The Canadian government is getting ready to dispose of the Barriere Lake Algonquin’s traditional governance system, using a rarely invoked piece of the Indian Act known as Section 74.

As if jumping back to 1876, the Canadian government has invoked Section 74 of the Indian Act, a draconian measure that grants the minister of Indian Affairs the right to impose an electoral system on any First Nation that has its own leadership selection process.

The last time Canada invoked Section 74 was in 1924, when the colony state unilaterally deposed the Haudenosaunee government and placed a padlock on the Confederacy lodge.

This time around, the Minster has his sights on the Barriere Lake Algonquins, who live on unceded territory about 300km north of Ottawa, in the Province of Quebec. Barriere Lake is one of only a handful of Indigenous Nations in Canada that still have their own governance system.

“Community members refuse to accept this unilateral and draconian attempt to wipe out the way we govern ourselves. The government is attacking our governance system because it is intimately tied to our continuing use and protection of the land. We will defend our rights and customs for the sake of our generation and the generations to come,” says Tony Wawatie, a spokesperson from Barriere Lake.

It is also widely believed–by community members, activists, politicians and others–that by imposing section 74 the federal government hopes to dismiss several binding agreements that Barriere Lake has signed with Canada and Quebec. Both governments have continuously refused to implement the agreements; most notably, the landmark 1991 Trilateral Agreement which has been praised by the United Nations and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

In any case, Canada’s use of Section 74 is “a breach of their constitutionally-protected Aboriginal right to a customary system of government, and a violation of the minimum standards included in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” says the Indigenous Peoples Solidarity Movement (IPSM). Further, “It is an attempt to politically weaken the community, by destroying the way they have governed themselves since time immemorial.”

“The Government move also contradicts a recent Federal Court decision concerning Barriere Lake’s leadership. On February 17, 2010, Federal Court Judge Robert Mainville concluded in the case of Ratt v. Matchewan that Barriere Lake can ’select their leadership in accordance with their customs unimpeded by any conditions or requirements which the Minister may deem appropriate. ‘”

According to Barriere Lake Solidarity (BLS), the Department of Indian Affairs has already circulated a notice in Barriere Lake “announcing they intend to hold section 74 Indian Action band elections on August 19, 2010.”

However, as Tony Wawatie stated, “The community has every intention of resisting Indian Affairs’ attempts to abolish their traditional governance system.”

BLS also says the community is being increasingly harassed by the Quebec Police, who have been policing their territory since April 1, 2010. “Community members have been regularly pulled over on the highway and on the access road to their reserve. Some women have recounted being pulled over by an SQ officer and being made the subject of sexist remarks. ‘What have you got there in back seat? Got something for me?’ they were asked. The officer then followed them home in his cruiser after telling them, ‘I’m going to come over and sleep with you guys.’”

“The escalation is an indication that the Canadian and Quebec governments may attempt to use the Quebec police to impose their political dictates, as they’ve done in the past. Barriere Lake’s supporters will need to be vigilant and hold their governments to account, lest they attempt to push through section 74 Indian Act elections with brute force,” adds BLS.

For more information and updates, keep an eye on http://www.ipsmo.org and http://www.barrierelakesolidarity.org

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Message to the Migrant Rights Movement Part 2

Indocumentalismo Manifesto—an Emerging Socio-Political Ideological Identity

31 March 2010

By Raúl Alcaraz/Daniel Carrillo

From Tohono O’odham and Gabrielino-Tongva lands

www.antifronteras.com (versión en español será agregada a la página próximamente)

Note: The following article tries to put together ideas that already exist. None of this is new or groundbreaking. It is based on our experiences growing up in undocumented households/communities and our experiences as participants in the struggle for social justice. It is intended to name a particular experience and its growing social-political ideology.

Emerging socio-political ideology

Political ideology is a certain set of ideals, principles or doctrines of a social movement, class or group of people that explain how society works, offers a vision of how society should be different, and proposes certain methods of achieving that vision. We know of political ideologies such as anarchism, socialism, communism, Maoism, Zapatismo, Magonismo to name a few. Today, there is another emerging political ideology rising from the experience of over 12 million U.S.-based undocumented peoples and their families. It is an ideology deeply rooted in a profound vision for social justice. Es una ideologia subterranea, clandestina, subversiva, indocumentada. El Indocumentalismo is an ideology blooming from a very specific set of social, cultural, economic and political experiences particular to displaced and economic refugees from Abya-yala (Latin America). It is an ideology rooted in the migrant uprising, today co-opted as the “Immigrant Rights Movement”.

Historical roots of Indocumentalismo

Indocumentalismo as an emerging socio-political ideology goes back centuries. It can be traced back to 1492 and the European invasion that killed millions, occupied native land and split up the earth into territories. This ideology can also be traced back to 1521 when Tenochtitlan, Mexico fell to the blood-filled hands of Spanish rule and finally, it can be traced to U.S. imperialism and the Mexican-American War where colonial forces occupied the southwest and through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase established the U.S.-Mexico international border line where we know it today.

Indocumentalismo comes from a history of slavery, genocide and dehumanization. From the very foundation of the United States of America, Native and African people were completely excluded from freedom and citizenship. In order to justify land robbing of Native land and the kidnapping and enslavement of millions of African folks, the U.S. capitalist/imperialist machine had to deny their humanity and by extension deny them papers. Citizenship and borders were thus created as tools of capitalist/imperialist oppression meant to dominate and control the land, resources and labor and who has access to them. We cannot forget that Europeans were the first undocumented/ “illegal” group in the hemisphere. But after they founded the United (colonial) States, and after they defined/imposed borders and citizenship, Africans and northern Natives became the first colonized/undocumented groups.

From the start of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 to 1920, almost 900,000 thousand southern Natives (aka Mexicans) fled to the U.S. This meant that rural and land-based brown folks were now living in this country. Indocumentalismo therefore has ideological roots in Magonista and Zapatista ideologies—indigenous-based, radical Mexican social movements originating in this time period.

With the development of American history and the rise of a globalized capitalism, Mexican and “Central American” labor became the most appealing to the ruling class; Largely because they could easily segregate the labor force (similar to how they did during slavery times) between “American” and “immigrant”, between “citizen” and “illegal” or essentially between “human” and “sub-human”. This has not only crafted a perfectly segregated labor force, but also a social, psychological, cultural, economic and political system segregated along racial, class, gender, sexual orientation and citizenship lines.

“We are human”: Reformist Immigrant Rights Hispanic Movement

In the year 2010 the mainstream “Immigrant Rights Movement” is still reformist, still assimilationist, still hetero-male dominated, still hungry for the “American Dream”, still lacking an anti-colonial analysis and vision…

“Resisting the colonial?”

I do not know, but this is what my heart says… standing in line, waiting to be processed by the colonizers and waiting for colonial papers.  The “Immigrant Rights Movement” stands in line, waiting to be called on by the colonizer in order to receive white papers stamped “human”.  As the movement says “we are human” we in turn exclude our sisters and brothers who fell “behind” in the race to become white.  The movement does not say we are indigenous, we are womyn, we are queer. The movement states we seek to be white and marches with the colonizer’s flag.  It does not resist colonization but instead offers to side with the slave master in exchange for certain privileges.  Essentially, it defends the US; it validates its ongoing genocide and occupation.

The rise of Indocumentalismo

It is from this historical and current context that Indocumentalismo emerges. Not only is Indocumentalismo based on oppression, but more importantly its very essence is rebellion-rebeldía:

Indigenous-based. Indocumentalismo recognizes that the struggle for migrant rights is a struggle within the context of indigenous rebellion and indigenous liberation. We recognize our indigenous ancestry and see ourselves not as “immigrants” or “illegal aliens”, but as Native descendants living in the Northern, Central and Southern continents. Our method of organizing is collective and communal. We imagine love to build this movement and a connection of the four elements (fire, earth, water, wind) to humanity.  We embrace our mother earth and all life on this planet. Indocumentalismo is indigenous-based.

Anti-colonial/Anti-borders. Indocumentalismo understands that our framework needs to be an anti-colonial analysis of race, class, gender, and sexuality. This includes an anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist orientation. Indocumentalismo recognizes no borders because our ancestors for thousands of years migrated throughout these lands without restrictions or walls of shame. Today, capitalism forces hundreds of thousands of our family members annually to make a long, dangerous and “unauthorized” journey north. Clearly, we have no regard or respect for their colonial borders or walls. Indocumentalismo seeks to abolish not only physical, but also mental, spiritual, social and psychological borders among us. Indocumentalismo is anti-colonial and anti-borders.

Queer/Womyn embracing. Indocumetalismo comes from the most marginalized, oppressed sectors of society. This means solidarity with all oppressed people of the world is its essence. Currently, our community is plagued with sexism and homophobia. We understand this is a result of colonial occupation we have adopted that seeks to divide and weaken us. Here and in some parts of this continent, tradition means not to exclude people, it means to include all of us in a respectful and dignified manner.  In this manner, the movement we build is a womyn/queer radical movement.  We do not force womyn or queer people out of prayer circles or movement-building because of “tradition” that says their energy is wrong. Indocumentalismo does not structure itself under a heterosexual male framework. Indocumentalismo is queer and womyn embracing.

Autonomous. Indocumetalismo is anti-authoritarian. To be ruled by laws or governments without our consent is unacceptable. Communities should have the right to govern themselves and not be ruled by an outside, occupying force. Historically and currently, because of police/migra and state-sponsored terrorism, our community overwhelmingly does not trust law enforcement or government agencies. Power of the state means oppression of el pueblo. We believe in autonomy where the community is independent. This means the politicians, government, corporations, la migra, military or police do not control our minds/bodies/spirits. Indocumentalismo is anti-authoritarian and autonomous.

Non-reformist. Indocumentalismo is clear that when there is no federal recognition or respect for community self-determination, then one only has violence as a resort and means to be heard. Violence is generally a last resort in a struggle for freedom, after exhausting various non-violent channels. We need to employ non-violent direct action tactics, because right now our tactics are submissive and disempowering. The movement is currently disarmed and turns to electoral tactics: voting and lobbying. The “Immigrant Rights Movement” accepts only state-sanctioned/state-approved methods for “change”—thus validating an oppressive political system. Indocumentalismo supports our community’s fight for legalization. But it also recognizes that a Reforma Migratoria as we currently know it is problematic because it seeks change within a blood-filled system and further promotes the surveillance, persecution, deportations, raids, criminalization and militarization of our communities. Instead, indocumentalismo follows the militant/warrior spirit of our community that is tired, fed-up and outraged with this system and seeks to liberate itself from it. Indocumentalismo seeks alternative, grassroots, revolutionary methods of struggle!

Conclusion.

Along with other indigenous Mexican@s/Xicanas/and other “Raza”, we have been permanently displaced by imperialist capitalism and now reside throughout areas of the US. We are not recognized by the state as “indigenous” or “native”.  Our community does not have those kinds of papers, we do not have reservations, and we are not “valid” indigenous communities. According to them, we have no papers to be indigenous and no papers to be human. ¡Somos un pueblo sin papeles! ¡Somos un pueblo indocumentado! This is dangerous for the system because our community is not in their system, and cannot be tracked. It is from this invisibility, from these shadows; from the margins that indocumentalismo rises as a socio-political ideology. Indocumentalismo presents a growing threat to the system because this ideology thinks and acts beyond the limits of their borders; we are inherently “illegitimate” and “subversive”; we are its biggest crisis. We have never surrendered during colonial occupation, we have never signed any treaties with this illegitimate government, and we will not start now. We charge the US with the genocide of indigenous peoples and its illegal occupation of these lands. We remain firm in our stance to defend and nourish this earth and our families and communities that struggle for liberation!

In Solidarity,

Raúl Alcaraz/Daniel Carrillo

From Tohono O’odham and Gabrielino-Tongva lands

nomoreborders@gmail.com

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Reposted from People of Color Organize!

If you’ve been at all involved in ‘the activist scene’ or anti-summit mobilisations in recent years, its highly likely that you will have participated in ‘consensus’ decision making processes. Originating in the feminist and environmental movements, ‘Consensus’ is now the primary mode of organisation for many ‘activist’ groups and campaigns. The current vogue for camps of various kinds, at mobilisations, at protest sites, and as national and international gatherings, has led to an increasing number of small temporary environments which self-govern through linked consensus-based planning meetings.

I have personally participated in many such meetings, and my opinion on the process has shifted from a belief in the emancipatory qualities of the form to a deep unease about its prevalence. A series of negative experiences, and a consistently recurring set of problems has led me to conclude that the consensus decision making process is flawed, anti-democratic and potentially hierarchical. As a libertarian communist, my interest is in seeking a form of self-organisation which negates the possibility of power being entrenched in minorities, and leads to the full participation of all. Consensus decision making is not this form.

The key experience which broke my belief in the model was at the No Borders Camp, held near Crawley in September 2007. The aim was to gather together the various No Borders groups working in cities throughout the UK, and to protest against the new immigration centre being built at Gatwick airport, which would detain over 400 people, including children. However, thanks to police harassment of local farmers, along with other factors, the camp ended up near the village of Balcombe, at a spot in the middle of the countryside a good distance from anything of relevance.

The camp was organised through twice-daily general meetings, run, like the local groups, along consensus lines. Although i had to leave the camp before it reached its full size, I participated in large meetings, many with well over a hundred participants. During the course of these meetings, certain questionable dynamics became increasingly apparent. The turning point, however, came on my third day. The land was being rented to the camp by a local farmer, who seemed quite politically indifferent but who to his credit wasn’t phased by police intimidation tactics. One of his conditions for the use of his field was that there would be no dogs permitted on site. However, during the course of the day, several New Age Travellers turned up who lived in their vehicles with their dogs. Those at the gate remonstrated with them, but eventually let them in with their animals, not wanting to turn them away.

The issue was the main topic of discussion for an extremely long meeting held that evening in the main circus tent. The aforementioned unhealthy dynamic was the fact that the organisers of the camp tended to dominate the meetings, constituting an unofficial core group, a de facto elite who knew each other and who usually knew the facilitator who volunteered his or herself at the beginning of the session. They formed one side, pitched against the three or four travellers.

Clearly, it would be impossible for consensus to be achieved. As I perceived it the majority of the participants were keen not to be kicked off the land, and wanted the dogs out. Obviously, the dog-owners wanted to stay. This led to a majority of around at least ten-to-one wanting the dogs banned (which were the rules anyway), with the travellers putting up the fairly weak argument that them having to follow any such rules was inherently authoritarian and against the ethos of internationalism. Complete deadlock ensued, with endless circular arguments between a few loud individuals, making up maybe 5% of the people there. At one point I made the suggestion that a general measure of opinion be taken, not a vote, but a show of hands to see what the general ‘temperature’ was, given that the vast majority of people were having no input into what is supposed to be an emancipating process. I was fairly forcefully put down by an older member of this unofficial core group, who claimed that I didn’t understand consensus decision making and that such procedures create majorities and minorities of opinion, despite the obvious fact that such divisions were already evident. The facilitator, knowing this guy and not me, moved the discussion away from this suggestion and it carried on in the same fruitless way until after I had to leave to do watch duty.

I was informed afterwards that the “consensus” agreed on was that the dogs and travellers wouldn’t be asked to leave, that they wouldn’t have to keep the dogs inside their vehicles, but that they’d have to have to keep them “discreet”. Here the consensus decision making process failed miserably to deliver its stated benefits. Rather than emancipating all participants, the majority were excluded and wearied by the intransigence of a minority. Rather than bringing about an equitable solution, it led to the lowest common denominator winning out, against the will of the majority of people.

What happened was clearly an example of minority decision making. An insistent group, seeking to defend the pre-existing lack of collective position and to prevent the decision making body from taking decisive action, stopped the majority of people who didn’t want to give the police a reason to evict them from acting. The way to deal with the situation was simple: a vote. A vote would of allowed full participation of all, and a binding decision being brought about. Instead, the inability to come to a conclusion showed the ease with which the procedure could be manipulated.

This leads to a more general set of criticisms, which I believe illustrate why “consensus” decision making is prone to manipulation, elitism and minority decision-making. Through a naïve view of how elitism and coercion function, proponents of consensus decision making often bring about the very things they claim to be precluding.

One of the main ‘merits’ argued by its proponents is that whereas other forms of collective decision making invariably produce minorities and majorities of opinion, consensus brings about a decision which incorporates the desires of all. In fact, what usually happens is that a small group proposes something, a small minority input amendments, a few others disagree, and the motion passes if there are no blocks – decisions coming about if they are not ‘blocked’. During the course of the process, the majority of the people there sit or stand, contributing vaguely with some waved hands and not having any real say in the process. One reason for this is a lack of confidence on the part of many, who may well not know the environment or the participants and feel reticent about projecting themselves. It is also a constant of my experience that these kinds of meetings are dominated by men. A naïve belief that because power relations are not institutionalised they are non-existent isn’t uncommon. When they are fairly obvious, they are often fobbed off with ideological platitudes. A core (often predominantly male) group usually dominates ‘discussions’, which in turn intimidates others from interjecting into the process. When the only form of dissent at the critical point of the process is to ‘block’ it altogether as an individual, or ’stand aside’ effectively resigning, many people are put off from contributing their doubts meaningfully. There is a strong moral pressure put on dissenting parties to stop ‘holding up’ proceedings and preventing ‘consensus’. Thus a uniformity of false ‘consensus’ arises.

On the other hand, were a vote to be taken at this stage groups can be visibly and collectively enfranchised as supporting or opposing a position. An individual intimidated by the environment can easily enough raise a hand, and as part of a group behind a position, their dissent is removed from their projected personality. Moreover, one vote for one participant means an equality of power, undermining the dominance of the loudest voices. Critically, it relies on a majority clearly saying ‘yes’, rather than on no-one firmly saying ‘no’. And, as we have established, it is also a more viable form of decision-making for dealing with serious controversies.

Additionally, ‘facilitators’ should be replaced with elected and recallable chairs. In nearly every instance of ‘consensus’ decision making I have participated in, the facilitator has been someone comfortable enough in the environment to volunteer themselves. This is almost always someone familiar with the core ‘movers’ in the campaign or at the site, people who have an organisational role which pre-dates the decision making processes altogether. Though they cannot make decisions, they can easily mould discussions and force through ‘consensus’ by marginalising arguments and so on. An institutional safeguard against such elitism should be put in place. Chairs should propose why they are less implicated in certain groups, and why they can offer a less subjective stance than others. They should be elected by a clear majority (say two thirds) and be recallable if they are clearly favouring one position or certain individuals in the discussion. This does not stop them from supporting and being supported by the dominant position, but it certainly prevents them from indulging or favouring intransigent minorities.

Therefore what I propose is a procedure in which discussion and debate around proposals is followed by a vote, with influential positions being delegated and recallable. The majority required is obviously up to groups, though two-thirds seems a reasonable number to this author.

Anarchists and other libertarian socialists who choose to invest time in ‘activism’ often defend the consensus decision making process as one fit for a horizontal society based on the socialisation of production and democratic control of the economy by workers. This is based on a flawed belief that this makes it more difficult for minority groups to manipulate proceedings. However, experience of consensus processes at the anti-G8 mobilisations in Heiligendamm, Germany, and other campaigns has demonstrated to me the ease with which recuperative forces such as statist-socialists, liberals, and reformist greens can undermine militant action, pushing conclusions towards their party lines through appeals to the lowest common denominator. But if we turn to the historical record of workers’ self-organisation in syndicates, workers’ councils and assemblies then we see the prevalence of the voting form. From the Soviets to the Spanish Collectives to the Argentinian factory occupations, we see votes being taken. Voting in no way precludes infiltration and recuperation, but it certainly prevents militant action supported by a majority from being watered down or diverted by a minority. The consensus decision making form is alien to the workers’ movement. This is not to attack the movements from which it emerged – for a feminist critique of consensus decision making see The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman [1].

Having said all this, there are examples where consensus can work, for instance in small groups (10 or under) or people who know, trust and respect each other. In many cases this happens anyway and doesn’t need to be fetishised – where we’re deciding to drink, for instance. But it is totally inadequate for large-scale decisions on important issues, or in situations where we want to preclude the development of elites and to establish the emancipation of all participants. A voting procedure with full debate and an elected and recallable chair is much more preferable.

- Luther Blissett, 2008

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Reposted from the Poor Righteous Party of the Black Nation

Our lil sister Aiyana Jones

BREAKING NEWS!!

Pigs in Detroit, Michigan, brutally murdered a 7-year-old girl in a police raid early Sunday (May 16th).

The young sister, Aiyana Jones was shot and killed by by the murderous Gestapo executing a search warrant as part of its routine military sweep through the New Afrikan community.

A so-called “warrant” was executed about 12:40 a.m. Sunday at a home on the city’s east side, according to the pigs.

The pigs, in an assault team, amassed in the working class neighborhood ready for war.

“As is common in these types of situations, the officers deployed a distractionary device commonly known as a flash bang,” the pigs said in the statement according to CNN. “The purpose of the device is to temporarily disorient occupants of the house to make it easier for officers to safely gain control of anyone inside and secure the premise.”

In other words, a military grade device was deployed, the same that’s in use by the Zionists against the oppressed people of Gaza. Upon entering the home, the officers encountered a 46-year-old New Afrikan  female inside the front room, the pigs said. “Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

“At about this time, the officer’s weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area.” the pigs said in a statement to the bourgois press.

Our young sister was immediately transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

Aiyana’s father, Charles Jones, told CNN affiliate WDIV, “She was sleeping and they came in the door shooting and throwing flash grenades … burned my baby up and shot her, killed her.”

Brother Charles Jones added the officers had the wrong house.

At press time, the Black Community all over the nation is outraged. Fearing the retribution from the Black Community, in a statement the pigs said they wished to “express to the family of Aiyana Jones the profound sorrow that we feel within the Detroit Police Department and throughout this community. We know that no words can do anything to take away the pain you are feeling at this time.”

No, words will not do anything. There were no words for our sister  lil Aiyana Jones. There were no words for the thousands of victims of police terror all over the country . No words for the millions of victim of US police  terror abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan.  No pigs, we want justice. The sad murder of our young sister Aiyana Jones is one more reason the entire New Afrikan community must organize themselves for self-defense and revolution.  We will never be free from murderous pigs kicking down our  doors at night and murdering our babies in their sleep  until we, the workers and real producers of this society’s wealth, control our communities completely and ended for once the wicked imperialist system that is based on black oppression and misery. Peacecomrade.org will follow this story as things develop. Stay tuned.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

March 10, 2010

For more than two weeks now, members of the Halalt First Nation, near the southeastern coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, have held onto their own “protective blockade” in defense of the Chemainus River.

The blockade officially went up on February 25, just two days after the Okanagan Band launched their blockade to defend the same prescious resource: their water.

More than half the First Nation is taking part in the effort, which is centered at a portion of Chemainus Road that runs through their territory.

Leading up the blockade, in September 2009 the Halalt began seeking a judicial review concerning the water project for the town of Chemainus. The project aims to tap into the Chemainus River Aquifer, which the Halalt and others depend on.

However, despite the effort, as well as an utter lack of consulation according to the Halalt, and the absence of a Watershed management plan, the local District of North Cowichan decided to push on with their construction of the project.

Several days into the blockade, on March 3 “the Halalt First Nation held an emergency General Band Meeting where Elders and band members unanimously supported the continuation of their protest to protect the Chemainus River and their Title and Rights, explains a Press Release from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC).

“Water is the issue,” comments Okanagan Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of UBCIC. “Across this province, we are seeing Indigenous Peoples defending their territory and the health of their communities. Like the Halalt First Nation, the Okanagan Indian Band is protecting the Browns Creek watershed, the source of their drinking water. Like the Halalt First Nation, the Tsilhqot’in are fighting to protect their territory by opposing the draining of Teztan Biny by Taseko Mines,” said Grand Chief Phillip. “Like the victory of the Tsay Keh Nay, who prevented the destruction of Amazay Lake from the proposed Kemess North project, the determination and the knowledge that their actions are for the health of their children’s children, will ensure that the Halalt First Nation will prevail.”

“This is a last stand for our water,” said Halalt councillor Tyler George following the March 3 meeting. “It was powerful to see so many of our young people saying that they were committed to protecting our most valuable resource.”

“Our traditional lands have been taken away. Our fish have disappeared. Our clams are polluted. But we are drawing the line at our most valuable resource. No one is going to take away our water,” said George.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Mexican government is moving ahead with an ambitious new plan to surround the Lacandon Forest in Chiapas, Mexico, with oil palm plantations; while disguising the forest around the plantations with various eco-tourism sites.

In preparing for the two-faced project, the government—still in line with the old amibitous plan—and with the help of various corporations, is clearing the rainforest of its Indigenous people.

The most recent evictions took place on Jan. 21 and 22 at the indigenous Tzeltales settlements of Laguna El Suspiro and Laguna San Pedro—”the last one a base community of the Zapatista rebel movement,” explains the WW4Report.

The Zapatistas have since come forward to denounce the evictions, stating:

“The bad federal government, the PRD state government of Juan Sabines Guerrero and the municipal president of Ocosingo, Carlos Leon Solorsano Arcia, have carried out a military operation, including federal police accompanied by bad government officials of the Attorney General for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA). During the operation, four helicopters hovered over the community Laguna San Pedro, to scare the population.”

“Participating in this operation were police agents, the Mexican Army and government officials, as well as photographers and journalists of the government. They talked to the men and women, while the police took advantage of this to set the houses of the Zapatista support bases on fire.”

“How is it possible, that the bad government talks about dialogue, while its police and army burn down the belongings of the compañeros Zapatista support bases?”

The Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Center, Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada Human Rights Center, Serapaz and others have also denounced the evictions and demanded that the communities be compensated for their heavy loss.

They also warn that seven more communities are facing imminent eviction, including Nuevo San Gregorio, Nuevo Salvador Allende, Nuevo San Pedro, 6 de Octubre, Poblado Laguna El Suspiro, Ojo de Agua el Progreso and San Jacinto Lacanjá.

Throughout the current and previous administrations in Mexico, nearly forty communities have been evicted from the Lacandon forest.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Insight Center for Community Economic Development released a report on the gender wealth gap to mark International Women’s Day. The report found nearly half of all single black and Hispanic women have zero or negative wealth, meaning their debts exceed all of their assets. The median wealth for single black women is only $100; for single Hispanic women, $120. This compares to just over $41,000 for single white women. We speak with the chief author of the report, Mariko Lin Chang and C. Nicole Mason, Executive Director of the Women of Color Policy Network.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

March 15, 2010

Although the international media have reported on the enormous earthquake that struck Chile last week, almost all of the reporting has concerned the northern and central areas of the country. The central-southern region, where most of the indigenous Mapuche Indian territory is located, has been virtually ignored. The report below from José Mariman Quemenado, a Mapuche scholar residing in Denver, gives a glimpse of conditions in the Mapuche region, and methods for people to assist our indigenous relatives, who are being ignored by the Chilean government. Please post and distribute widely. –Glenn Morris, Denver

Denver, March 7th, 2010

Marri marri pu ladmien pu peñi! (Hello sisters and brothers!)
By Jose Mariman Quemenado

On Saturday, February 27, 2010 a mega earthquake 8.8 (Richter scale) affected the central area of Chile. Between the V region and the IX region of Chile, that is, the most populated area of the country and where the most important cities are located (Valparaíso, Santiago the capital, Concepción, and Temuco, the heart of the ancient Mapuche territory). Many people lost their houses completely or they are uninhabitable. But the worst part of this disaster is that after the earthquake a tsunami crashed into the coastal area, destroying several small towns. People there lost everything. Among those destroyed towns is Tirúa, in the border between the VIII and IX region, which was around 40% destroyed, and Puerto Saavedra in the IX region. Those places are inhabited principally by Mapuche Indigenous people (60 to 70% of the total population), and they are the poorest of the poor in Chile (principally artisanal fisherman or peasants). Today, a week after the earthquake, we don´t know exactly how much damage occurred in those areas, because the Chilean media are focused on informing about what happened between Santiago and Concepcion, and the government agencies are more concerned with those areas. However, we know from sporadic information (internet, local media, and Mapuche organizations), that people are living in improvised campgrounds on the hills, wearing only the clothes that they wore the day of the tragedy, without food and clean water (water wells in rural areas collapsed or are contaminated and public potable water is recovering slowly). In the short-term Mapuche organizations, firemen, churches, college students and Chilean NGOs are working to provide food and water for these people, but in the long-term nobody knows how long this may last. Because winter is coming very soon to a rainy south of Chile (April is the month when the rainy season starts), and because the Mapuche affected by the earthquake and tsunami are not confident in government help and efficiency, as a Mapuche immigrant to the States I am soliciting your solidarity with my people. Please, these people urgently need winter clothes for children, women and men. Also, they need blankets or sleeping bags and different size shoes. You can send your own parcel directly to Mapuche organizations in Chile or Chilean NGOs at the addresses at the end of this note. Thanks very much in the name of my people,

Pewkayal (Good bye)

Jose A. Mariman Quemenado, PhD. (Mapuche) (Affiliate professor, Metropolitan State College of Denver) 724 W, Sterne Pkwy, Littleton CO, 80120, USA E-mail: ppmariman@hotmail.com

Addresses to lend assistance, or to receive more information:

José Aylwin (Director)
Observatorio Ciudadano
Antonio Varas 428
Temuco, Región de la Araucanía, Chile
Fono: +56 (45) 213963
Fax: +56 (45) 218353
contacto@observatorio.cl – www.observatorio.cl

Marisol Huenuman L. (Secretaria)
Identidad Territorial Lafkenche
Los carreras N°152
Temuco, Región de la Araucanía, Chile
(001-56) 8-9961925 (cell)
marisol.huenuman@ gmail.com

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

By John Vidal

20+ African countries are selling or leasing land for intensive agriculture on a shocking scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

March 10, 2010 | Awassa, Ethiopia — We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia’s largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 50 acres — the size of 20 soccer fields.

The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 1,500 foot rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimizes water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tons of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13-million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 7.5 million acres of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world’s most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

The 2,500 acres of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2-billion acquiring and developing 1.25 million acres of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.

But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

Land rush
An Observer investigation estimates that up to 125 million acres of land — an area more than double the size of the UK — has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.

The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union’s insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.

In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of “land grabbing”.

The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: “All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.

“The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.

“All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry.”

It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.

Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world’s cheapest land.

Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per 2.5 acres.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East’s largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5-billion to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .

Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1-billion buying land and growing seven million tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa’s land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.

Huge deals
Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.

Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 7-million acres of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 3 million acres deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country’s arable land.

Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. “European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 10 million acres in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities,” said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 43 million acres, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.

“The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase,” he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.

Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of acres in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 1.75 million acres of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 1.875 million acres and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 100,000 acre deal in Nile province.

The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. “We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on,” said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. “A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile.”

In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 2 million acres in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of “grabbing” communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.

New colonialism
Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. “Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap,” he said.

“Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames,” said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50-million on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. “Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally,” she said.

But many of the deals are widely condemned by both Western non-government groups and nationals as “new colonialism”, driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.

We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 1,250 acresof land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (about $1) per 2.5 acres per year — less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.

“The land and labor is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone — Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians — is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years’ crop yield,” he said.

Man-made famine
Oromia is one of the centers of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies’ association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 2.5 million acres, Djibouti 2,500 acres, Saudi Arabia 250,000 and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.

“This is the new, 21st-century colonization. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak,” he said.

The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesperson said: “Ethiopia has [187 million acres] of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use — mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage — 3 to 4% — is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water.”

The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. “If land in Africa hasn’t been planted, it’s probably for a reason. Maybe it’s used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users.”

Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.

“We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline,” she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. “I would avoid the blanket term ‘land-grabbing’. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development.”

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.

Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. “We would like to, but the deal is made by central government,” said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

by Kevin Pina

Port au Prince, Haiti – HIP — Thousands of supporters of ousted president Jean-Bertrand Aristide took to the streets on Wednesday as French president Nicolas Sarkozy toured the earthquake ravaged capital of Port au Prince. Holding pictures of the ousted president aloft they chanted for France to pay more then 21 billion dollars in restitution and reparations and to return Aristide as Sarkozy’s helicopter landed near Haiti’s quake damaged national palace. Their demands stem from a long held dispute over compensation a nascent Haiti was forced to pay French slave owners in exchange for recognition of their independence and France’s role in ousting Aristide in 2004.

Aristide, who remains widely popular among Haiti’s poor, first raised the issue of restitution and reparations in April 2003. His government argued that an agreement reached in 1825 forcing Haiti to pay 90 million gold francs to compensate their former slave masters severely crippled Haiti’s economic development. The debt included massive interest and took 122 years to pay off with the final installment made in 1947. His government calculated that the total sum of the debt Haiti was forced to pay with interest, along with reparations for the unpaid labor of millions of slaves kidnapped from Africa and forced to work on French plantations in Haiti, came to more that 21 billion dollars. Aristide’s administration pushed the issue on the international stage while airing commercials several times a day in Haiti that said, “We demand reparations and restitution. France, pay me my money, $21,685,135,571.48.”

Aristide was forced out of the country in a coup ten months later on Feb. 29, 2004 and flown to the former French colony of the Central African Republic. Although the main author of the coup is still seen as the administration of George W. Bush, Haitians have never forgotten the role that France played in supporting the opposition movement to Aristide and their demands that he resign.

Several weeks before Aristide was forced onto a plane and flown into exile, the government of then French president Jacques Chirac dispatched Véronique Albanel and Régis Debray to demand that he resign. In an interview with writer Claude Ribbe one year after his ouster Aristide said, “These two French personalities came to the National Palace and asked me so. That is already known. The threats were groundless, they were evident and direct. As good Haitians, we are respectful but we demand to be respected and we replied with respect and dignity. The threats were evident and direct: you resign or you might be [killed]!”

Before his tour of the destruction in Haiti’s capital and during an address to Haitian dignitaries, French president Sarkozy offered $400 million dollars in emergency assistance, reconstruction funds, and support for the Haitian government’s operating budget. This was in addition to France’s earlier decision to cancel Haiti’s debt of $77 million dollars.

Paulette Joseph, a member of the Lavalas Mobilization Commission and one of the organizers of the demonstration responded, “That’s great that Sarkozy has come to give France’s support to the Haitian people in this difficult moment after the terrible earthquake that killed so many of our people and now forces us to live in greater misery.” Joseph continued, “But $477 million dollars doesn’t even come close to the damage France inflicted upon Haiti before the earthquake. We were suffering from poverty before this crisis as a result of the debt Haiti was forced to pay the slave masters to recognize our independence. If our country is not equipped to handle this crisis and we are suffering more after the earthquake it is a direct result of that debt.”

“We need Aristide to return!” shouted demonstrators as Haitian president Preval made a rare appearance on the lawn in front of Haiti’s destroyed seat of government following Sarkozy’s visit. Waving photos of Aristide they also began chanting, “If Aristide were here he would be suffering along with us!” as Preval turned his back on the crowd and withdrew to his luxury jeep amid tight security.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!