International Indian Treaty Council
Press Release, September 13th, 2009:
”The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Now It’s Time for Implementation”
Today marks the 2nd anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN General Assembly. 144 countries voted in favor and 11 abstained. Of the four countries voting against its adoption, Australia has since changed its position. This leaves the US, Canada and New Zealand increasingly isolated in their refusal to endorse the “minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world”.
The Obama Administration has indicated that the US is also considering a change of position. This cannot come too soon. The IITC joins with the National Congress of American Indians, a number of US Tribes and Indigenous organizations, Indigenous Peoples around the world and a number of UN bodies in urging the US to announce its support without delay. The critical situations facing Indigenous Peoples in and outside the US, which include human rights violations, abrogation of treaties, destruction of sacred sites, and contamination of land and waters, require no less.
We recognize there is a long way to go to ensure that the rights affirmed in the Declaration are a reality “on the ground.” Many countries which voted in favor and even some which were in the forefront of work for the Declaration’s adoption, lag far behind their stated commitment when it comes to implementation. The recent events in Peru, including the massacre of Indigenous Peoples opposing development imposed without their Free Prior Informed Consent, demonstrate how much work remains to close the “implementation gap.”
There have are also been positive signs and important steps forward. Indigenous Nations, Peoples, Tribes, national and grass roots organizations are increasingly adopting, using and citing it in their tribal ordinances, positions statements, court decisions and legal cases. Indigenous Peoples around the world have begun to assert that it’s principles are the minimum standard for any negotiations involving Treaty Rights, Land Claims and Rights to Territories and Resources. Bodies such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have followed suit by endorsing the Declaration as a basis for their work.
IITC congratulates the city of Berkeley California which in May 2009 adopted the Declaration by unanimous resolution. Berkeley joins Phoenix and others which have taken this important step in solidarity with the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite the fact their own national government continues to lag behind.
The key to making the Declaration real, to creating a groundswell of public opinion and putting political and moral pressure on the countries which continue to be out of step with the world community on this issue, is implementation. Indigenous Peoples and our allies can keep the pressure building by using the Declaration as a tool to defend our rights, lands, treaties, cultures and ways of life at every opportunity. The more we do this, the more powerful a political, legal and spiritual force it will become. The tide of history and a vision of life for our future generations will be with us as we go forward.
Originally posted by WulebgrAre there any practical ramifications of the adoption of this declaration?
International Indian Treaty Council
Press Release, September 13th, 2009:
”The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Now It’s Time for Implementation”
Today marks the 2nd anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN General Assembly. 144 countries voted in favor and 11 abst ...[text shortened]... ide of history and a vision of life for our future generations will be with us as we go forward.
If so, I'd like to know what those are before I determine whether I support the change of the US' position.
If not, who cares? It's all just empty talk.
Originally posted by sh76Does that mean that your support of social rights is based on benefits for you or the things you hold dear rather than on principles?
Are there any practical ramifications of the adoption of this declaration?
If so, I'd like to know what those are before I determine whether I support the change of the US' position.
If not, who cares? It's all just empty talk.
- - -
Edit. I don't know the ramifications either, for the US or anybody else, so I am not discussing the particularities. Just at general level.
Originally posted by Seitse"social rights" is a very broad concept that can mean something different to every person.
Does that mean that your support of social rights is based on benefits for you or the things you hold dear rather than on principles?
- - -
Edit. I don't know the ramifications either, for the US or anybody else, so I am not discussing the particularities. Just at general level.
Sure, I support social rights in the abstract. But I cannot support a specific document or agreement unless I know it's specifics; or at least the basics of its specifics.
I'm sure some people would call for the confiscation of my house and its re-distribution to people who are homeless under the banner of equality and social rights. Supporting a document or agreement because it has a nice title or idea is something that I will not generally do.
Originally posted by sh76Not my point, indeed. I just wanted to inquire if there was some sort of a nimby-esque attitude towards rights of indigenous people.
"social rights" is a very broad concept that can mean something different to every person.
Sure, I support social rights in the abstract. But I cannot support a specific document or agreement unless I know it's specifics; or at least the basics of its specifics.
I'm sure some people would call for the confiscation of my house and its re-distribution to pe ...[text shortened]... or agreement because it has a nice title or idea is something that I will not generally do.
As said, I don't know the specifics either, so if this declaration would translate into somebody getting my piece of land because his grand grand parents lost it to the conqueror who then sold it to me, perhaps I would take the same stance. I don't know at this point.
Originally posted by sh76Well if they want to support the indigenous people, then I say give back the America's to the Indains. Then the Americans can sail back to Europe. After all, they all apparantly want to be socialist anyway, it seems like a perfect fit.
"social rights" is a very broad concept that can mean something different to every person.
Sure, I support social rights in the abstract. But I cannot support a specific document or agreement unless I know it's specifics; or at least the basics of its specifics.
I'm sure some people would call for the confiscation of my house and its re-distribution to pe ...[text shortened]... or agreement because it has a nice title or idea is something that I will not generally do.
Originally posted by sh76When the U.S. starts seeking energy independence, it usually increases pressure to extract at bargain prices the coal, uranium, natural gas, and petroleum reserves from Indian land. Protests ensue at Black Mesa presently, as they have off and on since the mid-1960s.
Are there any practical ramifications of the adoption of this declaration?
Although Indian religion is ostensibly protected by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, the courts have noted that the law lacks enforcement mechanisms. Sacred lands continue to become desecrated by development projects--public and private. The "world's largest biker bar" near Sturgis, S.D. and in the shadow of Bear Butte is one recent example. The Lakota and Cheyenne lost their battle to prevent the bar's construction.
Battles rage between rock climbers and Indians concerning Devil's Tower, as well. Again, real protection of Indian religion would affect the outcome of these struggles.
The list is long...
Originally posted by whodeyI am not sure you know the true meaning of socialism.
Well if they want to support the indigenous people, then I say give back the America's to the Indains. Then the Americans can sail back to Europe. After all, they all apparantly want to be socialist anyway, it seems like a perfect fit.
You are American, right?
Originally posted by SeitseThe word socialism gets thrown about in American politics these days. 99% of the uses of this word are by people that haven't the beginnings of a splinter of a chip of a thought regarding the basic elements of socialism.
I am not sure you know the true meaning of socialism.
You are American, right?
Originally posted by whodeyI shall stay on with the indians. I shall go by my given indian name Strutting Eagle. I shall smoke on this matter.
Well if they want to support the indigenous people, then I say give back the America's to the Indains. Then the Americans can sail back to Europe. After all, they all apparantly want to be socialist anyway, it seems like a perfect fit.
Originally posted by sh76Yeah. The US should have wiped those bloody Injuns out when they had the chance!
Are there any practical ramifications of the adoption of this declaration?
If so, I'd like to know what those are before I determine whether I support the change of the US' position.
If not, who cares? It's all just empty talk.
God damn socialist morality creeping in the backdoor!
Originally posted by shavixmirYeah; that's exactly what I meant my inquiring whether there were practical ramifications of the declaration.
Yeah. The US should have wiped those bloody Injuns out when they had the chance!
God damn socialist morality creeping in the backdoor!
Sharp eyes there, Shav.
🙄
Originally posted by joe beyserActually, I was thinking the same thing. If we send all of these Big Brother loving bloks back to Europe perhaps there can be freedom again in the states.
I shall stay on with the indians. I shall go by my given indian name Strutting Eagle. I shall smoke on this matter.