, non-polluting energy sources. We call upon the UNPFII to convent an Expert Group Meeting on the issue of hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as "hydrofracking," tar sands, coal bed methane and the Keystone XL pipeline to examine the ways that Indigenous peoples are being impacted or potentially impacted by these extraction methods, and report to UNDP, UNEP, and other appropriate UN agencies with a responsibility for environmental and human rights protections.
 
27. The NAIPC recommends the United Nations confirm that the doctrine of Christian discovery is factually, legally, and morally wrong. This is partly based on the fourth preambular paragraph of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, which reads: “Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.” The NAIPC calls upon the United Nations to declare that the doctrine of discovery is illegal and cannot be relied upon by state governments in law making, policy development or in litigation.
 
28. The NAIPC recommends that the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues adhere, safeguard and promote Indigenous Sovereignty in the European derived legal frameworks in its work on the Discovery Doctrine so as not to inadvertently concede it.
 
29. The NAIPC recommends the Permanent Forum should be encouraged in cooperation with state governments to undertake a complete and comprehensive study on the effects of the doctrine of discovery on the lands and territories of Indigenous Nations and Peoples.
 
Item 3. UN Expert Group Meeting on Violence against Indigenous Women and Girls
 
30. Delegates spoke of a new concept that has been discussed in the UN, that is, ‘Environmental Violence’ against Indigenous women. For example, elevated cancer rates in young girls due to use of toxins that are well known to be harmful, yet are purposely used to make profit. The NAIPC recommends that all forms of violence be considered and discussed and specific strategies be developed to effectively address all the forms of dominating violence against Indigenous women. Priority must be given to the issue of direct violence against women.

31. Given the hundreds of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada, most of them unresolved and unsolved the NAIPC recommends a recognition of the explicit connection between sexism, patriarchy, paternalism, and so called domination of men over women and the Doctrine of Discovery, as well as the lack of ability to hold non-indigenous people accountable for their violence against Indigenous women.
 
32. The NAIPC recommends that the Doctrine of Discovery and its paternalistic framework of dominance be examined to understand the root causes and current practices that promote violence against Indigenous women so as to become more effective at ending violent domination against Indigenous women.
 
33. Based on discussion and feedback from Indigenous women at the recent Assembly of First Nations Justice Forum that included a focused discussion on Violence Against Indigenous Women and Girls, the NAIPC recommends the UNPFII urge States to ensure that Indigenous women and girls need to be actively and increasingly involved in all political, economic, and social processes so as to honour and restore the traditional general roles and responsibilities of women in Indigenous nations.
 
34. NAIPC recommends the government of Canada establish a national inquiry on the disappearance and murder of hundreds of Indigenous women and girls in Canada, which shall include equal participation and funding for Indigenous peoples’ representatives, and that the government of Canada establish a Royal Commission, with equal Indigenous participation, on incidences of violence against Indigenous women and girls.
 
35. NAIPC recommends the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women proceed with an inquiry under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol regarding Canada’s conduct and the situation of violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada.
 
36. The youth suicide rate in Canada is very high, especially in northern communities. There is a direct connection between this and the requirement for indigenous children to attend schools away from their territories due to lack of funding. NAIPC recommends that adequate funding be provided to build schools in First Nations communities.
 
Agenda Item 4(a) Human rights: Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
 
37. Sonia Smallacombe indicated that not many states report on their progress on the UNDRIP’s implementation. The Permanent Forum wants to hear from Indigenous peoples how the UNDRIP is being implemented, and if not, why not?
 
38. Delegates expressed their concern that Canada is not implementing the UNDRIP. Border services are interfering with families and causing hardships on Haudenosaunee citizens by imposing Canada’s citizenship act on Indigenous Peoples. The NAIPC recommends that Canada’s immigration act be changed to comply with Articles 9, 33, and 36 of the UNDRIP and to acknowledge the inherent right of the Haudenosaunee to establish its own residency standards for Haudenosaunee citizens.
 
39. The NAIPC recommends that Canada does not attempt to determine First Nation citizenship by unilaterally tinkering with the Indian Act, but rather deal with citizenship by consulting and cooperating with First Nations through a UNDRIP process that seeks to achieve Articles 33.1 and 9.
 
40. The NAIPC also recommends that any further Canadian legislative action involving First Nations be in line with Article 38 of the Declaration, and that Canada in consultation and cooperation with individual First Nations communities work together on any ongoing or other future legislative initiatives.
 
41. Access to safe and affordable housing has a direct impact on the wellbeing of Indigenous people.  The Doctrine of Discovery has a negative impact on Indigenous Peoples access to resources for housing. The NAIPC recommends that states implement articles in the UNDRIP by providing dedicated resources to Indigenous Peoples so they may acquire adequate housing in their territories.
 
42. The NAIPC recommends that training be provided to young Indigenous People to learn about UNDRIP.
 
43. The Doctrine of Discovery is inconsistent with the earliest treaties between Indigenous Nations and settler governments, which treated both nations as equals. For example one of the earliest treaties is between the Dutch and the Haudenosaunee. In 1613 the Dutch sought an agreement on how they were to govern themselves as they set foot upon our lands and how relationships would be governed. The Two Row Wampum Belt symbolizes the correct relationship with the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America and the Whiteman. One purple row of beads represents the path of the native’s canoe which contains their customs and laws. The other row represents the path of the Whiteman’s vessel, the sailing ship, which contains his custom and laws. The meaning of the parallel paths is that neither boat should out pace the other, and the paths shall remain separate and parallel forever, as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow and the sun shines. Ever jealous of this arrangement between the native nations and peoples and the Dutch, the King of England sought a similar agreement with native nations and peoples of North America. A similar agreement was accomplished between the native peoples and the King of England in 1664. Today for example, Indigenous Nations such as the Six Nations of the Grand River are physically in possession of less than 5% of their original lands and have no fair or acceptable mechanism for justice due to Canada’s extinguishment policies, based on the Doctrine of Discovery, relating to our Land Rights.
 
44. The NAIPC calls upon the United Nations to call upon Canada to immediately abandon its existing Comprehensive and Specific Claims policies, which extinguish or have the effect of extinguishing our children’s rights to their Treaty and Traditional land, territories and resources.
 
Agenda Item 4(b): Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

45. The NAIPC welcomes the visit of the Special Rapporteur James Anaya to the United States, and recommends that Special Rapporteur also schedule an official visit to Canada in 2012 to hear directly from Indigenous Peoples on matters affecting their rights. 


Agenda Item 5: Comprehensive dialogue with United Nations agencies and funds.
 
46. Delegates active in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources (IGC), Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (GRTKF) provided an overview on the issues that have been occurring in the WIPO IGC meetings and processes that have undermined the rights and participation of Indigenous peoples, and are attempting to comodify and commercialize Indigenous knowledge, medicine, and other traditional practices.
 
47. On February 20, 2012 nearly all of the Indigenous delegates in attendance decided to withdrawal from active participation in the WIPO negotiations because the right of Indigenous Peoples, as Peoples and Nations, to participate as equals in the negotiations continues to be denied. Indigenous Peoples have seen a continual process of diminishing Indigenous peoples participation in key small working groups, and our text proposals require the support of at least one state to remain on the table. Without that support, Indigenous Peoples’ proposals are ignored. The single most significant demand by Indigenous Peoples is that WIPO amend its rules of procedure to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in all processes that affect us. Until that change happens, we cannot conscientiously participate in a process that will continue to undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and threaten our future generations.
 
48. Indigenous Peoples from across North America expressed their outrage at the current negotiations under the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) which fail to recognize Indigenous Rights thereby forcing Indigenous Peoples to withdraw from the negotiations. They stressed that WIPO has no legitimacy and right to deal with issues related to traditional knowledge.
 
49. The NAIPC is concerned that there are a small number of Indigenous organizations, some statefunded, that appear willing to participate in the WIPO process.
 
50. The NAIPC recommends that WIPO be requested to use the proper term, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, since they are part of the UN inter-organ agency tasked with implementing the UNDRIP throughout the United Nations.
 
51. The NAIPC recommends that UNPFII make it make it clear to WIPO they do not have the support of Indigenous Peoples when they appear before the Permanent Forum through a clear, vocal and unanimous message.
 
52. The NAIPC calls on the UNPFII and the United Nations to investigate WIPO and its current negotiations under the IGC on issues of Indigenous Peoples participation and need to take into account Indigenous Peoples’ rights to participation.

53. NAIPC recommends that the United Nations make it clear to WIPO that they cannot regulate indigenous traditional knowledge and access to such and associated genetic resources, and that those remain under the control of Indigenous Peoples.
 
54. NAIPC recommends that UNPFII and the United Nations call for dismantling the WIPO IGC negotiations and to instead mandate negotiations under UNPFII or the CBD to develop international mechanisms to protect indigenous systems for regulating access to traditional knowledge and genetic resources and protecting such.
 
55. The NAIPC recommends that research on Free trade be done including World Trade Agreements.
 
56. The NAIPC recommends that alternative funding mechanisms be established so that the NAIPC can have representatives at the WIPO meetings to observe and report back on the matters taking place in WIPO.
 
57. The NAIPC calls upon the UNPFII to request that WIPO amend its rules of procedure to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in all processes that are effecting them, and to ensure the full and equal participation of Indigenous Nations and Peoples in all the WIPO processes including the IGC, the General Assembly and Diplomatic Conference.
 
58. The NAIPC calls upon Indigenous Peoples to withdraw our active participation in the WIPO Processes on GRTKF until the States change the rules of procedure to permit our full and equal participation at all levels of the IGC and until the instruments recognize and are consistent with the existing international frameworks for the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and Nations within the scope of the IGC.
 
59. The NAIPC recommends that Indigenous Nations and Peoples to set their own legal standards for the protection of our traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and genetic resources and the UN must inform WIPO that it must respect Indigenous Peoples laws on these issues.
 
Agenda Item 6: Half-day discussion on the right to food and food sovereignty.
 
60. Food being necessary to sustain human life, food sovereignty is vital to the overall sovereignty of Indigenous peoples. Whenever colonizing societies have wanted to dominate Indigenous nations and peoples, they have worked to weaken them by cutting them off from their traditional and accustomed food supplies. The classic example is the decimation of millions of buffalo by killing them off and thereby depriving the Plains Indigenous nations and peoples of the Great Plains of food.
 
61. The UN Food and Agriculture organization (FAO) recently took up the call to implement UNDRIP to include Indigenous peoples in a real way – free prior and informed consent. FAO implemented a new global policy on Indigenous peoples. The committee for food security was opened up to two seats for Indigenous peoples pursuant to UNDRIP. Secretary General from FAO wants input from Indigenous peoples on food sovereignty and the implementation of policies. Dealing with pollutants, toxins, environment, treaties, and lands are all vital to Indigenous peoples’ food sovereignty. The half-day discussions will include a representative from FAO that will speak to the day to day struggles and the revitalization of Indigenous peoples’ rights. Indigenous peoples have been successful in shifting the way the UN thinks about food sovereignty for Indigenous peoples, which is rights based Agenda Item 7: Half-day discussion on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.
 
62. Delegates discussed the UN General Assembly resolution on the 2014 UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples and a report from the brainstorming meeting of Indigenous individuals held in January 2012 in Copenhagen hosted by the Saami Parliament. Delegates discussed a high level of concern related to structure of the World Conference as a high level plenary rather than
that of other world conferences and summits that allow for full-scale preparatory meetings and greater levels of participation by Indigenous Peoples. Delegates also expressed concern about
the remoteness of the next proposed brainstorming meeting to be held in Alta, Norway in June 2012. Delegates agreed that alternative strategies to address the rights of Indigenous Peoples
need to be pursued. The NAIPC confirms that Kenneth Deer and Chief Randy Kapashesit were selected as the principal North American Representatives to the Indigenous global coordinating group on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. The alternate is Jessica Danforth. The NAIPC withholds endorsement to any individual as a co-facilitator to the WCIP at this time.
 
Agenda Item 9: Future work of the Permanent Forum, including issues of the Economic and Social Council and emerging issues.
 
63. NAIPC recommends that the name of the Permanent Forum be changed to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples.
 
64. As a method of securing the interest and participation of Indigenous Youth, the NAIPC recommends the UNPFII sponsor an annual writing challenge to post-secondary Indigenous youth to produce a scholarly discussion on the theme for the UNPFII.
 
Other Matters
 
65. The NAIPC supports the important work of the UN EMRIP on the Right to participate in decision-making related to extractive industries, and calls on the UN Permanent Forum to continue to address the multiple violations of human rights of Indigenous Peoples in North America and other regions as a result of extractive industries operating in their lands without their free prior and informed consent. 

66. The NAIPC affirms that the rights affirmed in Treaties concluded between States and Indigenous Nations and Peoples continues to be of core and vital importance for the ongoing work of Indigenous Nations and Peoples in the UN System The NAIPC welcomes the plans by the UN office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to organize a 3rd UN Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements in July 2012 in Geneva and calls upon the UN Permanent Forum to include a report on its outcomes at tis 12th session. The NAIPC also asked that key agenda items include ways in which the UN system can further support the implementation of Article 37 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and relevant preamble paragraphs, and continue to carry out work in this vital area, in collaboration and coordination with Indigenous Nations and Peoples.