Save Rapanui Day of Protest Los Angeles

Thursday, Dec. 23rd, 2010
11am to 1:30pm
6100 Wilshire Blvd. #1240
LA, CA 90048
corner of Wilshire and Fairfax

http://saverapanui.org/?p=579

Vanuatu: Chiefs call on Forum leaders to protect custom land

Vanuatu's Malvatumauri (National Council of Chiefs) has called on Pacific leaders to protect custom land, endorsing a regional declaration on indigenous land tenure in Melanesia.

Vanuatu’s Malvatumauri (National Council of Chiefs) has called on Pacific leaders to protect custom land, endorsing a regional declaration on indigenous land tenure in Melanesia.

Chief Selwyn Garu, Secretary General of the Malvatumauri announced that the council of chiefs had unanimously endorsed the Mele Declaration on Land in Melanesia.

The declaration, prepared at a regional meeting last June, states: “We are opposed to any form of alienation of land from customary landowners, whether by outright sale or through leases which remove landowners’ capacity to effectively control, access and use their land.”

The declaration also calls for the overhaul of land administration in Melanesia and rejects “all policies which require that customary land be registered as a precondition for business or development activities.”

The Malvatumauri, a national body which unites chiefs from 20 island councils and two urban councils, is meeting in Port Vila this week.

Chief Selwyn Garu said: “The declaration was presented before the Council of Chiefs this morning. The members of the Council of Chiefs talked about it and in the end of the discussion we unanimously endorsed it.”

The Mele Declaration was prepared by the Melanesian Indigenous Land Defence Alliance (MILDA), a network of landowner, cultural and community groups concerned with land tenure and development across the Melanesian region.

MILDA was founded at a meeting in Madang, Papua New Guinea in 2009. Their second meeting at Mele village in Vanuatu last June brought together a range of organisations “to strategise a regional response to the persistent pressure for registration and leasing of customary land.”

The Mele Declaration was prepared at the June meeting, which brought together chiefs, church leaders, members of women’s and youth groups and other participants from Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Bougainville, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Australia.

Changing land use for tourism

In Melanesian nations like Vanuatu, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, over 90 per cent of land is held by customary land and resource owners.

For Selwyn Garu: “When we talk about land in Melanesia, you can’t separate land from custom. If you lose land, you lose custom. If you lose custom, you lose land.

“Custom defines the use of land, but custom cannot be practiced on alienated land – it can only be practiced on custom land,” he stated. “Land continues to be the main source of employment for the people in the villages. With land, we have all that we need.”

Vanuatu’s Constitution states that “All land in the republic of Vanuatu belongs to the indigenous custom owners and their descendants.” It also states that “only indigenous citizens of the republic of Vanuatu who have acquired their land in accordance with a recognised system of land tenure shall have perpetual ownership of their land.”

In spite of this, many land owners on Vanuatu’s main island of Efate have granted long-term leases to overseas investors for tourist projects and private strata title developments, which have effectively alienated much of the shoreline along the coast.

Landowners must compensate the leaseholder for improvements to the land if they wish to reclaim their land at the end of the lease. For this reason some villagers will find it difficult to reclaim leased land after decades of construction or improvement on land provided under long term leases.

Action by Forum leaders

The chiefs’ decision comes as government leaders from around the region have gathered in Vanuatu for the 41st Pacific Islands Forum.

After endorsement by the Malvatumauri on Wednesday morning, the declaration was launched at the Chiefs’ Nakamal in Port Vila by Chief Selwyn Garu, Joel Simo of MILDA and Ralph Regenvanu, the Member of Parliament for Port Vila.

Regenvanu, one of the co-founders of MILDA, called on Forum leaders to protect land rights as the basis of the Melanesian economy: “We would like this Declaration to inform what the Forum is doing and the decisions that they’ll take in the next few days. We are urging our leaders of government, we are urging international financial institutions (including donor countries) but especially our own leaders to move away from policies that talk about land registration as a prerequisite for gaining credit.”

Regenvanu added: “Over the last couple of years, we’ve managed to get the concept of the ‘traditional economy’ on to the agenda in Vanuatu, in the Melanesian Spearhead Group and in the Forum. But we need to have our leaders seriously taking this concept, this reality on board - the traditional economy continues to be the main source of sustenance for people in much of Melanesia.”

For Chief Selwyn Garu: “I’d like to say that land is a living thing. It gives life. It empowers life and you can’t reduce the value of land the way it is being done nowadays in many parts of Melanesia.”

A Nuclear Free Pacific Niuklia Fri Pasifik

Fight for Mother Earth

E mau Ke Ea March 2010- Indigenous Peoples in Copenhagen- Part 3 from Malia N on Vimeo.

The March 2010 E Mau Ke Ea show is the third and final show that features footage from the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark. Malia Nobrega attended and filmed the a few shots at the Global Day of Action as well as a meeting the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change had with President Evo Morales from Bolivia.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MOTHER EARTH

[draft February 2010]

Preamble

We, the peoples of Earth:

gratefully acknowledging that Mother Earth gives us life, nourishes and teaches us and provides us with all that we need to live well;

recognizing that Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth;acknowledging that by attempting to dominate and exploit Mother Earth and other beings, humans have caused severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother Earth which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings; conscious that this destruction is also harmful to our inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred;

acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent humans causing climate change and other impacts on Mother Earth that threaten the wellbeing and survival of humans and other beings;

accepting our responsibility to one another, future generations and Mother Earth to heal the damage caused by humans and to pass on to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the flourishing of Mother Earth;

convinced that in order for communities of humans and other beings to flourish we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her;

convinced that the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law;

proclaim this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth to complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to serve as a common standard by which the conduct of all human beings, organizations, and cultures can be guided and assessed; and

pledge ourselves to cooperate with other human communities, public and private organizations, governments, and the United Nations, to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties enshrined in this Declaration, among all the peoples, cultures and states of Earth.

Article 1. Fundamental rights, freedoms and duties

(1) Mother Earth is an indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings each of whom is defined by its relationships within this community and with the Universe as a whole. Fundamental aspects of these relationships are expressed in this Declaration as inalienable rights, freedoms and duties.

(2) These fundamental rights, freedoms and duties arise from the same source as existence and are inherent to all beings, consequently they are inalienable, cannot be abolished by law, and are not affected by the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory within which a being exists.

(3) All beings are entitled to all the fundamental rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as may be made between organic, living beings and inorganic, non-living beings, or on the basis of sentience, kind, species, use to humans, or other status.

(4) Just as human beings have human rights, other beings may also have additional rights, freedoms and duties that are specific to their species or kind and appropriate for their role and function within the communities within which they exist.

(5) The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity, balance and health of the communities within which it exists.

Article 2. Fundamental rights of Mother Earth

Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all beings.

Article 3. Fundamental rights and freedoms of all beings

Every being has:
(a) the right to exist;
(b) the right to habitat or a place to be;
(c) the right to participate in accordance with its nature in the ever-renewing processes of Mother Earth;
(d) the right to maintain its identity and integrity as a distinct, self-regulating being;
(e) the right to be free from pollution, genetic contamination and human modifications of its structure or functioning that threaten its integrity or healthy functioning; and
(f) the freedom to relate to other beings and to participate in communities of beings in accordance with its nature.

Article 4. Freedom of animals from torture and cruelty

Every animal has the right to live free from torture, cruel treatment or punishment by human beings.
Article 5. Freedom of animals from confinement and removal from habitat

(1) No human being has the right to confine another animal or to remove it from its habitat unless doing so is justifiable with reference to the respective rights, duties and freedoms of both the human and other animal concerned.

(2) Any human being that confines or keeps another animal must ensure that it is free to express normal patterns of behavior, has adequate nourishment and is protected from injury, disease, suffering and unreasonable fear, pain, distress or discomfort.

Article 6. Fundamental duties of human beings

Human beings have a special responsibility to avoid acting in violation of this Declaration and must urgently establish values, cultures, and legal, political, economic and social systems consistent with this Declaration that:
(a) promote the full recognition, application and enforcement of the freedoms, rights and duties set out in this Declaration;
(b) ensure that the pursuit of human wellbeing contributes to the wellbeing of Mother Earth, now and in the future;
(c) prevent humans from causing harmful disruptions of vital ecological cycles, processes and balances, and from compromising the genetic viability and continued survival of other species;
(d) ensure that the damage caused by human violations of the freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration is rectified where possible and that those responsible are held accountable for restoring the integrity and healthy functioning of affected communities; and
(e) enable people to defend the rights of Mother Earth and of all beings.

Article 7. Protection of the law

Every being has –
(a) the right to be recognised everywhere as a subject before the law;
(b) the right to the protection of the law and to an effective remedy in respect of human violations or attacks on the rights and freedoms recognized in this Declaration;
(c) the right to equal protection of the law; and
(d) the right to equal protection against any discrimination by humans in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8. Human education

(1) Every human being has the right to be educated about Mother Earth and how to live in accordance with this Declaration.

(2) Human education must develop the full potential of human beings in a way that promotes a love of Mother Earth, compassion, understanding, tolerance and affection among all humans and between humans and other beings, and the observance of the fundamental freedoms, rights and duties in this Declaration.

Article 9. Interpretation

(1) The term “being” refers to natural beings which exist as part of Mother Earth and includes a community of other beings and all human beings regardless of whether or not they act as a corporate body, state or other legal person.

(2) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms in it.

(3) Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as restricting the recognition of other fundamental rights, freedoms or duties of all or specified beings.

Republished from PWCCC website

Guam military build up

15 January 2010

Chamorro Self-Determination

(Marianas Variety)
By Ben Pangelinan
Over 3,600 years before the lost European Ferdinand Magellan ascended into our small island chain, 3,830 years before my grandmother was born and 3,887 years ago before I was born —the Chamorro people sailed the oceans and lived on this land they called Guahan.

While we may assume that all was well, there was turmoil and fights among the natives, as territories were established, villages were staked out and boundaries were defended. Then in 1668 they came to settle, bringing their own social and religious systems, work, faith and institutions to make our heathen lives civilized and whole.

Some of the natives succumbed and converted. Maga lahis Hineti, Ayihi, So’on and Odo fought on the sides of the occupiers and were rewarded with title and status. Hurao, Ahgao, Hula, Chaifi, Mata’pang and Tolahi and many others resisted and fought these outsiders. They resisted and waged fierce battles to preserve our land, sea, and the fruits and bounties that were ours.

They believed it was more important to live as we knew how and to serve our wants and needs as we saw fit. (I Manmanaina-ta: I Manmaga’lahi yan I manma’gas; Geran Chamoru yan Espanot 1668-1695. Ed Benavente 2007).

The resistance lasted for over 27 years and resulted in bloodshed. From the very beginning, the people strongly resisted and would not abandon their ancient customs or bow to the authority of the Spaniards. Governor de la Corta wrote in his Memoria “one does not know which to admire most, whether the tenacity of the Spaniards in conflicts with the elements against a cunning and treacherous people during no less than 20 years of resistance, or that of the natives pursuing such a cruel and prolonged war which could only end in their annihilation and ruin.”

The truth of these words, “annihilation and ruin” is reflected in the “reduccion” which sought to convert the natives. Beginning in 1668, marked by the killing of Pale Diego de San Vitores in 1672 and ending in 1698, it saw the reduction of the Chamorro people from the estimated 60,000 to 100,000 at the time of discovery to just 3,678, according to the 1710 census, a mere 12 years after the end of the war. (The Marianas Islands 1884-1887 Random Notes. Francisco Olice y Garcia. Translated and Annotated by Marjorie G. Driver. Second Edition 2006).

Insight to the determination of the Chamorros to defy the occupiers in the face of certain annihilation and ruin is most clearly articulated by Chief Hurao:

“The Europeans would have done better to remain in their own country. We have no need of their help to live happily. They take away from us the primitive simplicity in which we live. They dare to take away our liberty, which should be dearer to us than life itself. They try to persuade us that we will be happier, and some of us had been blinded into believing their words. But can we have such sentiments if we reflect that we have been covered with misery and illness ever since those foreigners have come to disturb our peace? For what purpose do they teach us except to make us adopt their customs, to subject us to their laws, and lose the precious liberty left to us by our ancestors?

We are stronger than we think! We can quickly free ourselves from these foreigners! We must regain our former freedom.” (Speech by Chief Hurao. Dated: 1671).

But heart and determination was not enough to overcome the resources and the advance weapons of the occupiers. For the next 200 plus years, the people lived under the control and domination of this outside metropolitan government. Then in 1898, as part of the spoils of the Spanish-American War, a new domination was begun. This time it was under the United States of America. While the Spanish used force, faith and bullets to impose their will, this new power was more beguiling using seduction and law to get their way.

An interesting fact of the event of this war, which placed Guam under the United States, was that it was declared after the passage of the Tellar amendment to ensure that the United States would not establish permanent control over Cuba following the cessation of hostilities with Spain. The amended resolution demanded the Spanish withdrawal and authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain independence from Spain. Of the four territories taken by the United States because of the war, Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under the administrative control of the United States.

While the new occupier had a different approach towards the natives, they had one thing in common with the old—they imposed a government upon us, not of our own choosing. 1898 did not only bring a new occupying government over the people of Guam, it also brought a new occupant to Guam and that was my grandmother who was born on this island.

For the next four decades, the United States wielded its authority over the people, making decisions, which suited their needs and determined for us, the natives, what our needs were. Once again, the native leaders rose up to regain our rights, as a people in our own land..

Using reason and law, the weapons of the new occupiers, instead of sword and violence of the old, our leaders fought for our rights to govern ourselves and determine for ourselves what is best for our people. Once again, the occupier’s resources overwhelmed the meager resources of our people. We petitioned the Congress and even walked out of an institution they said gave us democracy and self-government when it was obvious they only did it to appease us. They continued to deny our right to self-determination and to our sisters in waiting—Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines.

Once again, war came and the geopolitical events affecting independent states brought us a short era of foreign domination and occupation of a new power as Japan invaded Guam. Again, our people resisted and fought, while the United States left the Chamorros behind to deal with the invading enemy. The need for a base of operations to defeat the Japanese saw the return of the Americans, as she reclaimed her lost territory to serve as the launching point to end the war. As part of the structure of the new world order, the states of the world organized as a Union Nations dedicated to resolving future disputes in a peaceful manner and recognized the need to respect and honor the rights of those peoples liberated from domination and war.

The signatory states of the United Nations Charter freely agreed to obligate themselves and accept responsibility for the “administration of territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount … and to this end they would seek to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its people and their varying stages of advancement.” (Chapter X1, Article 73 (b). United Nations Charter).

At the signing of the United Nations Charter, nearly 100 nations were voluntarily placed on the list of non-self governing territories by the signatory states which held these places before World War II and entrusted to them the administration of the affairs to be governed according to the Charter. The United States as part of this event, accepted the obligation over Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Micronesia).

Since the establishment of the list, over 80 of the territories from the original list of non-self governing territories have been herded by their administrative authority through the process of self-determination, attaining the free expression of the people, their ultimate desire. Despite this progress, by 1960 the General Assembly believed that the pace of decolonization of the non-self governing territories, which still included Guam was too slow and adopted two landmark resolutions.
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples marked the shift from the “principle of self determination for these territories” to “all peoples have the right to self-determination.” It further states that, “All people have the right to self-determination by virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (Resolution 1514(XV).

A component of that Declaration of Colonial People, Resolution 1514 set forth three ways in which these territories can attain a full measure of self-determination as envisioned in the Charter.The first option is Free association with an independent State as a result of the voluntarily choice expressed through an informed and democratic process. The second option is through Integration with an independent State based on complete equality between the peoples of the non-self governing territory and the independent State. And the third option was Independence. Whatever the option chosen by the people of the non-self governing territory, it must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of these peoples.

As of today, there remain 16 non-self governing territories from the original list of close to 100 who have yet to exercise self-determination and freely express their choice. Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, all administrated by the United States are part of the last remaining 16. There have been attempts by administrating authorities to redefine not only the process of self-determination and decolonization, but the status of self government as well. Decolonization is what happens when one exercises self-determination. It is direct democracy and affirmative action freely expressed by the people themselves, clearly a right inherent in the people of Guam and clearly remains unexercised to this date.

With the signing of the Treaty of Paris on April 11, 1899 between Spain and the United States, Guam’s status as a territory under the sovereignty of the United States was cemented in law with the ratification of the treaty. While we may not accept it, Guam and its people became the property of the United States and the governing of the people of Guam and their rights fell to the Congress. Article IX of the Treaty of Paris declared, “The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants… shall be determined by the Congress.”

The subsequent placement of Guam on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories by the United States effectively transferred the purview and process of determining the civil rights and political status for the people of Guam to the United Nations. The ratification and the acceptance of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions by the United States now governs the processes for granting the rights of the people of Guam to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, in my opinion, confers upon the people of Guam the rights contained in the applicable United Nations process.

The petition for citizenship and the subsequent granting of such citizenship by the Organic Act is consistent with the responsibility of the United States as the administrating authority over Guam to “provide progressive development of their free political institutions” in no way can be defended as the free expression of the people of Guam. Acceptance of such incremental development and the improvement in such status is not the free exercise of choosing such status and most certainly not the will of the people. It is still a will imposed upon the people—no matter how generous, no matter how benevolent, no matter how good the administrating authority is. The true test of their goodness is when we decide on our own what we want for ourselves and they support it. Unfortunately, they have not been good.

When we talk about self-determination, one of the key elements of this exercise is the free and educated expression of the people’s right in determining their political status for themselves. As the administrating authority, it is the responsibility of the United States to fund the education process, so that the status option, whichever one is selected is not the status offered by those who have the most money to present their case.

An educated choice is the essential element in the exercise of self-determination and the people must be educated on the promise and the reality of each option to ensure a free choice.

Who are the people vested with the right of self-determination? It is clear that these people are the native inhabitants of a territory who are living under a political status or part of a political relationship with another state without their free expression to do so. These are the people to which the United Nations Charter speaks to as the colonial peoples of the non-self governing territories. Beginning with the Guam Legislature’s empanelling of the Political Status Commission in 1973, the struggle by the people of Guam to exercise their right to self-determination as recognized under the international law was initiated. A special Commission on the Political Status of Guam followed leading to Guam’s first political status plebiscite in 1976. The plebiscite was open to all the voters of Guam with a majority selecting the option of improved status quo.

In 1977, the federally sanctioned Constitutional Convention resulted in the draft of a constitution that was approved by the Congress but ultimately rejected by the people of Guam. The constitution was still subject to a status imposed upon the people, not of their own choosing. With a new Commission on Self-Determination in 1980, another status plebiscite, opened to all registered voters was approved. The plebiscite was held in 1982 with seven available status options. When none received a majority, a run off was held with the choice of commonwealth status eclipsing statehood by a three to one margin. For the next fifteen years, Congress and the President deferred any concrete action to approve the Guam Commonwealth Act.

The Commonwealth Act provided for Chamorro self-determination, mutual consent and immigration control, agreed to by the United States in the Covenant with the Northern Marianas. In 1997 during a congressional hearing before the House Resources Committee, it became clear that federal officials would not support these provisions in Guam’s Commonwealth Act.

With the continued inaction by the United States, the people of Guam and the leaders of Guam turn to the international basis of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination as embodied by the acceptance of the United States of the United Nations Charters and Resolutions which clearly outline the process for the decolonization of a people who remain under the list of non-self governing territories. This foray into accepting a constitution, drafting a constitution, voting on a constitution without the freely expressed wishes of the people as to the political status upon which this constitution will be used to govern, is what is missing.

From that failure, the direction has changed. It is now the policy of the people of Guam to seek first the expression of our right to self-determination through the freely exercised vote on a plebiscite for the statuses available to us under the United Nations articles and resolutions. No granting of any amount of internal self-governance without the people of Guam first freely voting on the political status that frames such self-governance can be interpreted as an expression and the fulfillment of the right of the people of Guam to self-determination.

We look forward to this continued effort, this continued quest of the people of Guam – the colonized people of Guam to exercise and make their fully educated choice on the options presented to us under the UN Charter and UN Resolution to fulfill the right of self-determination inherent in a people subjugated and dominated by administrating powers over the last four hundred years.

http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?cat=56

Learning From Hawaii

Kisha Borja Quichocho responds at the Mangilao public hearing. She addresses those who believe that Guam may become like Hawaii. She explains that the development that has taken place in Hawaii did not benefit Hawaiians. She warns that Chamorros and Guamanians, if they do not speak up, will have a similar fate. She warns that development will help an elite portion of the local community and outside developers or contractors. 

thanks to voiceofguam

Guam says "No Deal!" to the U.S. Military Buildup

Melvin Won Pat-Borja, representing the community organization "We Are Guahan" presents his official testimony against the U.S. Military's plans to transfer thousands of marines from Okinawa to Guam. The Department of Defense has published a draft of the Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) detailing their plans. The DEIS is about 11,000 pages long, and the public only has until February 17, 2010 to submit comments on the document.

"We Are Guahan" is a group of community members dedicated to reading and disseminating information in the DEIS to the public, including details of the devastating effects of the military buildup on the island's culture, water sources, coral reefs and marine habitats, family lands, historical and archeological sites, and social environment. Furthermore, despite common belief that the buildup will benefit Guam's economy, the DEIS reveals that majority of new jobs and contracts will be given to off-island workers and companies.

Most importantly, the U.S. military's decision is a blatant violation of human rights for Guam's residents, who have not been allowed to participate in any aspect of the buildup plans. "We Are Guahan" encourages everyone, in and outside of Guam, to stay informed about the military buildup! Read the EIS and make your voice heard! You can submit comments online, by mail, or in person at public hearings.

For more information, please visit www.WeAreGuahan.com

There once was an Island

Environmental refugees in the Pacific:

One of the first films to record a community evacuating their home because of climate change

Nuku Alofa declaration*

Nuku Alofa declaration*

From 29 to 31 July 2009, over 15 participants from 8 different countries in the Pacific/Oceania region, from Indigenous peoples, civil society and governments, gathered in Tonga to discuss global issues that severely impact our region on a daily basis: climate change, forest protection, and the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities.

Preamble

We [Indigenous peoples of the Pacific] are deeply alarmed by the accelerating climate devastation brought about by unsustainable development, and we are experiencing profound and disproportionate adverse impacts on our Pacific cultures, human and environmental health, human rights, wellbeing, traditional livelihoods, food systems and food sovereignty, local infrastructure, economic viability and our very survival as Indigenous peoples.

Consumer nations must adequately address the issue of ecological debt to the global south and not shift liability for their own unsustainable production and consumption to those nations not responsible for the high level of climate emissions.

We remind the parties that Indigenous peoples are on the front line of climate change, whether they are from “developed” nations or not, and do not automatically have access to the benefits of a developed economy.

Call for Action

We are concerned that in its current form REDD is misleading and is a false solution to climate change, erodes Indigenous land rights and fails to account for the long term and ongoing conservation and land management of forested areas by Indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities.

We call for all nations in the Pacific to sign on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

We call for any agreement on forests to fully and explicitly uphold the rights under UNDRIP, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

All rights under UNDRIP must be included in the CBD and UNFCCC, and the customary and territorial land rights of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities must be recognised and enforced by any international agreement on forest policy.

We call for the suspension of all REDD initiatives in Indigenous lands and territories until such a time as Indigenous peoples’ rights are fully recognised and promoted, and community consent has been obtained.

The linkage of REDD to markets risks allows Annex-1 countries to avoid responsibility for reducing emissions in their own countries and could even increase net carbon emissions. Carbon offsetting and the inclusion of REDD credits in carbon markets will do nothing to address the underlying causes of climate change, nor will carbon offsetting and market mechanisms provide the predictable and reliable funding required for addressing deforestation.

We demand that forests not be included in carbon trading schemes, and call on all governments to halt deforestation and keep fossil fuels in the ground; not trade one for the other. Forests need to be protected, but they must be protected by strengthening and enforcing forest legislation, not using market mechanisms.

We support the call for binding emissions reductions targets for Annex 1 countries of at least 45% below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 95% by 2050. Annex 1 countries must therefore deliver on their commitments to making real and effective emission reductions.

We call for real and genuine solutions to climate change, not false solutions like ocean fertilisation, REDD, biofuels and monocultures for plantations that erode and violate the rights of Indigenous peoples and forest-dependant communities, and destroy biodiversity.

Any definition of forests must strongly differentiate between plantations and natural forests to incorporate fundamental Indigenous understandings of forests and account for the vast differences in carbon storage capacity.

We call for accurate carbon accounting on forests, and for ANY funding for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation, and appropriate technology transfer to be prioritised for community-based forest management schemes, managed through strengthened mechanisms within the UNFCCC. Donor nations should not fund international financial institutions like the World Bank to implement projects that support flawed solutions to climate change.

---

* This is an edited version of the Declaration

See Also:

Pacific Comments on REDD

Special guest article from Fiu Mata’ese Elisara/Executive Director of OLSSI, Samoa

HOMMAGE KANAKY...

Haunani-Kay Trask at 'Iolani Palace on September 2, 2002

Aloha, my people, aloha.

I want to talk today about the causes, both historical and contemporary, for the situation that we, the native people of Hawai'i, now find ourselves in.

If we go back in time to contact with the syphilitic Captain Cook, what we realize is that the first thing that was a gift of Western civilization was disease. The second thing that was a gift of Western civilization was violence -- they tried to take our chief hostage, and as a result of that we killed him. That was called Justice. Death to the conqueror is justice, that's what it is.

In 1848 the missionaries -- the disease-laden racists -- that's a very good word. Racism. Racist. Race. Very very good words. These were racist people. They came here to colonize us because we didn't have the right gods. Who were they to say we didn't have the right gods? Who were they to say that? And what are their descendants doing today -- Mr. Freddy Rice, taking away our entitlements. That is the geneology of racism. They came with racism in their hearts, they lived here with racism in their hearts, and they are still racists today.

And Hawaiians, do not be afraid to name the enemy. The enemy is racism. Your own people can practice racism. Your own people can tell you, as they always tell me, "Don't be so angry!" Why not? Why not? Do we think Kamehameha was a peacemaker? Only when he defeated his enemies.

Don't let anybody tell you not to be angry. We have every right to be angry. We have every reason to be angry. And we ARE angry. And the reason that we're angry -- the reason we are angry -- is because this is OUR country, and they took our government and imprisoned our queen -- right here she was imprisoned in her palace. And they banned our language. And then they forcibly made us a state of the racist, colonialist United States of colonial America. Do you have a right to be angry? Of course you do. Of course you do!

Never, never forget your own history. We don't need to know what the haole is telling us. What we need to know is what really happened to our people. Who brought the disease? Who created private property? Who overthrew our queen? You won't find any Hawaiians there. There were FOREIGNERS who overthrew our queen. There were FOREIGNERS who made us a state. There were FOREIGNERS. And they are still FOREIGNERS today. Rice. Conklin. Burgess. They are FOREIGNERS. This is OUR country Hawaiians.

And you have to stand up and tell the truth. That is our job. That is what the great black American leader said. [chanting] "Tell the truth. Tell the truth." His name was Malcolm X. We must tell the truth. And that is the truth.

Foreigners came. They conquered. They took our lands. They imprisoned our queen. And THEY divided us by blood quantum. THEY did. Isn't it ironic that a HAOLE -- Freddy Rice -- Mr. missionary, whose illustrious ancestor overthrew Kalakaua and created the bayonet constitution that that racist man, who received so much of our land, now says that we are racists. IMPOSSIBLE! That is impossible!

You have to have power to be a racist. Number one. Do we have power? No. But Freddy Rice does. Ken Conklin does. Burgess does. They all have power. The power of white supremacy. The power of white courts. The power of a white country called the United States of white America.

I don't understand why Hawaiians aren't angry. I don't understand it. Every time somebody tells me I'm so angry at 5 ft. 4, 120 pounds my answer to them is "And why aren't you?" What is the matter with our people that they are not angry! It's not enough to pray to the kupuna, to pray to gods. It's not enough to participate in culture. Those things are important, but they are not important as politics.

Politics has to do with power. Who has it and who doesn't. Do WE have power? No! If we have power, what are we doing here? They took away the queen's land. They did. Who is "they?"

The city council. Hawaiians didn't have city council. That was created during after the overthrow, during the Territory. That's not OUR political form. Why do we have to be subjugated to them? Why do we have to be subjugated to the state? To the federal government? The racist Bush "bomb every dark person" federal government.

Why are WE, as native people, subjugated in our own land? Why are we made to be afraid? Because we are colonized. We live in a colony. The United States of America. All that military theft of our lands, our homelands, our ceded lands, all of that, all of that was done by the United States of America.

All you Hawaiians who think the United States is good think again. Take my class. Hawaiian Studies 390. Read the Blount Report. Read the report that shows what the haoles [white people] thought of us. They think the same thing today. That's where we get Rice and Conklin and Burgess. These are your ENEMIES Hawaiians, your ENEMIES. When Kamehameha was getting ready to go to war, he didn't sit there and think, "Oh gee I wonder if we should make nice. I wonder if I should go over to Kahekili and say hey, let's have a little pa'ina [party]." No.

When you gonna make war, you get your facts down and you make war. The opposition knows that. Aren't they making war against us? You bet they are. Who do you think is funding that war? The guy who owns the Advertiser that's who. Whose illustrious ancestor overthrew the queen, created the Mahele. Learn your history, and then you will know which side of history you belong on.

And you do not belong on the American side. You do not belong on the Hawai'i state side. You belong on the side of your people --lahui Hawai'i [racially defined Hawaiians] -- that's the side you belong on.

And if people are upset, so what? So what? I'm so tired of people telling me I make them feel bad. Good! Ten flights a day. United Airlines. Beat it!

If this is our country then we have to ACT like it is our country. I don't want to see people walking around at the University of Hawai'i walking like this [shuffling, downcast]. I never walk like that. And I'm only five feet four and a half inches. I never walk like that. If this is your country then BEHAVE like it's your country. You tell those racist haoles "You're a racist haole." That's the word we need to use. RACIST!

Racism. That is what is going on right here and right now in Hawai'i. The same thing that's going on against black Americans. The same thing that's going on by Bush. Bush wants to bomb Islamic countries. Why? Because he's a racist. Because Islamic people don't believe in Christianity. Because they have their own region of the world, called the Middle East. Who bombed us? Wasn't Hawaiians.

We need to think very, very clearly about who the enemy is. The enemy is the United States of America, and everybody who supports it. Rice. Conklin. Burgess.

You have to know which side of history you're on, and who is there with you. They are not there with you, Hawaiians. They want to take every single thing away from you.

And now, let us go to the city council. Where is the position on the city council? They want the land. The queen's land. Every time somebody says the queen was racist, I laugh. If she was a racist, why did she leave her entitlements to orphan Hawaiian children? Why did Bernice leave her moneys and lands to the Kamehameha Schools? Not because they were racists. But because they understood as ali'i their job was to care for their people -- for lahui Hawai'i. And right now, right now what we have is another foreign entity named the city council, filled with FOREIGNERS, named city council persons, who want to take away our land. When your children say to you, "Auntie, why are they doing that?" "Mom and Dad, why are they doing that?" Your answer is "Because they are racists. Because they want to take every last entitlement that Hawaiians have, and replace our own people with FOREIGNERS."

We have the largest diaspora in Hawai'i, which means people out-migrated. And who are those people? The native people of Hawai'i, that's who they are. The native people. This is what is affecting us today is RACISM. And we have to tell it like it is. As black people say, it's not [inaudible], it's racism. That's what it is. You are not a racist because you fight racism. You're a warrior, like I am. You are a warrior.

You name it. You name -- you name the enemy. You name the enemy so your people know who the enemy is. The enemy is anybody who takes anything from Hawaiian people. I don't care who they are. I don't care what their position is. That is your enemy. And we need Hawaiians to understand that.

We need to have an analysis of the current situation and understand that. And once we understand that we will not be afraid to speak the truth. Malcolm X used to always say "Speak the truth brother, speak the truth." What's wrong with the truth? It's the truth. That's why nobody wants us to speak the truth. And that's what we need to do. And that's what the purpose of this rally is today. To speak the truth.

And the truth is, that racists are taking everything away from Hawaiians, and they will not be content until Hawai'i has no Hawaiians left. That IS the truth. And I don't care what their names are. That is their intent. Ku'e! [resist] Ku'e! Ku'e! Mahalo nui. [thanks very much]

Tuvalu - Islands on the frontline of Climate Change

Tuvalu - Islands on the frontline of Climate Change from panos pictures on Vimeo.

With photography by Robin Hammond of Panos Pictures, this multimedia piece looks at the island nation of Tuvalu, as the Tuvaluan people become some of the first environmental refugees, a direct result of man-made climate change.



In December this year a treaty to replace the Kyoto protocol will be drawn up at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. At a preliminary summit in March, scientists presented new information that revised previous estimates of future sea level rise. The new figures suggest that by the end of the century the oceans could be one metre or more above their current levels. Coastal regions will be flooded and low-lying nations such as the tiny South Pacific country of Tuvalu could be submerged.



The impact of rising seas and the increase in extreme weather events can already be seen in Tuvalu. It is one of 22 Pacific island nations with 7 million inhabitants between them that contribute only 0.06% of global greenhouse gas emissions but are three times more vulnerable to climate change than countries in the North.



At the primary school in Funafuti, children are taught about climate change from the age of six. They are also learning what it means to emigrate, because this could be the last generation of children to grow up in Tuvalu. Its people are already in flight. More than 4,000 live in New Zealand, and the Tuvaluan government is planning the migration of the remaining 10,000.

See also: Pacific Islanders call for justice on climate and human rights

La Ho'iho'i Ea 7-26-09 JAMZ

Mahalo Nui
ponosize

Display the Hawaiian flag on February 24-25

image credit manainfo.com

On February 25, the Supreme Court will be hearing the "ceded"lands case. The State of Hawaii is arguing that Hawaiians have norights to those lands.

MANA (Movement for Aloha No ka Aina), is calling on all supportersof Kanaka Maoli rights and sovereignty to fly or display a Hawaiianflag on February 24 and 25, the eve and day of the Supreme Courthearing on the "ceded" lands case.

Fly your flag proudly! This will be a sign of our resistance to theState's attempt to dissolve our land rights, and a symbol of our unity.

Spread the message far and wide – fly our flag on February 24 and 25.

Download a flag here.

Mahalo to KINE/KCCN, Ka Wai Ola o OHA, Maoliworld, and others for helping to get the word out


http://manainfo.com/

An Uncertain Future

An uncertain future from Pacific Black Box Inc on Vimeo.

A documentary made by young people in Bougainville earlier this year (2008), at a forum organised by Pacific Black Box Inc in conjunction with local NGOs. Some of the youth involved were from the Cartaret Islands, whose land is sinking under the ocean and who are being relocated on mainland Bougainville. The project aimed to give a voice to these young people about their situation and climate change.For more information please visit PBB's website at :
pacificblackbox.com.au

West Papua Independence Day 2008

West Papua Independence Day 2008 A protest at the gates of Indonesian Consulate in Melbourne

Aussies committed to growing Pacific trade

Kao,  this is bucket loads of Australian Gubbament bullshit, continuing to drive neo-liberal and free trade agendas in the Pacific is madness check this out :

The resulting debt crisis provided the means by which the Bretton Woods Institutions could further entrench themselves as the implementation agents of the globalisation process. The US Government chose to empower the institutions to lend to the indebted countries that desperately needed capital in order to remain financially solvent; but in order for countries to access these loans, the countries were required to implement the so-called "Washington Consensus" policy prescriptions: trade liberalisation, privatisation of the public services, deregulation of economic management and economic austerity measures. In this way, the institutions were authorised to become the managers of a crisis that they had helped to create

http://newmatilda.com/2008/10/17/business-usual-world-bank-and-imf-bosses

Haere Atu, get off Aboriginal Land and get out the Pacific

21/10/2008

http://www.fijilive.com/news_new/index.php/news/show_news/9827

---

The Australian Government says it is committed to promote stability and trade growth with Pacific island countries.

Australia’s Trade Minister, Simon Crean, said the government was working closely with its Pacific neighbours to strengthen their capacities to trade everything in the region and beyond.

Crean, in a statement to the second Biennial Sir Alan Westerman lecture in Australia, said his government was doing this through its ongoing commitment to fund regional education and training initiatives, including the recently announced Pacific seasonal worker pilot scheme.

He said it was clear that sustainable economic development in the region could not be achieved through development assistance alone.

“Our experience – like that of most other nations – shows that full participation in world markets is a powerful driver of domestic economic growth,” Crean said.

“At this time of global financial turmoil, strengthening the international trading system is essential – and we therefore need to galvanize our efforts in order to conclude the WTO Doha Round.

“However, Australia fully understands that trade liberalisation on its own is not enough to drive economic development.

“Many developing countries have not been, and are not now, in a position to take full advantage of the potential benefits of trade. They include some of our Pacific neighbours.”

Crean said Australia believed the greater regional economic integration would provide significant gains for Pacific island economies.

He highlighted the recent Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Niue where leaders agreed they undertook to work towards starting negotiations on the regional economic arrangement known as ‘PACER Plus’ at the next Forum Leaders meeting in 2009.

“Australia wants to help the Pacific engage more deeply with the regional economy, but to do so in a way that helps them take full advantage of the opportunities of greater market access,” Crean said.

“We will work with our Pacific neighbours to strengthen their capacities to trade within the region and beyond. We are committed to funding regional education and training initiatives, including through the recently announced Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme.

“Australia values its close, collaborative relationship with the countries and communities of the Pacific. This is our region, and we are determined to see it prosper and grow.”

JETHRO TULIN @ UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues NY

Speech by Jethro Tulin, Executive Officer,in Akali Tange Association, Highlands of Papua Nuigini on the environmentally destructive impacts of Barrick Gold Porgera Gold Mine, the human rights abuses, and extra judical killings.

Free trade warning

By WESLEY MORGAN
Monday, October 20, 2008

+ Enlarge this image

Pacific civil society has deep concerns about new free trade deal with Europe.

Pacific Trade Ministers are meeting today in Nadi, Fiji, to discuss a free trade deal that will shape trading relations with the European Union for decades to come.

Trade ministers from across the region will be deciding on a way forward in negotiations for a new Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the EU.
Just last week Caribbean leaders meeting in Barbados signed their own EPA with the EU amid warnings the deal could undermine development in the region.
For the past ten months Caribbean leaders have dragged their feet on signing the EPA which has been the subject of great controversy in Caribbean media and parliaments.
Academics, trade unions and civil society have called for a renegotiation of the deal to make it more 'development friendly' and the President of Guyana said he would only sign the deal if he was forced.
At the moment, only Guyana and Haiti have yet to sign the Caribbean EPA.
Pacific trade ministers, meeting today and tomorrow to discuss the Pacific's own EPA with the EU, have formally told the Europeans they are not interested in negotiating a deal that reflects the Caribbean one.
In June, the Pacific's chief trade negotiator, Hans Joachim Keil, penned a letter to the (then) EU Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, explaining that the Pacific wants an EPA containing an optional deal on goods, but does not want to negotiate on services, investment and intellectual property rights at this time.
This appeared to have been accepted by the EU.
Such a deal would satisfy the World Trade Organisation, but the EU is now demanding more from the Pacific.
During meetings held in Brussels last month, the EU refused to discuss areas of interest to the Pacific such as providing strong infant industry protection in the EPA until the Pacific agreed to begin negotiations on services and investment.
Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation, said Pacific leaders can still avoid signing a "disastrous" deal like the EPA signed by the Caribbean.
She said it was important Pacific ministers took a sobering lesson from the Caribbean experience.
"The EPA signed last week is not about the sustainable development of small Caribbean developing countries," said Ms Penjueli.
"It contains virtually nothing for the Caribbean, but instead opens the Caribbean to European exports, businesses and service providers, and contains new rules on trade that have been rejected by developing countries at the WTO.
This deal is not a recipe for economic partnership, but a menu to serve European economic interests." Caribbean states tried to secure new access to the European market for Caribbean people to work in the EU as part of the "services" chapter in the agreement.
This was also an objective originally being sought by the Pacific, however, many in the Caribbean argue that the conditions the EU included in the Caribbean deal make it unworkable.
The Caribbean Cultural Industries Network has said that "on the face of what has been agreed Bob Marley and countless other top Caribbean artists would be 'ineligible' to work in Europe under the EPA" so restrictive are the conditions.
The Pacific has refused to negotiate on services because the EU has rejected Pacific proposals to allow more workers from the region into the EU.
But the Pacific Network on Globalisation argues that there are other reasons for the Pacific Trade Ministers to stand strong and seek a development deal.
"Negotiating a 'comprehensive EPA' such as the Caribbean's could lead to a range of problems," said Ms Penjueli.
"Such a deal would reduce Pacific countries' ability to regulate foreign investments in the public interest, could lead to an undermining of access to services (including essential services such as education and healthcare), and would restrict the ability to nurture Pacific businesses and industries.
"It would also impose a long list of expensive obligations on Pacific states."
Ms Penjueli said Pacific ACP trade ministers should defend the right to use a mixture of policy tools to promote development including the right to impose export taxes and nurture infant industries.
The EU had previously proposed that a "subgroup" of countries may wish to negotiate separately from the region, but this had been rejected by Pacific ministers.
"Pacific ministers from across the region should maintain regional solidarity and uphold the decision to suspend negotiations on services and investment," Ms Penjueli said.
"Our leaders have said before, and should always bear in mind, that it is better to walk away from a deal that undermines our development prospects than bow to EU pressure."
Notes:
* Pacific ACP Trade Ministers are meeting in Nadi, Fiji, at the Novotel Hotel (October 20-21).
* The EU is negotiating with 76 nations across Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (the ACP) all at once. Despite a deadline to complete negotiations before the end of 2007, most ACP nations resisted signing any kind of deal with the EU, while others have signed an interim-EPA because if they did not, Europe would have raised tariffs on their exports to the EU.
* In the Pacific, Fiji and PNG initialled interim-EPAs in late 2007 to avoid tariff hikes on tuna and sugar exports.
* The deal with the Caribbean is the first 'comprehensive' EPA the EU has managed to secure.
* Wesley Morgan is the Information, Education and Communications officer for the Pacific Network on Globalisation.

Pacific Ocean in peril

AM - Saturday, 18 October , 2008  08:18:00

Reporter: Jane Cowan

ELIZABETH JACKSON: If you thought the drought ravaging Australia was the worst manifestation of climate change, think again.

The Pacific Ocean lapping our shores is in trouble, according to an international group of scientists.

The marine biologists say the Pacific Ocean is facing ecological peril, with half of the sea's biodiversity now at risk.

Jane Cowan reports.

JANE COWAN: As a marine scientist and a yachtsman Dr Mark Orams has spent more time than most of us on the open sea.

MARK ORAMS: It's quite something to be on a boat thousands of miles from land. You, of course, are struck by the scale and the grandeur.

JANE COWAN: But through his work at Massey University in New Zealand Mark Orams has come to a slow realisation that all is not well with the largest ocean on the planet. There are worrying signs that weren't there just 15 years ago.

MARK ORAMS: From the moment you get off a small boat and go ashore, you note at the high water mark debris that's been brought ashore, plastic and other human-made products that have been broken down and washed over the hundreds and thousands of miles.

JANE COWAN: Dr Orams is one of 350 researchers from 30 countries who have signed a document they hope will be a wake-up call for the Pacific.

The Pacific Ocean Scientific Statement says that the combined threats of over-fishing, nutrient and sediment run-off, habitat destruction, and climate change are damaging the sea. Populations of some species of large tuna, sharks, and turtles are in decline.

And climate change is already creating pulses of warm water, hypoxic dead zones, and acidic conditions. The effects on small island communities dependent upon fisheries for their livelihoods are obvious.

But an ailing Pacific Ocean stands to affect everyone because of the sea's role in moderating climate change. It's a huge carbon sink, but if the water temperature warms significantly, it actually releases carbon rather than sucking it out of the atmosphere.

MARK ORAMS: They talk about tropical rainforests as being the lungs of the planet; well the ocean is almost the heartbeat.

JANE COWAN: Another signatory to the document is Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a coral reef biologist specialising in climate change and the director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland.

He says what's needed is an alliance of countries across the Pacific, with Australia playing a leading role.

OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG: Things like helping nations proclaim marine protected areas. How can we help nations fight the scourge of overfishing? There are many, many people in this area who depend on their marine resources for their daily food.

JANE COWAN: But Australia also has room to improve its own behaviour for the sake of the ocean.

OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG: We happen to be the world's highest emitters of CO2 per capita. That particular problem is going to become the most significant problem to the Pacific over the next 50 years ...

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Coral reef biologist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg with Jane Cowan