Category: Uncategorized

By Zafar Sobhan

March 9: Naik Subedar Mozammel Haq reportedly commits suicide by hanging himself from a ventilator fan of a toilet on the third floor of the orchestra bhaban at the BDR headquarters in Pilkhana.
March 11: The pesh imam of the central mosque at BDR headquarters in Pilkhana, Md. Siddiqur Rahman, reportedly dies of cardiac arrest during interrogation. The imam reportedly recited from the Qur’an at the start of the mutiny and was a key witness to the incident.
March 15: Sepoy Waheduzzaman reportedly hangs himself in his barracks at the BDR battalion headquarters in Joydevpur district.
March 17: Sepoy Munir Hossain dies in hospital in Dhaka after unexpectedly falling sick in unexplained circumstances at the BDR headquarters in Pilkhana. Seven other BDR personnel are admitted to hospital the same day.
March 22: Lance Naik Mobarak Hossain dies at DMCH after being rushed there from Pilkhana following an interrogation session.
March 24: Sepoy Md. Mizanur Rahman (age 40) reportedly dies of cardiac arrest while stationed at the BDR battalion headquarters in Rangamati district.
March 26: Sepoy Sheikh Waliur Rahman, reportedly commits suicide by hanging himself at the BDR battalion headquarters in Sylhet district.
Rahman had been present at BDR headquarters during the mutiny but, after fleeing the scene, had returned to his battalion headquarters in Sylhet rather than Pilkhana as he was ordered to.
There are also unconfirmed reports of two more deaths of BDR personnel, one in Barkal district and one in Jaminipara district.
I think we could be excused for wanting to know what — in the name of truth and justice — or, to be more blunt, in our name — is going on with respect to the post-mutiny investigations and accompanying interrogations.
It is one of this country’s dirty little secrets that we all know that mistreatment of those in custody and torture during interrogation, leading to serious damage and even death, happen in Bangladesh all the time.
Indeed, so routine is its incidence, as has been amply documented in reports of human rights organisations, both within the country and outside it, buttressed by reams of inarguable evidence and harrowing first-hand and second-hand testimony, that, frankly, it would be disingenuous to imagine that it was not going on at this very moment.
Now, in the midst of the most important investigation that this country has undertaken in recent memory, the success of which has significant implications for our political stability, it is nevertheless the right time to once again raise the issue.
First, surely we can all agree that the mistreatment of prisoners and suspects is simply wrong, a moral obscenity that has no place in any civilised society. In addition, tolerance of this kind of abuse helps create a culture of violence and cruelty, and demeans any society that acquiesces to it.
The second reason to be concerned about these deaths is that the post-mutiny is a very delicate situation and we are a long way to go to restoring BDR as an effective border security force. If people are dying in custody it is certainly not going to help the process.
Third, this kind of thing does not, in fact, help the investigation. Statements elicited under duress are notoriously unreliable and of questionable legal significance.
But for me, the deaths raise even more troubling and fundamental questions about the investigation. Is it possibly that the deceased knew too much? When a witness or a suspect dies, he takes his secrets with him to the grave. For all we know, people could be being killed to hush up the truth.
Now, we don’t know for sure if any of these deaths are anything other than what they have been reported to be: suicides and cardiac arrests.
Of course, Mozammel Haq was the proud father of two children and had never previously evinced any inclination towards suicide.
And Mobarak Hossain, it is admitted, died following an interrogation session, and his wrists, arms, knees, and shoulders showed signs of stress and other abnormalities.
Similarly, the imam, Siddiqur Rahman, who reportedly suffered a cardiac arrest, also died after collapsing while being interrogated. He was 40 years old.
By the same token, the reports of the BDR personnel committing suicide by hanging themselves, even if true, seem to me to be even more sinister.
It seems axiomatic that anyone taking his own life in such circumstances would know something or have something to hide, and, at the very least, one would have thought that it would have been possible to secure all witnesses and suspects in custody to ensure that they stay alive long enough to give their testimony in full.
In short, these nine deaths of BDR men in custody are a blight on the critical post-mutiny investigation. It is imperative that we get this investigation right and get to the bottom of the massacre. Nine deaths in custody are already nine too many.

Zafar Sobhan is Editor, Editorial & Op-Ed, The Daily Star.
Read More

By Amira Hass

In Cairo, representatives of the Palestinian parties have discussed the threshold of votes required for representation on the Palestinian Legislative Council. The party that is considered the strongest, Hamas, wants a high threshold and threw out the figure of 8 percent, to the shock of members of one of the smaller parties. In Fatah, a ruling party that has known the taste of defeat, opinions were mixed: Some preferred a relatively high threshold (4 percent) in the hope that it would force the smaller factions within the PLO to run on a unified list with Fatah in democratic elections. Most of the Fatah representatives favor a lower number, however. Meanwhile, the rival leaderships are acting as if they operate within a sovereign country rather than in split and isolated territories under foreign domination.

Clinging to formal expressions of parliamentary democracy while being pilloried in the occupation is, in the final analysis, an expression of allegiance to the Oslo process. That is not surprising when it comes to Fatah, which has tried to sell that process to the public as constituting a road to independence within the 1967 borders during the current generation’s lifetime. Fatah’s senior echelons still declare that this is possible, although there is plenty of evidence that even they are fed up with the situation. Cynics will say that the failing Oslo process assures senior PLO officials and Fatah officials the personal benefits granted by a quasi-government under the aegis of the West. Others will say that, in addition, they are waiting for international pressure to be put on Israel.

Allegiance to the Oslo framework clashes with Hamas’ political opposition to agreements, but only ostensibly. The ideological commitment of this religious-national movement is not to sovereignty within the 1967 borders, but rather to liberating the entire country. Therefore, it is not bothered by the political, institutional and social split that exists between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, a split which contradicts the two-state solution and which Israel initiated and has perfected since 1991. In contrast, Hamas’ timetable for full liberation is almost Koranic in its proportions – that is, something that will not occur even in the next generation. But in contrast to the proven failure of the promises made in Oslo, no one can prove there will be a future failure. At the moment, it is important for Hamas to prove that as an Islamic-nationalist movement, it can rule and attain international legitimacy while promising the liberation that has assumed mythological proportions.

Despite their declarations, the two rival Palestinian leaderships are not trying to undermine the status quo that Oslo has created: Israeli occupation, limited Palestinian self-rule, humanitarian handouts from the world and endless negotiations. In their preoccupation with the elections and the makeup of a government whose powers are so limited, they are reinforcing the false image of an end to the occupation that has developed over the past 15 years and has been so beneficial to Israel. Israel renounces any obligation vis-a-vis the occupied people, and has gone to even greater extremes in its methods of oppression; it continues to treat that people’s land as its own, while, by the very act of formally participating in the negotiations, it satisfies the demands of the governments that count in the world.

If they really aspired to liberation, the two Palestinian leaderships would break a few rules in the Oslo game. They would give up the process of Western-style elections, which is essentially divisive. They would find other means of expressing differences and consensus, and also of encouraging public discourse concerning all the methods of liberation that have failed so far.

But that is apparently no easy thing when the possibility of ruling, no matter how limited and sterile, is within reach.

Read More

By Semiu Okanlawon

I should be eager to inform President Umaru Yar’Adua, and perhaps, Auntie Dora, that I have downloaded on my telephone handsets the Good People, Great Nation logo, which I presume is the mallet the Federal Government hopes to use to mold the Nigerian image to a better shape. Having done that, I am anxiously awaiting the opportunity to meet either Mr. President or his Minister for Image-making to flash the logo on my phones before them; hoping that my patriotic act will make them consider me for one of those national honours.

But then, I think I should also add that being poor at interpreting symbols, all I have seen on the logo is the green and white colours, a pass-mark sign and the map of Nigeria sitting somewhat uncomfortably on the last “I” inside N-i-g-e-r-i-a. Permit my ignorance if there are more to this new campaign logo but which my eyes have refused to see.
Well, I also hope that someday in the distant future, whoever designed that logo would not hold us to ransom saying Nigeria and Nigerians are eternally indebted to him for designing the logo and must, on every anniversary of the inauguration of the logo, continue to prick the country’s conscience that we have all abandoned him as in the case of Mr. Taiwo Akinkunmi, who designed the national flag.
To many Nigerians, there are more questions than answers seem to be available since the inauguration of the Rebrand Nigeria Campaign project last week. I must confess, I am one of those who have continued to marvel at Nigeria’s penchant for putting the cart before the horse. There appears to be a great disconnect between those problems that rankle the majority of Nigerians –– where the shoes pinch them –– and those things the leadership considers to be of priority.
For me, the question is not only about “What is there to rebrand?” It is also about the failure in the highest quarters to realise the seemingly deliberate alienation of those who could have been Nigeria’s best brand ambassadors. Why, for instance, have we, as a people, failed to tap into the positive images created by some of our best minds scattered across the globe as a strategy for selling ourselves?
As it is, it appears those attempting to carve a new image for Nigeria have failed woefully to attract some of Nigeria’s most respected personalities in the world to identify with the marketing strategy.
How does a country sell itself? I am compelled to believe that no country can hope to be taken seriously without the unique performances of her excelling nationals. Of this, is Nigeria in such a dearth of such heroic, admirable personalities that the brains behind the rebranding campaign have not identified one to be part of the image-making task?
I presume that very soon, we shall see the campaigners take the messages to some of the world’s most notable media. But each time I watch South Africa’s message to the world on the Cable News Network, I see the country’s undisputable symbol of national pride, former President Nelson Mandela. I also see that country’s songstress, Yvonne Chaka-Chaka. I stand to be corrected if these two are not enough positive faces of South Africa that have been etched on the psyche of the global community. With those images, what else do I need to believe that in “South Africa, it’s possible?”
A country’s image campaigners who fail to convince the nation’s only Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka; her world renowned novelist, Prof. Chinua Achebe; esteemed robotic engineer, Prof. Barth Nnaji; her computer whiz kid, Phillip Emeagwali, and many others in that category to identify with the rebranding business should know ab initio that they would end up worse than the previous similar efforts which they have sought to rubbish.
Even other countries of the world know how to celebrate, as young as she is, the literary whiz kid, Ms. Chimamanda Ngozi-Adichie.
Now, without all these people, who, indeed, are Nigeria’s brand ambassadors?
From the configuration that I can see, it appears the whole business of rebranding Nigeria has been reduced to a Nollywood task in which some of the recurring faces on those home videos are what we need to tell the world we are Great People, Great Nation.
By the way, have we honestly resolved the knotty issue of nationhood? Is Nigeria a nation or a collection of nations? I do not agree that a country where quota sentiments must be resorted to in deciding virtually everything, including, of course, those who form the national soccer team, is a nation yet. On that premise alone, many have seen an illusion of grandiose proportion, which is built on emptiness in the campaign’s Great Nation concept.
Pondering over why Nigeria’s image has been so battered, one needs to be convinced that the creation of a mere logo and campaign slogan, backed up with costly media blitz across the world, are what we require to obliterate the mess created by the deepening socio-economic and political complications which we live with as a people.
For instance, what is the contribution of Nigeria’s army of frustrated youths to the negative image we suffer? When they resort to self-help in the day-to-day survival strategies through one fraudulent means or the other; when they travel abroad and many engage in criminal acts to beat the hardship in their country, have the campaigners addressed the image headache based on the influence of the country’s socio-economic and political predicaments? What programmes are there in place to address youth unemployment and the attendant complexities? Many questions, indeed, with no answers in sight.
I am not one of those incurable pessimists; but I must add here, using the words of that late playwright, Ola Rotimi, that “We have left our pot unwatched, and our food now burns.”

Read More

By Ridhi Doshi

One of the important aspects of the Dubai Art Fair is performance art — a form where the artist becomes the subject and engages in a particular action, using an interesting installation as a prop to convey a message to his spectators.
Indian artist, Monali Meher’s performance art was inspired by the recent terror attacks in Mumbai. Blood oozed out continuously onto a white sheet of cloth as onlookers watched Meher determinedly trying to wash off all the stains of the blood with water drawn from buckets and various kinds of wash brushes. Meher went on for about two hours non stop, attracting several curious onlookers to her exhibit. Eventually, Meher stood, her dress, hands and legs completely stained with blood.
Meher says, “I was born and bought up in Mumbai. What happened recently affected me deeply.” She adds, “Acts of terror just keep repeating all across the world. There seems to be no end. So through this work, I show that I am silent but determined to wipe out terrorism from our society. I strongly believe that if everybody is equally determined as I am, we will be a terrorism-free society very soon.”
Meher has performed at many fairs earlier as well. “Most of my works have a form of physical expression and if it is complemented with some kind of action, it becomes more interesting,” she explains. She agrees that performance art is a relatively new form of art for Indian audiences, but is confident that it is the type that will be appreciated by everyone.
“Most importantly it will move you,” reassures Meher who is planning a performance in Mumbai very soon. I want to do something which has a cosmopolitan feel, just like the city.”

Read More

Violence at the National Monument in Jakarta almost caused a conflict between Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah in Lamongan
By Nathan Franklin

1 June 2008 marked the sixty-third anniversary of the Pancasila ideology. On this day members of the National Alliance for the Freedom of Faith and Religion held a rally at the National Monument (popularly known as ‘Monas’) in Jakarta demanding that the controversial Ahmadiyah sect should be dealt with in accordance with Indonesian law rather than subjected to organised violence. Members of the Islamic Defenders’ Front (FPI) descended upon the gathering, harassing and assaulting them. It did not surprise many that the FPI took this action: for years its members have attacked Ahmadiyah mosques, prayer houses, and other properties throughout Indonesia, while calling on the government to disband the organisation.
The incident at the National Monument appeared to swing public opinion against the FPI. What should have been a day of celebration was instead transformed into a violent incident that reverberated throughout the country. For several weeks, the national media were flooded with reports about the incident at Monas. There was a cry from liberal groups and many ordinary Indonesians for the FPI itself to be disbanded. The government responded by arresting the FPI militant wing’s commander, Munarman, and central chief, Habib Risiek Shahib, for initiating the violence.
It is less widely known that the incident also had consequences outside the capital. In the East Java pesantren region of Lamongan, it very nearly caused a conflict between members of Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah.

FPI in Lamongan
The FPI was formally established in Lamongan in July 2005, built upon a local organisation called ‘The Fighters Enjoining Honour and Forbidding Dishonour’. The Lamongan branch is relatively autonomous but nevertheless receives instructions from the FPI Central Leadership Board in Jakarta. A long-standing instruction commands FPI members to pressure the government to disband Ahmadiyah.

The FPI has a strong presence in the subdistricts of Brondong and Paciran, north of Lamongan. Local reports suggest their numbers range from 75 to 100 members. However, according to their leader in Lamongan, the FPI under his command can amass between five hundred and a thousand ‘soldiers of Allah’ when it goes on raids. The Lamongan group relies heavily on young males as foot-soldiers. The older members provide leadership in Qur’anic studies, and in directing physical operations. This is based on the FPI philosophy of ‘amar ma’ruf nahi mungkar’, derived from the Qur’anic verse in Surah Ali Imran (Ayat 104), ‘Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity’.

Since this Brondong–Paciran area along the north coast of Lamongan is dominated by Muhammadiyah, the FPI ranks include many Muhammadiyah Muslims. In fact, the deputy leader of the FPI in Lamongan is also the headmaster of the Muhammadiyah pesantren of Karangasem in Paciran. Another Lamongan group whose membership overlaps with the FPI is the North Coast Islamic Youth Association, which was responsible for inviting Abu Bakar Ba’asyir to the area in October 2007 (see Inside Indonesia 92 ). Like the FPI, Ba’asyir encourages a rigid interpretation of ‘amar ma’ruf nahi mungkar’ during his sermons, selectively intertwining it with promotion of holy war and martyrdom. These narrow and literalist interpretations of Islam provide legitimacy for hardline Muslims in the area who wish to resort to physical action to achieve their objectives.

An NU–Muhammadiyah conflict in the making?
Even before the 1 June incident, former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) had been an outspoken defender of Ahmadiyah’s rights and a frank critic of the FPI. Gus Dur argued that Ahmadiyah was not a threat to anybody, and that its followers were responsible citizens who deserved the same rights and privileges as other Indonesians. FPI founder Habib Risiek Shihab argued that Gus Dur was wrong and that Allah would judge him so. The situation developed into a heated public debate about tolerance and what methods were acceptable for dealing with such issues.

Police in Lamongan asked local religious leaders to discourage angry NU youth from confronting the FPI
Although there are no known Ahmadiyah members in Lamongan, the local youth wing of NU, known as the Ansor Youth Movement (GP Ansor), who are concentrated in the south of Lamongan, were angered by the way the FPI – and in particular Habib Risiek – treated Gus Dur. In a TV statement broadcast on Indonesia’s Channel One shortly after 1 June, Habib Risiek stated that Gus Dur could not have understood what happened at Monas because he was blind. Furthermore, he claimed that Allah protected the FPI from the former president’s efforts to disband it, and instead disbanded Gus Dur’s government. A local newspaper reported that the GP Ansor were about to come to the north coast of Lamongan from their base in the south to force the FPI to disband. According to a police chief in the area, there was a real concern that the row could develop into an NU–Muhammadiyah conflict, as a large number of Muhammadiyah members were affiliated with the FPI.

Police in Lamongan approached the local religious leaders, including the leaders of the Sunan Drajat School and the Lamongan branch of the Indonesian Council of Islamic Scholars, in the hope that these religious figures could persuade the GP Ansor not to come to the north coast to confront the FPI. This strategy proved successful. The GP Ansor members never arrived. Speaking afterwards, the leader of the Lamongan branch of NU downplayed the situation, saying the GP Ansor had planned to go to the Paciran-Brondong area only to get a clear picture of the FPI’s position in Lamongan. However, many local residents believe that the intervention and consultation initiated by the Lamongan police succeeded in averting a dangerous conflict which could have had serious long-term consequences.

Read More

“Financial innovation” was all the buzz on Wall Street until the end of 2008. Wall Street cheerleaders explained that new financial products were unlocking new ways to make money with reduced risk.
Among the many lessons of the financial crisis is that, when it comes to financial products and arrangements, “new” and “complicated” are not synonymous with “good.” Financial complexity — whether it is complicated products (like tricky mortgage terms or credit default swaps), complicated accounting (including through use of off-balance sheet maneuvers), or complicated organizational structures — brings inherent problems.
Above all, complexity introduces confusion by all market players.
Consumers are the most victimized. Millions of home buyers were tricked by complicated mortgage terms into accepting predatory loans that stripped them of a lifetime’s savings.
But even the supposedly sophisticated investor is regularly tripped up by complexity. Witness the high-wealth individuals and funds who lost their money with the flim-flam artist Bernard Madoff.
Even Wall Street firms themselves could not navigate the complicated world they created. After its effective takeover by the U.S. government, it became clear that insurance giant AIG was not aware of all of the credit default swaps into which it had entered. The vaunted risk models of the “quants” — mathematics and physics Ph.D.s working on Wall Street — failed utterly to predict the housing bubble and collapse. Three of the top five Wall Street investment banks were so ensnared in money-hemorrhaging complicated arrangements that they no longer exist.
Beyond confusion, complexity tends to introduce interconnectedness. In the case of mortgage-backed securities (pools of mortgages, traded as bonds), proponents said this interconnectedness would dilute risk. Some loans in a pool might go bad, but not all, went the theory. Instead, it is now clear that interconnectedness amplified risk and spread it throughout the financial system.
Complexity also overwhelms regulatory capacity. No one in the financial regulatory system has a good handle on who owes what to whom. Over the last decade, most regulators didn’t try hard to maintain a sense of this information — or the systemic risks it posed — but much crucial information is unknowable even to diligent regulators.
It’s time to adopt a regulatory presumption against financial complexity and to close the cult of financial innovation. The purveyors of complicated financial products and arrangements should be forced to prove their social value. This approach suggests a number of specific policy interventions:
First, financial dealings must be much more open and comprehensible (“transparent”). Off-balance sheet accounting, for example, should be banned. But transparency is only a first and very partial step.
Second, some financial products should be banned. For example, “synthetic CDOs” involve bets by parties about the outcomes of transactions in which they have no direct stake. They serve no social purpose and should not be permitted.
Third, the precautionary principle should be applied to the financial world. New financial products for consumers should not be permitted unless they have received pre-marketing approval from regulators convinced that they help and do not harm or deceive consumers. New Wall Street products should be permitted only if they can show they serve social purpose, and regulators determine they do not pose inappropriate systemic risk.

Read More

INSAANIYAT and the Committee For The Release of Binayak Sen

Invite you to:

“ISN’T IT TIME TO END THIS INJUSTICE? FREE BINAYAK SEN!”

a solidarity meeting with short contributions from

film makers Anand Patwardhan & Sudhir Mishra,

Binayak’s friends Drs Sanjay Nagral & Santosh Karmarkar, and Pranita Sen (Binayak’s daughter)

The discussion will be followed by a screening of

Anjaam, a documentary film by Ajay T. G., and a short clip by Anand Patwardhan on the ongoing satyagraha

No political prisoner in independent India has evoked so much support for his release nationally and internationally as Dr Binayak Sen. Dr Sen, held in prison since May 2007, campaigned fearlessly against the Salwa Judum, appealing to the government to terminate its policy of military suppression of the people of Chhattisgarh. He dared to expose the truth about a veritable civil war that has involved the rampant grabbing of land and forest and violent suppression of local adivasi opposition. In response, the state government has gone all out to present Dr Sen’s civil rights activities as a threat to national security. It has trumped up charges against him and continues to make a mockery of the rule of law. To silence the voice of Dr Sen is an attempt to silence all political dissent in society. No wonder the campaign for his release has received such widespread support throughout the world. Come and express your solidarity with him!

Venue: Conference Room, The Press Club, Mumbai

Time and date : 6.30 p.m. Thursday 2nd April 2009

(http://www.sacw.net/)

BRUSSELS – The head of the European Union slammed President Barack Obama’s plan to spend nearly $2 trillion to push the US economy out of recession as “the road to hell” that EU governments must avoid.
The blunt comments by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek to the European Parliament on Wednesday highlighted simmering European differences with Washington ahead of a key summit next week on fixing the world economy.
It was the strongest pushback yet from a European leader as the 27-nation bloc bristles from US criticism that it is not spending enough to stimulate demand.
Shocked by the outburst, other European politicians went into damage control mode, with some reproaching the Czech leader for his language and others reaffirming their good diplomatic ties with the United States. The leaders of EU’s major nations — France, Britain and Germany, among others — largely ignored Topolanek and his remarks.
Obama pays his first official visit to Europe next week, aiming to thrash out reforms to the global financial system with the Group of 20 nations and call on NATO allies to commit more troops to the US war in Afghanistan.
Europeans leaders hope the new US administration will agree with them on tightening oversight over the global financial system — which they see as crucial to fixing the global economy.
Instead, the United States is focusing its efforts on economic stimulus and plans to spend heavily to try and lift itself out of recession with a $787 billion plan of tax rebates, health and welfare benefits, as well as extra energy and infrastructure spending.
To encourage banks to lend again, the US government will also pump $1 trillion into the financial system by buying up treasury bonds and mortgage securities in an effort to clear some of the “toxic assets” — devalued and untradeable assets — from banks’ balance sheets.
Obama insisted Tuesday that his massive budget proposal will put the ailing US economy back on its feet. “This budget is inseparable from this recovery,” he said, “because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.”
But Topolanek took aim at Washington’s deficit spending.
“All of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell,” Topolanek said. “We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way.”
“Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market,” Topolanek said.

Read More

23-25 March 2009
Legend Villas, Metro Manila, Philippines
When all the trees have been cut down,
When all the animals have been hunted,
When all the waters are polluted,
When all the air is unsafe to breathe,
Only then will you discover you cannot eat money.- Cree prophecy
Treat the earth well, it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. – Chief Seattle
We, Indigenous Peoples and support organisations from 35 countries around the world and representing many more Indigenous Nations, have gathered together in this International Conference on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples. As Indigenous Peoples we have a unique cosmic vision, diversity of languages, histories, spirituality and territories which have existed since time immemorial. However, we now find ourselves within the borders of States which have established norms and laws according to their interests. On account of this situation, we have suffered disproportionately from the impact of extractive industries as our territories are home to over sixty percent of the world’s most coveted mineral resources. This has resulted in many problems to our peoples, as it has attracted extractive industry corporations to unsustainably exploit our lands, territories and recourses without our consent. This exploitation has led to the worst forms of, environmental degradation, human rights violations and land dispossession and is contributing to climate change.
Environmental degradation includes, but is not limited to, erosion of our fragile biological diversity, pollution of land, air and water, and destruction of whole ecological systems. Extractive industries and particularly those relating to fossil fuels, also have significantly contributed to the climate change that is destroying our Mother Earth.
Human rights violations range from violations of Indigenous Peoples’ right to self-determination (which includes the right to determine one’s own economic, social and cultural development), rights to lands, territories and resources, as well as displacement and violations of the most basic civil and political rights, such as arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, enforced disappearances and killings.
Our cultural diversity has also been grossly eroded because of the destruction of biological diversity and lands, territories and resources by extractive industries upon which our cultures are based. This erosion of our cultural diversity is also a result of the imposition of colonial systems and the settlement of non-Indigenous Peoples. Corporations enter into our territories with the promise of “development” through employment, infrastructure building and payment of governmental taxes. Despite these promises, there still exists a situation of dire poverty in those living close to extractive industry projects. This situation has fuelled conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and the State and extractive industry corporations, as well as causing divisions within the Indigenous communities themselves.
On 6-16 May 1996, a first “Mining and Indigenous Peoples Conference” held in London produced the “Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration on Mining”. This declaration highlighted conflicts occurring between our communities and corporations. It reiterated that Indigenous Peoples need to be the decision makers on whether or not mining should take place in their communities and under what conditions this may occur.
Almost 13 years have passed since this conference was held, but overall our situation on the ground has not noticeably improved. The opportunities and threats since the 1996 conference include:-
• the welcome adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP) by the UN General Assembly on 13 September 2007;
• new UN mechanisms for the protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, such as the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• a greater interest on the relationship between human rights and corporate behaviour, including the work of the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises;
• the recognition of corporate social responsibility and a claimed willingness on behalf of corporations to negotiate agreements directly with Indigenous Peoples, although so far much of this seems to be more on paper or promises, as opposed to practice;
• the climate change crisis, coming about mainly because of dependence of the current economy on fossil fuels. These resources are mined on our land and many of our peoples are disproportionately affected by such activities; and
• the global financial crisis, caused by the unregulated liberalisation of finance.
Based on the foregoing observations, we assert that:-
• Indigenous Peoples are rights holders, with an inextricable link to their lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired, and should not be treated merely as stakeholders. We have a right to self-determination of our political condition and to freely choose our economic, social and cultural development (UN DRIP Article 3);
• our rights are inherent and indivisible and seek recognition not only of our full social, cultural and economic rights but also our civil and political rights;
• all doctrines, policies and practices based on the presumed superiority of colonial peoples and worldviews should be condemned;
• we contribute to the diversity and richness of the cultures that make up humanity and believe that we can teach valuable lessons to the rest of the world through our values and world views in how to tread gently upon the earth;
• destruction of Indigenous Peoples sacred sites and areas of spiritual and cultural significance by extractive industries must stop;
• the vulnerable position of women and youth with regard to the impacts of extractive industries, including loss of livelihoods, violence and impacts on health and well-being must be recognized;
• the development model premised on unsustainable consumption and production, and corporate globalisation, which fuels the entry of extractive industries onto our lands must be rejected;
• respect for the preservation of life on earth, and our right to food, must have precedence over extractive industry projects;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over our right to land – regardless of whether our rights are based on legal recognition or usufruct rights;
• there must be an immediate end to the criminalization of community resistance, the violent intimidation, harassment, and murder, of our leaders, activists and lawyers who are working for the defence of our lands and lives;
• extractive industry projects must not take precedence over the human right to water. Water is especially important in our lives and is sacred to us. In addition the major reserves of fresh water are found in our territories;
• the right to water is a fundamental human right which must be recognized. We therefore condemn the conduct of the World Water Council which demotes the right to water a “basic need”;
• negotiations about climate change should not be conducted by States and international organisations unless there is full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, mitigation and adaptation measures related to climate change must be designed and implemented in keeping with Indigenous Peoples’ rights;
• the failure to hold extractive industries to account in host and home countries must be addressed and mechanisms for accountability and enforcement must be created immediately; and
• implementation of interstate infrastructure initiatives – such as the South American Regional Infrastructure Initiative (IIRSA) – that lead to mega-projects on our lands and territories without first obtaining our free prior and informed consent (FPIC) are destructive to our cultures and survival, and a denial of our right to self determination.
Given the above, in order to ensure respect for the rights recognized in the UN DRIP, as well as the ecological integrity of our planet and communities, we call for:-
• a stop to the plunder of our lands, territories and resources;
• a moratorium on further extractive industry projects that affect or threaten our communities, until structures and processes are in place that ensure respect for our human rights. The determination of when this has been realized can only be made by those communities whose lives, livelihoods and environment are affected by those projects;
• due process and justice to victims of human rights violations who are resisting extractive industries;
• review of all on-going projects that are approved without respect for our FPIC and self determination rights; and
• compensation and restitution for damages inflicted upon our lands, territories and resources, and the rehabilitation of our degraded environments caused by extractive industry projects that did not obtain our FPIC.
We call on Indigenous Communities and their Supporters:-
• to actively participate in the global network of indigenous peoples on extractive industries which was established at this international conference and will be aimed at strengthening the capacities of local organization through sharing of information, education and training programmes, research and advocacy in the defence of our rights;
• to coordinate research on mining companies, processes and investment sources to empower communities, build strategic plans and ensure recognition and respect for our rights;
• to assert their right to control the authorization of projects, and where FPIC has been given, the conduct of extractive activities in indigenous lands and territories through the use of indigenous customary laws;
• to create a mechanism to compile legal precedents from relevant court decisions on Indigenous Peoples and extractive industries;
• to build relationships with non-indigenous groups concerned with the problem of extractive industries, nationally and internationally, to find common ground; and
• to establish a International Day of Action on Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples.
We call on Civil Society Organisations:-
• to increase their support, and solidarity in a manner that is sensitive to the issues of Indigenous Peoples;
• especially conservation and other NGOs, not to impose themselves or their views upon us, but respect our legitimate leadership and also seek the FPIC of communities before intervening; this also applies to academics including anthropologists; and
We call on Companies:-
• to respect international standards as elaborated on in the normative framework of indigenous peoples rights, especially the minimum standards as set forth in the UN DRIP, ILO Convention 160 and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which includes in particular, the right to lands, territories and resources and attendant right to FPIC. This also applies to consultants;
• to submit to independent and credible monitoring;
• to be accountable for the environmental disasters, destruction and human rights violations as a result of their operations;
• to employ proven technology and adhere to the precautionary principle at all levels and in each project;
• to recognize the specific vulnerability of indigenous women to the negative impacts involved with extractive industries;
• to respect the traditional knowledge and intellectual property of Indigenous Peoples. This implies not appropriating the language or names of Indigenous Peoples for companies or projects;
• to ensure full transparency in all aspects of their operations, and especially to ensure affected communities have full access to information in forms and languages they can understand; and
• to conduct and implement environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments to the highest international standards ensuring independent review and participation of indigenous peoples;
We call on Investors:-
• to ensure that policies in relation to investments in indigenous territories reflect the rights articulated in the UN DRIP, and that the ethical index listings used should base their investment recommendations on third party information, as opposed solely to information from the company in which they may invest
• to ensure access to information and transparency in relation to all investments in extractive industries in indigenous territories and
• not to invest in fossil fuel related projects.
We call on States:-
• specifically those States that have not done so yet, to endorse the UN DRIP and ratify International Labour Organization (ILO) 169, and for those States who have to uphold the rights articulated therein;
• to establish, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples, clear mechanisms and procedures at national levels for the implementation of international juridical instruments, specifically the UN DRIP, ILO 169 and ICERD;
• to review laws and policies on extractive industries that are detrimental to Indigenous Peoples, and ensure consistency with the UN DRIP and international instruments protecting Indigenous Peoples rights;
• to recognize and enforce the rights Indigenous Peoples to FPIC as laid out in UN DRIP, in accordance with our customary laws and traditional practices;
• to recognize and ensure the demarcation and titling of our ancestral lands;
• to recognize our customary laws and traditional mechanisms of conflict resolutions;
• to support the efforts of Indigenous Peoples to develop economic alternatives to extractive industries, in order to alleviate the poverty that creates false dependencies on extractive industries;
• to abolish hedge funds and all forms of private equity that are not transparent and well regulated, and which distort the price of minerals;
• to legislate and regulate thorough processes for independently conducted environmental, social, cultural and human rights impact assessments, with regular monitoring during all of the phases of production and rehabilitation;
• to protect indigenous activists, human rights defenders and lawyers working on human rights issues, and where the State is the violator we demand an end to the violations against our peoples;
• to ban particularly harmful extractive practices, including riverine tailings disposal, gas flaring, effluent discharges, submarine tailings disposal, mountain top removal and large scale open-pit mining. Given the risks posed by climate change, serious re-consideration should be given to the construction of tailings containment in low-lying coastal areas and in areas exposed to increasingly severe weather events and
• to ensure that their development cooperation policies and programmes respect Indigenous Peoples rights’, in particular in the context of extractive industries and our right to FPIC.
We call on the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII):-
• to conduct a study, with the participation of Indigenous Peoples, on the impact of extractive industries on them, by consolidating all recommendations, observations and decisions of UN Treaty and Charter bodies pertaining to the subject and identifying the measures taken by States to adhere with these;
• to elaborate mechanisms and procedures for States to implement the minimum standards set forth in the UN DRIP, including in particular the right to FPIC and to call on other UN procedures, mechanisms, agencies and bodies and other Multilatteral bodies to do likewise;
• to establish procedures which provide indigenous communities with the opportunity to request the relevant UN agencies to assist them in the monitoring and provision of independent information in FPIC processes;
• to support the proposal that there be an international Mother Earth Day, and encourage all UN agencies, mechanisms and bodies to do likewise;
• to demand the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in all discussions and decisions pertaining to international agreements and conventions that address issues of biological diversity and or climate change;
• to emphasize the need to address the direct and indirect impacts of extractive industry on climate change, including those associated with mitigation measures;
• to emphasize the need for the widespread diffusion of information and critical debate between Indigenous Peoples about the ongoing mechanisms and negotiations relative to carbon trading and the carbon market;
• to request that the Special Representative to the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other businesses, John Ruggie, to actively engage with impacted indigenous community through workshops addressing indigenous peoples rights and the extractive industry, and together with other UN procedures, bodies and agencies, promote the enactment of legislation in home states of transnational corporations that provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to their activities;
• to facilitate dialogue between indigenous peoples, investors, fund managers, extractive industry corporations and consultants;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group and other International Financial Institutions (IFIs) update its operational directives and safeguard policies pertaining to Indigenous Peoples to include the right to FPIC, as required under the UN DRIP. Specifically to recommend to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that it include the requirement to obtain FPIC in its safeguard policies on Indigenous Peoples environment and resettlement;
• to recommend that the World Bank Group and other IFIs immediately stop funding, promoting and supporting fossil fuel related projects and large scale mining and hydro electric projects on indigenous lands, and provide a set timeline for ending of all such funding;
• to recommend that the World Bank and other IFIs stop influencing the design of national policies in developing countries in a manner that promotes the interests of transnational mining corporations over the rights of indigenous communities;
• to recommend that the World Health Organisation consider conducting a study on the impact of cyanide and heavy metals on the right to health of communities impacted by mining;
• to address the urgent need for the genuine recognition of indigenous religious, cultural and spiritual rights, including their sacred sites in the context of extractive projects and
• to recommend that all bilateral trade agreements should guarantee that indigenous peoples’ human rights are respected.

(Submitted by Michelle Cook and Cathal Doyle)