Mining and human rights in Colombia and Latin America

ABColombia and the Human Rights Consortium invites to a conference regarding the impact that mining do have in different sectors in Latin America, more specifically in Colombia. The invitation was forwarded by Prof Graham Dutfield, University of Leeds and we thank him for it.

The event provides us with an opprotunity to hear experts from disciplines such as: public bodies; legal scholars and practitioners; as well as the mining industry [I guess a coin not only has two sides]. Moreover and closelly related to this blog is the fact that the conference will give space to indigenous communities who will be participating in it. The latter will share the impact that mining has in their communities.

The conferece takes place on Monday 12 November 2012, 9am-6pm at Beveridge Hall, Senate House,Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HU. Entry is £20/£10 (concessions).

For more information contact Laura Ouseley, Information and Communications Officer, ABColombia at abcolombia@abcolombia.org.uk

Deferring Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Australia: When Partisan Politics Really Gets in the Way

This blog has discussed in the past the issue of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Australia, and how a referendum was being called for after an expert panel convened by the government recommended so. Surprisingly, the referendum met with support from all sides of the political spectrum, including the two major political parties. A campaign went underway, led by You Me Unity (here), an organization created by the government for the purposes of consultation with indigenous groups and also raising awareness to the referendum, so as to guarantee its passage. But work has been slow, and a significant part of the Australia population (61%) is still unaware the referendum is even on the political agenda. Most of this segment of the population is concentrated in rural areas, which are the ones where Aboriginal peoples are more likely to inhabit.

Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales published an op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald (can be read here) precisely exploring some of these issues, and highlighting the need for popular involvement with the referendum. He even suggests a nationwide popular competition for the drafting of the new preamble, similar to the contest for the design of the Australian flag led in 1901.

As a result of this unforeseen difficulty of raising awareness, and the upcoming federal elections in Australia next year, the current (Labor) government has proposed that the referendum be postponed, and that an “Act of Recognition” be passed instead, making the recognition happen through a federal statute initially. This Act of Recognition would then contain a sunset clause, determining that a referendum be held within three years of the act’s passage.

The Act of Recognition strikes me as an elegant solution because it would pass much more quickly (it only requires voting in the two federal legislative houses, as opposed to referenda in all eight states and territories), and also because it would bind the next government (regardless of who wins the election) to really go through with the referendum. It also importantly buys more time to build consensus around the country.

But then the opposition (Liberal) leader went on to criticize the government’s move, saying it is inadmissible that the current government may seek to bind the following government to go through a referendum process. I see two possible (and not mutually exclusive) explanations for this move. The first one is a principled approach from the Liberal opposition to having the Labor government command them even after it (possibly) stops being the government (polls indicate a slight edge for the Liberals to win the next election). This possibility also speaks to the cheap political game in Australia, where the opposition spends its time decrying every single act by the government out of principle, regardless of the acts merits. After all, if the opposition supported the referendum, and wants constitutional recognition to go through, why would it oppose what is considered to be the best strategy to do so?

This leads to the second possibility: the opposition is in fact not interested in constitutional recognition, and is pushing for the referendum to happen before the elections so the referendum will fail, as You Me Unity suspects it will if the referendum is done now.

Regardless of what the reason is for the opposition’s reaction to the Act of Recognition, the fact of the matter is that the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples in Australia is long, long overdue, and that petty politics should give way to the greater good of peoples who have already endured colonization and are now deeply marginalized and disenfranchised. Constitutional recognition is an essential first step in making amends and allowing these peoples to flourish in Australia, their country.

Post written by Lucas Lixinski.

The Sarayaku Community Case in Ecuador: Community Involvement in Resource Exploitation

In April 2012, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of the Sarayaku Community v. Ecuador. In this case, the State of Ecuador was charged with violating the rights of members of the Sarayaku people for allowing indiscriminate oil exploitation in their territory, at the expense of their ancestral lands, including spaces of memory, mourning and ritual.

This was the first time the Inter-American Court sent a delegation to an indigenous community for fact-finding and to conduct hearings. A video (in Spanish) produced by Olger Ignacio Gonzalez (here), a lawyer at the Court’s Secretariat, documents the work of the delegation and the testimonies given to the Court. During those hearings, Ecuador acknowledged their responsibility for violating the rights of the Sarayaku community, including their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

The video is particularly powerful in showing how the Sarayaku live, and how they were affected by the oil exploitation on their lands. But it is also a stark reminder of what many have referred to as “strategic essentialism” (which has been the object of discussion in this blog in the past). One can see how the Sarayaku members giving testimony struggle to package and frame their grievances in terms understandable to their audience, and easily translatable into human rights claims. However salutary the effort of the Inter-American Court (and Ecuador’s acknowledgment of responsibility), it is also somewhat worrisome that, in an era where pluralism is flagged as the word of the day, and constitutions across South America claim to be multi- and / or intercultural, that this problem in translation is still so acute.

Post written by Lucas Lixinski.

Indigenous land FOR SALE!

Back in 1993 the Chilean law 19.253 (here in Spanish) on ‘protection, promotion and development’ of indigenous peoples created the National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) and which also established key policies providing resources and protection for native ethnic groups. As in every other legislation some flaws were noted; one of them being Article 13 which prohibits disposing of, seizing, or acquiring by prescription Indigenous lands, unless it is between Indigenous communities and/or indigenous people. This lands whose owners are Indigenous Communities cannot be leased, given on loan; cannot be transferred to third parties to use, benefit from or administer.

For this reason a new proposal, headed by Mr René Manuel García and backed on by several MPs, has been made in the ‘Camara de Diputados’ (Chamber of Deputies) to “add a subsection to Law 19.253, in order to allow the Indians to sell their land” but only if used exclusively for the construction of social housing and associated infrastructure.

Mr García noticed the constraints to indigenous ownership which prevent the landowners to generate resources by way of lease or sale of property, forcing owners land to stay with the same piece of land, unable to have another option that may mean an economic benefit.

I wonder if the Indigenous Communities have participated in this project. It comes to mind the ILO Convention 169, to be more specific:

Article 6

§  1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

  (a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly;

Article 7

§  1. The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development. In addition, they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly.

But more importantly is:

Article 17

1. Procedures established by the peoples concerned for the transmission of land rights among members of these peoples shall be respected.

2. The peoples concerned shall be consulted whenever consideration is being given to their capacity to alienate their lands or otherwise transmit their rights outside their own community.

I guess that when Law 19.253 was proposed these matters were considered (?). 

Finally, if this proposal is accepted how the following would be stop from happening:

§  3. Persons not belonging to these peoples shall be prevented from taking advantage of their customs or of lack of understanding of the laws on the part of their members to secure the ownership, possession or use of land belonging to them.

The right of... to be NOT consulted (?)

Back in 2011 the Chilean government passed a regulation (Decreto Supremo N° 50),that lays out a process by which state-protected areas can be opened up for tourism and hence, tourism concessions are to be granted – this regulation was published in April 2012. The Council of the Atacameño People (an organization that has leaders from many different Atacameño communities) argues that such regulation affects their interests and requests that they, as well as any other indigenous communities, shall be consulted -- grounds founded under article 6 of the ILO Convention 169.

"1. In applying the provisions of this Convention, governments shall:

(a) consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly"

However, the Santiago Court of Appeals ( hearing the case) unanimously rejected such grounds on the basis that the said regulation “has caused no harm nor affected indigenous peoples to an extent that it requires consultation.” Yet, the Court went on to establish at numeral 10 that “any concessions that affected indigenous communities were to be held to the strict standards of consultation laid out in Articles 6,7 and 8 of ILO Convention 169, especially the reference to the participation of these communities in making decisions that affect the territories where they live.”

Source Indigenous News here.

The decision can be read here.

Report and Response: The Situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States of America

James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, made a landmark visit to the United States earlier this year to evaluate the circumstances of the indigenous peoples in the United States. His report of August 30 2012 provides a comprehensive overview of the triumphs achieved and challenges faced by these communities.

On September 18, 2012, the United States made its Response

to this report at the Human Rights Council 21st Session in Geneva.

The Response acknowledges the “high rates of poverty, illness, substance abuse, suicide, and incarceration, as well as relatively low levels of education”. The Response goes on to explain how the United States is addressing these problems, citing among other things, funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided to “renovate schools on reservations, encourage job creation, improve housing and energy efficiency; and support health facilities and policing services.”
It also references other legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Tribal Law and Order Act.
Given the magnitude of challenges that some indigenous groups face, this is a tepid and rather disappointing response. It is to be hoped that this is only a preliminary response and not the whole of the United States’ reply to the Special Rapporteur’s report. Unmentioned is the pending Violence Against Women Act that would provide criminal jurisdiction for some offenses committed on indigenous homelands. Unmentioned is the UNDRIP itself and any steps that the United States is taken to implement it in the wake of its eventual endorsement. Unmentioned is any response to Mr Anaya’s call for specific steps for reconciliation, and that “unless genuine movement is made towards resolving these pending matters [specific unresolved problems of historical origins and systemic dimensions... problems [that] continue to breed disharmony, dislocation and hardship] the place of indigenous peoples within the United States will continue to be an unstable, disadvantaged and inequitable one.”

In light of that, the Response can scarcely be credited as being a response at all.

Chief White Eagle Memorial Dedication

By Shirley Willard, Fulton County Historian


A black iron teepee and a black metal plaque with lettering cut by laser form an unusual memorial in front of the Fulton County Museum, Rochester. The Chief White Eagle memorial will be dedicated Sept. 15, Saturday night of Trail of Courage at 6:30 p.m. The 42nd Royal Highlanders will play in memory of Tom Griffin, who is also memorialized. The families of William Wamego and Tom Hamilton, members of Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma, will attend.


Chief White Eagle, aka Basil Heath, 1917-2011, was beloved by many who attended the Trail of Courage from 1985 to 2009. A former movie actor and TV personality, he was the most famous person to participate in the Trail of Courage. He was in “Northwest Passage,” “Red River,” “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” and other films. He traveled all over the U.S. giving programs on American Indians. He played the part of Grandpa in “The Best Man in Grass Creek” in 1996. He was declared a Living Legend of Fulton County in 2005. Born on the Iroquois Reservation in Canada in 1917, he served in World War II for both England and the United States. He and wife Bobbie Bear moved to Fulton County in 1987. He did a dedication ceremony for the new Trail of Courage site in 1985. He planted the Great Peace Tree in 1988. He continued to give speeches about Indian lore at the Trail of Courage, at the museum, and for Boy Scouts and other groups in Indiana and neighboring states.


Tom Griffin, 1928-1993, Lafayette, founded the 42nd Royal Highlanders Band of Pipes, Fifes and Drums in 1975. They have provided music at the Trail of Courage since 1983. Griffin attended grade school in Kewanna and he is buried there beside his parents. The band continues to perform at many historic festivals in the Midwest.
William “Bill” Wamego, 1919-1993, Tulsa, Oklahoma, was descended from Chief Wamego who was on the Potawatomi Trail of Death from Indiana to Kansas in 1838. He helped with the Trail of Courage 1982-1993. He traveled on the Trail of Death commemorative caravans 1988 and 1993.

Tom Hamilton, 1929-2010, Checotah, Oklahoma, was descended from Abram Burnett, a young Potawatomi man who went west on the Trail of Death in 1838. Burnett traveled with Father Petit to St. Louis, sometimes holding the sick priest on his horse, where Petit died in 1839. Burnett later became a chief in Kansas and was the biggest strongest man in Kansas, weighing over 400 pounds. Hamilton began attending the Trail of Courage in 1982. He helped organize the Trail of Death caravans 1988-2008. He designed the Trail of Death map used on 12 historical markers and the Potawatomi Trail of Death Assn. website www.potawatomi-tda.org. He and his family sponsored five Trail of Death historical markers. He made adoption papers on his computer and had the other Potawatomi on the 2003 caravan sign it to adopt Shirley and Bill Willard as honorary Potawatomi. Born in Oklahoma, he moved to Indiana in 1978 to work as vice president of advertising at Chore Time Brock, Milford. After retirement he and wife Pat spent winters in Oklahoma and summers in Warsaw, Indiana. He searched for many years to find the birthplace of Abram Burnett and finally found it to be on Ernie Hiatt’s farm north of the Tippecanoe River and west of Rochester.

Leon Stewart, 1925-2010, Rochester, was a volunteer at FCHS, and was named RSVP Volunteer of the Year in 1995. He donated thousands of hours, working as a carpenter for FCHS, Habitat for Humanity and other non-profits. He helped remodel and repair several buildings at FCHS, including the Polke house. Leon’s son Kevin Stewart did the landscaping for the memorial.

Craig Welding of Mentone donated the metal plaque with the names and dates.


Rochester - 37th Trail of Courage will be Sept. 15-16, 2012

The 37th annual Trail of Courage Living History Festival will be held Sept. 15-16 at Fulton County Historical Society grounds four miles north of Rochester on US 31 and Tippecanoe River. Hours are 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. Saturday and 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. Sunday. Frontier Indiana comes alive with music and dance on two stages, Indian dances, pre-1840 crafts and trading, foods cooked over wood fires, contests, muzzleloader shoots, cannon demo, fur trade skit, and canoe rides on Tippecanoe River. Admission $6 adults, $2 children 6 to 11, free for children age 5 and under. Contact Fulton County Museum at 574-223-4436 or fchs@rtcol.com.

See www.fultoncountyhistory.org.

The grounds are handicapped accessible. Trams pulled by tractors offer free rides from the museum and parking field to the admissions booth. There are many benches to sit on, with seating capacity at each stage and the Indian dance arena of about 200 each place.

New this year: dedication of iron teepee memorial for Chief White Eagle and four other men on Sat. evening, Huck and Biscuit the burro.