Alaska Native village hits the media, flashes through the blog world and brings Alaska state officials to the scene
By Neva Reece, Today correspondent
Story Published: Jan 30, 2009
Story Updated: Jan 29, 2009
Earlier this month Nick Tucker of the Emmonak village in the Yukon River Delta wrote a letter detailing conditions for families in his community; he spoke of choosing between food and heating fuel, parents skipping meals to ensure children are fed and borrowing milk for infants one can at a time.
On Jan. 12 his letter was published in the Bristol Bay Times and on the Alaska Newspapers Inc. Web site. It was quickly picked up by bloggers, the Alaska Public Radio Network and the Anchorage Daily News. The bloggers started a fundraising campaign to send reporter Dennis Zaki to Emmonak and surrounding villages to get the story.
In a matter of hours, funds raised through the blog sites not only paid for his trip, but reportedly raised more than $4,000 in additional funds for fuel oil and other necessities. In Anchorage, food was collected to be flown in to the village.
On Friday, Jan. 16, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Commissioner Emil Notti, a former president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, facilitated a conference call with villagers from the Yukon Delta region and state officials. Several of those officials then went to visit Emmonak and other nearby villages to assess the situation. The officials included representatives from Health and Human Services, DCCED and the state’s Department of Military and Veteran’s Affairs. They spoke to villagers and had a community meeting in Bethel.
According to news reports, Tucker and others, the letter was just the most recent of a series of requests and warnings about conditions in the Yukon Delta region where Emmonak is located. A poor fish run, a missed fuel shipment and other conditions have been in play for months and it was anticipated that this year would be particularly harsh. Recently a spokesperson from Notti’s office said that none of the previous correspondence requesting help had been located.
Whether the correspondence reached state officials may be up for debate, but news reports mentioning the impending crisis can be found dating back at least six months. In July KTUU, an Anchorage TV station, ran a story on the poor fish runs and its impact on the Yukon Delta and on Emmonak residents. On July 12 departing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan wrote a letter to state officials asking them to pay special attention to the looming crisis in rural Alaska.
In August, Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, held the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs field hearing in Bethel to discuss burgeoning costs in rural communities. In September, the request for help for rural Alaska came from former Anchorage Mayor (now U.S. Senator) Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and School Superintendent Carol Comeau. In October, the Alaska Federation of Natives passed resolutions requesting the state address the rural crisis.
On Dec. 11, KTUU ran another story, this time on Emmonak’s missed fuel shipment. In part, the report stated, “The icy Yukon River blocked their attempt to barge in the winter’s supply of fuel. The villagers say the fuel they have now will last them until January, at best.” Subsequent fuel shipments were flown into the village at much higher costs.
Though these warnings seem to have gone unheard or unheeded, there is no mistake that Emmonak now has the attention of the state of Alaska, and beyond. Zaki sent video footage that has since been aired on KTUU and the state officials say they are working on solutions. Private citizens and faith communities are extending a helping hand. Food, diapers and other necessities are being shipped in from Anchorage and funds earmarked for fuel costs have been sent to village offices for distribution to those in need. Tara Jollie, the state’s Community and Regional Affairs director has suggested fuel vouchers. And, the Federal Subsistence Board and the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game granted a month-long extension for moose hunts for Emmonak residents.
In a press conference after the state officials’ visit Notti said one difficulty in accessing help for the area is that the income levels are above the federally mandated amount to qualify for federal disaster relief. He said the state is determining whether there may be some flexibility that would allow them to factor in rural Alaska’s unusually high cost of living. In the meantime, the state is making sure village residents are aware of all services available to them and said they will be prioritizing area residents applications for the new state heating assistance program.
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/38665642.html
Share This
Tecpatl
Our Word is Our Weapon, if you have anything you would like us to publish please send us an email @ maiz_centeotl_chicomecoatl@riseup.net
Subscribe To Maiz Today!!!!
Posts
All Comments
2/2/09
Ir más allá del capitalismo
Entrevista a Walden Bello
Alejandro Kirk
IPS/TerraViva
El Foro Social Mundial (FSM), reunido esta semana en Brasil, tiene la tarea urgente de proponer soluciones alternativas para la crisis mundial del capitalismo, e impulsar un control democrático de la economía y el Estado en todo el planeta, según el activista filipino Walden Bello. En su novena edición, el FSM se realiza desde el martes y hasta este domingo en la norteña ciudad brasileña de Belém.
El editor de TerraViva, Alejandro Kirk, dialogó con Bello.
IPS: En el contexto de la actual crisis mundial, ¿cuál es la tarea más relevante del FSM?
WALDEN BELLO: Estamos en una coyuntura histórica muy crítica, en la que el capitalismo neoliberal se está deshaciendo. Pienso que el FSM es un sitio donde deberían tener lugar discusiones muy serias, en términos de anticipar la probable respuesta del capitalismo global, así como impulsar alternativas a la crisis actual. Debemos poner realmente la tarea del FSM en el contexto de la crisis mundial, verdaderamente masiva.
IPS: ¿Así que Belém será un escenario crucial para el futuro del FSM?
WB: Sí, definitivamente. En este punto será fundamental para la sociedad civil mundial responder a esta crisis, más allá de la clase de soluciones para la estabilización que se están empezando a ver en Europa y Estados Unidos.
Las elites capitalistas ya están yendo más allá del neoliberalismo de muchas maneras, así que pienso por un lado que en Belém será realmente importante llegar a un consenso sobre la crisis del capitalismo, y deberíamos tener discusiones muy serias sobre cómo ir más allá de (esas) soluciones. Pienso que necesitamos proponer alternativas desde dentro del sistema, como una expansión de la democracia social, por ejemplo.
IPS: ¿Cómo puede el FSM llegar a semejante respuesta y cómo puede implementarla?
WB: En Belém se necesita identificar no sólo una crisis del neoliberalismo, sino una crisis del capitalismo. En el modo de producción capitalista, las raíces de la crisis son dinámicas. La alternativa a eso es algo que necesitamos abordar seriamente.
Realmente necesitamos enmarcar nuestras respuestas en términos de valores universales comunes, como la cuestión de la justicia y de la equidad, crear una alternativa que realmente se preocupe por el bienestar de la gente. Pienso que el debate en Belém será muy crítico en ese sentido.
En cuanto a la implementación, hay que ser bastante innovadores. Necesitamos vincular sólidamente nuestro movimiento en diferentes países, interactuando con respecto a las alternativas que se promueven. No puede ser fácil, pero este compartir experiencias e ideas y crear redes es algo en lo que el foro jugará un rol fundamental.
IPS: En sus escritos, usted parece evitar términos clásicos como "socialismo", "revolución" y afines para describir a la clase de sociedad a la que aspira el FSM.
WB: No rehúyo tanto de articular la alternativa. (Queremos) democratizar la propiedad de los medios de producción. Ya sea que uno llame a eso socialismo o democracia popular, o socialismo democrático, de lo que uno realmente está hablando es de un control democrático de la economía.
Necesitamos mirar la posible articulación de economías combinadas, con diferentes sistemas de propiedad dentro de la economía, lo que probablemente incluirá empresas sociales, cooperativas, empresas privadas y estatales.
Ésa es una dimensión. Otra es la cuestión de volver a centrarse en la economía interna, en el desarrollo económico nacional en vez de en los mercados exportadores. Estaríamos hablando sobre la importancia crítica de la equidad, de mecanismos bastante fuertes de ingresos y redistribución. Y sobre una alternativa ecológicamente sostenible. No quiero usar el término "socialismo" porque hay ciertas connotaciones sobre de qué se trata el socialismo que devuelven la imagen de Europa oriental.
IPS: ¿Hay algo similar a esto que esté ocurriendo en alguna parte del mundo precisamente ahora?
WB: Estamos viendo esfuerzos coherentes con esta línea en varios países, ciertamente en Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela. Por supuesto que cada proceso tiene sus propias particularidades y dinámica.
Yo diría que a medida que la crisis se profundiza --y pienso que estamos en las etapas iniciales de esta crisis-- los esfuerzos de la gente van a ir más allá de los muy tradicionales mecanismos de estabilización ahora en curso. Así que imagino que veremos cada vez más de estos esfuerzos, por el control democrático y la participación.
IPS: En este proceso, ¿los países en desarrollo asumen el liderazgo y el Norte industrializado se queda rezagado?
WB: Yo no diría eso. Pienso que la gente todavía está aturdida por la crisis, especialmente en Estados Unidos, Europa y Japón. La crisis se mueve muy, muy rápidamente. Yo no descontaría el surgimiento de movimientos populares en estas áreas.
IPS: También está el riesgo de reacciones de la derecha radical, como las de Francia e Italia.
WB: Eso es definitivamente una posibilidad. Lo que vamos a ver es tres posibilidades: una radicalización hacia la izquierda, una radicalización hacia la derecha --y éste es un gran peligro en el Norte, en lugares como Italia y Francia-- o simplemente la parálisis. Así que no hay garantías de que las alternativas progresistas vayan a crecer. Los progresistas, con su conocimiento de la sociedad y su estrategia, deben luchar por su hegemonía.
IPS: Hace poco usted escribió que la balanza global del poder se está inclinando hacia el Sur en desarrollo.
WB: Lo que quiero decir es que en la última década hemos visto el debilitamiento de los centros económicos tradicionales. Vimos que Estados Unidos ingresó en esta forma de capitalismo guiada por el consumo y las finanzas, financiada por China. El crédito chino ha mantenido a la economía estadounidense funcionando.
En los últimos 10 a 15 años, países como Brasil, China e India se han convertido en actores económicos relativamente más fuertes, con el cambio de puestos laborales y capital. Se han vuelto los acreedores del Norte. Eso es lo que quiero decir en términos de equilibrio de poder. No estoy diciendo que se hayan convertido en el nuevo centro. El Norte continúa siendo el poder hegemónico, especialmente Estados Unidos.
IPS: ¿Es esto positivo para la clase de esfuerzo que usted exige?
WB: Depende. Sobre todo, cuanto menos hegemónicos se vuelven los países del Norte y cuanto más poder se difunde hacia el sistema mundial, pienso que es un hecho positivo. Por otro lado, hay que darse cuenta de que estas economías (del Sur) están controladas de muchas maneras por una elite capitalista. Por ejemplo, (la elite) de China es menos responsable que, digamos, la elite de Estados Unidos.
IPS: En este contexto, ¿cómo ve el ataque israelí contra Gaza?
WB: Desde el primer momento he sostenido que hay ciertas luchas clave sobre las que el FSM debe adoptar una posición muy fuerte. Definitivamente, la cuestión palestina es una de ellas. El FSM debería condenar a Israel y apoyar el derecho de los palestinos a su propio Estado, apoyando el derecho de regreso de los palestinos a lo que ahora es Israel.
Yo realmente siento que el FSM ya no puede decir que simplemente queremos brindar un techo para que tengan lugar las discusiones. Siempre he dicho que esa clase de postura académica terminará disipando el espíritu del FSM, y pienso que eso ya ha ocurrido, hasta cierto punto.
Reforzar realmente su alma y continuar proporcionando una fuerte energía en apoyo de los movimientos de la sociedad civil, la cuestión palestina y Afganistán, la cuestión del capitalismo, son temas en los que el FSM debe adoptar una posición muy fuerte.
IPS: Tal enfoque demanda una estructura permanente.
WB: Sí, pensamos que deberíamos hallar maneras de volver al Consejo Internacional un organismo más responsable. El problema con él es que se trata principalmente de un grupo de debate más que de una entidad con poderes efectivos para hacer avanzar la lucha.
Uno de los problemas del FSM es que no hay un sentido de acumulación de lecciones de uno a otro. Ése es el desafío. Pero pese a todas las debilidades del FSM, todavía es un mecanismo muy importante para que la sociedad civil global pueda influir en el curso de los acontecimientos mundiales.
* Este informe fue publicado por TerraViva, un periódico independiente de IPS, en el Foro Social Mundial de Belém, Brasil.
Alejandro Kirk
IPS/TerraViva
El Foro Social Mundial (FSM), reunido esta semana en Brasil, tiene la tarea urgente de proponer soluciones alternativas para la crisis mundial del capitalismo, e impulsar un control democrático de la economía y el Estado en todo el planeta, según el activista filipino Walden Bello. En su novena edición, el FSM se realiza desde el martes y hasta este domingo en la norteña ciudad brasileña de Belém.
El editor de TerraViva, Alejandro Kirk, dialogó con Bello.
IPS: En el contexto de la actual crisis mundial, ¿cuál es la tarea más relevante del FSM?
WALDEN BELLO: Estamos en una coyuntura histórica muy crítica, en la que el capitalismo neoliberal se está deshaciendo. Pienso que el FSM es un sitio donde deberían tener lugar discusiones muy serias, en términos de anticipar la probable respuesta del capitalismo global, así como impulsar alternativas a la crisis actual. Debemos poner realmente la tarea del FSM en el contexto de la crisis mundial, verdaderamente masiva.
IPS: ¿Así que Belém será un escenario crucial para el futuro del FSM?
WB: Sí, definitivamente. En este punto será fundamental para la sociedad civil mundial responder a esta crisis, más allá de la clase de soluciones para la estabilización que se están empezando a ver en Europa y Estados Unidos.
Las elites capitalistas ya están yendo más allá del neoliberalismo de muchas maneras, así que pienso por un lado que en Belém será realmente importante llegar a un consenso sobre la crisis del capitalismo, y deberíamos tener discusiones muy serias sobre cómo ir más allá de (esas) soluciones. Pienso que necesitamos proponer alternativas desde dentro del sistema, como una expansión de la democracia social, por ejemplo.
IPS: ¿Cómo puede el FSM llegar a semejante respuesta y cómo puede implementarla?
WB: En Belém se necesita identificar no sólo una crisis del neoliberalismo, sino una crisis del capitalismo. En el modo de producción capitalista, las raíces de la crisis son dinámicas. La alternativa a eso es algo que necesitamos abordar seriamente.
Realmente necesitamos enmarcar nuestras respuestas en términos de valores universales comunes, como la cuestión de la justicia y de la equidad, crear una alternativa que realmente se preocupe por el bienestar de la gente. Pienso que el debate en Belém será muy crítico en ese sentido.
En cuanto a la implementación, hay que ser bastante innovadores. Necesitamos vincular sólidamente nuestro movimiento en diferentes países, interactuando con respecto a las alternativas que se promueven. No puede ser fácil, pero este compartir experiencias e ideas y crear redes es algo en lo que el foro jugará un rol fundamental.
IPS: En sus escritos, usted parece evitar términos clásicos como "socialismo", "revolución" y afines para describir a la clase de sociedad a la que aspira el FSM.
WB: No rehúyo tanto de articular la alternativa. (Queremos) democratizar la propiedad de los medios de producción. Ya sea que uno llame a eso socialismo o democracia popular, o socialismo democrático, de lo que uno realmente está hablando es de un control democrático de la economía.
Necesitamos mirar la posible articulación de economías combinadas, con diferentes sistemas de propiedad dentro de la economía, lo que probablemente incluirá empresas sociales, cooperativas, empresas privadas y estatales.
Ésa es una dimensión. Otra es la cuestión de volver a centrarse en la economía interna, en el desarrollo económico nacional en vez de en los mercados exportadores. Estaríamos hablando sobre la importancia crítica de la equidad, de mecanismos bastante fuertes de ingresos y redistribución. Y sobre una alternativa ecológicamente sostenible. No quiero usar el término "socialismo" porque hay ciertas connotaciones sobre de qué se trata el socialismo que devuelven la imagen de Europa oriental.
IPS: ¿Hay algo similar a esto que esté ocurriendo en alguna parte del mundo precisamente ahora?
WB: Estamos viendo esfuerzos coherentes con esta línea en varios países, ciertamente en Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela. Por supuesto que cada proceso tiene sus propias particularidades y dinámica.
Yo diría que a medida que la crisis se profundiza --y pienso que estamos en las etapas iniciales de esta crisis-- los esfuerzos de la gente van a ir más allá de los muy tradicionales mecanismos de estabilización ahora en curso. Así que imagino que veremos cada vez más de estos esfuerzos, por el control democrático y la participación.
IPS: En este proceso, ¿los países en desarrollo asumen el liderazgo y el Norte industrializado se queda rezagado?
WB: Yo no diría eso. Pienso que la gente todavía está aturdida por la crisis, especialmente en Estados Unidos, Europa y Japón. La crisis se mueve muy, muy rápidamente. Yo no descontaría el surgimiento de movimientos populares en estas áreas.
IPS: También está el riesgo de reacciones de la derecha radical, como las de Francia e Italia.
WB: Eso es definitivamente una posibilidad. Lo que vamos a ver es tres posibilidades: una radicalización hacia la izquierda, una radicalización hacia la derecha --y éste es un gran peligro en el Norte, en lugares como Italia y Francia-- o simplemente la parálisis. Así que no hay garantías de que las alternativas progresistas vayan a crecer. Los progresistas, con su conocimiento de la sociedad y su estrategia, deben luchar por su hegemonía.
IPS: Hace poco usted escribió que la balanza global del poder se está inclinando hacia el Sur en desarrollo.
WB: Lo que quiero decir es que en la última década hemos visto el debilitamiento de los centros económicos tradicionales. Vimos que Estados Unidos ingresó en esta forma de capitalismo guiada por el consumo y las finanzas, financiada por China. El crédito chino ha mantenido a la economía estadounidense funcionando.
En los últimos 10 a 15 años, países como Brasil, China e India se han convertido en actores económicos relativamente más fuertes, con el cambio de puestos laborales y capital. Se han vuelto los acreedores del Norte. Eso es lo que quiero decir en términos de equilibrio de poder. No estoy diciendo que se hayan convertido en el nuevo centro. El Norte continúa siendo el poder hegemónico, especialmente Estados Unidos.
IPS: ¿Es esto positivo para la clase de esfuerzo que usted exige?
WB: Depende. Sobre todo, cuanto menos hegemónicos se vuelven los países del Norte y cuanto más poder se difunde hacia el sistema mundial, pienso que es un hecho positivo. Por otro lado, hay que darse cuenta de que estas economías (del Sur) están controladas de muchas maneras por una elite capitalista. Por ejemplo, (la elite) de China es menos responsable que, digamos, la elite de Estados Unidos.
IPS: En este contexto, ¿cómo ve el ataque israelí contra Gaza?
WB: Desde el primer momento he sostenido que hay ciertas luchas clave sobre las que el FSM debe adoptar una posición muy fuerte. Definitivamente, la cuestión palestina es una de ellas. El FSM debería condenar a Israel y apoyar el derecho de los palestinos a su propio Estado, apoyando el derecho de regreso de los palestinos a lo que ahora es Israel.
Yo realmente siento que el FSM ya no puede decir que simplemente queremos brindar un techo para que tengan lugar las discusiones. Siempre he dicho que esa clase de postura académica terminará disipando el espíritu del FSM, y pienso que eso ya ha ocurrido, hasta cierto punto.
Reforzar realmente su alma y continuar proporcionando una fuerte energía en apoyo de los movimientos de la sociedad civil, la cuestión palestina y Afganistán, la cuestión del capitalismo, son temas en los que el FSM debe adoptar una posición muy fuerte.
IPS: Tal enfoque demanda una estructura permanente.
WB: Sí, pensamos que deberíamos hallar maneras de volver al Consejo Internacional un organismo más responsable. El problema con él es que se trata principalmente de un grupo de debate más que de una entidad con poderes efectivos para hacer avanzar la lucha.
Uno de los problemas del FSM es que no hay un sentido de acumulación de lecciones de uno a otro. Ése es el desafío. Pero pese a todas las debilidades del FSM, todavía es un mecanismo muy importante para que la sociedad civil global pueda influir en el curso de los acontecimientos mundiales.
* Este informe fue publicado por TerraViva, un periódico independiente de IPS, en el Foro Social Mundial de Belém, Brasil.
NAFTA's Dangerous Security Agenda
Militarizing Borders
By LAURA CARLSEN
www.counterpunch.com
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated and signed in the early 90s, few people were thinking about its security implications. Environmentalists objected, fearing a corporate race to exploit natural resources and produce industrial wastes where environmental regulation and enforcement was weakest. Labor objected, arguing that companies would move jobs to where organized labor and workers' rights were most vulnerable. There was vague talk about improving trinational relations and promoting joint foreign policy agendas, but the goal of a broader North American alliance remained formally off the table in order to steer the agreement through a reluctant U.S. Congress.
The resulting pact was called a trade agreement, but is really a trade and investment agreement with significant changes in other areas important to transnational business, including expanded intellectual property protections. It was not until after the Bush administration came into power and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 provided the rationale for adoption of the Bush National Security Doctrine that security issues took center stage in the regional integration model.
In March 2005, the leaders of the three countries met in Waco, Texas and agreed to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The agreement was a "Washington-led" initiative, according to the U.S. SPP website, which describes its founding principle like this: "The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions."
In practice, the deep imbalance of power between the three nations has meant that the SPP was designed and implemented to bring the other two partners into the Bush counterterrorism paradigm. Although this paradigm had been widely repudiated by other nations in the world for its justification of unilateral action, preemptive strikes, executive power, and restriction of civil liberties—and particularly for the unpopular invasion of Iraq—Canada and Mexico by this time had developed such strong dependence on the U.S. market that they were obliged to adopt the SPP.
The SPP does not have a text that can be reviewed or a unitary set of goals and objectives. Nor was it subject to parliamentary approval or oversight. This was intentional. After the battle to pass NAFTA in the U.S. Congress and amid growing criticism of the agreement in all three countries, the governments wanted to avoid opening up a public debate on the issues. The information available on the SPP comes from what the executive branches choose to reveal on PR-oriented websites and in declarations that obscure as much as they reveal. The alarming way that NAFTA expanded its reach without public or even legislative agreement, as well as the secrecy of SPP proceedings, have been the principle sources of concern over the initiative.
The Bush National Security Doctrine of 2002 is a radical departure from previous formal precepts, if not practices, and the most grandiose expression of U.S. hegemony since the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine explicitly links trade and security as two pillars of a vision that posit that what is good for the United States (as defined by the Bush administration and neoconservative architects of the plan) is good for the world. Although better known for formulating the change from containment to regime change, the document dedicates an entire chapter to asserting a fundamental relationship between free markets and U.S. national security. Chapter VI, entitled "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade" begins by assuming a causal chain between the free trade model, economic growth and prosperity, and national security.
It is therefore not surprising that NAFTA, the pioneer U.S.-style trade agreement, also became the first FTA to be officially expanded into security. The goals are twofold: to apply the Bush counterterrorism model throughout North America and bring Canadian and Mexican national security apparatus under closer U.S. control and surveillance, and to protect investment and business throughout the region. Under-Secretary of State Thomas Shannon put it succinctly when he said that the SPP "understands North America as a shared economic space," one that "we need to protect." He added: "To a certain extent, we're armoring NAFTA."
In brief, the SPP consists of working groups in various areas that produce recommendations to the governments. These are not released to the public, generally speaking, and are either adopted behind the scenes as rule changes or sent up as legislation with no sign of their SPP origins. The working groups are made up of government officials and business representatives. The North American Competitiveness Council was formed within the SPP of executives of the region's largest and most powerful transnational corporations to make sure that the extension of NAFTA was guided by their interests and their interests alone.
Although the governments have issued numerous statements affirming that security and prosperity go together like love and marriage, NAFTA's "natural" expansion of reach into the SPP has brought about a series of unnatural contradictions. Because the SPP includes no representation of labor, environmental, or citizen groups, these groups are often the ones whose rights and interests are violated by the proceedings of NAFTA-SPP. The SPP orientation to business and Bush geopolitical aims has compounded rather than resolved the worst contradictions of NAFTA.
Two examples suffice to illustrate the point: while NAFTA-SPP steadfastly refuses to deal with increased immigration as an issue of regional integration, the security section criminalizes the victims of the prosperity section. In other words, migrants driven from their livelihoods by the loss of their own local and national markets to imports are defined as international threats and subject to a series of enforcement-only measures under the SPP security section. This includes what are, in essence, preemptive strikes against Central American immigrants before they even near the U.S. border. For this task, the U.S. government has deputized the Mexican government, which had previously had a liberal view toward Central American refugees and immigrants, and given it millions of dollars worth of intelligence and military equipment to crack down on "human smuggling networks."
Another example of the double standard inherent in the SPP regarding the treatment of goods and people is the "No Fly on the Open Skies" policy toward Canada. Under its list of achievements, the SPP lists, "The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets' development, lower prices, and greater competition." What is not mentioned in the great achievements section is that the U.S. government has also enforced a "no fly" policy on Canada that restricts air travel of a long list, including activists, individuals with Arab names similar to suspects, and others. It has also raised grave issues of sovereignty and caused many to question whether security as defined under the SPP is really a lasting security for our three countries.
Perhaps the best example of where the SPP leads us is Plan Mexico. Originally, U.S. promoters predicted that regional economic integration under NAFTA would work toward resolving other binational issues, including security issues. In the words of President Bush Sr. in 1991, "By boosting economic prosperity in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, it will help us move forward on issues that concern all of us. Issues such as drugs and education, immigration, and the environment."
We now know that the reverse occurred. For complex reasons not all attributable to NAFTA of course, North America now faces security threats unimagined in 1991. In Mexico, since the launching of the war on drugs by incoming President Felipe Calderon in January of 2007, the nation has seen an explosion of drug-related violence. No one would argue that the problem of organized crime in Mexico is not real and has not reached alarming proportions. Within the SPP, negotiations began to design a U.S. military aid package that resulted in the "Merida Initiative," officially described as a "regional security cooperation initiative."
The Merida Initiative, more commonly known as Plan Mexico for its close similarities to Plan Colombia—the other major military aid package of the U.S. government in the hemisphere—provides an example of the direction of the security element of NAFTA since, unlike other SPP measures, its basic outlines are at least known. Plan Mexico required authorization from the U.S. Congress for appropriation of $400 million to Mexico.
Although obtaining detailed information about the plan has been far more difficult than it should be, given that it is a taxpayer-funded initiative, we do know that it closely follows the script of extending U.S. military and intelligence presence in NAFTA partner territory. Plan Mexico funds military equipment and training for the Mexican Army to the tune of $116 million. This includes surveillance planes and helicopters. Although the plan does not include troop presence—a political flash-point in Mexican society—it does increase the use of U.S. trainers, mercenary groups, or private security companies, and members of other agencies such as the DEA and Tobacco and Firearms Control.
The plan was presented by President Bush in October of 2007 as a $1.4 billion, multi-year security cooperation initiative with Mexico and Central America to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational crime, and terrorism that undermine security not only in these countries, but also in the United States. If approved by the U.S. Congress, the Merida Initiative will build a new strategic partnership with Mexico and the Central America countries; bolster homeland security by impeding the flow of transnational criminal activity and strengthening state institutions in Mexico and Central America; and increase the prospects of breaking down criminal organizations by building on successes of the Mexican government in the past year, including increased extraditions, police restructuring and legal reforms, and recent very large cocaine seizures.
The phrase "impeding the flow of transnational criminal activity" indicates the underlying logic of the plan. Despite the hype, it is not really a binational cooperation initiative. There are no obligations for the United States regarding criminal activities in its own territory, notably gun-running, illegal drug trafficking, or money laundering. Criminal activity is portrayed as a contagion that spreads south to north.
This image deflects attention from the dismal failure of the United States in controlling its own illegal drug use and sales, and justifies U.S. intervention in Mexico's national security apparatus to an unprecedented degree.
The U.S. government will now be responsible for designing and monitoring centralized intelligence systems, military equipment, and training in the police, justice, and penal systems. This type of plan differs considerably from a model of cooperation, where police and military forces share best practices and Mexico is free to contract consultant services from regions of the world with a proven track record in fighting organized crime.
In addition, the militarized approach to fighting organized crime, couched in terms of the counterterrorism model of the Bush administration, presents serious threats to civil liberties and human rights. In Mexico, this has already been clear particularly among four vulnerable groups: members of political opposition, women, indigenous peoples, and migrants. Corresponding legislation pushed by the United States that adopts broad measures against "international terrorism" (virtually non-existent in Mexico) has led to a flurry of protests by human rights groups and legal experts. Because Mexico cannot receive any cash under Plan Mexico, the entire appropriations package translates into juicy contracts for arms manufacturers, mercenary firms, and U.S. defense and intelligence agencies.
Perhaps the deepest criticism of the SPP-Plan Mexico model has to do with the concept of sovereignty. Some people have declared this concept obsolete in the era of globalization. And yet it remains fundamental to international relations simply because the nations are the entities involved. No matter how economically integrated, North America is a region of three nations that share values but have very different geopolitical and human security priorities. In defining their security agendas, they should not forge a common identity under the hammer of the strongest, but seek mechanisms of cooperation for the well-being of all their people.
It may seem ironic to refer to "NAFTA's dangerous security agenda." Security, after all, aims to keep people safe. Yet under the SPP, with the exception of health epidemics and food safety measures, most of the work has been oriented toward guarding infrastructure and business, and focusing on military approaches to crime rather than looking to root causes such as poverty and marginalization—in many cases by-products of NAFTA itself. This enforcement approach is dangerous because it does not work, and it militarizes society.
In sum, the SPP has opened the door to secretive and dangerous negotiations on both economic integration and security issues. All of these discussions must be taken to the public in all three countries. To do that, we must subject NAFTA and the SPP to a complete overhaul.
In the case of the SPP, the entire structure was adopted and expanded without public or congressional consent and should be abolished. A review by Congress can determine which working groups should continue under the framework of NAFTA and how their composition can be changed to reflect the real and diverse interests of society. The same should be done in the other countries, as well.
Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is the Mexico City-based director of the Americas Policy Program of the Center for International Policy.
This is an electronic version of an article published in Peace Review's October 2008 issue, NAFTA's Food and Agriculture Lessons.
By LAURA CARLSEN
www.counterpunch.com
When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated and signed in the early 90s, few people were thinking about its security implications. Environmentalists objected, fearing a corporate race to exploit natural resources and produce industrial wastes where environmental regulation and enforcement was weakest. Labor objected, arguing that companies would move jobs to where organized labor and workers' rights were most vulnerable. There was vague talk about improving trinational relations and promoting joint foreign policy agendas, but the goal of a broader North American alliance remained formally off the table in order to steer the agreement through a reluctant U.S. Congress.
The resulting pact was called a trade agreement, but is really a trade and investment agreement with significant changes in other areas important to transnational business, including expanded intellectual property protections. It was not until after the Bush administration came into power and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 provided the rationale for adoption of the Bush National Security Doctrine that security issues took center stage in the regional integration model.
In March 2005, the leaders of the three countries met in Waco, Texas and agreed to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The agreement was a "Washington-led" initiative, according to the U.S. SPP website, which describes its founding principle like this: "The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions."
In practice, the deep imbalance of power between the three nations has meant that the SPP was designed and implemented to bring the other two partners into the Bush counterterrorism paradigm. Although this paradigm had been widely repudiated by other nations in the world for its justification of unilateral action, preemptive strikes, executive power, and restriction of civil liberties—and particularly for the unpopular invasion of Iraq—Canada and Mexico by this time had developed such strong dependence on the U.S. market that they were obliged to adopt the SPP.
The SPP does not have a text that can be reviewed or a unitary set of goals and objectives. Nor was it subject to parliamentary approval or oversight. This was intentional. After the battle to pass NAFTA in the U.S. Congress and amid growing criticism of the agreement in all three countries, the governments wanted to avoid opening up a public debate on the issues. The information available on the SPP comes from what the executive branches choose to reveal on PR-oriented websites and in declarations that obscure as much as they reveal. The alarming way that NAFTA expanded its reach without public or even legislative agreement, as well as the secrecy of SPP proceedings, have been the principle sources of concern over the initiative.
The Bush National Security Doctrine of 2002 is a radical departure from previous formal precepts, if not practices, and the most grandiose expression of U.S. hegemony since the Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine explicitly links trade and security as two pillars of a vision that posit that what is good for the United States (as defined by the Bush administration and neoconservative architects of the plan) is good for the world. Although better known for formulating the change from containment to regime change, the document dedicates an entire chapter to asserting a fundamental relationship between free markets and U.S. national security. Chapter VI, entitled "Ignite a New Era of Global Economic Growth through Free Markets and Free Trade" begins by assuming a causal chain between the free trade model, economic growth and prosperity, and national security.
It is therefore not surprising that NAFTA, the pioneer U.S.-style trade agreement, also became the first FTA to be officially expanded into security. The goals are twofold: to apply the Bush counterterrorism model throughout North America and bring Canadian and Mexican national security apparatus under closer U.S. control and surveillance, and to protect investment and business throughout the region. Under-Secretary of State Thomas Shannon put it succinctly when he said that the SPP "understands North America as a shared economic space," one that "we need to protect." He added: "To a certain extent, we're armoring NAFTA."
In brief, the SPP consists of working groups in various areas that produce recommendations to the governments. These are not released to the public, generally speaking, and are either adopted behind the scenes as rule changes or sent up as legislation with no sign of their SPP origins. The working groups are made up of government officials and business representatives. The North American Competitiveness Council was formed within the SPP of executives of the region's largest and most powerful transnational corporations to make sure that the extension of NAFTA was guided by their interests and their interests alone.
Although the governments have issued numerous statements affirming that security and prosperity go together like love and marriage, NAFTA's "natural" expansion of reach into the SPP has brought about a series of unnatural contradictions. Because the SPP includes no representation of labor, environmental, or citizen groups, these groups are often the ones whose rights and interests are violated by the proceedings of NAFTA-SPP. The SPP orientation to business and Bush geopolitical aims has compounded rather than resolved the worst contradictions of NAFTA.
Two examples suffice to illustrate the point: while NAFTA-SPP steadfastly refuses to deal with increased immigration as an issue of regional integration, the security section criminalizes the victims of the prosperity section. In other words, migrants driven from their livelihoods by the loss of their own local and national markets to imports are defined as international threats and subject to a series of enforcement-only measures under the SPP security section. This includes what are, in essence, preemptive strikes against Central American immigrants before they even near the U.S. border. For this task, the U.S. government has deputized the Mexican government, which had previously had a liberal view toward Central American refugees and immigrants, and given it millions of dollars worth of intelligence and military equipment to crack down on "human smuggling networks."
Another example of the double standard inherent in the SPP regarding the treatment of goods and people is the "No Fly on the Open Skies" policy toward Canada. Under its list of achievements, the SPP lists, "The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another's territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets' development, lower prices, and greater competition." What is not mentioned in the great achievements section is that the U.S. government has also enforced a "no fly" policy on Canada that restricts air travel of a long list, including activists, individuals with Arab names similar to suspects, and others. It has also raised grave issues of sovereignty and caused many to question whether security as defined under the SPP is really a lasting security for our three countries.
Perhaps the best example of where the SPP leads us is Plan Mexico. Originally, U.S. promoters predicted that regional economic integration under NAFTA would work toward resolving other binational issues, including security issues. In the words of President Bush Sr. in 1991, "By boosting economic prosperity in Mexico, Canada, and the United States, it will help us move forward on issues that concern all of us. Issues such as drugs and education, immigration, and the environment."
We now know that the reverse occurred. For complex reasons not all attributable to NAFTA of course, North America now faces security threats unimagined in 1991. In Mexico, since the launching of the war on drugs by incoming President Felipe Calderon in January of 2007, the nation has seen an explosion of drug-related violence. No one would argue that the problem of organized crime in Mexico is not real and has not reached alarming proportions. Within the SPP, negotiations began to design a U.S. military aid package that resulted in the "Merida Initiative," officially described as a "regional security cooperation initiative."
The Merida Initiative, more commonly known as Plan Mexico for its close similarities to Plan Colombia—the other major military aid package of the U.S. government in the hemisphere—provides an example of the direction of the security element of NAFTA since, unlike other SPP measures, its basic outlines are at least known. Plan Mexico required authorization from the U.S. Congress for appropriation of $400 million to Mexico.
Although obtaining detailed information about the plan has been far more difficult than it should be, given that it is a taxpayer-funded initiative, we do know that it closely follows the script of extending U.S. military and intelligence presence in NAFTA partner territory. Plan Mexico funds military equipment and training for the Mexican Army to the tune of $116 million. This includes surveillance planes and helicopters. Although the plan does not include troop presence—a political flash-point in Mexican society—it does increase the use of U.S. trainers, mercenary groups, or private security companies, and members of other agencies such as the DEA and Tobacco and Firearms Control.
The plan was presented by President Bush in October of 2007 as a $1.4 billion, multi-year security cooperation initiative with Mexico and Central America to combat the threats of drug trafficking, transnational crime, and terrorism that undermine security not only in these countries, but also in the United States. If approved by the U.S. Congress, the Merida Initiative will build a new strategic partnership with Mexico and the Central America countries; bolster homeland security by impeding the flow of transnational criminal activity and strengthening state institutions in Mexico and Central America; and increase the prospects of breaking down criminal organizations by building on successes of the Mexican government in the past year, including increased extraditions, police restructuring and legal reforms, and recent very large cocaine seizures.
The phrase "impeding the flow of transnational criminal activity" indicates the underlying logic of the plan. Despite the hype, it is not really a binational cooperation initiative. There are no obligations for the United States regarding criminal activities in its own territory, notably gun-running, illegal drug trafficking, or money laundering. Criminal activity is portrayed as a contagion that spreads south to north.
This image deflects attention from the dismal failure of the United States in controlling its own illegal drug use and sales, and justifies U.S. intervention in Mexico's national security apparatus to an unprecedented degree.
The U.S. government will now be responsible for designing and monitoring centralized intelligence systems, military equipment, and training in the police, justice, and penal systems. This type of plan differs considerably from a model of cooperation, where police and military forces share best practices and Mexico is free to contract consultant services from regions of the world with a proven track record in fighting organized crime.
In addition, the militarized approach to fighting organized crime, couched in terms of the counterterrorism model of the Bush administration, presents serious threats to civil liberties and human rights. In Mexico, this has already been clear particularly among four vulnerable groups: members of political opposition, women, indigenous peoples, and migrants. Corresponding legislation pushed by the United States that adopts broad measures against "international terrorism" (virtually non-existent in Mexico) has led to a flurry of protests by human rights groups and legal experts. Because Mexico cannot receive any cash under Plan Mexico, the entire appropriations package translates into juicy contracts for arms manufacturers, mercenary firms, and U.S. defense and intelligence agencies.
Perhaps the deepest criticism of the SPP-Plan Mexico model has to do with the concept of sovereignty. Some people have declared this concept obsolete in the era of globalization. And yet it remains fundamental to international relations simply because the nations are the entities involved. No matter how economically integrated, North America is a region of three nations that share values but have very different geopolitical and human security priorities. In defining their security agendas, they should not forge a common identity under the hammer of the strongest, but seek mechanisms of cooperation for the well-being of all their people.
It may seem ironic to refer to "NAFTA's dangerous security agenda." Security, after all, aims to keep people safe. Yet under the SPP, with the exception of health epidemics and food safety measures, most of the work has been oriented toward guarding infrastructure and business, and focusing on military approaches to crime rather than looking to root causes such as poverty and marginalization—in many cases by-products of NAFTA itself. This enforcement approach is dangerous because it does not work, and it militarizes society.
In sum, the SPP has opened the door to secretive and dangerous negotiations on both economic integration and security issues. All of these discussions must be taken to the public in all three countries. To do that, we must subject NAFTA and the SPP to a complete overhaul.
In the case of the SPP, the entire structure was adopted and expanded without public or congressional consent and should be abolished. A review by Congress can determine which working groups should continue under the framework of NAFTA and how their composition can be changed to reflect the real and diverse interests of society. The same should be done in the other countries, as well.
Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is the Mexico City-based director of the Americas Policy Program of the Center for International Policy.
This is an electronic version of an article published in Peace Review's October 2008 issue, NAFTA's Food and Agriculture Lessons.
Los tambores de Belem do Pará
Pascual Serrano
Rebelión
Alegres, porque es así el otro mundo que piden y por el que luchan. Con color y tambores, porque así es Brasil. Y todos empapados por la lluvia, porque esto es el Amazonas, la ciudad de Belem, en el estado de Pará, el delta del río más grande del mundo.
En torno a 100.000 personas se manifestaron en la tarde del 27 de enero en que se inauguraba el IX Foro Social Mundial. Con un sonido que inunda el ambiente, los tambores, la batucada brasileña. Son los golpes a base de los cuales avanzan las sociedades, golpe a golpe decía Antonio Machado, es la fuerza de cientos de miles de personas empujando para cambiar el mundo. Los brasileños no avanzan en las manifestaciones andando, sino bailando. Tampoco gritan consignas, golpean los tambores. A estas alturas, ya no hacen falta los slogans en estas manifestaciones, todos sabemos lo que queremos y quiénes son los responsables de todo lo que nos indigna, ahora toca poner en marcha las fuerzas necesarias, los golpes, los tambores, la batucada. Ese sonido ensordecedor es la prueba que necesitan los pueblos para comprobar hasta donde llega su poder. Y en Belem do Pará sólo se oía el ruido de los tambores, el poder de los pueblos que se levantan; todos unidos, monjas junto indígenas, campesinos rurales del brazo de ecologistas urbanos, comunistas con anglicanos.
En España también se tocan los tambores, pero es por instrucciones de la Iglesia Católica cada año cuando muere Jesucristo. En cambio, en Belem do Pará, en Brasil, los tambores resuenan para llamar a otro mundo posible. Yo quiero un tambor, pero no quiero que sea español, yo lo quiero brasileño.
www.pascualserrano.net
Rebelión
Alegres, porque es así el otro mundo que piden y por el que luchan. Con color y tambores, porque así es Brasil. Y todos empapados por la lluvia, porque esto es el Amazonas, la ciudad de Belem, en el estado de Pará, el delta del río más grande del mundo.
En torno a 100.000 personas se manifestaron en la tarde del 27 de enero en que se inauguraba el IX Foro Social Mundial. Con un sonido que inunda el ambiente, los tambores, la batucada brasileña. Son los golpes a base de los cuales avanzan las sociedades, golpe a golpe decía Antonio Machado, es la fuerza de cientos de miles de personas empujando para cambiar el mundo. Los brasileños no avanzan en las manifestaciones andando, sino bailando. Tampoco gritan consignas, golpean los tambores. A estas alturas, ya no hacen falta los slogans en estas manifestaciones, todos sabemos lo que queremos y quiénes son los responsables de todo lo que nos indigna, ahora toca poner en marcha las fuerzas necesarias, los golpes, los tambores, la batucada. Ese sonido ensordecedor es la prueba que necesitan los pueblos para comprobar hasta donde llega su poder. Y en Belem do Pará sólo se oía el ruido de los tambores, el poder de los pueblos que se levantan; todos unidos, monjas junto indígenas, campesinos rurales del brazo de ecologistas urbanos, comunistas con anglicanos.
En España también se tocan los tambores, pero es por instrucciones de la Iglesia Católica cada año cuando muere Jesucristo. En cambio, en Belem do Pará, en Brasil, los tambores resuenan para llamar a otro mundo posible. Yo quiero un tambor, pero no quiero que sea español, yo lo quiero brasileño.
www.pascualserrano.net
AKWESASNE MOHAWKS SHOO AWAY LAND GRABBERS
MOHAWK NATION NEWS
http://www.mohawknationnews.com
Jan. 28, 2009. The repossession of Haudenosaunee land is an on-going process. In the 1920s we repossessed “Tiokwaroton”, a six mile square area in the Laurentian Mountains north of Montreal. In 1957 we settled in the Mohawk Valley near Fonda New York where “Kahnawake” had existed long ago. We left when NYS started objecting to our presence because we knew our land issue did not belong in the colonial court system.
In 1974 the Mohawks of Kahnawake near Montreal were being squeezed on our land by the influx of many non-Ongwehonwe. They were coming in to illegally live in cheap housing which some of our people were renting to them. The people became alarmed at the high numbers that were arriving. They were beginning to crowd us out and trying to control us.
The traditional Longhouse people were asked to help evict these people. Eviction notices were handed out to the illegal tenants. The colonial “band council” supported by the Canadian government and the illegal tenants objected to the move. Canada and the band council sent in Quebec Police to instigate violence and divisions. Resistance ensued. The non-Ongwehonwe left. They knew they did not belong here.
Canada respected the Longhouse people who knew that Kahnawake is on Iroquois Confederacy territory under Kaianerehkowa, the constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy. It was never surrendered and never a “reserve”. After the evictions the Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chretien secretly proclaimed Kahnawake as a “reserve” without consultation, referendum or consent of the people. This violated international law. No state is allowed to absorb another without the free and informed consent of its people. The band council went along with it. In 1979 the people overwhelmingly voted to live according to the traditional form of governance.
The traditional people decided not to fight our own people. Some moved to another part of our Territory at Moss Lake in upper New York State. On May 13 1974 they resettled in a community called “Ganiengeh”. It was a Warrior’s Project which was sanctioned by all of the Confederacy.
Shortly thereafter the Grand Council of the Rotino’shonni:onwe, Iroquois Confederacy, set up the “Land Rights Committee”. They passed a resolution for our people to find ways to get our lands back by “all means”. According to the Kaianerehkowa, the Great Law of Peace, everybody and every nation has a duty to protect our lands. The Confederacy wanted strong advocates in the movement. Some of the appointees to the committee were writer, artist and historian, Louis Karonhiaktajeh Hall, Mad Bear Anderson, Beeman Logan and others. The movement gained support from other nations across Turtle Island and international support from Germany, Australia, England, France, Netherlands, African nations and the World Council of Churches.
One of our communities, Akwesasne, was usurped, piece-by-piece, until only a tiny portion remained as lands “reserved” for the Mohawks.
In 1763 the King of England issued a “Royal Proclamation” to forbid English colonies and British subjects from taking over any “Indian Lands” without a treaty with the King. The Confederacy knew this Proclamation was only for the colonists and their monarch. We could make agreements with anybody we wanted. They could not.
These proclamations and agreements between the European entities were used to steal and disperse Ongwehonwe wealth. The Revolutionary War created the “imaginary line” known as the U.S./Canada border that split Akwesasne. The northern portion was supposedly protected by the King. The southern portion was supposedly protected by the U. S. Constitution. The Jay Treaty of 1794 was a trade agreement between the colonies. We were not part of it.
The Europeans asked the Kanionkehaka of Akwesasne to let them use some of our lands for temporary settlement. At the time, Akwesasne extended eastward to Lake Champlain in Vermont, and toward Watertown to the west. It ran from the St. Lawrence River well into the Adirondack Mountains to the south. In the center of Akwesasne is a one mile square piece which was leased by New York State. It contains the town of Hogansburg. This is where the Raquette River and the St. Regis River flow into the St. Lawrence River. Today the principal east-west highway 37 runs through the middle, intersecting with the principal road to St. Regis Village.
In 1817 Michael Hogan, a wealthy former Irish ship captain, a member of the NYS Assembly, later a judge and Member of Congress in 1830, leased our land and water at Hogansburg. NYS named the town after him. It wasn’t made with the people of Akwesasne, the Mohawk Nation or the Confederacy. The two “indentures of lease” of October 20 and 23 were sanctioned and confirmed by the NYS Legislature, who had no authority to do this. Hogan was to pay an annual rent of $305 to the Mohawk. It could be renewed upon the same terms.
In 1824 NYS stated that the Mohawks had sold Hogansburg to them for $1, with an annual payment of $305 “in perpetuity”. William Hogan then magically acquired the deed from NYS. When the lease was finished, the Mohawks refused to renew it. Instead of returning the land to the owners, New York State started to illegally sell it off to non-Ongwehonwe. A few buyers tried to cash in by reselling it to outside developers for millions of dollars.
The Mohawk people decided to repossess our land. This was done. No one opposed this. It is now being resettled by the Mohawk People, who are determined to ensure their children, grandchildren and future generations have sufficient land to raise their families.
Illegal leases issued by colonial governments is an ongoing problem that requires constant vigilance. The land was validly repossessed because there was no agreement allowing the state to squat on our land. The lands belong to the nation, not to individuals. The situation here is the same on all parts of Turtle Island. That’s why the settler society refuses to study documented history.
MNN Mohawk Nation News http://www.mohawknationnews.com/ katenies20@yahoo.com kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Kanionkehaka Kaianerehkowa Kanonhsesne, Jan. 21, 2009. 514-269-1400.
Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to “MNN Mohawk Nation News”, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN “Akwesasne” category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates
http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php
; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois
http://www.mohawknationnews.com
Jan. 28, 2009. The repossession of Haudenosaunee land is an on-going process. In the 1920s we repossessed “Tiokwaroton”, a six mile square area in the Laurentian Mountains north of Montreal. In 1957 we settled in the Mohawk Valley near Fonda New York where “Kahnawake” had existed long ago. We left when NYS started objecting to our presence because we knew our land issue did not belong in the colonial court system.
In 1974 the Mohawks of Kahnawake near Montreal were being squeezed on our land by the influx of many non-Ongwehonwe. They were coming in to illegally live in cheap housing which some of our people were renting to them. The people became alarmed at the high numbers that were arriving. They were beginning to crowd us out and trying to control us.
The traditional Longhouse people were asked to help evict these people. Eviction notices were handed out to the illegal tenants. The colonial “band council” supported by the Canadian government and the illegal tenants objected to the move. Canada and the band council sent in Quebec Police to instigate violence and divisions. Resistance ensued. The non-Ongwehonwe left. They knew they did not belong here.
Canada respected the Longhouse people who knew that Kahnawake is on Iroquois Confederacy territory under Kaianerehkowa, the constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy. It was never surrendered and never a “reserve”. After the evictions the Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chretien secretly proclaimed Kahnawake as a “reserve” without consultation, referendum or consent of the people. This violated international law. No state is allowed to absorb another without the free and informed consent of its people. The band council went along with it. In 1979 the people overwhelmingly voted to live according to the traditional form of governance.
The traditional people decided not to fight our own people. Some moved to another part of our Territory at Moss Lake in upper New York State. On May 13 1974 they resettled in a community called “Ganiengeh”. It was a Warrior’s Project which was sanctioned by all of the Confederacy.
Shortly thereafter the Grand Council of the Rotino’shonni:onwe, Iroquois Confederacy, set up the “Land Rights Committee”. They passed a resolution for our people to find ways to get our lands back by “all means”. According to the Kaianerehkowa, the Great Law of Peace, everybody and every nation has a duty to protect our lands. The Confederacy wanted strong advocates in the movement. Some of the appointees to the committee were writer, artist and historian, Louis Karonhiaktajeh Hall, Mad Bear Anderson, Beeman Logan and others. The movement gained support from other nations across Turtle Island and international support from Germany, Australia, England, France, Netherlands, African nations and the World Council of Churches.
One of our communities, Akwesasne, was usurped, piece-by-piece, until only a tiny portion remained as lands “reserved” for the Mohawks.
In 1763 the King of England issued a “Royal Proclamation” to forbid English colonies and British subjects from taking over any “Indian Lands” without a treaty with the King. The Confederacy knew this Proclamation was only for the colonists and their monarch. We could make agreements with anybody we wanted. They could not.
These proclamations and agreements between the European entities were used to steal and disperse Ongwehonwe wealth. The Revolutionary War created the “imaginary line” known as the U.S./Canada border that split Akwesasne. The northern portion was supposedly protected by the King. The southern portion was supposedly protected by the U. S. Constitution. The Jay Treaty of 1794 was a trade agreement between the colonies. We were not part of it.
The Europeans asked the Kanionkehaka of Akwesasne to let them use some of our lands for temporary settlement. At the time, Akwesasne extended eastward to Lake Champlain in Vermont, and toward Watertown to the west. It ran from the St. Lawrence River well into the Adirondack Mountains to the south. In the center of Akwesasne is a one mile square piece which was leased by New York State. It contains the town of Hogansburg. This is where the Raquette River and the St. Regis River flow into the St. Lawrence River. Today the principal east-west highway 37 runs through the middle, intersecting with the principal road to St. Regis Village.
In 1817 Michael Hogan, a wealthy former Irish ship captain, a member of the NYS Assembly, later a judge and Member of Congress in 1830, leased our land and water at Hogansburg. NYS named the town after him. It wasn’t made with the people of Akwesasne, the Mohawk Nation or the Confederacy. The two “indentures of lease” of October 20 and 23 were sanctioned and confirmed by the NYS Legislature, who had no authority to do this. Hogan was to pay an annual rent of $305 to the Mohawk. It could be renewed upon the same terms.
In 1824 NYS stated that the Mohawks had sold Hogansburg to them for $1, with an annual payment of $305 “in perpetuity”. William Hogan then magically acquired the deed from NYS. When the lease was finished, the Mohawks refused to renew it. Instead of returning the land to the owners, New York State started to illegally sell it off to non-Ongwehonwe. A few buyers tried to cash in by reselling it to outside developers for millions of dollars.
The Mohawk people decided to repossess our land. This was done. No one opposed this. It is now being resettled by the Mohawk People, who are determined to ensure their children, grandchildren and future generations have sufficient land to raise their families.
Illegal leases issued by colonial governments is an ongoing problem that requires constant vigilance. The land was validly repossessed because there was no agreement allowing the state to squat on our land. The lands belong to the nation, not to individuals. The situation here is the same on all parts of Turtle Island. That’s why the settler society refuses to study documented history.
MNN Mohawk Nation News http://www.mohawknationnews.com/ katenies20@yahoo.com kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Kanionkehaka Kaianerehkowa Kanonhsesne, Jan. 21, 2009. 514-269-1400.
Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to “MNN Mohawk Nation News”, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN “Akwesasne” category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates
http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php
; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois
Dos feminismos y dos reuniones en México
Sara Lovera
SEMlac
La capital de la república mexicana se convertirá, en marzo, en la sede del encuentro que, cada dos o tres años, realizan las feministas de la región latinoamericana y caribeña desde hace 28 años.
Se esperan dos reuniones: una de las feministas llamadas "autónomas" y otra de las plurales, de partidos políticos, de organizaciones no gubernamentales e incluso institucionales y/o gubernamentales.
En el XI Encuentro Feministas de Latinoamérica y del Caribe los informes serán de María Eugenia Romero y del Comité Organizador, cuya secretaria técnica es Pilar Muriedas, ambas de México. En tanto, en la cita paralela informará la académica y feminista de origen italiano Francesca Gargallo.
Según la información oficial de una y otra reunión, se espera que unas 2.000 participantes coincidan, entre el 10 y el 25 de marzo, en esta ciudad, que ha sido escenario en los últimos años de las más nutridas movilizaciones políticas y donde se halla la historia de uno de los movimientos feministas con mayores logros en la región.
La histórica diferencia entre quienes admiten que las instituciones han ido incorporando, lentamente, la perspectiva de las feministas en las políticas públicas y quienes afirman que el feminismo es una vía para terminar con el patriarcado en todos sus órdenes, sin mediaciones y sin instituciones, surgió en el Sexto Encuentro, realizado en El Salvador, en 1993.
Por entonces se había incorporado la peruana Virginia Vargas a las tareas de organización de la IV Conferencia Mundial de la Mujer, y las organizaciones no gubernamentales habían conseguido recursos económicos permanentes para promover los derechos de las mujeres.
La división parecía, en principio, artificial y se ubicó como una diferencia entre la socióloga Vargas con la arquitecta chilena Margarita Pizano, una histórica negociadora, incluso con la dictadura chilena, para abrir espacios de mujeres y hablar de feminismo en las peores condiciones.
Sin embargo, Pizano, quien era reconocida regionalmente, más tarde descalificó la actitud de Vargas y sus seguidoras por pactar y acordar acciones con la Organización de Naciones Unidas.
Seguidoras de Pizano fundaron la tendencia autónoma, que se opone a lo que llaman institucionalización del feminismo, y aseguran que se está reciclando el patriarcado.
En México será la primera vez que habrá un encuentro paralelo, retando a lo que los textos de las mujeres autónomas llaman "oficial".
Una crítica al órgano técnico del XI Encuentro, que ha seguido la tradición de las reuniones, es que el Comité elegido firmará un convenio con el jefe de gobierno del Distrito Federal, de origen socialdemócrata, administración a la que se le reconoce una intención avanzada para aplicar políticas públicas a favor de la población femenina.
En la Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, parte del proyecto político del gobierno del Distrito Federal, laboran algunas de las organizadoras de la reunión paralela.
En tanto, las organizadoras señaladas como oficiales están incorporadas a un sinfín de proyectos institucionales del Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, algunas incluso son funcionarias, diputadas o promotoras de leyes que protegen a las mujeres.
Las conclusiones del X Encuentro, realizado en Brasil en 2005, enfrentaron en los años siguientes el crecimiento exponencial de la violencia contra las mujeres, la profundización de la pobreza y la aparición de una nueva derecha política, "y es eso lo que hay que discutir", insistió Romero.
El documento final de aquella cita señalaba textualmente: "Son necesarias las acciones y el trabajo que favorezcan las condiciones de las mujeres, acabar con la violencia, con las guerras y la pobreza, el fin del patriarcado; lo que no queremos es que sea el dinero y el privilegio de algunas y algunos quienes nos usen para legitimar nuevamente el despojo de las feministas, es nuestra memoria histórico-política la que una vez más se pronuncia para exigir que al movimiento feminista recobre la rebeldía, la desobediencia, la radicalidad y la creatividad del feminismo".
El encuentro en Brasil contó con mayoría de feministas "autónomas", pero lo que ahora se prepara en México parece retomar procesos que avanzaron desde 1981 en Colombia, en el tono de ir logrando pequeños y grandes progresos.
Fue ahí donde se decretó el 25 de noviembre como Día de lucha por la eliminación de la violencia contra las mujeres, que fue retomado nueve años después por la ONU. Fue en Argentina, en 1990, durante el V Encuentro, donde se inició la campaña latinoamericana por la despenalización del aborto, que se hace todos los 28 de septiembre desde entonces.
Guyana y la capital de México son los dos lugares donde esa campaña obtuvo logros concretos. Hay algunos avances en Brasil, pero al menos en una decena de países de la región esta práctica está totalmente prohibida. Incluso hubo retrocesos significativos en Chile -cuna del feminismo autónomo- y en Nicaragua. La legislación sobre aborto en Puerto Rico y Cuba obedece a procesos concretos.
La cita que actualmente se prepara en México centrará sus discusiones, según Romero, en el tema del fundamentalismo, al reconocer que la derecha política atenta contra los logros alcanzados en el campo de la sexualidad y la salud reproductiva; que usa un doble lenguaje y no hace nada para detener la violencia y la impunidad.
En el otro extremo, la declaración de las feministas autónomas es contundente: "Retomando el espíritu inicial con el que surgieron los encuentros feministas latinoamericanos, este Encuentro feminista autónomo, haciendo comunidad en la Casa de las Diferencias, será autofinanciado y no se cobrará ningún tipo de entrada, ni hospedaje. Se realizará gracias a la solidaridad de nuestras compañeras mexicanas que nos alojarán y organizarán un espacio para nuestro encuentro. Al llegar, haremos un fondo común para nuestras comidas y bebidas diariamente".
Los encuentros feministas latinoamericanos y del Caribe
Encuentros realizados
1º Colombia, 1981
2º Perú, 1983
3º Brasil, 1985
4º México, 1987
5º Argentina, 1990
6º El Salvador, 1993
7º Chile, 1996
8º República Dominicana, 1999
9º Costa Rica, 2002
10º Brasil, 2005
SEMlac
La capital de la república mexicana se convertirá, en marzo, en la sede del encuentro que, cada dos o tres años, realizan las feministas de la región latinoamericana y caribeña desde hace 28 años.
Se esperan dos reuniones: una de las feministas llamadas "autónomas" y otra de las plurales, de partidos políticos, de organizaciones no gubernamentales e incluso institucionales y/o gubernamentales.
En el XI Encuentro Feministas de Latinoamérica y del Caribe los informes serán de María Eugenia Romero y del Comité Organizador, cuya secretaria técnica es Pilar Muriedas, ambas de México. En tanto, en la cita paralela informará la académica y feminista de origen italiano Francesca Gargallo.
Según la información oficial de una y otra reunión, se espera que unas 2.000 participantes coincidan, entre el 10 y el 25 de marzo, en esta ciudad, que ha sido escenario en los últimos años de las más nutridas movilizaciones políticas y donde se halla la historia de uno de los movimientos feministas con mayores logros en la región.
La histórica diferencia entre quienes admiten que las instituciones han ido incorporando, lentamente, la perspectiva de las feministas en las políticas públicas y quienes afirman que el feminismo es una vía para terminar con el patriarcado en todos sus órdenes, sin mediaciones y sin instituciones, surgió en el Sexto Encuentro, realizado en El Salvador, en 1993.
Por entonces se había incorporado la peruana Virginia Vargas a las tareas de organización de la IV Conferencia Mundial de la Mujer, y las organizaciones no gubernamentales habían conseguido recursos económicos permanentes para promover los derechos de las mujeres.
La división parecía, en principio, artificial y se ubicó como una diferencia entre la socióloga Vargas con la arquitecta chilena Margarita Pizano, una histórica negociadora, incluso con la dictadura chilena, para abrir espacios de mujeres y hablar de feminismo en las peores condiciones.
Sin embargo, Pizano, quien era reconocida regionalmente, más tarde descalificó la actitud de Vargas y sus seguidoras por pactar y acordar acciones con la Organización de Naciones Unidas.
Seguidoras de Pizano fundaron la tendencia autónoma, que se opone a lo que llaman institucionalización del feminismo, y aseguran que se está reciclando el patriarcado.
En México será la primera vez que habrá un encuentro paralelo, retando a lo que los textos de las mujeres autónomas llaman "oficial".
Una crítica al órgano técnico del XI Encuentro, que ha seguido la tradición de las reuniones, es que el Comité elegido firmará un convenio con el jefe de gobierno del Distrito Federal, de origen socialdemócrata, administración a la que se le reconoce una intención avanzada para aplicar políticas públicas a favor de la población femenina.
En la Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México, parte del proyecto político del gobierno del Distrito Federal, laboran algunas de las organizadoras de la reunión paralela.
En tanto, las organizadoras señaladas como oficiales están incorporadas a un sinfín de proyectos institucionales del Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, algunas incluso son funcionarias, diputadas o promotoras de leyes que protegen a las mujeres.
Las conclusiones del X Encuentro, realizado en Brasil en 2005, enfrentaron en los años siguientes el crecimiento exponencial de la violencia contra las mujeres, la profundización de la pobreza y la aparición de una nueva derecha política, "y es eso lo que hay que discutir", insistió Romero.
El documento final de aquella cita señalaba textualmente: "Son necesarias las acciones y el trabajo que favorezcan las condiciones de las mujeres, acabar con la violencia, con las guerras y la pobreza, el fin del patriarcado; lo que no queremos es que sea el dinero y el privilegio de algunas y algunos quienes nos usen para legitimar nuevamente el despojo de las feministas, es nuestra memoria histórico-política la que una vez más se pronuncia para exigir que al movimiento feminista recobre la rebeldía, la desobediencia, la radicalidad y la creatividad del feminismo".
El encuentro en Brasil contó con mayoría de feministas "autónomas", pero lo que ahora se prepara en México parece retomar procesos que avanzaron desde 1981 en Colombia, en el tono de ir logrando pequeños y grandes progresos.
Fue ahí donde se decretó el 25 de noviembre como Día de lucha por la eliminación de la violencia contra las mujeres, que fue retomado nueve años después por la ONU. Fue en Argentina, en 1990, durante el V Encuentro, donde se inició la campaña latinoamericana por la despenalización del aborto, que se hace todos los 28 de septiembre desde entonces.
Guyana y la capital de México son los dos lugares donde esa campaña obtuvo logros concretos. Hay algunos avances en Brasil, pero al menos en una decena de países de la región esta práctica está totalmente prohibida. Incluso hubo retrocesos significativos en Chile -cuna del feminismo autónomo- y en Nicaragua. La legislación sobre aborto en Puerto Rico y Cuba obedece a procesos concretos.
La cita que actualmente se prepara en México centrará sus discusiones, según Romero, en el tema del fundamentalismo, al reconocer que la derecha política atenta contra los logros alcanzados en el campo de la sexualidad y la salud reproductiva; que usa un doble lenguaje y no hace nada para detener la violencia y la impunidad.
En el otro extremo, la declaración de las feministas autónomas es contundente: "Retomando el espíritu inicial con el que surgieron los encuentros feministas latinoamericanos, este Encuentro feminista autónomo, haciendo comunidad en la Casa de las Diferencias, será autofinanciado y no se cobrará ningún tipo de entrada, ni hospedaje. Se realizará gracias a la solidaridad de nuestras compañeras mexicanas que nos alojarán y organizarán un espacio para nuestro encuentro. Al llegar, haremos un fondo común para nuestras comidas y bebidas diariamente".
Los encuentros feministas latinoamericanos y del Caribe
Encuentros realizados
1º Colombia, 1981
2º Perú, 1983
3º Brasil, 1985
4º México, 1987
5º Argentina, 1990
6º El Salvador, 1993
7º Chile, 1996
8º República Dominicana, 1999
9º Costa Rica, 2002
10º Brasil, 2005
Indonesian Security Forces attack Human Rights Defender and pro-democracy demonstrators in Nabire, West Papua
Human Rights Report Monday 2 February 2009
Indonesian Security Forces attack Human Rights Defender and pro-democracy demonstrators in Nabire, West Papua
Indonesian Security forces have attacked a group of 100 local people
protesting about delays in local election in Nabire. As the police
attacked some of the demonstrators telephoned Mr. Yones Douw, a
respected human rights activist from the Kingmi church and asked him
to come. When Mr. Douw arrived and began documenting the violence the
Police attacked him. (29/1/09)
Local eyewitnesses, say that Yones Douw was kicked by police officers
with their boots 3 times, then beaten on the side of his head and
then punched in the face before being arrested.
Seven of the demonstrators were also arrested. An unreported number
of others were also beaten and shot by police. Those arrested,
including Yones Douw, were released after being held in custody for
one day.
The Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights (IPAHR) has compiled
a more detailed report about the incident, including details of the
injuries to Yones Douw & thirteen local people. The range of
injuries to the demonstrators included five people who suffered
serious wounds after being shot by rubber bullets in the body &
stomach. Others received head injuries and puncture wounds to the
head, body limbs & feet after being kicked, beaten and shot with
rubber bullets.
A local source has stated that a range of security personnel
participated in these abuses, including units from the Police Dalmas
and a unit of the notorious Brimob, Indonesia’s para-military Police,
together with members of the Indonesian National Intelligence
Service, BIN and military officers from Army Battalion 753 Nabire.
Paula Makabory from IPAHR said, “The original cause of the peaceful
demonstration in Nabire is that the local election, PILKADA, has been
postponed 3 times since October 2008. The budget for the Nabire
Region has been allocated and the Provincial Secretary, Mr Umar
Kacili, a man from Sulawesi, has been effectively acting as Regent.”
“It appears that the local people are concerned that the budget is
being administered by an unelected Regency Secretary to the Regency
and that the local people interests will be ignored.”
“The Nabire & Paniai region has a long history of state violence,
especially against the Mee people and members of the Kingmi church.
Human Rights abuses routinely occur. It is an area where community
health and education services have been neglected by the State. In
2008 two outbreaks of Cholera occurred. One of these outbreaks is
ongoing and has caused hundreds of deaths. The area has mineral
resources, including some surface gold mining operations which appear
to be managed by the Indonesian security forces.”
“In many regions of West Papua there is dysfunction in the process of
Regency elections but in this case local people are organised enough
to protest the delay in local elections,” said Paula Makabory.
“The Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights demands that
Indonesian Government, international governments and international
Agencies at least take note of the ongoing violence occurring in West
Papua at hands of Indonesian security forces and intelligence services.”
“The Indonesian Government must act to reverse the increasing
violence perpetrated by Indonesian security forces, particularly by
Brimob, in West Papua, in the lead up to the Indonesian General
Election in April 2009. That West Papuan people be allowed to
exercise their democratic rights of organisation and assembly and
vote without threat to their lives, intimidation and violence.”
In particular IPAHR notes that:
1. Indonesian police have brutality attacked Indigenous West
Papuans who were a conducting a peaceful demonstration seeking
democratic process in local elections in Nabire. From what local
sources have told IPAHR it is clear that the head of police in
Nabire, Commander Rinto Jatmono is directly responsible for the
assault of these people by ordering this attack. This event should
be investigated to determine who gave the order to attack, as this
kind of state violence is widespread in West Papua. There is a
pattern of similar state violence in Nabire including an attack by
Police on members of the Kingmi Church in December 2008;
2. Indonesian Security forces have attacked a recognised Human
Rights Defender in Nabire. The Indonesian Government must ensure that
the personal safety of Human Rights Defenders are safeguarded. Their
role must be recognized as being crucial to bringing Peace in West
Papua;
3. The Indonesian Government should allow free international media
access to West Papua so that Indonesian Government activities can be
internationally accountable;
4. Outside and international observers should be allowed by the
Indonesian Government to monitor elections in West Papua.
For further information contact Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human
Rights:
- Paula Makabory +61 402547517
- Matthew Jamieson +61 418291998
Further Detail of Human Rights Report: 2 February 2009 Indonesian
Security Forces attack Human Rights Defender and pro democracy
demonstrators in Nabire is available at http://ipahr.wordpress.com/
2009/02/02/further-report…tors-in-nabirefurther-report-indonesian-
security-forces-attack-human-rights-defender-and-pro-democracy-
demonstrators-in-nabire/
A photograph of Yones Douw is available from site above and one request.
Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805, Byron Bay NSW 2481 Australia
matthew@hr.minihub.org
tel +61 (0) 418291998
Indonesian Security Forces attack Human Rights Defender and pro-democracy demonstrators in Nabire, West Papua
Indonesian Security forces have attacked a group of 100 local people
protesting about delays in local election in Nabire. As the police
attacked some of the demonstrators telephoned Mr. Yones Douw, a
respected human rights activist from the Kingmi church and asked him
to come. When Mr. Douw arrived and began documenting the violence the
Police attacked him. (29/1/09)
Local eyewitnesses, say that Yones Douw was kicked by police officers
with their boots 3 times, then beaten on the side of his head and
then punched in the face before being arrested.
Seven of the demonstrators were also arrested. An unreported number
of others were also beaten and shot by police. Those arrested,
including Yones Douw, were released after being held in custody for
one day.
The Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights (IPAHR) has compiled
a more detailed report about the incident, including details of the
injuries to Yones Douw & thirteen local people. The range of
injuries to the demonstrators included five people who suffered
serious wounds after being shot by rubber bullets in the body &
stomach. Others received head injuries and puncture wounds to the
head, body limbs & feet after being kicked, beaten and shot with
rubber bullets.
A local source has stated that a range of security personnel
participated in these abuses, including units from the Police Dalmas
and a unit of the notorious Brimob, Indonesia’s para-military Police,
together with members of the Indonesian National Intelligence
Service, BIN and military officers from Army Battalion 753 Nabire.
Paula Makabory from IPAHR said, “The original cause of the peaceful
demonstration in Nabire is that the local election, PILKADA, has been
postponed 3 times since October 2008. The budget for the Nabire
Region has been allocated and the Provincial Secretary, Mr Umar
Kacili, a man from Sulawesi, has been effectively acting as Regent.”
“It appears that the local people are concerned that the budget is
being administered by an unelected Regency Secretary to the Regency
and that the local people interests will be ignored.”
“The Nabire & Paniai region has a long history of state violence,
especially against the Mee people and members of the Kingmi church.
Human Rights abuses routinely occur. It is an area where community
health and education services have been neglected by the State. In
2008 two outbreaks of Cholera occurred. One of these outbreaks is
ongoing and has caused hundreds of deaths. The area has mineral
resources, including some surface gold mining operations which appear
to be managed by the Indonesian security forces.”
“In many regions of West Papua there is dysfunction in the process of
Regency elections but in this case local people are organised enough
to protest the delay in local elections,” said Paula Makabory.
“The Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights demands that
Indonesian Government, international governments and international
Agencies at least take note of the ongoing violence occurring in West
Papua at hands of Indonesian security forces and intelligence services.”
“The Indonesian Government must act to reverse the increasing
violence perpetrated by Indonesian security forces, particularly by
Brimob, in West Papua, in the lead up to the Indonesian General
Election in April 2009. That West Papuan people be allowed to
exercise their democratic rights of organisation and assembly and
vote without threat to their lives, intimidation and violence.”
In particular IPAHR notes that:
1. Indonesian police have brutality attacked Indigenous West
Papuans who were a conducting a peaceful demonstration seeking
democratic process in local elections in Nabire. From what local
sources have told IPAHR it is clear that the head of police in
Nabire, Commander Rinto Jatmono is directly responsible for the
assault of these people by ordering this attack. This event should
be investigated to determine who gave the order to attack, as this
kind of state violence is widespread in West Papua. There is a
pattern of similar state violence in Nabire including an attack by
Police on members of the Kingmi Church in December 2008;
2. Indonesian Security forces have attacked a recognised Human
Rights Defender in Nabire. The Indonesian Government must ensure that
the personal safety of Human Rights Defenders are safeguarded. Their
role must be recognized as being crucial to bringing Peace in West
Papua;
3. The Indonesian Government should allow free international media
access to West Papua so that Indonesian Government activities can be
internationally accountable;
4. Outside and international observers should be allowed by the
Indonesian Government to monitor elections in West Papua.
For further information contact Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human
Rights:
- Paula Makabory +61 402547517
- Matthew Jamieson +61 418291998
Further Detail of Human Rights Report: 2 February 2009 Indonesian
Security Forces attack Human Rights Defender and pro democracy
demonstrators in Nabire is available at http://ipahr.wordpress.com/
2009/02/02/further-report…tors-in-nabirefurther-report-indonesian-
security-forces-attack-human-rights-defender-and-pro-democracy-
demonstrators-in-nabire/
A photograph of Yones Douw is available from site above and one request.
Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805, Byron Bay NSW 2481 Australia
matthew@hr.minihub.org
tel +61 (0) 418291998
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Armas
