by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Jun 5, 2012 | Indigenous Autonomy
By Ahni / Intercontinental Cry
There was a major victory this week in the struggle to protect the Koongarra uranium deposit in Australia’s Northern Territory.
The Northern Land Council, which represents native title claimants in the Arnhem Land region of Northern Territory, announced its decision to extend the boundaries of the world-heritage-listed Kakadu National Park to include the 1,200 hectare uranium deposit.
When the National Park was founded in 1979, the Australian government decided to leave Koongarra out, clearly recognizing the potential market value of the deposit. Located in the heart of Kakadu, the deposit is estimated to hold 14,540 tonnes of uranium ore worth approximately $5 billion.
In 1995, the Koongarra deposit was acquired by the French company AREVA, who has tried several times over the years to access the deposit. Fortunately, they have been blocked each and every time by traditional owners.
AREVA’s last big effort focused on whetting the appetite of the current Custodian of Koongarra and the sole survivor of the Djok clan (Gundjeihmi), Mr. Jeffrey Lee.
In 2007, the company told Mr. Lee–who was born the same year the massive uranium deposit was identified, in 1971–that he could be one of the richest men in the world. All he had to do was say “Yes.”
He said “No.”
Rather than sacrifice the land, Mr. Lee decided to speak out against uranium mining and began his effort to bring Koongarra into Kakadu Park, where, he said at the time, “it will be protected and safe forever”.
More recently, in 2011, the French company tried to stop UNESCO from inscribing Koongarra on the World Heritage List. The effort backfired. On June 27, 2011, the World Heritage Committee announced that it would redraw Kakadu’s borders to include Koongarra.
At this point, it’s still not clear if AREVA will try to reverse the Northern Land Council’s decision.
The Mirarr Peoples, meanwhile, continue to look for the day when the nearby Jabiluka uranium deposit will be similarly protected.
They too, have received offers to become billionaires and they too, have said no, that the uranium should remain undisturbed.
Last year, in the weeks leading up to UNESCO’s decision on Koongarra, Mirarr Elder Yvonne Margarula, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon, stated,
For many thousands of years we Aboriginal people of Kakadu have respected sacred sites where special and dangerous power resides. We call these places and this power Ojang. There is Ojang associated with both the Ranger mine area and the site of the proposed Jabiluka mine. We believe and have always believed that when this Ojang is disturbed a great and dangerous power is unleashed upon the entire world. My father warned the Australian Government about this in the 1970s, but no one in positions of power listened to him. We hope that people such as yourself will listen, and act, today.
The respected Elder was lamenting the fact that her father’s warning became brutal truth soon after the T?hoku earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011. Indeed, uranium from the Ranger uranium mine–also excised from Kakadu Park–can be traced directly to Fukushima.
It’s the nature of Ojang. If left undisturbed, protected by surrounding minerals, it keeps to itself. But once it is exhumed, then it waits for an opportunity, whether it’s a tsunami or a careless gesture by some underpaid employee. It doesn’t matter what it is, Ojang will seize it. And the consequences will be dire.
It must be left in the ground.
From Intercontinental Cry: http://intercontinentalcry.org/victory-the-struggle-to-protect-koongarra-uranium-is-finally-over/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Jun 1, 2012 | Indigenous Autonomy
From “An Indigenous Ally”
The Winnemem Wintu are a salmon and middle water people living on what is left of their ancestral lands from Mt. Shasta down the McCloud River watershed in California. They have issued a request for solidarity in defense of a sacred Coming of Age Ceremony for young Winnemem Wintu women. This Ceremony is traditionally held on a 400-yard section of the McCloud, and the Tribe has called for closure of this section during the four-day ceremony from June 29th-July 3rd.
Of course, the Forest Service has denied the Tribe’s demand for a closure of the area during a popular tourist weekend. Last year the agency imposed a voluntary closure in which the Winnemem Wintu could request that boaters stay out of the area, but could not force them. In past years the Ceremony has been interrupted by drunken boaters, a constant stream of loud engines, racial slurs, and even indecent exposure by a woman in a passing boat. The Ceremony includes an important element in which the young women swim across the river. With the constant boat traffic, this action puts participants in direct physical danger.
“We have been backed into a corner with no other choice. We should be preparing for Marisa [Sisk]’s ceremony, setting down prayers, making regalia, getting the dance grounds ready, making sure it happens in a good way,” said Caleen Sisk, spiritual leader and chief. “But instead we have to fight simply to protect our young women from drunken harassment.”
The Winnemem Wintu are requesting help to blockade the river and prevent intrusive disruptions of this important Ceremony. Experienced kayakers are especially needed. Help is also need to publicize these violations through phone, networking, media, social media, and letters of protest sent to the regional Forest Service office. (See contact info below for the office’s address)
For anyone considering participation in this blockade, there are some important things to think about. First and foremost, this is an act of solidarity. This is not an invitation to a sacred ceremony or a protest. Individuals interested in participating should be fully self-sufficient with provisions, tents, and other camping equipment.
A non-Native supporter who works in solidarity with Indigenous struggles offers some insight on Indigenous solidarity in general:
“Ask the Winnemem Wintu and trusted supporters on-site where help from non-Natives is appropriate and needed.
From personal experience as a non-Native doing support work, I would only bring other non-Natives if they are known to be respectful of boundaries, and not doing this work as a way to steal Indigenous Knowledge or gain access to ceremony. Undoubtedly some of those sorts will turn up, and I think it’s our job as white allies to run interference and keep any disruption, even “well-intentioned” disruption, away from the ceremonies.
I know some AIMsters who blockaded the river for the last ceremony. They were not there to participate in ceremony, but to do support. So they set up their own camp and organized patrols on the water and shores. They kept a boundary around any ceremonial activity, they worked in the kitchens, they made sure the Winnemem Wintu folks had the space to do their thing. From what I saw from my friends’ photos, there’s a campground there and it makes sense to have a series of interconnected camps like affinity groups.
This type of protection of ceremony is similar to what some of my male friends have done to protect women’s ceremonies – they have stood just out of earshot (though a yell could reach them), turned their backs so they don’t witness anything private, and kept other men from coming into the women’s space.”
Watch a video of the intrusive disturbance of a previous Ceremony: http://vimeo.com/39867112
Those interested in protecting this Ceremony please contact: winnememwintutribe@gmail.com
To send letters or make phone calls in protest of the Forest Service’s inaction:
Attorney General Kamala Harris: kamala.harris@doj.ca.gov
Assistant AG Kristian Whitten: kris.whitten@doj.ca.gov (civil rights violations).
Governor’s twitter: @JerryBrownGov
Email Randy Moore, Regional Forest Director: rmoore@fs.fed.us
Snail Mail: 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592
Call: 707-562-8737
The Tribe requests that messages are respectful and peaceful.
Media inquiries, please contact:
Jeanne France, Media Relations: 530-472-1050
Michael Preston, Media Relations: 510-926-1513
To learn more about the Winnemem Wintu: http://www.winnememwintu.us/
To learn more about the Ceremony: http://www.winnememwintu.us/journey-to-justice/puberty-ceremony/
Press Coverage of the Winnemam Wintu War Dance in protest of the Forest Service’s inaction:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/25/MNJE1OLUPQ.DTL
http://www.krcrtv.com/news/Winnemem-Wintu-Tribe-Fights-For-Use-Of-McCloud-Arm/14809478
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/24/winnemem-wintu-tribe-begins-protest-mccloud-river/
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/26/winnemem-wintu-tribe-gasps-air-members-confront-fe/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Jun 1, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy
By Rights Action
On May 22 and 23 a delegation of human rights activists from the United States organized by Rights Action and Alliance for Global Justice visited the community of Ahuás in the Moskitia region of Honduras. The delegation witnessed an atmosphere of terror being generated amongst dire poverty in an area where the indigenous people are now losing control of natural resources which are key to the development of their economy.
The group inquired into the May 11, 2012 massacre of indigenous Miskito people by gunfire from U.S. State Department – titled helicopters that the US government confirms carried U.S. DEA agents and security contractors. The boat and its passengers had almost completed an eight hour trip to Ahuas from the town of Barra Patuca. Four were killed, including two pregnant women, a 14-year-old boy and a 21-year-old man, while at least four more were seriously injured.
Following the massacre at least one helicopter landed and at least ten, tall, light-skinned English speakers with limited Spanish proficiency wearing military type uniforms exited the helicopters to collect cocaine from a boat near the massacre site. They aimed guns at, threatened to kill, and handcuffed residents of the town who had come to assist the wounded. Victims lay on the banks of the river and in the damaged boat until after helicopters departed. In this way security forces delayed emergency medical assistance two to three hours.
Neither U.S. nor Honduran authorities have interviewed the eye witnesses or secured evidence at the crime scene, indicating that no serious investigation has been conducted into the massacre. Even without conducting a serious investigation U.S. and Honduran officials have accused the victims, the population in general and local authorities of participating in drug trafficking.
Since the massacre Ahuas has been occupied by several dozen Honduran troops, and it is reported that U.S. military presence in the vicinity of Ahuas is increasing. U.S. government authorities recognize that counterinsurgency tactics are being used while they identify the indigenous communities as drug traffickers. Indigenous communities in Central America have once again become the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency actions.
Many people the group spoke with noted that militarization and violence generated by the U.S. drug war is focused where there are significant natural resources, Ahuas is known to hold significant petroleum deposits and Texas-based Honduras Tejas Oil and Gas Company, a joint venture with concessions in the Moskitia, estimates there are six to eight billion barrels of oil reserves in the Moskitia.
The delegation is calling for a serious and credible investigation including a Congressional hearing that identifies criminal responsibility in the massacre, the withdrawal of U.S. security forces from Honduras, and suspension of U.S. military assistance to Central America.
From Rights Action:
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 24, 2012 | Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Indigenous Autonomy, Lobbying
By Ahni / Intercontinental Cry
A Federal judge has thrown out the Quechan Nation’s request for an injunction against the controversial Ocotillo Express Wind Project in western Imperial County, California.
The Quechan filed for the injunction on May 14, just three days after the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, gave “fast-track” approval for the project. The Quechan complaint stated that the Department of Interior, in approving the project, “violated… federal laws, regulations, and policies including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Administrative Procedures Act (APA); and the CDCA [The California Desert Conservation Area] Plan.”
The complaint went on to explain that the massive 10,150-acre project area contains 287 archaeological sites including geoglyphs, petroglyphs, sleeping circles and other sites of spiritual significance; thousands of artifacts, and at least 12 burial (an exhaustive survey has not been carried out).
Construction of the 112-turbine project would utterly devastate these sites.
Furthermore, the project jeopardizes the delicate desert ecosystem which is “home to the Federally endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep and the flat-tailed horned lizard, a perennial candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act,” says Chris Clarke, Director of Desert Biodiversity. “The turbines on the site would stand 450 feet tall with blades more than 180 feet long. With blades of that length, if the turbines spin at a leisurely 10 rpm the speed of the blade tips will approach 140 miles per hour, a serious threat to the region’s migratory birds — including the protected golden eagle,” he continues.
A day after filing for an injunction, on May 15, Quechan Tribal Council President Kenny Escalanti issued this statement outside the offices of Pattern Energy, the company behind the project.
He also spoke at a press conference alongside environmentalists and area residents in which he calls on President Obama to meet with tribal leaders and halt the destruction of sacred sites.
Robert Scheid, Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, spoke at the same press conference, calling on people across America to seek a national moratorium on industrial-scale energy projects on public lands. “Viejas leaders have asked to meet with President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar”, reports East County Magazine “to share concerns over violations of laws that are supposed to protect tribal cultural resources; but have received no response”.
With the denial of the Quechan petition, Pattern Energy can now proceed with their construction plans without restraint. And they aren’t wasting any time. A new website documenting the daily destruction of the Ocotillo desert has just been launched: www.SaveOcotillo.picturepush.com.
If the construction is completed, the wind turbines will spin for no more than 30 years.
From Intercontinental Cry: http://intercontinentalcry.org/judge-denies-quechan-injunction-controversial-wind-project/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 23, 2012 | Agriculture, Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy
By Jeremy Hance / Mongabay
A palm oil company has paid indigenous Moi landowners in Indonesian Papua a paltry $0.65 per hectare for land that will be worth $5,000 a hectare once cultivated, according to a new report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Indonesian NGO, Telepak. The report outlines similar disadvantageous deals in timber with the same companies breaking their promises of bringing education and infrastructure.
“Papuans, some of the poorest citizens in Indonesia, are being utterly exploited in legally questionable oil palm land deals that provide huge financial opportunities for international investors at the expense of the people and forests of West Papua,” said Jago Wadley, EIA Senior Forest Campaigner, in a press release.
During investigations in 2009, the EIA and Telepak interviewed the Moi tribe about their interactions with palm oil producer PT Henrison Inti Persada (PT HIP). Although the tribe never received a copy of the contract, the EIA was able to secure a hand-written contract for the 1,420 hectares of forest.
“Highly one-sided negotiations were characterized by persuasion and pressure from company staff backed by local government officials and, at times, intimidation from military and police,” the report reads. “Landowners unanimously reported they had initially agreed to release large areas following up-front cash offers, but also largely due to company promises of benefits such as new houses, vehicles, and free education for their children.”
Yet, the tribe was paid over 7,000 times less than the company expected to profit, and the promises of a better life never materialized.
The tribe told the EIA that the primary reason for signing the contract was the promise of free education. However, they were not told that education would only be offered to a few students selected by the company who would receive three years of polytechnic education in Java for free—but with conditions. In exchange for the education these same students must commit to working for the palm oil company, PT HIP, for seven years. The EIA says the scheme “verg[es] on indentured labour.”
The Noble Group, a commodities trading giant, has a majority stake in PT HIP, but did not respond to questions from mongabay.com regarding the report and if it planned to investigate the allegations.
The report goes on to accuse Norway of profiting off the exploitation of Indonesian Papuans by investing in Noble Group, even while the Nordic nation spends a billion dollars to jump-start a program in Indonesia to reduce deforestation. Norway is a major backer of Indonesia’s first Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program, but at the same time has invested nearly $50 million in Noble Group through its sovereign wealth fund.
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 22, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Mining & Drilling
By Brinda Karat, for The Hindu
The proposed liberalisation of the mining and minerals sector is an assault on the rightful owners of the land and its resources.
Tribal and indigenous communities across the world have been asserting their rights to the mineral wealth often found under the land they own or possess or have traditional rights to. They have been historically denied even a share of that huge wealth, leave alone legal rights of ownership. Under the contemporary deregulated neo-liberal policy framework, the exploitation and plunder of natural resources, including minerals, by domestic corporates and multinational mining companies has intensified. But the resistance by affected communities across the world has also grown and is reflected, over the years, in the establishment of an international framework through ILO and U.N. Conventions, which recognise in varying degrees the rights of indigenous and tribal communities to ownership, control and management of land and resources traditionally held by them either individually or as a community; the right to a decisive role in decision making for development needs in their areas; and the right to prior, free and informed consent to any projects in their areas. While these are encouraging advances won by the struggles and immense sacrifices of tribal communities, what is important is their translation into legal instruments in member countries. The issue has immediate relevance for India, as the UPA government has introduced a Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2011 (MMDRA), which is presently before the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
Promoting privatisation
In India, ownership of minerals lies with the State. However, the Central government which has control over all major minerals like iron ore, bauxite, copper, coal and most State governments which have control over minor minerals like sand, stone, granite, etc., have promoted privatisation through leasing mines to private companies apart from handing over captive mines of iron ore and bauxite to steel and aluminium corporates like the Tatas and Birlas. According to a recent report compiled for the industry by Ernst and Young, of the 4.9 lakh hectares of land given out in mining leases in 23 States by the end of 2009, 95 per cent of the leases comprising 70 per cent of the land were given to private companies.
The MMRDA Bill aims to further deregularise and liberalise the mining sector and encourage privatisation based on the recommendations of the Hoda Committee. It introduces the concept of high technology reconnaissance, prospecting and exploration licences, and easy terms of conversion to mining leases to encourage the entry of FDI and foreign companies. It also gives weightage, in the allocation of leases, to a set of criteria which favour such companies and also allows them activity on much larger tracts of land than previously. This has adverse implications for equity, the environment and growth.
While these aspects need comprehensive analysis, here we focus on those provisions, which claim to address the rights of tribal communities. There is a provision that makes it mandatory for coal mining companies to give funds amounting to 26 per cent of the profits. For other major minerals, an annual amount, which is the equivalent of the royalty paid in the financial year, must be given. While the principle of mandatory payment by companies is necessary, the problem in the MMRDA is that these funds are to be under the control of a district mineral foundation dominated by mine owners and the bureaucracy with a nominal representation of local communities. Interestingly, in the U.S. where the Federal Government had set up trusts to manage funds paid by companies using the land on reserves owned by Native Indians, the government was recently forced to pay a compensation of $1.2 billion to 41 Native American communities for “mismanagement of the assets” of the trust and is expected to have to pay another $3.4 billion in a similar case. When the affected people do not have a decisive say in the management of such funds, as in the case of the proposed district mineral foundation in the MMRDA Bill, “mismanagement” is inevitable. Also, rates of royalties in India are notoriously low. Until recently, for example, the royalty for one tonne of iron ore fixed by the Central government for Orissa was just Rs. 26. With a low extraction cost of only Rs. 250 to 300 per tonne and a high market price around Rs. 7,000 a tonne, mining companies made huge profits. While royalty rates have been recently increased, it is still a pittance compared to the profits companies make.
Patron-client relationship
The very premise of the scheme replicates the patron-client relationship, which has reduced tribal communities into recipients of charity, instead of recognition as owners of the land and its resources. The related provisions of the Bill constitute an outright assault on the constitutional rights given to the tribal communities, in particular in Fifth Schedule areas.
The Bill gives legal sanction to the arbitrary rights of governments, both at the Centre and the States, to give different types of licences and leases from reconnaissance to exploration, prospecting and finally extraction without any procedure for even consulting, leave alone taking the consent of tribal communities. The only reference to “consultation” (not consent), is for the grant of licences for minor minerals (but not major) in Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas where “the gram sabha or the District council, as the case may be shall be consulted.” Thus even the provisions under other laws such as the Panchayat Extension (to Schedule Areas) Act (PESAA), which mandates consultation with the gram sabhas, are violated by the complete absence of any consultative process prior to the granting of lease for major minerals, which are the main sites of tribal deprivation. In another provision for notification of giving leases in forest areas and wildlife areas, the State government has to “take all necessary permissions from the owners of the land and those having occupation rights.” Thus an unwarranted differentiation is made between the rights of tribal communities in Fifth Schedule non-forest areas and forest areas. However even in the case of forest areas there is no provision for what would happen in case the owner does not give permission.
In Fifth Schedule areas, the law prohibits transfer of tribal held land to non-tribals. Different States have also enacted such laws like 70/1 in Andhra Pradesh, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act in Jharkhand. None of the mining companies that gets leases is owned by adivasis. Presumably this was the reason why in the Samata case, the Supreme Court held that sale, transfers and even leases of tribal land to non-tribals are illegal. It directed that governments should consider a mechanism to include cooperative societies of tribal communities for mining operations. The Bill overrides the Samata judgment. Tribal cooperatives have been disqualified in the list of those eligible to get a lease for mining of major minerals, which can only be companies registered under the relevant laws. It is only for minor minerals and small deposits in the Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas that the State government “may” (not “shall”) consider tribal cooperatives for getting the lease. An earlier draft of the Bill in 2010 had included a provision for a guaranteed stake of tribal communities in mining companies. The provision had said “the company”… “will allot free shares equal to 26 per cent through the promoters quota.” South African law under the Broadbased Black Economic Empowerment Act has a provision of mandatory sale of 26 per cent shares in all mining companies to “historically socially disadvantaged sections.” But in India, caving in to pressure from mining lobbies, the earlier provision has been replaced with a token allotment of “one share per member of the affected family.”
There are other issues such as compensation and compensatory jobs in lieu of lost livelihood which are inadequate and also ambiguous. With cuts in permanent jobs and widespread contractual and casual work in the mining sector, the promise of employment to land losers cannot be taken at its face value. Seen together with the pending Land Acquisition Bill which specifically excludes the issue of leasing tribal land, this Bill not only buries the ownership rights of tribal communities but facilitates the easy entry of international and domestic corporates to Fifth Schedule and tribal-dominated mineral-rich areas to plunder the natural resources of our country. India, which is a signatory to many international conventions on the protection of tribal rights, is violating these conventions and adding to the burden of historical injustice. The Bill, in its present form, should and must be opposed and resisted. Concerned movements should work together for an alternative model which will recognise the ownership and other rights of tribal communities in mining in Fifth Schedule and tribal areas through effective legal mechanisms.
From The Hindu: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3419034.ece
