National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples logo

The National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (Spanish: Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas, CDI) is a decentralized agency of the Mexican Federal Public Administration. It was founded in 2003 as a replacement for the National Indigenist Institute (INI). It has its headquarters in Mexico City and, since 15 December 2006, has been headed by former senator Luis H. Álvarez.

Creation and replacement of the INI[link]

The law creating the Commission came into effect on 5 July 2003. At the same time, the 1948 law creating the National Indigenist Institute (Instituto Nacional Indigenista) was repealed; thus, the Commission took over the functions and responsibilities of the defunct Institute.[1]

Mission[link]

The Commission's remit lays with the nation's indigenous peoples. Its mission is to "guide, coordinate, promote, support, foster, monitor, and assess programmes, projects, strategies, and public actions to attain integral and sustainable development and full enjoyment of the rights of indigenous peoples and communities in accordance with Article 2 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States."

Operations[link]

The Commission operates in 24 states through 10 Coordinating Centres for Indigenous Development; a Research, Information, and Documentation Centre; and 28 Regional Indigenous Development Centres. It maintains a network of 1085 school hostals (albergues escolares), used to provide mid-week accommodation for pupils for whom it is too far to travel to school every day, and it also operates the Cultural Indigenist Broadcasting System (SRCI) which runs 20 multilingual radio stations on medium-wave (AM) frequencies, with a further seven low-power stations in the very high frequency band (FM) on an experimental basis.

References[link]

External links[link]

• http://www.cdi.gob.mx

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category

Raoni Metuktire, Kaye, Kadjor and Panara, leaders of the Indigenous Kayapo tribe, Mato Grosso, Brazil.

Sven-Roald Nystø, Aili Keskitalo and Ole Henrik Magga, the three first presidents of the Norwegian Sami Parliament.

The New Zealand delegation endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in April 2010.

Baka dancers in the East Province of Cameroon

Inuit people on a traditional qamutik (dog sled), Cape Dorset, Canada

Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups that are defined as "indigenous" according to one of the various definitions of the term, though there is no universally accepted definition.^[1]

In the late twentieth century, the term began to be used primarily to refer to ethnic groups that have historical ties to groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state, and which normally preserve a degree of cultural and political separation from the mainstream culture and political system of the nation state within the border of which the indigenous group is located.^[2] The political sense of the term defines these groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation and oppression by nation states. As a result, a special set of political rights in accordance with international law have been set forth by international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank.^[3] The United Nations have issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect the collective rights of indigenous peoples to their culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and natural resources. Depending on which precise definition of "indigenous people" used, and on the census, estimates of a world total population of Indigenous people range from 220 million Indigenous peoples in 1997^[4] to 350 million in 2004.^[2]

Definitions[link]

Ati woman, the Philippines, 2007.^[5] The Negritos were the earliest inhabitants of Southeast Asia.^[6]

The adjective indigenous has the common meaning of "from" or "of the original origin". Therefore, according to its meaning in common usage in English, any given people, ethnic group or community may be described as being indigenous in reference to some particular region or location. However during the late twentieth century the term Indigenous peoples evolved into a legal category that refers to culturally distinct groups that had been affected by the processes of colonization. These are usually collectives that have preserved some degree of cultural and political separation from the mainstream culture and political system that has grown to surround or dominate them economically, politically, culturally, or geographically.

The status of the indigenous group in this relationship can be characterized in most instances as an effectively marginalized, isolated or minoritised one, in comparison to other groups or the nation-state as a whole. Their ability to influence and participate in the external policies that may exercise jurisdiction over their traditional lands and practices is very frequently limited. This situation can persist even in the case where the indigenous population outnumbers that of the other inhabitants of the region or state; the defining notion here is one of separation from decision and regulatory processes that have some, at least titular, influence over aspects of their community and lands.

The presence of external laws, claims and cultural mores either potentially or actually act to variously constrain the practices and observances of an indigenous society. These constraints can be observed even when the indigenous society is regulated largely by its own tradition and custom. They may be purposefully imposed, or arise as unintended consequence of trans-cultural interaction; and have a measurable effect even where countered by other external influences and actions deemed to be beneficial or which serve to promote indigenous rights and interests within the wider community.

A definition of "indigenous people" has criteria which includes cultural groups (and their continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region) either:

• before or its subsequent colonization or annexation, or
• alongside other cultural groups during the formation or reign of a colony or nation-state, or
• independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who:

• have maintained at least in part their distinct cultural, social/organizational, or linguistic characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state, and
• are self-identified as indigenous, or those recognized as such by other groups.

Another defining characteristic for an indigenous group is that it has preserved traditional ways of living, such as present or historical reliance upon subsistence-based production (based on pastoral, horticultural and/or hunting and gathering techniques), and a predominantly non-urbanized society. Not all indigenous groups share these characteristics. Indigenous societies may be either settled in a given locale/region or exhibit a nomadic lifestyle across a large territory, but are generally historically associated with a specific territory on which they are dependent. Indigenous societies are found in every inhabited climate zone and continent of the world.^[3][7]

There are various formulations of these defining characteristics in existence. Most are commonly drawn from a few widely-acknowledged authorities, in particular the Martínez Cobo – WGIP statement. These several definitions are recognised and employed by international and rights-based non-governmental organizations, as well as among national/sub-national governments themselves. The degree to which indigenous peoples' rights and issues are accepted and recognised in practical instruments such as treaties and other binding and non-binding agreements varies, sometimes considerably.

Many organizations advocating for indigenous rights, and the indigenous communities themselves, seek to particularly and explicitly identify peoples in this position as indigenous. This identification may also be made or acknowledged by the surrounding communities and nation-state, although there are some instances where the identity claim is the subject of some dispute, particularly with regard to recognizing assertions made over territorial rights. Even if all the above criteria are fulfilled, some people may either not consider themselves as indigenous or may not be considered as indigenous by governments, organizations or scholars.

United Nations[link]

Veddha chief Uruwarige Wannila Aththo, leader of the indigenous people Sri Lanka.

Orang Asli near Cameron Highlands , Malaysia playing a nose flute.

In 1972 the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) accepted as a preliminary definition a formulation put forward by Mr. José Martínez Cobo, Special Rapporteur on Discrimination against Indigenous Populations:

Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and cultural characteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.

This definition has some limitations which were subsequently noted by the organization. The definition applies mainly to pre-colonial populations, and would likely exclude other isolated or marginal societies. In 1983 the WGIP enlarged this definition (FICN. 41Sub.211983121 Adds. para. 3 79) to include the following criteria:

• (a) they are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there;
• (b) precisely because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population they have almost preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those characterised as indigenous;
• (c) they are, even if only formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural characteristics alien to their own.

In 1986 it was further added that any individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was accepted by the group or the community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. para.381).

The draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples prepared by the DWIG does not provide a specific definition of indigenous peoples or populations. According to the Chairperson, Ms. Erica Irene Daes, Rapporteur of the Working Group, this was because "historically, indigenous peoples have suffered, from definitions imposed by others" (E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1995/3, page 3).

International Labour Organisation[link]

A definition as used by the International Labour Organisation (Convention No. 169, concerning the working rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989) applies to:

both tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations, and to peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabit the country at the time of conquest or colonisation.

World Bank[link]

A description of Indigenous Peoples given by the World Bank (operational directive 4.20, 1991) reads as follows:

Indigenous Peoples can be identified in particular geographical areas by the presence in varying degrees of the following characteristics:

a) close attachment to ancestral territories and to the natural resources in these areas;

b) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group;

c) an indigenous language, often different from the national language;

d) presence of customary social and political institutions;

and e) primarily subsistence-oriented production.

The World Bank's policy for indigenous people states:

Because of the varied and changing contexts in which Indigenous Peoples live and because there is no universally accepted definition of “Indigenous Peoples,” this policy does not define the term. Indigenous Peoples may be referred to in different countries by such terms as "indigenous ethnic minorities," "aboriginals," "hill tribes," "minority nationalities," "scheduled tribes," or "tribal groups."^[8]

Philippine Definition[link]

Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines (Tagalog: Katutubong Tao sa Pilipinas; Cebuano: Lumad or Tumandok; Ilocano: Umili a Tattao iti Filipinas) refers to a group of people or homogenous societies, identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as an organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and used such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions, and cultures, become historically differentiated from the majority of the Filipinos.^[9]

The indigenous peoples also include peoples who are regarded as indigenous based on their descent from the populations which inhabited the country at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.

Individual states[link]

Different states designate the groups within their boundaries that are recognized as indigenous peoples according to international legislation by different terms. These include, for example "Native Americans" and "Pacific Islander" in the United States; "Aboriginals (Inuit", "Métis" and "First Nations)" in Canada;^[10] Aborigines in Australia; Hill tribes in Southeast Asia; indigenous ethnic minorities, scheduled tribes or Adivasi in India; tribal groups, or autochthonous groups.^[8]

Population and distribution[link]

Indigenous societies range from those who have been significantly exposed to the colonizing or expansionary activities of other societies (such as the Maya peoples of Mexico and Central America) through to those who as yet remain in comparative isolation from any external influence (such as the Sentinelese and Jarawa of the Andaman Islands).

Precise estimates for the total population of the world's Indigenous peoples are very difficult to compile, given the difficulties in identification and the variances and inadequacies of available census data. Recent source estimates range from 300 million^[11] to 350 million^[12] as of the start of the 21st century. This would equate to just fewer than 6% of the total world population. This includes at least 5000 distinct peoples^[12] in over 72 countries.

Contemporary distinct indigenous groups survive in populations ranging from only a few dozen to hundreds of thousands and more. Many indigenous populations have undergone a dramatic decline and even extinction, and remain threatened in many parts of the world. Some have also been assimilated by other populations or have undergone many other changes. In other cases, indigenous populations are undergoing a recovery or expansion in numbers.

Certain indigenous societies survive even though they may no longer inhabit their "traditional" lands, owing to migration, relocation, forced resettlement or having been supplanted by other cultural groups. In many other respects, the transformation of culture of indigenous groups is ongoing, and includes permanent loss of language, loss of lands, encroachment on traditional territories, and disruption in traditional lifeways due to contamination and pollution of waters and lands.

Historical cultures[link]

An Adivasi woman from the Kutia Kondh tribal group in Orissa, India.

The migration, expansion and settlement of societies throughout different territories is a universal, almost defining thread which runs through the entire course of human history. Many of the cross-cultural interactions which arose as a result of these historical encounters involved societies which might properly be considered as indigenous, either from their own viewpoint or that of external societies.

Alonso Fernández de Lugo presenting the captured Guanche kings of Tenerife to Ferdinand and Isabella.

Most often, these past encounters between indigenous and "non-indigenous" groups lack contemporary account or description. Any assessment or understanding of impact, result and relation can at best only be surmised, using archaeological, linguistic or other reconstructive means. Where accounts do exist, they frequently originate from the viewpoint of the colonizing, expansionary or nascent state or from rather scarce and fragmented ethnographic sources compiled by those more congenial with indigenous communities and/or representatives thereof.

Classical antiquity[link]

Greek sources of the Classical period acknowledge the prior existence of indigenous people(s), whom they referred to as "Pelasgians". These peoples inhabited lands surrounding the Aegean Sea before the subsequent migrations of the Hellenic ancestors claimed by these authors. The disposition and precise identity of this former group is elusive, and sources such as Homer, Hesiod and Herodotus give varying, partially mythological accounts. However, it is clear that cultures existed whose indigenous characteristics were distinguished by the subsequent Hellenic cultures (and distinct from non-Greek speaking "foreigners", termed "barbarians" by the historical Greeks). Greco-Roman society flourished between 250 BC and 480 AD and commanded successive waves of conquests that gripped more than half of the globe. But because already existent populations within other parts of Europe at the time of classical antiquity had more in common culturally speaking with the Greco-Roman world, the intricacies involved in expansion across the European frontier were not so contentious relative to indigenous issues. But when it came to expansion in other parts of the world, namely Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, then totally new cultural dynamics had entered into the equation, so to speak, and one sees here of what was to take the Americas, South East Asia, and the Pacific by storm a few hundred years later. The idea that peoples who possessed cultural customs and racial appearances strikingly different to that of the colonizing power is no new idea borne out of the Medieval period or the Enlightenment.

European expansion and colonialism[link]

The rapid and extensive spread of the various European powers from the early 15th century onwards had a profound impact upon many of the indigenous cultures with whom they came into contact. The exploratory and colonial ventures in the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific often resulted in territorial and cultural conflict, and the intentional or unintentional displacement and devastation of the indigenous populations.

The Canary Islands had an indigenous population called the Guanches whose origin is still the subject of discussion among historians and linguists.^[13]

Indigenous peoples by region[link]

Indigenous populations are distributed in regions throughout the globe. The numbers, condition and experience of indigenous groups may vary widely within a given region. A comprehensive survey is further complicated by sometimes contentious membership and identification.

Africa[link]

Tuareg nomads in southern Algeria.

A San man from Namibia.

In the post-colonial period, the concept of specific indigenous peoples within the African continent has gained wider acceptance, although not without controversy. The highly diverse and numerous ethnic groups which comprise most modern, independent African states contain within them various peoples whose situation, cultures and pastoralist or hunter-gatherer lifestyles are generally marginalized and set apart from the dominant political and economic structures of the nation. Since the late 20th century these peoples have increasingly sought recognition of their rights as distinct indigenous peoples, in both national and international contexts.

Batwa Pygmy with traditional bow and arrow.

Although the vast majority of African peoples can be considered to be indigenous in the sense that they have originated from that continent and middle and south east Asia, in practice identity as an "indigenous people" as per the term's modern application is more restrictive, and certainly not every African ethnic group claims identification under these terms. Groups and communities who do claim this recognition are those who by a variety of historical and environmental circumstances have been placed outside of the dominant state systems, and whose traditional practices and land claims often come into conflict with the objectives and policies promulgated by governments, companies and surrounding dominant societies. Given the extensive and complicated history of human migration within Africa, being the "first peoples in a land" is not a necessary precondition for acceptance as an indigenous people. Rather, indigenous identity relates more to a set of characteristics and practices than priority of arrival. For example, several populations of nomadic peoples such as the Tuareg of the Sahara and Sahel regions now inhabit areas in which they arrived comparatively recently; their claim to indigenous status (endorsed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights) is based on their marginalization as nomadic peoples in states and territories dominated by sedentary agricultural peoples. The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC) is one of the main trans-national network organizations recognized as a representative of African indigenous peoples in dialogues with governments and bodies such as the UN. IPACC identifies several key characteristics associated with indigenous claims in Africa:

• political and economic marginalization rooted in colonialism;
• de facto discrimination based often on the dominance of agricultural peoples in the State system (e.g. lack of access to education and health care by hunters and herders);
• the particularities of culture, identity, economy and territoriality that link hunting and herding peoples to their home environments in deserts and forests (e.g. nomadism, diet, knowledge systems);
• some indigenous peoples, such as the San and Pygmy peoples are physically distinct, which makes them subject to specific forms of discrimination.

With respect to concerns expressed that identifying some groups and not others as indigenous is in itself discriminatory, IPACC states that it:

• "...recognises that all Africans should enjoy equal rights and respect. All of Africa's diversity is to be valued. Particular communities, due to historical and environmental circumstances, have found themselves outside the state-system and underrepresented in governance...This is not to deny other Africans their status; it is to emphasise that affirmative recognition is necessary for hunter-gatherers and herding peoples to ensure their survival."

At an African inter-governmental level, the examination of indigenous rights and concerns is pursued by a sub-commission established under the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), sponsored by the African Union (AU) (successor body to the Organization of African Unity (OAU)). In late 2003 the 53 signatory states of the ACHPR adopted the Report of the African Commission's Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities and its recommendations. This report says in part (p. 62):

• ...certain marginalized groups are discriminated in particular ways because of their particular culture, mode of production and marginalized position within the state[; a] form of discrimination that other groups within the state do not suffer from. The call of these marginalized groups to protection of their rights is a legitimate call to alleviate this particular form of discrimination.

The adoption of this report at least notionally subscribed the signatories to the concepts and aims of furthering the identity and rights of African Indigenous peoples. The extent to which individual states are mobilizing to put these recommendations into practice varies enormously, however, and most Indigenous groups continue to agitate for improvements in the areas of land rights, use of natural resources, protection of environment and culture, political recognition and freedom from discrimination.

Peruvian Quechua people reading.

Americas[link]

A Nahua man, ploughing his cornfield in Morelos, Mexico.

Indigenous peoples of the American continents are broadly recognized as being those groups and their descendants who inhabited the region before the arrival of European colonizers and settlers (i.e., Pre-Columbian). Indigenous peoples who maintain, or seek to maintain, traditional ways of life are found from the high Arctic north to the southern extremities of Tierra del Fuego.

A Navajo boy on horseback in Monument valley, Arizona.

The impact of European colonization of the Americas on the indigenous communities has been in general quite severe, with many authorities estimating ranges of significant population decline due to the ravages of various genocide campaigns, epidemic diseases (smallpox, measles, etc.), displacement, conflict, compulsory boarding schools, massacres and exploitation. The extent of this impact is the subject of much continuing debate. Several peoples shortly thereafter became extinct, or very nearly so.

All nations in North and South America have populations of indigenous peoples within their borders. In some countries (particularly Latin American), indigenous peoples form a sizable component of the overall national population—in Bolivia they account for an estimated 56%–70% of the total nation, and at least half of the population in Guatemala and the Andean and Amazonian nations of Peru. In English, indigenous peoples are collectively referred to by several different terms which vary by region and include such ethnonyms as Native Americans, Amerindians, and Indians. In Spanish or Portuguese speaking countries one finds the use of terms such as pueblos indígenas, amerindios, povos nativos, povos indígenas, and in Peru, Comunidades Nativas, particularly among Amazonian societies like the Urarina^[14] and Matsés.

In Brazil, the term índio (Portuguese pronunciation: [ˈĩdʒi.u] or ˈĩdʒju) is used by most of the population, the media, the indigenous peoples themselves and even the government (FUNAI is acronym for Fundação Nacional do Índio), although its Hispanic equivalent indio is widely not considered politically correct and falling into desuse. Nevertheless, Portuguese for Amerindian and amerindio, ameríndio (ameˈɾĩdʒi.u or ameˈɾĩdʒju in the standard South American dialects) is gaining some popularity, still, it seems odd for many.^{[citation needed]} The widespread completely politically correct term of which Brazilians are used to is indígena ĩˈdʒiʒenɐ (although its literal translation is "indigenous person or peoples from anywhere", it is colloquially intended as synonym for Amerindian, without need for specifications in reference to the indigenous peoples of what continent). It has more ethnic meanings than racial ones, and a "Westerner" in Brazil can be an acculturated ameríndio/índio but not an indígena, which officially means indigenous in the narrow sense.

Aboriginal peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations,^[15] Inuit^[16] and Métis.^[17] The descriptors "Indian" and "Eskimo" are falling into disuse in Canada.^[18][19] There are currently over 600 recognized First Nations governments or bands encompassing 1,172,790 ²⁰⁰⁶ peoples spread across Canada with distinctive Aboriginal cultures, languages, art, and music.^[20][21][22] National Aboriginal Day recognises the cultures and contributions of Aboriginals to the history of Canada

The indigenous people of Greenland, previously a Danish colony, achieved self rule in 2009.

The Inuit have achieved a degree of administrative autonomy with the creation in 1999 of the territories of Nunavik (in Northern Quebec), Nunatsiavut (in Northern Labrador) and Nunavut, which was until 1999 a part of the Northwest Territories. The self-ruling Danish territory of Greenland is also home to a majority population of indigenous Inuit (about 85%).

A Yanomami shabono in the northern Amazon Rainforest.

In the United States, the combined populations of Native Americans, Inuit and other indigenous designations totalled 2,786,652 (constituting about 1.5% of 2003 US census figures). Some 563 scheduled tribes are recognized at the federal level, and a number of others recognized at the state level.

In Mexico, approximately 6,011,202 (constituting about 6.7% of 2005 Mexican census figures) identify as Indígenas (Spanish for natives or indigenous peoples). In the southern states of Chiapas, Yucatán and Oaxaca they constitute 26.1%, 33.5% and 35.3%, respectively, of the population. In these states several conflicts and episodes of civil war have been conducted, in which the situation and participation of indigenous societies were notable factors (see for example EZLN).

The Amerindians make up 0.4% of Brazil's population, or about 700,000 people.^[23] Indigenous peoples are found in the entire territory of Brazil, although the majority of them live in Indian reservations in the North and Center-Western part of the country. On 18 January 2007, FUNAI reported that it had confirmed the presence of 67 different uncontacted tribes in Brazil, up from 40 in 2005. With this addition Brazil has now overtaken the island of New Guinea as the country having the largest number of uncontacted tribes.^[24]

Guatemala is 50 to 80% indigenous, depending on whose statistics are used (Nelson, Finger in the Wound 1999)

Asia[link]

See also: Category:Indigenous peoples of Asia

Ainu people of Hokkaidō, Japan in traditional garb.

The vast regions of Asia contain the majority of the world's present-day Indigenous populations, about 70% according to IWGIA figures.^{[citation needed]}

The most substantial populations are in India, which constitutionally recognizes a range of "Scheduled Tribes" within its borders. These various peoples (collectively referred to as Adivasis, or tribal peoples) number about 68 million (1991 census figures, approximately 8% of the total national population).

A Nenets family in their tent, Yamal peninsula, Russia.

Nivkh people are an ethnic group indigenous to Sakhalin, having a few speakers of the Nivkh language, but their fisher culture has been endangered due to the development of oil field of Sakhalin from 1990s.^[25]

Ainu people are an ethnic group indigenous to Hokkaidō, the Kuril Islands, and much of Sakhalin. As Japanese settlement expanded, the Ainu were pushed northward, until by the Meiji period they were confined by the government to a small area in Hokkaidō, in a manner similar to the placing of Native Americans on reservations.^[26]

The languages of Taiwanese aborigines have significance in historical linguistics, since in all likelihood Taiwan was the place of origin of the entire Austronesian language family, which spread across Oceania.^[27][28][29]

There are also indigenous people in Southeast Asia.

There are indigenous peoples of the Philippines, which Spain and the United States colonized.

The Assyrians and Marsh Arabs are indigenous to areas of the geocultural region of Mesopotamia which includes parts of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. The Lurs also inhabit parts of Iraq close to the Iranian border with the provinces of Lorestan and Ilam.

The Bahrani are the indigenous people of the archipelago of Bahrain and the oasis of Qatif on the Persian Gulf coast of Saudi Arabia (see historical region of Bahrain).

Europe[link]

See also: Category:Indigenous peoples of Europe and European ethnic groups

Since most of Europe in historical times was never colonized by non-European powers with lasting effect (arguably except for Hungary and Romania, Turkish Thrace, Tatarstan, Kalmykia and islands such as Malta or Cyprus^[30]), the vast majority of Europeans could be considered indigenous. However several widely accepted formulations, which define the term "Indigenous peoples" in stricter terms, have been put forward by internationally recognized organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. Indigenous peoples in this article is used in such a narrower sense.

In Europe, present-day recognized indigenous populations are relatively few, mainly confined to northern and far-eastern reaches of this Eurasian peninsula. Whilst there are various ethnic minorities distributed within European countries, few of these still maintain traditional subsistence cultures and are recognized as indigenous peoples, per se. Notable indigenous populations include the Sami people of northern Scandinavia, the Nenets and other Samoyedic peoples of the northern Russian Federation, and the Komi peoples of the western Urals.

Oceania[link]

Huli man from the Southern Highlands, Papua New Guinea. New Guinea has more than 1,000 indigenous languages.

Indigenous Australians playing football.

Many of the present-day Pacific Island nations in the Oceania region were originally populated by Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian peoples over the course of thousands of years. European colonial expansion in the Pacific brought many of these under non-indigenous administration. During the 20th century several of these former colonies gained independence and nation-states were formed under local control. However, various peoples have put forward claims for Indigenous recognition where their islands are still under external administration; examples include the Chamorros of Guam and the Northern Marianas, and the Marshallese of the Marshall Islands.

The remains of at least 25 miniature humans, who lived between 1,000 and 3,000 years ago, were recently found on the islands of Palau in Micronesia.^[31]

In most parts of Oceania, indigenous peoples outnumber the descendants of colonists. Exceptions include Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. According to the 2001 Australian census, indigenous Australians make up 2.4% of the total population, while in New Zealand 14.6% of the population identify at least partially as indigenous Māori, with slightly more than half (53%) of all Māori residents identifying solely as Māori. The Māori are indigenous to Polynesia and settled New Zealand relatively recently, the migrations were thought to have occurred between 1000–1200 CE. In New Zealand pre-contact Māori tribes were not a single people, thus the more recent grouping into tribal (iwi) arrangements has become a more formal arrangement in more recent times. Many Māori tribal leaders signed a treaty with the British, the Treaty of Waitangi, so that the modern geo-political entity that is New Zealand was established by partial consent. However, the Māori language translation of the Treaty of Waitangi which they signed is worded ambiguously and does not fully match the English version. The treaty process gave British citizenship to the "native" population. However, some of the British settlers ignored the Treaty of Waitangi and through some illegal acts of colonization and war (though there were legitimate land sales between Maori and the settlers) Maori lost 95% of their land and resources from the 1850s through to the 1970s, which resulted in the large scale socio-economic marginalization of the vast majority of Maori. Since the 1970s there has been a cultural renaissance by Maori, and a political drive to assert their Treaty rights to their land, resources and culture through the Waitangi Tribunal process. This has resulted in the legal recognition of the Maori language and culture and has resulted in the return of some land, resources and money so that today Māori businesses have an estimated value of over NZD$14 billion. Māori have also formed an important political party.

The independent state of Papua New Guinea (PNG) has a majority population of indigenous societies, with more than 700 different tribal groups recognized out of a total population of just over 5 million.^{[citation needed]} The PNG Constitution and other Acts identify traditional or custom-based practices and land tenure, and explicitly set out to promote the viability of these traditional societies within the modern state. However, several conflicts and disputes concerning land use and resource rights continue to be observed between indigenous groups, the government and corporate entities.

Rights, issues and concerns[link]

Part of a series on
Indigenous rights
Rights
Conflict resolution · Cultural diversity Cultural heritage · Forced assimilation Forced relocation · Freedom of religion Gender equality · Human rights Intellectual property · Land rights Land-use planning · Language Racial discrimination · Right to identity Self-determination · Traditional knowledge
Governmental organizations
AADNC · ACHPR · Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs · CDI Council of Indigenous Peoples FUNAI · NCIP · UNPFII
NGOs and political groups
AFN · Amazon Watch · CAP · COICA CONAIE · Cultural Survival · EZLN · fPcN IPACC · IPCB · IWGIA · NARF · ONIC Survival International · UNPO · (more ...)
Issues
Colonialism · Civilizing mission Cultural genocide · Manifest Destiny Postdevelopment theory · Bantustan Indian reservation · Indian reserve
Legal representation
ILO 169 · United Nations Declaration
Category
v t e

Indigenous peoples confront a diverse range of concerns associated with their status and interaction with other cultural groups, as well as changes in their inhabited environment. Some challenges are specific to particular groups; however, other challenges are commonly experienced. Bartholomew Dean and Jerome Levi (2003) explore why and how the circumstances of indigenous peoples are improving in some places of the world, while their human rights continue to be abused in others.^[32] These issues include cultural and linguistic preservation, land rights, ownership and exploitation of natural resources, political determination and autonomy, environmental degradation and incursion, poverty, health, and discrimination.

The interaction between indigenous and non-indigenous societies throughout history has been complex, ranging from outright conflict and subjugation to some degree of mutual benefit and cultural transfer. A particular aspect of anthropological study involves investigation into the ramifications of what is termed first contact, the study of what occurs when two cultures first encounter one another. The situation can be further confused when there is a complicated or contested history of migration and population of a given region, which can give rise to disputes about primacy and ownership of the land and resources.

The Bangladesh Government has stated that there are "no Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh".^[33] This has angered the Indigenous Peoples of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh, collectively known as the Jumma (whichs include the Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Tenchungya, Chak, Pankho, Mru, Murung, Bawm, Lushai, Khyang, Gurkha, Assamese, Santal and Khumi).^[34] Experts have protested against this move of the Bangladesh Government and have questioned the Government's definition of the term "Indigenous Peoples".^[35][36] This move by the Bangladesh Government is seen by the Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh as another step by the Government to further erode their already limited rights.^[37]

Wherever indigenous cultural identity is asserted, some particular set of societal issues and concerns may be voiced which either arise from (at least in part), or have a particular dimension associated with, their indigenous status. These concerns will often be commonly held or affect other societies also, and are not necessarily experienced uniquely by indigenous groups.

Despite the diversity of Indigenous peoples, it may be noted that they share common problems and issues in dealing with the prevailing, or invading, society. They are generally concerned that the cultures of Indigenous peoples are being lost and that indigenous peoples suffer both discrimination and pressure to assimilate into their surrounding societies. This is borne out by the fact that the lands and cultures of nearly all of the peoples listed at the end of this article are under threat. Notable exceptions are the Sakha and Komi peoples (two of the northern indigenous peoples of Russia), who now control their own autonomous republics within the Russian state, and the Canadian Inuit, who form a majority of the territory of Nunavut (created in 1999).

It is also sometimes argued that it is important for the human species as a whole to preserve a wide range of cultural diversity as possible, and that the protection of indigenous cultures is vital to this enterprise.

An example of this occurred in 2002 when the Government of Botswana expelled all the Kalahari Bushmen known as the San from their lands^[38] on which they had lived for at least twenty thousand years. President Festus Mogai has described the Bushmen as "stone age creatures"^[39] and a minister for local government, Margaret Nasha, likened public criticism of their eviction to criticism of the culling of elephants.^[40] In 2006, the Botswanan High Court ruled that the Bushmen had a right to return to their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.^[41][42]

Health issues[link]

In December 1993, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, and requested UN specialized agencies to consider with governments and indigenous people how they can contribute to the success of the Decade of Indigenous People, commencing in December 1994. As a consequence, the World Health Organization, at its Forty-seventh World Health Assembly established a core advisory group of indigenous representatives with special knowledge of the health needs and resources of their communities, thus beginning a long-term commitment to the issue of the health of indigenous peoples.^[43]

The WHO notes that "Statistical data on the health status of indigenous peoples is scarce. This is especially notable for indigenous peoples in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe", but snapshots from various countries, where such statistics are available, show that indigenous people are in worse health than the general population, in advanced and developing countries alike: higher incidence of diabetes in some regions of Australia;^[44] higher prevalence of poor sanitation and lack of safe water among Twa households in Rwanda;^[45] a greater prevalence of childbirths without prenatal care among ethnic minorities in Vietnam;^[46] suicide rates among Inuit youth in Canada are eleven times higher than the national average;^[47] infant mortality rates are higher for indigenous peoples everywhere.^[48]

Accredited organizations[link]

Various organizations are devoted to the preservation or study of indigenous peoples. Of these, several have widely recognized credentials to act as an intermediary or representative on behalf of indigenous peoples' groups, in negotiations on indigenous issues with governments and international organizations. These include:

• African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR)
• Center for World Indigenous Studies
• Cultural Survival
• Friends of Peoples Close to Nature (fPcN)
• Incomindios Switzerland
• Indigenous Dialogues
• Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC)
• International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
• Survival International

International Day of the World's Indigenous People[link]

The International Day of the World's Indigenous People falls on 9 August as this was the date of the first meeting in 1982 of the United Nations Working Group of Indigenous Populations of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights.

The UN General Assembly decided on 23 December 1994 that the International Day of the World's Indigenous People should be observed on 9 August every year during the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (resolution 49/214). Thereafter, on 20 December 2004, the General Assembly decided to continue observing the International Day of Indigenous People every year during the Second International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (2005–2014) (resolution 59/174).^[49]

Knowledge and culture[link]

The preservation and investigation of specialized Indigenous knowledge, particularly in relation to the resources of the natural environment with which the society is associated, is a goal of both the Indigenous and the societies who thereby seek to identify new resources and benefits (example: partnerships established to research biological extracts from vegetation in the Amazon rainforests).

For some people (e.g. Indigenous communities from India, Brazil, and Malaysia and some NGOs such as GRAIN and Third World Network),^{[clarification needed]} Indigenous peoples have often been victims of biopiracy when they are subjected to unauthorized use of their natural resources,^{[citation needed]} of their traditional knowledge on these biological resources, of unequal share of benefits between them and a patent holder.

Viewpoints[link]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

A range of differing viewpoints and attitudes have arisen from the experience and history of contact between Indigenous and "non-indigenous" communities. The cultural, regional and historical contexts in which these viewpoints have developed are complex, and many competing viewpoints exist simultaneously in any given society, albeit promulgated with greater or lesser force depending on the extent of cross-cultural exposure and internal societal change. These views may be noted from both sides of the relationship.

Indigenous viewpoints[link]

Indigenous peoples are increasingly faced with threats to their sovereignty, environment, and access to natural resources. Examples of this can be the deforestation of tropical rainforests where many native tribe's subsistence lifestyles are threatened. Assimilative colonial policies resulted in ongoing issues related to aboriginal child protection.

Non-indigenous viewpoints[link]

"Savages of Mokka and Their House in Formosa", pre-1945, Taiwan under Japanese rule.

Indigenous peoples have been denoted primitives, savages, or uncivilized. These terms were common during the heights of European colonial expansion, but still continue in modern times.^[50] During the 17th century, indigenous peoples were commonly labeled "uncivilized". Whilst there was a swell in bringing back creative elements of classical antiquity in artistic pursuits, there was also the not so creative side of regurgitating xenophobic ideas from that period. Some philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes considered indigenous people to be merely 'savages', while others are purported to have considered them to be "noble savages". Those who were close to the Hobbesian view tended to believe themselves to have a duty to civilize and modernize indigenes. Although anthropologists, especially from Europe, used to apply these terms to all tribal cultures, it has fallen into disfavor as demeaning and, according to anthropologists, inaccurate (see tribe, cultural evolution). Survival International runs a campaign to stamp out media portrayal of indigenous peoples as 'primitive' or 'savages'.^[51] Friends of Peoples Close to Nature considers not only that indigenous culture should be respected as not being inferior, but also sees their way of life as a lesson of sustainability and a part of the struggle within the "corrupted" western world, from which the threat stems.^[52]

After World War I, however, many Europeans came to doubt the value of civilization. At the same time, the anti-colonial movement, and advocates of indigenous peoples, argued that words such as "civilized" and "savage" were products and tools of colonialism, and argued that colonialism itself was savagely destructive. In the mid 20th century, European attitudes began to shift to the view that indigenous and tribal peoples should have the right to decide for themselves what should happen to their ancient cultures and ancestral lands.

See also[link]

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Portal:Aboriginals

Look up indigenous in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Indigenous people

• Awareness raising film by Rebecca Sommer for the Secretariat of the UNPFII

Institutions[link]

• UNEP Indigenous People's Website
• IFAD and indigenous peoples (International Fund for Agricultural Development, IFAD)
• IPS Inter Press Service News on indigenous peoples from around the world

• Indigenous Peoples Issues & Resources

v t e Indigenous rights Rights Conflict resolution Cultural diversity Cultural heritage Freedom from forced assimilation Freedom from forced removal Freedom from racial discrimination Freedom of religion Gender equality Human rights Indigenous intellectual property Indigenous language Land rights Land-use planning Right to determine indigeneity Self-determination Traditional knowledge Governmental organizations Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Arctic Council Bureau of Indian Affairs Council of Indigenous Peoples Fundação Nacional do Índio National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (Philippines) United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Non-governmental and political organizations Amazon Watch Assembly of First Nations Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin Cultural Survival Friends of Peoples Close to Nature Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs National Indigenous Organization of Colombia Native American Rights Fund Survival International Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization Zapatista Army of National Liberation (more ...) Issues Bantustan / Indian reservation / Indian reserve / Ranchería Civilizing mission Colonialism Cultural genocide Manifest destiny Postdevelopment theory Settler colonialism Legal representation Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 Historical cases 2009 Peruvian political crisis Chiapas conflict Depopulation of Diego Garcia High Arctic relocation Indian removal Mapuche conflict Oka Crisis Rubber boom San controversy Stolen Generations Category

The commission's seal

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up on November 27, 2002, "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks", including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks.

The commission was also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

Chaired by former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, the commission consisted of five Democrats and five Republicans. The commission was created by Congressional legislation, with the bill signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The commission's final report was lengthy and based on extensive interviews and testimony. Its primary conclusion was that the failures of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation permitted the terrorist attacks to occur and that had these agencies acted more wisely and more aggressively, the attacks could potentially have been prevented.

After the publication of its final report, the commission closed on August 21, 2004.^[1]

History[link]

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was established on November 27, 2002, by President George W. Bush and the United States Congress, with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger initially appointed to head the commission.^[2] However, Kissinger resigned only weeks after being appointed, because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business.^[3] Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell was originally appointed as the vice-chairman, but he stepped down on December 10, 2002, not wanting to sever ties to his law firm.^[4] On December 15, 2002, Bush appointed former New Jersey governor Tom Kean to head the commission.^[5]

By the spring of 2003, the commission was off to a slow start, needing additional funding to help it meet its target day for the final report, of May 27, 2004.^[6] In late March, the Bush administration agreed to provide an additional $9 million for the commission, though this was $2 million short of what the commission requested.^[7] The first hearings were held from March 31 to April 1, 2003, in New York City.^[8]

Members[link]

9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean

• Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
• Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
• Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
• Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that "the White House has played cover-up"^[9]

• Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
• Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
• Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
• Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska. Replaced Max Cleland as a Democratic Commissioner, after Cleland's resignation.
• John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
• Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
• James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois

The members of the commission's staff included:

• Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair
• Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director
• Daniel Marcus, General Counsel
• John J. Farmer, Senior Counsel
• Janice Kephart, Counsel
• Alvin S. Felzenberg, Spokesman^[10]

Officials called to testify[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Then government officials who were called to testify before the commission included:

• George W. Bush - President; testimony not under oath. The session was not officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" in which highly classified information would be discussed. Asked to limit the length of testimony to one hour (However, the meeting lasted for three hours and ten minutes). Testimony took place in the Oval Office. Initially, Bush insisted that he testify only to the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the commission, but later agreed to testify before the full panel.^[11]
• Dick Cheney - Vice President; testimony not under oath. The session was not officially transcribed because the White House considered it a "private meeting" in which highly classified information would be discussed. Testimony took place in the Oval Office. ^[11]
• George John Tenet - Director of Central Intelligence Agency
• Colin Powell - Secretary of State
• Donald H. Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
• Condoleezza Rice - National Security Advisor
• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Tom Ridge - Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania
• John Ashcroft - Attorney General

Past government officials who were called to testify before the commission included:

• Bill Clinton - former President; testified in private separately from Al Gore. Testimony was recorded and not limited in time.^[11]
• Al Gore - former Vice President; testified in private separately from Bill Clinton. Testimony was recorded and not limited in time.^[11]
• Madeleine Albright - former Secretary of State
• William Cohen - former Secretary of Defense
• Sandy Berger - former National Security Advisor
• Richard A. Clarke - former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council in the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations
• Janet Reno - former Attorney General
• Sibel Edmonds-former FBI translator ^[12]

President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together and not under oath, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately. As National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice claimed that she was not required to testify under oath because the position of NSA is an advisory role, independent of authority over a bureaucracy and does not require confirmation by the Senate. Legal scholars disagree on the legitimacy of her claim. Eventually, Condoleezza Rice testified publicly and under oath.^[13]

Report[link]

The cover of the final 9/11 report, which can be purchased in bookstores across the United States and around the world

The commission issued its final report on July 22, 2004. After releasing the report, Commission Chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had been "not well served" by the FBI and CIA.^[14] The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened^{[by whom?]} for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.

Additionally, the commission has released several supplemental reports on the terrorists' financing, travel, and other matters.

Criticism[link]

The commission was criticized for alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff (e.g., Philip D. Zelikow, 9/11 Commission Executive Director/Chair in 1995 co-authored book with Condoleezza Rice^[15]).^[16] Further, the commission's report has been the subject of criticism by both commissioners themselves and by others.^[17][18]

The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism^{[by whom?]} that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some^[who?] critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod^[vague] to consensus politics.

Commission recommendations[link]

Parenthetic numbers refer to page numbers in the Commission Report

1. The U.S. government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. (367)
2. United States should support Pakistan’s government in its struggle against extremists with a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education, so long as Pakistan’s leaders remain willing to make difficult choices of their own. (369)
3. United States and the international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure and stable Afghanistan, in order to give the government a reasonable opportunity to improve the life of the Afghan people. Afghanistan must not again become a sanctuary for international crime and terrorism. The United States and the international community should help the Afghan government extend its authority over the country, with a strategy and nation-by-nation commitments to achieve their objectives. (370)
4. The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly. The United States and Saudi Arabia must determine if they can build a relationship that political leaders on both sides are prepared to publicly defend—a relationship about more than oil. It should include a shared commitment to political and economic reform, as Saudis make common cause with the outside world. It should include a shared interest in greater tolerance and cultural respect, translating into a commitment to fight the violent extremists who foment hatred. (374)
5. The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity. (376)
6. Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not respect these principles, the United States must stand for a better future. One of the lessons of the long Cold War was that short-term gains in cooperating with the most repressive and brutal governments were too often outweighed by long-term setbacks for America’s stature and interests. (376)
7. We need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. America does stand up for its values. The United States defended, and still defends, Muslims against tyrants and criminals in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
   • Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them.
   • The United States should rebuild the scholarship, exchange, and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope. Where such assistance is provided, it should be identified as coming from the citizens of the United States. (377)
8. The U.S. government should offer to join with other nations in generously supporting a new International Youth Opportunity Fund. Funds will be spent directly for building and operating primary and secondary schools in those Muslim states that commit to sensibly investing their own money in public education. (378)
9. A comprehensive U.S. strategy to counter terror-ism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children’s future. (379)
10. The United States should engage other nations in developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terror-ism. (379)
11. The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. (380)
12. Pre-venting the proliferation of [weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort—by strengthening counterproliferation efforts, expanding the Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. (381)
13. Vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The government has recognized that information about terrorist money helps us to understand their networks, search them out, and disrupt their operations. Intelligence and law enforcement have targeted the relatively small number of financial facilitators—individuals al Qaeda relied on for their ability to raise and deliver money—at the core of al Qaeda’s revenue stream. (382)
14. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility. (385)
15. The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points that includes our transportation system and access to vital facilities, such as nuclear reactors. The President should direct the Department of Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems and setting common standards with systemwide goals in mind. (387)
16. The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by the Congress, should complete, as quickly as possible, a biometric entry-exit screening system, including a single system for speeding qualified travelers. It should be integrated with the system that provides benefits to foreigners seeking to stay in the United States. (389)
17. We should do more to exchange terrorist information with trusted allies, and raise U.S. and global border security standards for travel and border crossing over the medium and long term through extensive inter-national cooperation. (390)
18. Secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as drivers licenses. (390)
19. The U.S. government should identify and evaluate the transportation assets that need to be protected, set risk-based priorities for defending them, select the most practical and cost-effective ways of doing so, and then develop a plan, budget, and funding to implement the effort. The plan should assign roles and missions to the relevant authorities (federal, state, regional, and local) and to private stakeholders. In measuring effectiveness, perfection is unattainable. But terrorists should perceive that potential targets are defended. They may be deterred by a significant chance of failure. (391)
20. Improved use of “no-fly” and “automatic selectee” lists should not be delayed while the argument about a successor to CAPPS continues. (393)
21. The TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. (393)
22. As the President determines the guidelines for information sharing among government agencies and by those agencies with the private sector, he should safeguard the privacy of individuals about whom information is shared. (394)
23. The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use. (394-5)
24. There should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties. (395)
25. Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York City are certainly at the top of any such list. We understand the contention that every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel. (396)
26. Emergency response agencies nationwide should adopt the Incident Command System (ICS). When multiple agencies or multiple jurisdictions are involved, they should adopt a unified command. (397)
27. Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes. (397)
28. We endorse the American National Standards Institute’s recommended standard for private preparedness…. We also encourage the insurance and credit-rating industries to look closely at a company’s compliance with the ANSI standard in assessing its insurability and creditworthiness. We believe that compliance with the standard should define the standard of care owed by a company to its employees and the public for legal purposes. (398)
29. We recommend the establishment of a National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), built on the foundation of the existing Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC). Breaking the older mold of national government organization, this NCTC should be a center for joint operational planning and joint intelligence, staffed by personnel from the various agencies. (403)
30. The current position of Director of Central Intelligence should be replaced by a National Intelligence Director with two main areas of responsibility: (1) to oversee national intelligence centers on specific subjects of interest across the U.S. government and (2) to manage the national intelligence program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it. (411)
31. The CIA Director should emphasize (a) rebuilding the CIA’s analytic capabilities; (b) transforming the clandestine service by building its human intelligence capabilities; (c) developing a stronger language program, with high standards and sufficient financial incentives; (d) renewing emphasis on recruiting diversity among operations officers so they can blend more easily in foreign cities;(e) ensuring a seamless relationship between human source collection and signals collection at the operational level; and (f) stressing a better balance between unilateral and liaison operations. (415)
32. Lead responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert, should shift to the Defense Department. There it should be consolidated with the capabilities for training, direction, and execution of such operations already being developed in the Special Operations Command. (415)
33. Overall amounts of money being appropriated for national intelligence and to its component agencies should no longer be kept secret. Congress should pass a separate appropriations act for intelligence, defending the broad allocation of how these tens of billions of dollars have been assigned among the varieties of intelligence work. (416)
34. Information procedures should provide incentives for sharing, to restore a better balance between security and shared knowledge. (417)
35. The president should lead the government-wide effort to bring the major national security institutions into the information revolution. (418)
36. Congress should address [the dysfunction system of intelligence oversight].We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress. (420)
37. Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. Congressional leaders are best able to judge what committee should have jurisdiction over this department and its duties. But we believe that Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate, and that this committee should be a permanent standing committee with a nonpartisan staff. (421)
38. We should minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments. (422)
39. A specialized and integrated national security workforce should be established at the FBI consisting of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists who are recruited, trained, rewarded, and retained to ensure the development of an institutional culture imbued with a deep expertise in intelligence and national security. (425-6)
40. The Department of Defense and its oversight committees should regularly assess the adequacy of Northern Command’s strategies and planning to defend the United States against military threats to the homeland. (428)
41. The Department of Homeland Security and its oversight committees should regularly assess the types of threats the country faces to determine (a) the adequacy of the government’s plans—and the progress against those plans—to protect America’s critical infrastructure and (b) the readiness of the government to respond to the threats that the United States might face. (428)

Work of commissioners after the commission ceased its functions[link]

Months after the commission had officially issued its report and ceased its functions, Chairman Kean and other commissioners toured the country to draw attention to the recommendations of the commission for reducing the terror risk, claiming that some of their recommendations were being ignored. Co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote a book about the constraints they faced as commissioners titled Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.

The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission. In the book, Kean and Hamilton charge that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and write that the commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials.^[19]

Government deception[link]

Tenet testified before a public hearing of the Sept. 11 Commission investigating 9/11, that he did not meet with Bush in August 2001, the month before the September 11 attacks. The same evening after the hearings, a CIA spokesman corrected Tenet’s testimony, stating that Tenet did indeed meet with Bush twice in August.^[20] Tenet in his memoir writes of his memorable visit to Bush at Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, August 2001.^[21]

John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."^[22] Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."^[23]

See also[link]

• 9/11 Commission Report
• September 11, 2001 radio communications
• War games in progress on September 11, 2001

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, by Thomas H Kean and Lee H. Hamilton (Random House, August 2006) ISBN 0-307-26377-0
• The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, by Philip Shenon (the Twelve - Jan. 2008), ISBN 978-0-446-58075-5
• The Next Ten Years of Post-9/11 Security Efforts, Q&A with 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gorton (July 2011)

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: 9/11 Commission

• Official website
• The Complete 9/11 Commission Report (7 MB PDF)
• Kindle-formatted version of the Complete 9/11 Commission Report
• 9/11 Commission staff biographies
• 9/11 Public Discourse Project (Set up by Commission members following completion of report)
• The 9-11 Commission: An Audio Chronicle - NPR
• Congressional Research Service, 9/11 Commission Recommendations: Implementation Status, Dec. 2006
• Stonewalled by the C.I.A. Op-Ed piece written by Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton in the January 2, 2008 edition of the New York Times
• 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable - from CBS
• The Shea Memorandum to the 9-11 Commission
• Photos of 9/11 Commission Public Hearings 7 to 12

v t e Members of the 9/11 Commission Kean (Chair) Hamilton (Vice chair) Ben-Veniste Fielding Gorelick Gorton Kerrey Lehman Roemer Thompson

This is a partial list of the world's indigenous / aboriginal / native peoples. Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group of peoples who are considered to fall under one of the internationally recognized definitions of Indigenous peoples, such as United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the World Bank.^[1] .