Do you have an impact on the “battlefield” or are you a liability? Do you possess a wide range of activist’s conflict skills? Are your skills up to speed? Not all activists are created equal.
The come-as-you are activist, the person who shows up at crisis events with intent to engage in obsolete, ineffectual, passive tactics that requires so very little skill and equipment (gear) is an amateur who treats the struggle for justice more as a social gathering (a crisis pow wow with endless opportunities to get selfies) than a war.
On the “Battlefield” good intentions, thoughts and prayers are not enough.
The opposition (the colonial government and its industries of destruction) are deadly serious about counter-activism operations. They see it as a war to protect their vast power and privilege. They see it and treat it like a war. They go to great lengths to plan, prepare, mobilize, equip, deploy and release their dogs of war upon the people.
The gap of capability (including skills and gear) between the activists and the government is immense but it doesn’t have to be. Activists can reduce this capability-gap by training in their particular skill sets and acquiring, modifying and training on the proper highly-specialized gear to get those tasks done in a highly efficient manner.
Skills and gear empower the strategy.
The come-as-you are activist, showing up with little to no skills to conduct critical actions and little to no mission essential gear to pull them off need to take their engagement in “battle” much more serious. They need take more responsibility for their commitment to justice if they want to be of real help.
Your commitment to justice is measured by your willingness to put in the necessary time, effort, resources and sacrifices to make yourself a better weapon of justice.
Activists need to become “Become the Weapon” by becoming Operational Ready in order to be of real help at crisis situations.
Operational Ready consist of two main factors; skills to complete your mission and the gear to fulfill it.
Skills
To be operation-ready for a crisis situation, activists need to determine skills needed to conduct their type of actions. Most activists have no advanced thinking about what kind of assistance he/she will provide or what type of skills their assistance may require.
Developing skills sets starts with creating a training plan. Establishing a training plan begins with an analysis of doctrine, operations (campaigns), missions (actions), tasks and skills.
Activists should start by determining their doctrine (how they fight). The activist’s doctrine may be passive legal, it can be civil disobedience, or the doctrine may be direct.
Next determine the type of operations (campaigns) that are common to those doctrines. It is important to make as complete of a list of common operations (campaigns). These can be operations that are normally conducted by the activist or operations the activist feels his/her doctrine would call for. It would also be wise to realistically anticipate trends towards upcoming new types of conflicts and operations the activists may engage in the near future.
Identifying operations (campaigns) aren’t just about identifying the issue in contention. It’s about identifying the objectives used to successfully complete those operations. For example, an activist participating in Indigenous justice may engage in a Murder and Missing Indigenous Women Campaign (operation). The objective of the operation (campaign) might be to raise awareness of the issue or to bring those responsible to justice. Identifying the objective may generate some ideas on new or unused tactics for specific operations.
After all the operations (campaigns) have been identified the list needs to be broken down further by determining a full range of missions (actions) in those operations (campaigns).
So, an operation (campaign) to save a forest, for activists with a doctrine of civil disobedience, may include missions (actions) like setting up a blockade on a logging road or chaining themselves to a tree while activists with a doctrine of Direct Action may include missions (actions) like taking out a piece of heavy equipment or taking down a bridge on a logging road. The operation is the same but the doctrine creates a different set of mission profiles.
Once a full range of operations and the missions utilized in those operations are identified, then determine the tasks that are necessary to complete those missions (actions). A blockade mission (action) would require tasks like shutting down traffic on a road, barrier construction, interacting with people, interacting with police, interacting with media, guard duty, tactical observation, tactical communications, etc. Some of these skill sets are team skills (stopping a vehicle) and some are individual skills (rolling out barbed wire). Separate the two skills sets (team and individual) involved in those actions. Training plans should be a sequential development of skill sets from individual skills up to team based skills.
In addition to identifying individual skills of these skill sets, determine the standards for those skills. Standards are the level of quality expected for the skill sets. Being able to execute a skill in a poor manner like making several mistakes, taking a very long time to execute it, only can execute the skill with help from references (people, books, videos, etc), can’t do it in the dark or under pressure all ensure failure when it comes time to execute these skills in a crisis situation. Skills need to be practiced to certain level; a standard that reflects the conditions of the actions you will be in. For instance – assigning a standard to applying a first aid pressure dressing should include executing it properly (without mistake), in a designated time, possibly with improvised items, in the dark, in field conditions while under stress. Every skill needs to have a standard assigned to it as a way of establishing the level of training and as a testable condition.
Assemble all the skills and arrange them in blocks of training (like first aid, tactical communications, self defense, etc.). Determine the required sequence of instructing these skills. Some skills require knowing a prior skill first, for example – in order to send a radio message activists would first need to know how to put a specific radio into operation. Assign a timeline to instruct, practice and test each skill. This timeline influences the development of your training schedule.
Finalize the training plan by identifying instructors for each of the skill sets, training areas, training facilities, reference materials, training budgets, and training aids.
Gear
Identify common gear needed that best fits all the tasks. This is the kind of gear that will be used in most or all crisis situation such as backpack, sleeping bag, sleeping pad, wet weather gear, warm gear, multi-tool, Individual first aid kit, survival kit, etc.
Identify mission specific gear. This is gear that is specific to the identified missions. It can be barrier construction tools, observation tools, breaching tools, safety equipment, etc.
Select gear for those actions. Determine the best gear for the task based on a few factors;
Selection Factors
Cost – We would all love to have the newest, most high tech tactical gear around but cost becomes the barrier to this. Select gear based on a priority list of critical and mission-essential gear first.
Availability – You may want it but it isn’t available, for whatever reason, to you. Determine good substitutions.
Quality – much of the gear should be excellent quality because your life or liberty may depend on it. Some gear isn’t as crucial like a rain jacket. Does it need to be the best rain jacket from a high-end store or does it just have to get the job done? There is also good quality used gear for sale, as long as you know what to look out for. Set standards for what you need in your gear before buying.
Durability – The gear will be used under the worst conditions so don’t expect cheap dollar store gear to hold up under field conditions. Should be simple but rugged.
Multi-purpose – finding gear that can be used for more than one task increases its value.
SAWC – Size And Weight Consideration. Sometimes good gear is large, bulky, and heavy and impedes mobility. Look for gear that is as compact, light but still functional for the tasks.
Camouflage pattern – Bright shiny items attract the eye and can give you away. Determine the best camouflage pattern for the area of operation.
Waterproof – it will rain in the field so gear needs to be water proof.
Shockproof – it will be dropped, kicked, sat on, thrown across the room in frustration (or at a threat) but it still needs to function after its abuse.
Simplicity – the more high tech or the more moving parts invites breakdown. Try to select gear that is simple and robust.
Best achieves the mission – the main purpose of the gear is to assist in successful completion of missions (actions). That should stay in the forefront of the activist’s mind. When choosing between two possible pieces of gear, determine which best assist in achieving the mission.
Ergonomic – the gear should be both efficient and comfortable. This extends the time frame for use in work. An uncomfortable or inefficient piece of gear will wear down the activist earlier, making work harder.
The best gear isn’t always the most expensive, coolest looking (tacti-cool), widest advertised or what some other person or group is using. If there are any questions on gear determination or gear selection consult an experienced freedom fighter that is a subject-matter-expert in the use of gear as well as the procurement of gear for specific kinds of operations and missions.
Once a training plan is developed and the gear is obtained the activist needs to train to standard on the skills and with the gear obtained in order to properly fit, modify, personalize and familiarize with that gear.
When all the gear procurement and initial training is complete a series of culmination exercise (based on all the different operations and likely missions for each) should be conducted. It provides an opportunity for testing to standard and evaluating all the common and mission-essential tasks to determine if the activists are operational ready.
Featured image: The Ogiek preparing to receive the African Court’s landmark decision after awaiting close to a decade. Photo: Andrew Songa on twitter @drewfremen
The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, at its 45th session on May 26, 2017 in Arusha, Tanzania, delivered a long-awaited and unanimous judgment against the Kenya government in a case brought before it by the Ogiek Indigenous Peoples.
The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights had filed the case after the applicant proved consistent violations and the denial of the human and land rights of the Ogiek by the Republic of Kenya.
In November 2009, when the Kenyan Forest Service (KFS) delivered a potentially fatal blow against the Ogiek with the designation of an eviction order in October 2009 against the Ogiek and anyone else within the Mau Forest Complex–the ancestral homeland of the Ogiek–within 30 days, the African Court had issued an order to suspend the implementation of the eviction notice.
In March 2013, the African Court issued additional provisional measures requiring the Kenyan Government to stop any land transactions in the Mau Forest and refrain from taking any action that would harm the case, until a decision had been reached. This order, however, has never been respected by the Kenyan state.
After dismissing the numerous objections of the government of Kenya, the African Court delivered in Arusha a comprehensive judgement and a very clear ruling, read out over almost 2 hours by Hon. Justice Agustino Ramadani, the former President of the African Court.
The court found that the government of the Republic of Kenya illegally evicted members of the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest and has continuously violated the rights of the Ogiek under Articles 1, 2, 8, 14, 17 (2/3), 21 and 22 of the African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights.
The Republic of Kenya given 6 months to implement required remedies
Concerning the demand for reparations and compensation, the Ogiek have 90 days to file an application and the Kenya state has 90 days to respond to the demands. After this period, the African Court will rule on the reparations to be awarded to the Ogiek community and its victims of abusive state power.
This article was originally published by ECOTERRA Intl. It has been edited for Intercontinental Cry under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share-Alike License.
Join us for a flash rally outside of the Annual General Meeting of Copper One – a mining company that has been relentlessly pursuing a claim on Barriere Lake’s land despite firm and repeated refusals by the community.
Community members will be driving to Toronto from Barriere Lake to attend the meeting and tell them there is no possible way they will ever get community consent to drill on Barriere Lake’s unceded Algonquin territory. Just like they’ve been doing since 2011.
The company’s claim covers a large area of the La Vérendrye wildlife reserve and a neighbouring area including the headwaters of the Ottawa River.
In spite of a government decision to suspend the company’s mining claims earlier in 2017, Copper One has repeatedly stated its intention to begin exploratory drilling on the territory of the Algonquins of Barriere Lake.
The Algonquins of Barriere Lake have consistently refused mining exploration on the territory claimed by Copper One. This traditional and current-use territory of the community has been subject to agreements between the community and the governments of Quebec and Canada concerning the joint management of renewable resources, namely the Trilateral Agreement of 1991 and the Bilateral aggreement of 1998. The community has accepted some forms of development on this territory, but has repeatedly stated that mining is not acceptable.
The community objects to the Quebec’s Mining Act’s failure to require consultation with indigenous nations. The Mining Act also fails to allow integrated land use planning in respect of indigenous peoples’ rights and aspirations, including the possibility of saying “no” to mining claims located in culturally or ecologically sensitive areas.
Don’t talk to me about sustainability. You want to question my lifestyle, my impact, my ecological footprint? There is a monster standing over us, with a footprint so large it can trample a whole planet underfoot, without noticing or caring. This monster is Industrial Civilization. I refuse to sustain the monster. If the Earth is to live, the monster must die. This is a declaration of war.
What is it we are trying to sustain? A living planet, or industrial civilization? Because we can’t have both.
Somewhere along the way the environmental movement – based on a desire to protect the Earth, was largely eaten by the sustainability movement – based on a desire to maintain our comfortable lifestyles. When did this happen, and why? And how is it possible that no-one noticed? This is a fundamental shift in values, to go from compassion for all living beings and the land, to a selfish wish to feel good about our inherently destructive way of life.
The sustainability movement says that our capacity to endure is the responsibility of individuals, who must make lifestyle choices within the existing structures of civilization. To achieve a truly sustainable culture by this means is impossible. Industrial infrastructure is incompatible with a living planet. If life on Earth is to survive, the global political and economic structures need to be dismantled.
Sustainability advocates tell us that reducing our impact, causing less harm to the Earth, is a good thing to do, and we should feel good about our actions. I disagree. Less harm is not good. Less harm is still a lot of harm. For as long as any harm is caused, by anyone, there can be no sustainability. Feeling good about small acts doesn’t help anyone.
Only one-quarter of all consumption is by individuals. The rest is taken up by industry, agribusiness, the military, governments and corporations. Even if every one of us made every effort to reduce our ecological footprint, it would make little difference to overall consumption.
If the lifestyle actions advocated really do have the effect of keeping our culture around for longer than it would otherwise, then it will cause more harm to the natural world than if no such action had been taken. For the longer a destructive culture is sustained, the more destruction it causes. The title of this article isn’t just attention-grabbing and controversial, it is quite literally what’s going on.
When we frame the sustainability debate around the premise that individual lifestyle choices are the solution, then the enemy becomes other individuals who make different lifestyle choices, and those who don’t have the privilege of choice. Meanwhile the true enemy — the oppressive structures of civilization — are free to continue their destructive and murderous practices without question. This is hardly an effective way to create a meaningful social movement. Divide and be conquered.
Sustainability is popular with corporations, media and government because it fits perfectly with their aims. Maintain power. Grow. Make yourself out to be the good guy. Make people believe that they have power when they don’t. Tell everyone to keep calm and carry on shopping. Control the language that is used to debate the issues. By creating and reinforcing the belief that voting for minor changes and buying more stuff will solve all problems, those in power have a highly effective strategy for maintaining economic growth and corporate-controlled democracy.
Those in power keep people believing that the only way we can change anything is within the structures they’ve created. They build the structures in a way that people can never change anything from within them. Voting, petitions, and rallies all reinforce the power structures, and can never bring about significant change on their own. These tactics give corporations and governments a choice. We’re giving those in power a choice of whether to grant our request for minor reform. Animals suffering in factory farms don’t have a choice. Forests being destroyed in the name of progress don’t have a choice. Millions of people working in majority-world sweatshops don’t have a choice. The 200 species who became extinct today didn’t do so by choice. And yet we give those responsible for all this murder and suffering a choice. We’re granting the desires of a wealthy minority above the needs of life on Earth.
Most of the popular actions that advocates propose to achieve sustainability have no real effect, and some even cause more harm than good. The strategies include reducing electricity consumption, reducing water use, a green economy, recycling, sustainable building, renewables and energy efficiency. Let’s look at the effects of these actions.
Electricity
We’re told to reduce our consumption of electricity, or obtain it from alternative sources. This will make zero difference to the sustainability of our culture as a whole, because the electricity grid is inherently unsustainable. No amount of reduction or so-called renewable energy sources will change this. Mining to make electrical wires, components, electrical devices, solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal plants, biomass furnaces, hydropower dams, and everything else that connects to the electricity grid, are all unsustainable. Manufacturing to make these things, with all the human exploitation, pollution, waste, health and social impacts, and corporate profits. Fossil fuels needed to keep all these processes going. Unsustainable. No amount of individual lifestyle choices about electricity use and generation will change any of this. Off grid electricity is no different – it needs batteries and inverters.
Water conservation
Shorter showers. Low-flow devices. Water restrictions. These are all claimed to Make A Difference. While the whole infrastructure that provides this water – large dams, long distance pipelines, pumps, sewers, drains – is all unsustainable.
Dams destroy the life of a whole watershed. It’s like blocking off an artery, preventing blood from flowing to your limbs. No-one can survive this. Rivers become dead when fish are prevented from travelling up and down the river. The whole of the natural community that these fish belong to is killed, both upstream and downstream of the dam.
Dams cause a lowering of the water table, making it impossible for tree roots to get to water. Floodplain ecologies depend on seasonal flooding, and collapse when a dam upstream prevents this. Downstream and coastal erosion results. Anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in dams releases methane to the atmosphere.
No matter how efficient with water you are, this infrastructure will never be sustainable. It needs to be destroyed, to allow these communities to regenerate.
The green economy
Green jobs. Green products. The sustainable economy. No. There’s no such thing. The whole of the global economy is unsustainable. The economy runs on the destruction of the natural world. The Earth is treated as nothing but fuel for economic growth. They call it natural resources. And a few people choosing to remove themselves from this economy makes no difference. For as long as this economy exists, there will be no sustainability.
For as long as any of these structures exist: electricity, mains water, global economy, industrial agriculture – there can be no sustainability. To achieve true sustainability, these structures need to be dismantled.
What’s more important to you – to sustain a comfortable lifestyle for a little longer, or the continuation of life on Earth, for the natural communities who remain, and for future generations?
Recycling
We’re made to believe that buying a certain product is good because the packaging can be recycled. You can choose to put it in a brightly-coloured bin. Never mind that fragile ecosystems were destroyed, indigenous communities displaced, people in far away places required to work in slave conditions, and rivers polluted, just to make the package in the first place. Never mind that it will be recycled into another useless product which will then go to landfill. Never mind that to recycle it means transporting it far away, using machinery that run on electricity and fossil fuels, causing pollution and waste. Never mind that if you put something else in the coloured bin, the whole load goes to landfill due to the contamination.
Sustainable building
Principles of sustainable building: build more houses, even though there are already enough perfectly good houses for everyone to live in. Clear land for houses, destroying every living thing in the natural communities that live there. Build with timber from plantation forests, which have required native forests to be wiped out so they can be replaced with a monoculture of pines where nothing else can live. Use building products that are slightly less harmful than other products. Convince everyone that all of this is beneficial to the Earth.
Solar power
Solar panels. The very latest in sustainability fashion. And in true sustainability style, incredibly destructive of life on earth. Where do these things come from? You’re supposed to believe that they are made out of nothing, a free, non-polluting source of electricity.
If you dare to ask where solar panels come from, and how they are made, its not hard to uncover the truth. Solar panels are made of metals, plastics, rare earths, electronic components. They require mining, manufacturing, war, waste, pollution. Millions of tons of lead are dumped into rivers and farmland around solar panel factories in China and India, causing health problems for the human and natural communities who live there. Polysilicon is another poisonous and polluting waste product from manufacturing that is dumped in China. The production of solar panels causes nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) to be emitted into the atmosphere. This gas has 17 000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
Rare earths come from Africa, and wars are raged over the right to mine them. People are being killed so you can have your comfortable Sustainability. The panels are manufactured in China. The factories emit so much pollution that people living nearby become sick. Lakes and rivers become dead from the pollution. These people cannot drink the water, breathe the air or farm the land, as a direct result of solar panel manufacturing. Your sustainability is so popular in China that villagers mobilise in mass protest against the manufacturers. They are banding together to break into the factories and destroy equipment, forcing the factories to shut down. They value their lives more than sustainability for the rich.
Panels last around 30 years, then straight to landfill. More pollution, more waste. Some parts of solar panels can be recycled, but some can’t, and have the bonus of being highly toxic. To be recycled, solar panels are sent to majority-world countries where low-wage workers are exposed to toxic substances while disassembling them. The recycling process itself requires energy and transportation, and creates waste products.
Solar panel industries are owned by Siemens, Samsung, Bosch, Sharp, Mitsubishi, BP, and Sanyo, among others. This is where solar panel rebates and green power bills are going. These corporations thank you for your sustainable dollars.
Wind power
The processing of rare earth metals needed to make the magnets for wind turbines happens in China, where people in the surrounding villages struggle to breathe in the heavily polluted air. A five-mile-wide lake of toxic and radioactive sludge now takes the place of their farmland.
Whole mountain ranges are destroyed to extract the metals. Forests are bulldozed to erect wind turbines. Millions of birds and bats are killed by the blades. The health of people living close to turbines is affected by infrasound.
As wind is an inconsistent and unpredictable source of energy, a back-up gas fired power supply is needed. As the back-up system only runs intermittently, it is less efficient, so produces more CO2 than if it were running constantly, if there were no turbines. Wind power sounds great in theory, but doesn’t work in practice. Another useless product that benefits no-one but the shareholders.
Energy efficiency
How about we improve energy efficiency? Won’t that reduce energy consumption and pollution? Well, no. Quite the opposite. Have you heard of Jevon’s paradox? Or the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate? These state that technological advances to increase efficiency lead to an increase in energy consumption, not a decrease. Efficiency causes more energy to be available for other purposes. The more efficient we become at consuming, the more we consume. The more efficiently we work, the more work gets done. And we’re working at efficiently digging ourselves into a hole.
The economics of supply and demand
Many actions taken in the name of sustainability can have the opposite effect. Here’s something to ponder: one person’s decision not to take flights, out of concern about climate change or sustainability, won’t have any impact. If a few people stop flying, airlines will reduce their prices, and amp up their marketing, and more people will take flights. And because they are doing it at lower prices, the airline needs to make more flights to make the profit it was before. More flights, more carbon emissions. And if the industry hit financial trouble as a result of lowered demand, it would get bailed out by governments. This “opt-out” strategy can’t win.
The decision not to fly isn’t doing anything to reduce the amount of carbon being emitted, it’s just not adding to it in this instance. And any small reduction in the amount of carbon being emitted does nothing to stop climate change.
To really have an impact on global climate, we’ll need to stop every aeroplane and every fossil-fuel burning machine from operating ever again. And stopping every fossil-fuel burning machine is nowhere near the impossible goal it may sound. It won’t be easy, but it’s definitely achievable. And it’s not only desirable, but essential if life on this planet is to survive.
The same goes for any other destructive product we might choose not to buy. Factory-farmed meat, palm oil, rainforest timbers, processed foods. For as long as there is a product to sell, there will be buyers. Attempting to reduce the demand will have little, if any, effect. There will always be more products arriving on the market. Campaigns to reduce the demand of individual products will never be able to keep up. And with every new product, the belief that this one is a need, not a luxury, becomes ever stronger. Can I convince you not to buy a smartphone, a laptop, a coffee? I doubt it.
To stop the devastation, we need to permanently cut off the supply, of everything that production requires. And targeting individual companies or practices won’t have any impact on the global power structures that feed on the destruction of the Earth. The whole of the global economy needs to be brought to a halt.
What do you really want?
What’s more important – sustainable energy for you to watch TV, or the lives of the world’s rivers, forests, animals, and oceans? Would you sooner live without these, without Earth? Even if this was an option, if you weren’t tightly bound in the interconnected in the web of life, would you really prefer to have electricity for your lights, computers and appliances, rather than share the ecstasy of being with all of life on Earth? Is a lifeless world ruled by machines really what you want?
If getting what you want requires destroying everything you need – clean air and water, food, and natural communities – then you’re not going to last long, and neither will anyone else.
I know what I want. I want to live in a world that is becoming ever more alive. A world regenerating from the destruction, where every year there are more fish, birds, trees and diversity than the year before. A world where I can breathe the air, drink from the rivers and eat from the land. A world where humans live in community with all of life.
Industrial technology is not sustainable. The global economy is not sustainable. Valuing the Earth only as a resource for humans to exploit is not sustainable. Civilization is not sustainable. If civilization collapsed today, it would still be 400 years before human existence on the planet becomes truly sustainable. So if it’s genuine sustainability you want, then dismantle civilization today, and keep working at regenerating the Earth for 400 years. This is about how long it’s taken to create the destructive structures we live within today, so of course it will take at least that long to replace these structures with alternatives that benefit all of life on Earth, not just the wealthy minority. It won’t happen instantly, but that’s no reason not to start.
You might say let’s just walk away, build alternatives, and let the whole system just fall apart when no-one pays it any attention any more. I used to like this idea too. But it can’t work. Those in power use the weapons of fear and debt to maintain their control. The majority of the world’s people don’t have the option of walking away. Their fear and debt keeps them locked in the prison of civilization. Your walking away doesn’t help them. Your breaking down the prison structure does.
We don’t have time to wait for civilization to collapse. Ninety per cent of large fish in the oceans are gone. 99 per cent of the old growth forests have been destroyed. Every day 200 more species become extinct, forever. If we wait any longer, there will be no fish, no forests, no life left anywhere on Earth.
So what can you do?
Spread the word. Challenge the dominant beliefs. Share this article with everyone you know.
Listen to the Earth. Get to know your nonhuman neighbours. Look after each other. Act collectively, not individually. Build alternatives, like gift economies, polyculture food systems, alternative education and community governance. Create a culture of resistance.
Rather than attempting to reduce the demand for the products of a destructive system, cut off the supply. The economy is what’s destroying the planet, so stop the economy. The global economy is dependent on a constant supply of electricity, so stopping it is (almost) as easy as flicking a switch.
Governments and industry will never do this for us, no matter how nicely we ask, or how firmly we push. It’s up to us to defend the land that our lives depend on.
We can’t do this as consumers, or workers, or citizens. We need to act as humans, who value life more than consuming, working and complaining about the government.
Learn about and support Deep Green Resistance, a movement with a working strategy to save the planet. Together, we can fight for a world worth living in. Join us.
In the words of Lierre Keith, co-author of the book Deep Green Resistance, “The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those systems.”
Do you agree with this analysis? If so, we have three steps for you to take:
The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, at its 45th session on 26 May 2017 in Arusha, will deliver a long-awaited judgment on a case brought before it, by the Ogiek indigenous peoples against the Kenyan government, for consistent violations and denial of their land rights.
‘This case is of fundamental importance for indigenous peoples in Africa, and particularly in the context of the continent-wide conflicts we are seeing between communities, sparked by pressures over land and resources,‘ says Lucy Claridge, Minority Rights Group International’s (MRG) Legal Director. ‘Ultimately the Court will be ruling on the crucial role of indigenous peoples in the conservation of land and natural resources, and consequently, the mitigation of climate change in a region currently ravaged by drought and famine.’
The Ogiek, 35, 000 of whom are the victims in this landmark case, live in the Mau Forest Complex in the Rift Valley of Kenya. They are one of the last remaining forest-dwelling communities and among the most marginalised indigenous peoples in Kenya. They allege eight violations of their rights to life, property, natural resources, development, religion and culture by the Kenyan government under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Kenya is a signatory.
This is the first time the African Court, in operation since 2006, will rule on an indigenous peoples’ rights case and is by far the largest ever case brought before the Court. It was originally lodged with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but was referred for the first time in history to the Court on the basis that it evinces serious and mass human rights violations. MRG, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program (OPDP) and CEMIRIDE were the three original Complainants before the African Commission.
‘This judgment will be a huge milestone for the Ogiek community. We are optimistic that it will be positive, and crucially, that it will be respected by the Kenyan government, including implementation, so that Ogiek can feel complete and enjoy all the basic rights like every other Kenyan,’ says Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of OPDP.
The case was heard by the Court in November 2014. MRG delivered an oral intervention on behalf of the original Complainants, whilst two Ogiek community members and other expert witnesses gave testimony. MRG supported 25 Ogiek community members to attend the hearing, and supported a further 40 to view the hearing in Kenya via a live stream from the Court.
In March 2013, the African Court issued a provisional measures order requiring the Kenyan Government to stop land transactions in the Mau Forest and refrain from taking any action which would harm the case, until it had reached a decision. This order unfortunately has not been respected.
For decades the Ogiek have been routinely subjected to arbitrary forced evictions from their ancestral land in the Mau Forest by the government, without consultation or compensation. This has had a detrimental impact on the pursuit of their traditional lifestyle, religious and cultural life, access to natural resources and their very existence as an indigenous people. The Ogiek have a spiritual, emotional and economic attachment to the forest. They rely on it for food, shelter and identity.
Minority Rights Group International is a non-governmental organization working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide. We work with more than 150 partners in over 50 countries.
Daniel Kobei, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program Executive Director (English, Swahili)
M: +254 722433757
T: +254 512213803
E: dkobei@yahoo.com / opdp@ogiekpeoples.org
TUCSON, AZ— President Trump’s border wall threatens 93 endangered and threatened species, including jaguars, ocelots, Mexican gray wolves and cactus ferruginous pygmy owls, according to a new study by the Center for Biological Diversity.
The study also found that 25 threatened or endangered species have designated “critical habitat” on the border, including more than 2 million acres within 50 miles of the border.
“Trump’s border wall is a disaster for people and wildlife alike,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center. “It could drive magnificent species like the jaguar and ocelot to extinction in the United States.”
The new study identified all threatened, endangered and “candidate” species (those being considered for protection) that have ranges near or crossing the border. These include 57 endangered species, 24 threatened species, 10 species under consideration for protection and two species of concern, golden and bald eagles. Construction of Trump’s 1,200-mile wall — along with related infrastructure and enforcement — will have far-reaching consequences for wildlife, including cutting off migration corridors, reducing genetic diversity, destroying habitat, and adding vehicles, noise and lights to vast stretches of the wild borderlands.
“The border wall won’t be effective at stopping people seeking a better life from getting to this country, but it will destroy habitat and divide wildlife populations,” Greenwald said. “Building a wall across the entirety of the border would cause massive damage to one of the most biologically diverse regions in North America and would be a boondoggle of the highest order.”
The sections of border wall that have already been built have had a range of negative effects on wildlife, including direct destruction of thousands of acres of habitat, indirect impacts from noise and light pollution, and division of cross-border wildlife populations like bighorn sheep and jaguars. The border wall would cut through the Cabeza Prieta, Buenos Aires and several other national wildlife refuges, along with Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Big Bend National Park and many other natural areas that, besides acting as corridors for wildlife, are national treasures.
Last month the Center and Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, sued the Trump administration over the proposed border wall and other border security measures, calling on federal agencies to conduct an in-depth investigation of the proposal’s environmental impacts.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is the first targeting the Trump administration’s plan to vastly expand and militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, including construction of a “great wall.”
