NDÉ ISDZÁNÉ ŁANOHWILE’Lipan Apache Women Defense El Calaboz Rancheria, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo

O Holy Night, in Dine' ('Navajo') by Jana Mashonee and Silent Night in Apache

2011-12-19T13:34:00.000-08:00

Indigenous Language Loss and Revitalization: While Nde' of South Texas and Lower Rio Grande River region have suffered irreparable harm related to language loss, and language revitalization efforts occur without the aid of Texas and the U.S.--historical oppressors--today, the effort to recuperate language is aided by inspiration derived from closely related indigenous peoples with historical ties to Nde of Texas.

Texas (and Northeastern Mexico) is the traditional homeland and customary territory of Southern Nde' Peoples, who are close cultural relatives of Navajo, Western and Eastern Apache, and Dene peoples of North America, inclusive to northeastern Mexico.

Indigenous Peoples have the right to practice, speak, learn in, read, and to be educated in our mother tongues. Though our mother tongues have been forcefully stolen from us, through the assimilative violence of states and colonizing laws, today, thanks to the decades of hard work at the international level, Indigenous Peoples have rights--globally and at the local level (that means in the country, state, province in which we reside)-- to revitalize and recover what has been stolen and lost through no fault of our own.

Today, States have a duty and responsibility to change assimilative laws and practices, and to provide economic, social, and political aid to ensure that Indigenous Peoples in their respective bounded areas are protected from further cultural harm and must aid in the processes to support Indigenous Peoples to speak, read, and learn in our own languages.

Texas has been historically severely resistant to breaking from its oppressive and subjugating political, economic, and social systems as they affect Lipan Apaches and many indigenous peoples in the state.

Lipan Apaches continue to work systematically for self-determination and to break the violent chains of non recognition, internal colonization, and 4th World status in our own homeland Konitsaahii gokiyaa.

See, UNDRIP, Articles 11, 13, 14.

O Holy Night (Written in Navajo)
Hodiyin tł’ée’go Sǫ’ bee da’dinnídíingo Áko Yisdá’iiníiłii bi’dizhchį́ Diné ti’dahooníhę́ę baazhníyáago Bijéí biyi’di haa bił dahóózhǫǫd ’Áádóó ch’ééh deeskai yę́ę bił nídahoozhǫǫd Háálá chohoo’̨́ bee ’adideezdláád Yaa ’ádaahnééh diyingo nidaal’a’í ’Éí deísółts’ą́ą́’! Christ yizhchį́ yaa dahalne’ Hodiyin tł’éego Christ ’éí bi’dizhchį́!

Enjoy this beautiful example of indigenous language empowerment and self-determination!

Gozhoo (In beauty)

U.S. OFFICIAL 'APOLOGY' TO NATIVE AMERICANS, "A SORRY SAGA OR FIRST STEP?"

2011-12-18T05:28:00.000-08:00

Without Procedures for Redress and Restitution, Obama's 'Apology' to Native Americans for Historical and Contemporary Harms is Severely Insufficient to Address Genocide Histories and Realities Involved in the Necessary Process Related to Supporting the Recovery, Recuperation and Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples in Texas and the Confluent Texas-Mexico Indigenous Border(ed) Region.

Commentary excerpted from:

Fourth World Eye

A Sorry Saga or a First Step?

Feb 17, 2010 by adol77dai51

An article recently surfaced in Indian Country Today entitled “A Sorry Saga,” in which the author brings attention to the Native American Apology Resolution signed by President Obama on December 19^th, as part of a defense appropriation spending bill. While the Resolution had passed as a stand-alone piece of legislation in the Senate, it was attached to and passed with a defense appropriations spending bill within the House before making its way to President Obama. The final version of the resolution shifted from being an official apology from the US government to an apology “on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native peoples by citizens of the United States.” The real crux of the Indian Country Today article revolves around the lack of publicity surrounding the apology and asks the question, “Is an apology that’s not said out loud really an apology?”

Prior to this apology, President Obama has been largely lauded for keeping his prior commitments to Indian Country (convening a tribal leaders summit in November to hear concerns; appointing tribal leaders to IHS and Native American Affairs posts; largely maintaining and even, in some cases, increasing funding to Indian Country for this year’s budget). Ironically, it is this hidden apology that has caused some to backpeddle their vocal support for the Obama Administration. I would argue that many may view this obscure and amalgamous apology as a step backward rather than forward as it provides the perfect metaphor for the US’ longstanding nebulous public policy toward American Indian people. The US, throughout the years, has managed to promote a half in half out relationship with Indian Country in which sovereignty is recognized in pieces rather than in whole (as a long-standing continuation of the Western colonial reductionist vein of thought that brought us the Dawes Act, etc). Thus this apology, passed with no public acknowledgement, coming from the “American people” rather than the US government, and with a caveat to ensure that it cannot be construed to allow legal culpability, reeks of this prior paradigm that many in Indian Country counted would change and were hoping was changing with the election of President Obama.

Revisiting Indian Country Today’s question, I would propose what I believe to be a more pertinent question: Is an apology without subsequent action really an apology? A true apology, publicized or not, must be followed by real demonstrable action that marriages sentiments to words, words to policy, and policy to action. I laud this apology as long as it is a step toward such action. A relevant and pressing issue of substance is the current US stance against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In 2007, the US, along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, were the only countries to vote against the adoption of the UNDRIP. Australia has since overturned their decision in early 2009 and did so only two months after their official governmental apology to the Aboriginal populations. A true test then of the intent of the Native American Apology Resolution will be if the Obama Administration utilizes this apology as a foothold for reversing the current US position opposing the UNDRIP. Such an adoption would truly demonstrate President Obama’s commitment to and respect for Indian Nations and for creating a new paradigm in which true nation to nation relations can begin.

The Upscale of U.S. Military Operations Targets Texas Border and Northeastern Mexico

2011-12-04T19:19:00.000-08:00

"Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment, September 2011"
Report commissioned by Texas Department of Agriculture, Todd Staples, Commissioner.

An Open Letter to ‘Occupy Wall Street’: A Shawnee-Lenape Perspective

2011-10-14T11:38:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to ‘Occupy Wall Street’: A Lenape Perspective
10 October 2011

by Steven Newcomb

Greetings on Colonization Day,

I begin by prayerfully remembering our free and independent ancestors, the Lenape and all the Original Nations and Peoples of this vast TurtleIsland(Mother Earth), and of the entire Western Hemisphere from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America.

As you ‘occupy Wall Street,’ I ask you to reflect: You are on the island upon which our Indigenous ancestors lived and thrived for thousands and thousands of years. Please take a moment to recognize that we, the Original Nations, still exist here onTurtleIsland. We have the right to exist as free and distinct nations with full self-determination.

What is the true source of our many grievances? It is the mentality and behavior of greed. The word ‘America’ is the combination of two Latin words ame (a command form of ‘love!’) and rica (riches and wealth). The effects of an insatiable desire for and the pursuit of riches and wealth first afflicted our Indigenous nations and peoples, and now afflict all peoples. Clearly, we need to address and rectify the political economy of greed, and the destruction it has caused and continues to cause.

Greed is an unsustainable value, but it is also an illness that is rooted in addiction. It is maintained in keeping with the slogan, ‘The more you eat (consume), the more you want.’ The addict will stop at nothing to get a fix; he will sacrifice anyone and anything to feed his addiction. For this reason, an economy of greed has and will continue to sacrifice the health and well-being of women, children, men, and all living things on Mother Earth. As a great Anishinaabe leader has profoundly stated, “Their way of living is our way of dying.” It is rapidly becoming the ”way of dying” for everyone.

Today, after centuries of invasion and predatory consumption (‘devouring’) of our traditional lands, territories, and resources onTurtleIsland and elsewhere, the waters of the rivers and streams that were once pure enough for our ancestors to drink from are now filthy and poisoned. Water is Life. The chemical contamination of Water, and, therefore, of Life itself, is emblematic of a way of life predicated upon patterns of greed that are destined to collapse.

The suffering of human beings and the destructiveness to life on Mother Earth has been a direct consequence of colonization, domination, dehumanization, militarization and war.

Unfortunately, these conceptions and behaviors have become the metaphorical bricks and mortar of the current unsustainable world order. They are expressed in a number of documents issued in the fifteenth century by the Holy See at Vatican Hill in Rome; these documents called for the domination of all non-Christian peoples throughout the world, and for the theft of all our lands and territories. To this day, the ideas found in those papal documents are woven into US Indian law and policy.

Those Church documents unleashed claims to a right of conquest and domination in the name of a “right of Christian discovery.” The monarchies of Christendom used those documents to claim the territories of our nations in the Western hemisphere, simply because our territories were not yet in the possession of any Christian prince or dominator (‘dominorum christianorum’). This paradigm of domination has been used to give governments and corporations virtually unlimited access to our traditional lands and territories. If approved, the Keystone XL pipeline will be but the latest example.

Despite the destructive effects of more than five centuries of subjugation, as the Originally Free Nations and Peoples of Turtle Island, we still remember what it is to be truly free as exemplified by our ancestors. Our ancestors evolved life-ways and values that challenged European feudalism, medievalism, and lordship. Today, forces seem to be working toward neo-feudalism and neo-medievalism, with a long range plan for irreversible global domination in the name of ‘national security,’ under the unblinking eye of the surveillance state.

We have entered the ‘Brave New World’ written about by a prescient mind a generation ago. Not only have we survived, but we now have the capability of expressing ourselves in the language of the Colonizers, and we are maintaining the message that our great leaders tried to convey to your ancestors: Stop the patterns of destruction and greed before it is too late. The Chernobyl-scale release of radiation atFukushima, Japan is a clarion call.

We must invert the key symbol of domination. Once inverted, the patriarchal symbol of ‘the dome of domination’ becomes a bowl; when filled with water, the bowl is the symbol of the Sacred Feminine, as exemplified by theWhite Buffalo Calf Woman. She was the one who brought the Sacred Pipe to the Oglala Lakota Nation.

The Living Laws and Values of Turtle Island that the White Buffalo Calf Woman brought include: Honor and Respect; Compassion and Pity; Sharing and Caring (to carry the well-being of the People in one’s heart); Patience and Fortitude; Bravery and Courage; Humility; Seeking Wisdom and Seeking Understanding. In keeping with the White Buffalo Calf Woman’s teachings, Love and the Beautification of Life are healing values that need to replace the love of riches and wealth.

Next May, 2012, a year of great transformation, we will be inNew Yorkat the United Nations as part of our work toward decolonization at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The theme of the Permanent Forum will be the destructive legacy and deadly impact of the Doctrines of Discovery and Domination on Indigenous Nations and Peoples and on Mother Earth. We ask for your support by renouncing the Doctrine of Christian Discovery.

Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape, is co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and a columnist for the Indian Country Today Media Network.

OCCUPIED ON THE TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER! DECOLONIZE WALL STREET!

2011-10-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

A Key Destination of Tar Sands Oil?... Texas-Mexico Border. Do Tell.

2011-10-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

After watching the full testimonies held at the U.S. State Department on the issue of whether the U.S. should permit TransCanada Corporation to construct and operate a pipeline for transporting lethal oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, situated in the Traditional Territory of the Dene, I am even more alarmed about deep knowledge gaps and breakages, and the colonial blinders which are still preventing the majority spokespersons on these issues to examine the interlocking relationship of the Tar Sands in Dene country to Militarization in Nde' country (border wall, police terror state, detention centers, mega-rail, mega-bridge, and mega-highway projects connecting Lower Rio Grande Valley to northeastern Mexico 'ports'). There still seems to be an significant vaguery among the peoples (on both sides of the issue) about what could happen to the oil, the lands, peoples, water, air, and life... after refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, and where it would travel from its 'distribution' points along the Texas-Mexico border.

I'm more worried today than yesterday, witnessing the compelling testimonies and aghast at the lack of inquisitiveness on the part of the movement to follow the documentation trail left by Koch Industries (see September 24, 2011 post, scroll down). It is stunning how well the Texas connections to the oil-chemical-transportation League of Corporate Empires benefits from the colonial and racist implications of geographical-historical ignorance in the U.S. about indigenous struggles in South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande.

Again, please refer to the September 24, 2011 post on this site (scroll down), providing important details regarding Koch Industries' statement explicitly saying that the refined fuels will be going to Mexico, and from there other sites across the hemisphere. To my knowledge, this is the only site in the hemisphere that is making this crucial connection. Unfortunately, this is beginning to feel like the same isolation room that we experienced around the border wall.

I wonder if the 'progressive' camps of either movement--the anti-Keystone XL Pipeline or the Occupy Wall Street movement--perceive that their government and related corporations constructed the border wall, and now the MEGA-COLOSSAL HEAVY RAIL FREIGHT BRIDGE in concert with a much larger transhemispheric 'Security Prosperity Partnership, which entails transporting something considered a 'priority matter of national security' OVER the border wall which stands in the traditional territory of Lipan Apaches?

How will this happen on the ground?

Through 2 important mega-projects currently underway across the Texas-Mexico border:

1. A large rail transport system, which, low and behold, will traverse above the border wall in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Cameron County.

2. The Trans-Texas Corridor (connecting Albert, Canada to South Texas, to Mexico).

For a more in-depth view from El Calaboz, read the September 24, 2011 post.

Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Proprietary Title, and Nde' Inherent Rights to Lands and Territories, (cont'd)

2011-09-29T23:26:00.000-07:00

Picking up where I left off earlier,

Consider this view, excerpted from Gordon I. Bennett, 27 Buff. L. Rev. 617 (1977-1978)
Aboriginal Title in the Common Law: A Stony Path through Feudal Doctrine, Bennett, Gordon I.
[ 20 pages, 617 to 636 ]

"In Johnson v. McIntosh ° and Worcester v. Georgia," two landmark
decisions that still constitute the locus classicus on the subject,
Chief Justice Marshall referred to the principle evolved by the European
powers in their settlement of America that "discovery gave title
to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was
made, against all other European governments, which title might be
consummated by possession."'' The Chief Justice added the vital
caveat, however, that this principle could not
annul the previous rights of those who had not agreed to it. It regulated
the right given by discovery among the European discoverers;
but could not affect the rights of those already in possession,'either
as aboriginal occupants, or as occupants by virtue of a discovery
made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right to purchase,
but did not found that right on a denial of the possessor to
sell.' 3 [The original inhabitants] were admitted to be the rightful occupants
of the soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession
of it, and to use it according to their own discretion.14
Central to Marshall's analysis was the assertion that aboriginal rights
stem from ancient occupation per se, and are not dependent on a public
grant or official acknowledgment."
...
"Nor is it true, as respondent urges, that a tribal claim to any
particular lands must be based upon a treaty, statute, or other formal
government action."

"This view is confirmed by a whole cluster of Supreme Court decisions
and, most recently, by the Court of Claims in Lipan Apache
Tribe v. United States,'8 where Judge Davis dispelled any lingering
doubts:
Indian title based on aboriginal possession does not depend on sovereign
recognition or affirmative acceptance for its survival. Once
established in fact, it endures until extinguished or abandoned..."
"The correct enquiry is, not whether the Republic of Texas accorded
or granted the Indians any rights, but whether that sovereign extinguished
their pre-existing occupancy rights."

Ponder this.

Time to rest, until tomorrow...

(to be continued)

Aboriginal Title, Indigenous Proprietary Title, and Nde' Inherent Right to Self-Governance

2011-09-29T17:05:00.001-07:00

A Underlying Issue Still Contested from Indigenous Perspectives: Neither the U.S. nor Texas Had Rights to Extinguish Aboriginal Title of Southern Lipan Apaches of South Texas & LRGV

While many indigenous peoples have contested the final decisions of the infamous Indian Claims Commission, few if any have ever set forth an analysis ourselves of the decisions, nor critiqued how these decisions effected the ongoing self-determination, survival and existence of Nde', or Southern Lipan Apaches in South Texas and in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

Why? How and why did other indigenous peoples ('Mescaleros', et. al) ever become recognized as the sole proprietary owners of the traditional territories of Nde' of what is today South Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley & River, and our territories in Mexico?

This is a grave harm, still to be resolved for Nde' self-determination. It is clear that our peoples, under great threat of genocidal destruction before and during the time of the Indian Claims Commission, were a vulnerable indigenous people without means to counter-act or to defend against this level of deceit and injustice.

Today, it is time to convene, and to re-assess the outcomes of the ICC, several decades later, and the work that will be entailed in launching an Aboriginal Title landmark case to prove Nde' Aboriginal Title and traditional territorial rights to Konitsaii Gokiyaa, Lipan country.

For now, here is something to ponder...

I believe it is time for a critical gathering of leadership to deconstruct the assumptions built withing the conclusions of the Indian Claims Commission, and the United States and Texas as beneficiaries, which effectively left unrecognized and peripheral all Nde' families, communities, and organizations.

Here is an excerpt of the final decision, and the full document is here: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/icc/v36/iccv36p023.pdf

Excerpt, 36 Ind. Cl. Comm. 7, Docket #22-C

"The Commission found the detailed reports submitted by the above experts
to be informative. However, the Commission has rejected as conjectural,
speculative, and not supported by the preponderance of the evidence t h e
conclusions of p l a i n t i f f s ' expert witnesses as to the extent of Lipan
and Mescalero aboriginal ownership of the lands claimed herein for the
time periods in question. The Commission also r e j e c t s the p l a i n t i f f ' s
experts' conclusions as of the date of taking.
The defendant's expert witness was D r . Kenneth F. Neighbours, a
historian who has written extensively about the history of Texas and about i(afg
Robert Neighbors, the famous Indian agent of the Texas tribehwho served
in that capacity under both the Republic of Texas and the United States
governments. His report, an ethnohistory of the Lipan and Mescalero Indians,
and his testimony related chiefly to the land and Indian policies of the
respective sovereignties that ruled Texas through the 19th century. Be
36 Ind. C l . C m . 7 65
concluded t h a t , as a r e s u l t of such p o l i c i e s , the Indians of Texas, and
p a r t i c u l a r l y the Lipan and Mescalero Indians, did not have aboriginal
t i t l e to any lands within the State of Texas, although a t various times
these and other Indian t r i b e s had h i s t o r i c a l l y been located a t d i f f e r e n t
places within t h e area. The Commission has rejected Dr. ~ e i g h b o u r s '
legal conclusions r e l a t i v e t o Indian t i t l e in the State of Texas as
contrary to the law of the case.
16. Conclusion.
Based upon the foregoing findings of f a c t and a l l the evidence of
record, the Commission has concluded as follows:
(a) From time immemorial, through the periods of Spanish and Mexican
sovereignty, and the Republic of Texas, and, u n t i l November 1, 1856,
when, as a r e s u l t of the actions of the United States army in carrying
out federal policy, it was compelled to vacate its ancestral home, the
aboriginal Lipan Apache Tribe held Indian t i t l e to the following described
land situated within that area i n Texas claimed by principal p l a i n t i f f
herein :
Beginning a t that point on the Rio Grande River which is the
northwest corner of Zapata County; thence e a s t e r l y along the
common boundary of Zapata and Webb counties to t h e southeast corner
of Webb County; thence northeasterly on a l i n e , crossing the
Nueces River, to the town of Pawnee i n Bee County; thence
northwesterly on a l i n e to the northwest corner of Bandwa County;
thence northwesterly on a l i n e to the northwest corner of Edwards
County; thence south along the western boundary of Edwards County
and adjoining Kinney County to the southwest corner of Kinney
County on the Rio Grande River; thence southeasterly along the
east bank of the Rio Grande River to the place of beginning.
(b) From time immemorial, through the periods of Spanish and Hexican
and occupied exclusively i n Indian fashion a l a r g e a r e a i n eouth c e n t r a l
36 Ind. C1. Comm. 7
New Mexico and west Texas between the Rio Grande River and the Pecos
River. By v i r t u e of the Executive Order of May 29, 1873, e s t a b l i s h i n g
the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation i n New Mexico, the Mescalero
Apache Tribe relinquished to the United S t a t e s without the payment of
compensation, Indian t i t l e t o a l l lands outside of the reservation. See
Mescalero Apache Tribe v. United S t a t e s , 17 Ind. C1. Comm. 100 (1966).
Accordingly, May 29, 1873, is the e f f e c t i v e date of the extinguishment of
a l l Mescalero aboriginal land claims including Mescalero Indian t i t l e
t o the following described area in Texas.
Beginning a t t h e southeast corner of the S t a t e of New
Mexico; thence south-southwest on a l i n e across the Pecos
River t o the southeast corner of Reeves County Texas; thence
southwest on a l i n e to Ft. Davis i n J e f f Davis County; thence
northwest on a l i n e to the town of Van Horn in Culberson County;
thence northwest on a l i n e to the northeast corner El Paso
County, Texas, said corner being on the southern boundary of the
S t a t e of New Mexico; thence e a s t e r l y along the southern boundary
of the S t a t e of New Mexico to t h e p o i n t of beginning.
(c) The evidence of record does not support Lipan and Mescalero
aboriginal t i t l e claims to lands outside of the areas awarded above.
(d) The Tonkawa Tribe of Indians, second intervenors, herein has
f a i l e d t o prove by the preponderance of the evidence t h a t s a i d t r i b e
is the successor in i n t e r e s t t o the a b o r i g i n a l Lipan Apache Tribe.""

Here is another view:

from, Aboriginal Title: The Modern Jurisprudence of Tribal Land Rights, by Paul G. McHugh, (Oxford University Press, 2011), 178-179.

"In Calder, Justice Hall drew upon the American cases on extinguishment when he indicated that aboriginal title 'could not therefore be extinguished except by surrender to the Crown or by competent legislative authority, and then only be specific legislation.' His inspiration was the opinion of Davis J in Lipan Apache (1967) where it was said that in 'the absence of a "clear and plain intention" in the public records that the sovereign "intended to extinguishe all of the claimants' rights" to their property' the Indian title continued at law. That approach towards the interpretation of statutes affecting Indian title had been used in a sequence of cases from at least the early twentieth century. Ultimately, it went back to a canon for the interpretation of Indian treaties given by Chief Justice Marshall who said (1832) that treaties to 'be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by Indians'. As the doctrine of aboriginal title became articulated in the courts, judges routinely invoked this 'clear and plain intention' rule for the interpretation of statutes."

(to be continued)

Margo Tamez Responds to Article, "Dozens arrested outside White House during oil sands protest," by Lee-Anne Goodman

2011-09-24T12:59:00.000-07:00

Construction of Mega Project Bridge in Cameron County, Texas-Mexico Border, August, 2011.

Photo by Margo Tamez, Copyright Holder. May not be reproduced without permission.

Post #2: Margo Tamez, An Nde' Woman and Hada'didla-Konitsaii Nde' Clan Member of El Calaboz Rancheria Responds (Post #1 in this series)

[Note: A large portion of this piece was originally posted on August 24,, 2011 to the NAIPC/North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus List Serve]

Introduction

Ha'shi?, Greetings to all.

I wish to address the issue of the Indigenous Peoples' efforts to resist further encroachment by exploitative extraction, specifically in regards to the 'Tar Sands'/Oil Sands extractions in Indigenous Peoples' traditional territories and Indigenous Peoples' resistances to ongoing violations of human rights, and transgressions and disrespect for the fundamental and minimal standards agreed upon by member States of the United Nations, as articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The aggression against Indigenous Peoples by settler governments of Alberta and Canada, and the involved corporations, not limited to TransCanada Corporation and Keystone XL, (as I will share below in my discussion about the pipeline, refinery and impacts in Texas and Nde' traditional territory) are a grave concern of Nde' peoples, chiefly chief traditional authorities, clan leaders, elected leaders, and our related Indigenous relations throughout the Texas and northeastern Mexico region. Furthermore, I am concerned about, and will address herein, the still generalized 'hints' to the impacts on Indigenous Peoples in traditional territories unceded by Indigenous Nations across the (current-day) U.S., and specifically will turn my attention to the 'receiving' refinery sites in South Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and northeastern Mexico. These directly impact Nde' peoples, peoplehood, human rights, and self-determination.

I wish to weigh in on the still under-examined and under-analyzed impacts upon the Indigenous communities in (current day) South Texas and northeastern Mexico, where the Canadian, U.S., and Texas government officials, powerful dominating ruling elites--who are direct, lineal descendants of the settler society, with long-standing TEXAS-based policy-making in favor of a militarized and violent policing to repress the self-governance and recognition of Indigenous Peoples in Texas, as well as institutional organizations and certain 'citizen' groups--have been working vigilantly in support of TransCanada corporation, interest-holders (which, as of today also includes Hillary Clinton and some of her top aides along her career trajectory).

Local Contexts:

Throughout July and August, 2011, in El Calaboz Rancheria, and traditional territories of Hada'didla and Konitsaii Nde', along the Texas-Mexico border, the Indigenous Peoples and representatives who gathered during the "El Calaboz Rancheria Gathering on Indigenous Knowledge, Lands, Territories and Human Rights" witnessed and documented the construction of a mega-project infrastructure for the large-scale transportation of what we construe will be not only oil, but also other extracted elements, such as uranium, which is being targeted once again by U.S. government and corporations.

Once refined in coastal S. Texas refineries, the oil will be transported to Mexico (and no doubt the other U.S.-controlled military 'base', Columbia). All this colossal planning, financing, and implementation measures carried out by and through the abuses of power by elites, did, and continues to, occlude the the grave and concrete reality of ongoing violations of rule of law and human rights which the Keystone XL Pipeline and the Tar Sands projects have already carried out--by obscurring their real activities from the Indigenous Peoples and leadership, as well as U.S. taxpayers. These entities have been negating their duties and responsibilities to enter into meaningful consultation relative to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as treaties and other constructive arrangements which impact Indigenous Peoples' lands and territories unceded. The laws regarding consent of Indigenous Peoples and regarding the illegal seizure, dispossession and taking of land from Indigenous Peoples for development projects, require that States and corporations provide Indigenous Peoples' Free Prior and Informed Consent, the possibility of redress, restitution, and reparation for harms.

There is a crucial opportunity for Nde' Peoples of (current-day) South Texas and Northeastern Mexico, in bifurcated regions such as the Texas-Mexico border, to form important, and much needed dialogues and pro-active decision-making on this issue because there are severe consequences and direct impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline megaproject that will negatively impact the self-determination, nationhood, peoplehood, and self-governance autonomy of presently living and future Nde' generations.

We Nde' are essentially being handed a spiritual, sacred, ethical and moral opportunity to move forward in Nde' Justice & Governance which is based upon the principles, protocols and perspectives of Nde' millenial systems, not by Eurocentric systems of racialization, tribalization, indigenism, and false identity.

My relatives, we Nde' are being given an opportunity to stand up in collective agreement and consensus to act by our principles of Nde' Justice, which is inherently connected to our familial and inherent relationships to Konitsaii Gokiyaa, Nde' Homelands.

Current events demand that there be an emboldened leadership, representing inclusive participation to decision-making, that emerges now in a forthright manner. Emerging leadership models, based integrally upon Nde' Knowledge Systems--not based on Eurocentrically imposed and false governance, modeled after the U.S. bankrupt and corrupt 'democratic' imprisonment systems--but, rather, based upon Nde' Knowledge, Memory, Relationships, Clans, First Foods, Sacred Ritual & Ceremonial Systems, and centrality of matrilineal and matrilocal justice and governance-- is crucial in the process of decolonizing Nde' actions towards self-determination today.

The voices and realities of Indigenous Peoples in bare existence/bare life within the 'dead-zones' of purported corrupted 'nation to nation' relations with States and corporations floods the news everyday, and yet, many Indigenous peoples' needs in our community go unanswered, ignored, denied. That is not the path toward true self-determination and self-governance.

It is time for Nde' leaders to step up and be voiced and listened to in regards to the Keystone XL Pipeline megaproject, and the conspicuous covering over of the reality of Nde' contestations with the U.S. and Texas over the traditional territory which will be exploited in this scheme. The Nde' Peoples who are the traditional land owners, will be denied any voice, agency, or means for redress need to be exposed.

The current news stories covering the Keystone XL Pipeline downplay any impacts upon over 250,000 Indigenous peoples identified in Texas legislative papers as 'Native Americans', and the hundreds of thousands of Indigenous Peoples in Texas identified by the state as 'Mexicans' or 'Latin Americans.'

These omissions have been set into stone by the uncritical voices that U.S. liberal-progressive groups' have etched onto the consciousness of the (so-called) 'American Heartland'. Making Indigenous Peoples in Texas absent is a political issue and a human rights issue. Many groups gain to benefit from maintaining this tactical omission from public view.

Indigenous leaders of the Nde' nation, it is time to come together into council, and make key decisions for the Nde' way of life for our future generations. We must articulate and specify exactly where we Nde' stand on this issue of the Tar Sands, the Keystone XL Pipeline, and other mega industrial projects, such as the border wall, the militarization of our Konitsaii Gokiyaa, and life-threatening projects such as the currently unfolding uranium yellow-cake and water dispossession/taking/extraction slated within our traditional homelands of South Texas as well.

Old Fashioned Ignorance and 'Nativism' Amidst the U.S.Tar Sands Protests?

I wish to share my perspective about how the liberal voice drowns out and occludes the realities of impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline upon Indigenous Peoples & our lands in Texas

The liberal/progressive/anarchist forms of activisms, while important to elevating this important issue to the mainstream public, should not be the 'first' nor the 'last' voice that shapes this issue in the American mainstream because they do not have the education about Indigenous Issues necessary to educate the public about the underlying issues at stake. How the liberal-progressive activists shape and develop the representation of Indigenous Peoples and our struggles and intertwine their limited understanding of this arena of power relations will have a huge impact on how people perceive the harms committed by the Keystone Pipeline XL project. The issue of incorrect representation in the media is having and will continue to have a harmful impact on Indigenous Peoples throughout the U.S., and particularly in Texas and Mexico.

I am deeply skeptical about the selective historical amnesia of the liberal minded and spirited protesters arrested in front of the White House in late August. I have a concern about the genocidal violence and transgressions by the settler society, deep in the heart of Texas, and the fact that this obvious factoid is not being examined closely nor appearing in any media alerts produced by the organizations and groups leading the charge in a U.S. context.

While I agree that alliances, nontraditional alliances, have always been key to our long-term goals of self-governance with lands and territories, the liberal/anarchist sector in this particular arena of struggle, has not yet contributed anything critical to the public's understanding about the specificity of the Keystone XL Pipeline's exact distribution centers and refineries along the Texas coast. Texas is 'big', true, though the indigenous politics there are by no means invisible, nor difficult to locate with a minimal effort in Google.

I'm skeptical about the U.S. environmentalist focus on the dirty business of 'refining' and/or 'transporting' the oil, and how this lens completely obfuscates the underlying resistances, (centuries long) and struggles spearheaded by Indigenous Peoples across Texas, and in Konitsaii Gokiyaa, our homeland. We must look more critically at the way impacts in the U.S., by liberal-progressives focuses more on how the Pipeline project will impact their conception of U.S. territory as the domain of U.S. citizens and taxpayers, not Indigenous Peoples per se. The way in which 'rights' as articulated by liberal-progressives overshadows Indigenous Peoples interests, and focuses on the 'environment' and the limited way in which they view this as an Indigenous struggle against abusive and violent state governments, dispossession, criminalization, neocolonization, neoliberalism, and land claims contestations.

It is not any longer possible, given the prominence of Texas indigenous activism across the digital spaces, to not see that Indigenous peoples in Texas have been involved in a long-term battle and commitment to land claims, self-determination, self-governance, and autonomy in Indigenous Proprietary Title.

Yet, there is a great vagueness and unspecified, ethereal absence of groundedness surrounding the liberal-progressive activism in the 'front-line' (those arrested in Washington D.C.) of the Keystone XL Pipeline issue. The skimming over the lived realities of Indigenous Peoples on the real ground in S. Texas is a red flag.

How U.S. progressives enact their 'American' indignation and outrage about Indigenous issues embroiled in land and territorial paradigm shifts is directly tied to their cultures' historical amnesia, and in my opinion, we Indigenous Peoples cannot sustain an alliance with liberal progressives in the long run, due to an ongoing denial of genocide in Texas, the problematic negation of Nde' presence as the traditional holders of Aboriginal Title to the lands and resources in question.

I sincerely hope the liberal-progressives are learning the process of becoming meaningful and true 'allies' with, by, for, and alongside Indigenous Peoples is a lifelong journey which must be disseminated intergenerationally.

True allies in Indigenous Peoples' struggles for self-determination and autonomy are rare. It is one thing to vehemently and honorably uphold the rights of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and quite another to bring this concept to bear in regards to unpacking privilege, violence, and ignorance as the normed U.S. and Texas 'Indian Policy' which threatens through denying the very existence of Nde' Peoplehood, rights, and Aboriginal Title in Texas, which has everything to do with true Indigenous to Indigenous alliance building on the Keystone XL Pipeline issue. It is a much deeper relationship related to reciprocity and mutual protection of our rights as the land owners.

Sadly, what I have witnessed thus far in the media, is a vacancy and muted absence of any such leanings to true decolonization by the purported liberal-progressive 'allies' of this important anti-colonial movement spearheaded by the Indigenous Peoples.

The time has come to put the faces and places on this issue within a U.S. geopolitical, historical, and political-economic map, so to speak. We Indigenous Peoples must step up and claim this issue as ours across all our similarities and differences. We Indigenous Peoples must take responsibility to ‘locate’ the shatter-zone of impacts to our peoples, lands, and futures within precise sites where the ongoing colonialist oppression of the Tar Sands...is coming home, intimately and violently.

We mustn't miss/avert the downstream specificities, or relegate this work to others who do not know, nor care to apply, the real history of colonization and ongoing genocide.

Considerations Related to the UNDRIP, Article 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, and 36, 37.

We cannot deny how the ‘Security, Prosperity Trade Partnership’ and U.S. national interests and foreign policy on the U.S.-Mexico border, Mexico, and Latin America produces the conditions for the terrain of multiple and intersecting oppressions. Examine the Canada-Tar Sands to South Texas refineries to exports to Mexico, Central and South America...and Caribbean matrix.

For example:

“Going to Jail for the Environment,” The Baltimore Sun, August 22, 2011. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-08-22/news/bs-ed-tar-sands-20110822_1_wind-farms-tar-sands-pipeline

“The other vision embraces a massive, 1,700-mile pipeline from Canada to Texas full of "tar sands oil," the dirtiest petroleum fuel. This proposed pipeline, if built, would steer our nation toward another generation of polluting automobile use.”

“Waxman dares ask if tar sands oil pipeline will benefit Koch Industries,” Daily KOS, Friday, May 27, 2011,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/27/979072/-Waxman-dares-ask-if-tar-sands-oil-pipeline-will-benefit-Koch-Industries

“Koch also owns a heavy oil refinery in Texas, so it is not unreasonable to assume it will also have some stake in tar sands crude moving through the Keystone XL pipeline.”

“Most of the refined transportation fuels we are exporting is going to countries (e.g., Mexico, Canada) that have significant refinery capacity. What these countries do not have is the ability to refine heavy crude oil like that produced from tar sands. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, or Koch Industries cannot sell tar sands crude to these countries, but can sell them refined products from that crude.”

“Much of those exports are shipped from the Gulf Coast refineries, particularly those in Texas.

What the Keystone XL pipeline does is bring tar sands oil to refineries in Texas. So, the question someone should be asking is whose interests are being served by the pipeline. Does it serve the energy needs of American consumers as claimed by Republicans like Fred Upton? Or does it serve to move tar sands crude from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries where petroleum products can be produced for export?

Conclusion

Nde' and relations, let us move together in unity, clarity, affirmation and in a forthright manner. The current construction of a mega- bridge over the Texas-Mexico border wall, (down the road from El Calaboz) is a ‘connector’ for the TransTexas Corridor (Texas to Canada) giving capacity for large freight trains... to travel over the wall, to move oil from Canada (source) to Texas (refineries) to Mexico (‘markets’). It is time for decisive action.

Ahi'dn, thank you,

Margo Tamez

Hada'didla Nde', Konitsaii Nde'

Lipan Apache Band of Texas

South Texas Links to Keystone Pipeline and Tar Sands (Dene Traditional Territory/Alberta, Canada)

2011-09-24T12:01:00.000-07:00

South Texas Indigenous Peoples Should Be Seriously Concerned About the Links Between the Tar Sands and Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights,

Post #1: Background Context

http://www.foe.org/major-tar-sands-oil-pipeline-spill-adds-doubts-about-controversial-keystone-xl-proposal

For Immediate Release

May 5, 2011

Contact:

Marty Cobenais, Indigenous Environmental Network, ienpipeline@igc.org, 218-760-0284
Kelly Trout, Friends of the Earth, ktrout@foe.org, 202-222-0722

Major Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Spill Adds to Doubts About Controversial Keystone XL Proposal

Today, tribes and environmental organizations reiterated their call for the rejection of new of tar sands oil pipelines following a major tar sands oil pipeline spill in Alberta, Canada. Last Friday, a pipeline owned by Plains All American spilled over one million gallons of tar sands oil in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta.

The massive spill—larger even than the tar sands oil pipeline rupture that polluted Michigan’s Kalamazoo River last summer—reinforced public concerns over the growing use of tar sands oil in the U.S. and, in particular, about the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil proposal. The Keystone XL project, proposed by Alberta-based TransCanada Pipelines, would stretch 1,700 miles from Canada across the American Midwest to Texas and is currently under review by the Obama administration.

“Pipelines are not safe,” stated Sac & Fox Principal Chief George Thurman, headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma. “These leaks in Canada only verify our concerns with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. We must protect the water, air, land and our significant cultural and historical sites for future generations, therefore, the Sac & Fox Business Committee stands opposed to construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

In the U.S., tar sands oil pipelines have come under increasing scrutiny in the last year. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has drawn opposition from a wide range of U.S. officials, including Nebraska Senator Mike Johanns (R). Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, a source of water for many of the nation’s farms, could be polluted by spills from the Keystone XL pipeline.

“These tar sands oil pipelines have been found to have serious safety risks,” said Marty Cobenais, pipeline organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, citing a recent report by the Pipeline Safety Trust and Natural Resources Defense Council. “This report concluded that Alberta’s pipeline system, which mostly carries tar sands oil, has had 16 times more spills from internal corrosion than the conventional crude pipelines that are in the U.S.,” Cobenais added.

A week earlier, the Trans Mountain pipeline in Alberta was shut down following a spill. A pin-sized hole in the pipeline released an unknown amount of oil into the ground and a nearby creek before being discovered by local landowners.

Last summer, a tar sands oil pipeline spilled nearly one million gallons of oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, the largest oil spill in Midwest history. Nearly a year later, the impacts are still being felt and the EPA announced that a 30-mile section of the river will be closed to the public for this summer.

“Tar sands oil pipelines are simply not safe,” said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “The Peace Region spill once again shows the costs of our continued oil addiction. We should choose healthy children, clean water, and a strong clean energy economy over dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL.”

The Keystone XL pipeline is currently undergoing a second round of environmental review and a public comment period is open through June 6.

###

Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director

Indigenous Environmental Network

PO Box485

Bemidji, MN 56619 USA

Ph: + 1 218 751 4967

Fax: + 1 218 751 0561

Email: ien@igc.org

Web: www.ienearth.org

The Lost Ones: Long Journey Home [Lipan Apache Film of Genocide by U.S. Government & Boarding School Imprisonment]

2011-07-03T08:54:00.000-07:00

NDE' RESEARCH PARTNERSHIPS IN SUPPORT OF NDE' RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND INDIGENOUS AUTONOMY: A CRITICAL INTERROGATION INTO GENOCIDE AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, THE UNITED STATES, TEXAS, AND MEXICO AS SETTLER STATES AND LIPAN APACHE PEOPLES IN ONGOING PROCESS OF DECOLONIZATION WITH LANDS, TERRITORIES, REDRESS, RESTITUTION AND REVENUE SHARING .

Revisit Post: "12 Methods Used to Deny 'Lipan Apache' Genocide in Texas and to Regulate Nde' Struggles to the Normative Discourse of 'the Past' & 'Extinction' "
Posted: Friday, November 28, 2008

El Calaboz Gathering June 24-26, 2011

2011-05-29T12:38:00.000-07:00

A DRUG & ALCOHOL FREE, TOBACCO RESPECTFUL, ANTI-VIOLENCE GATHERING

ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST GO THROUGH FORMAL REGISTRATION in EL CALABOZ

CONTACT: el.calaboz.2011@gmail.com for details

Poster El Calaboz 2011 Espanol

Poster El Calaboz 2011 English

Nde' Delegation Participate in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues-10

2011-04-16T13:29:00.000-07:00

Margo Tamez (Nde'-El Calaboz) shaking hand of future indigenous leader, in the circle of honor at Blue Lake Rancheria, March 20, 2011.

CHAIRMAN DANIEL CASTRO ROMERO, JR. & Nde' Community Member

DR. MARGO TAMEZ, Testimony at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights/Organization of American States.

April 16, 2011

After participating in the North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, March 18-20, at Blue Lake Rancheria, California, the Nde' representative from El Calaboz Rancheria, Margo Tamez, Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas-Mexico, and Chairman Romero, representing the Nde' traditional territory, re-grouped to participate in the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 10th Session, New York City, NY, May 16-27, 2011.

Dr. Margo Tamez (Nde', Co-Founder, Lipan Apache Women Defense) and Chairman Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. (Lipan Apache Band of Texas) accompanied an Apache delegation to present concept papers, research, and interventions related to the human rights violations in the matter of Lipan Apache peoples and Indigenous Proprietary Title ('Aboriginal Title'), land claims, the border wall, gender violence, and the situation of Indigenous women human rights defenders, among the many concerns raised by Nde' communities.

Margo Tamez stated, "We have a specific mandate from indigenous people, and it is up to us to ensure that indigenous peoples' voices and concerns are heard and understood by our peer Indigenous leaders and delegates at the UNPFII 10th Session, by U.N. officials, NGOs, and by States--particularly Spain, the Holy See, Mexico and the U.S.

"Indigenous peoples in South Texas, the LRGV and along the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo river are and have always been deeply related along cultural, social, political and economic perspectives and our histories of colonization. The Nde' delegation is actively engaging international arenas today more than ever. This is not accidental, nor a recent development, as Nde' (Lipan Apache peoples) have long been dynamic actors in international sovereign to sovereign and nation to nation relations--with the Holy See, Spain, Mexico and Texas--since the mid 16th century."

"Thus, this diligent work towards the reclamation of self-governance of Nde' traditional territory, is a crucial part of a broader movement of Indigenous peoples across the hemisphere. Nde' are finally reclaiming the rightful place in the international legal arena as a Nation--firmly embracing a self-determination process in which Nde Lipan Apaches are uniquely situated for, given our long international relations experiences with Spain, Mexico, Texas and the U.S."

Nde' Human Rights, Land, Territories, and Futures
The Nde' ('Lipan Apache') delegation formally requested a formal meeting with the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, (U.N. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights). This formal request by the Nde' was granted by Special Rapporteur Anaya.

The issues of Nde' land claims, Nde' land grants, Nde' Crown title mechanisms, Indigenous Proprietary Title, redress, and revenue sharing of oil, uranium, copper, coal, and other mineral elements, including biodiversity, are at stake for indigenous self-determination and self-governance.

Implementing the UNDRIP along the Texas-Mexico border is complicated by the states' policies of militarization, criminalization of indigenous peoples, globalization, climate change, unresolved historical contexts of violent dispossession and supplantation of Indigenous governance systems, and the human rights of Indigenous women, children, families, and workers.

The Nde' delegation raised these and more for the formal review of the Special Rapporteur.

Specifically, in her face-to-face meeting with Anaya in New York City on May 18, Tamez articulated that the Nde' of El Calaboz formally request that the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples make an official visit to the Texas-Mexico Border along the trajectory of the border wall, and to observe, witness, and to document the rights violations against Indigenous families, communities, elders, women, children and workers who are the most severely impacted by the U.S. violation of international law. The office of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples is organized within the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In fulfillment of his mandate, Special Rapporteur Anaya:
* Promotes good practices, including new laws, government programs, and constructive agreements between indigenous peoples and states, to implement international standards concerning the rights of indigenous peoples (See Promotion of good practices)
* Reports on the overall human rights situations of indigenous peoples in selected countries (see Country reports);
* Addresses specific cases of alleged violations of the rights of indigenous peoples through communications with Governments and others (see Communications);
* Conducts or contributes to thematic studies on topics of special importance regarding the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples (See Thematic studies).
James S. Anaya, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

North American Indigenous Peoples' Caucus, March 19-20, 2011

2011-03-20T17:19:00.000-07:00

A delegation comprised of Lipan Apaches of El Calaboz Rancheria, the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, and San Carlos Apache Tribe formed a working group to attend, learn, share, inform, and make interventions on the issues affecting Nde' and Nnee' ('Apache') peoples' self-determination and sovereignty. Some of these are borders, gender violence, taxation, the right to mobility across traditional territories, livelihoods, Traditional Knowledge, dispossession, expropriation, environmental destruction, militarization, uranium mining and production, oil drilling and extraction, Free Prior Informed Consent, Human Rights violations, self-determination and sovereignty, as well as Indigenous Proprietary Title ('Aboriginal Title').

THE REAL COST OF ANTI-NDE' BIAS AND PREJUDICE AGAINST NON-RECOGNIZED TRIBES

2011-02-03T19:38:00.001-08:00

The All Segments Waiver, authored by former U.S. Homeland Security Director, Secretary Michael Chertoff, at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1207080713748.shtm.

Billing Code -4410-10
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended AGENCY: Office ofthe Secretary, Department of Homeland Security ACTION: Notice of determination.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the
international land border of the United States.
DATES: This Notice is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. DETERMINATION AND WAIVER: I have a mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the borders of the United States. Public Law 109-367, § 2, 120 Stat. 2638, 8 U.S.C. § 1701 note. Congress has provided me with a number of authorities necessary to accomplish this mandate. One of these authorities is found at section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRlRA"). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat.3009-546,3009-554(Sept.30, 1996)(8U.S.C 1103note),asamendedbythe REALIDActof2005, PublicLaw109-13,Div.B,119Stat.231,302,306(May11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of2006, Public Law
109-367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1103 note), as amended by the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In Section 102(a) ofIIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In Section
102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, including priority miles of fencing that must be completed by December 2008. Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to me the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious
construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
I determine that the areas in the vicinity of the United States border described on the attached document, which is incorporated and made a part hereof, are areas of high illegal entry (collectively "Project Areas"). These Project Areas are located in the States of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In order to deter illegal crossings in the
Project Areas, there is presently a need to construct fixed and mobile barriers (such as
fencing, vehicle barriers, towers, sensors, cameras, and other surveillance,
communication, and detection equipment) and roads in the vicinity of the border of the
United States. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads
that Congress prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project Areas, which are areas of high
illegal entry into the United States, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise
the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads
and fixed and mobile barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, surveillance, communication, and detection equipment of all types, radar and radio towers, and lighting) in the Project Areas, all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following laws, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91190,83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 D.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (Dec. 28,1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 D.S.C. 1251 et seq.)), the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16 D.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 D.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42 D.S.C. 7401 et seq.), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16 D.S.C. 470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 D.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act (42 D.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 D.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 D.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86-523, 16
D.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act (16 D.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 D.S.C. 461 et seq), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542, 16 D.S.C. 1281 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 D.S.C. 4201etseq.),theCoastalZoneManagementAct(Pub.L.92-583, 16D.S.C. §1451et
seq.),theWildernessAct (Pub.L.88-577,16U.S.C. 1131etseq.),theFederalLand Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94-579,43 D.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Pub. L. 89-669, 16 D.S.C. 668dd-668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73-121, 16D.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 D.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106-145), Sections 102(29) and 103 of Title I of the California Desert Protection Act (Pub. L. 103-433),50 Stat. 1827, the National Park Service Organic Act (Pub. L. 64-235,
16 D.S.C. 1,2-4), the National Park Service General Authorities Act (Pub. L. 91-383, 16
D.S.C. la-l et seq.), Sections 401(7), 403, and 404 of the National Parks and Recreation Actof 1978(Pub.L.95-625),Sections301(a)-(f)oftheArizonaDesertWildernessAct (Pub. L. 101-628), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 D.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16 D.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 D.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 D.S.C. 1996), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 D.S.C. 2000bb), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 D.S.C. 1600 et seq.), and the Multiple Dse and Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 D.S.C. 528-531).
This waiver does not supersede, supplement, or in any way modify the previous waivers published in the Federal Register on September 22,2005 (70 FR 55622), January 19,
2007 (72 FR 2535), and October 26, 2007 (72 FR 60870).
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary to accomplish the provisions of section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.

Dated:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary
~,

The Hidalgo Fence Waiver, authored by former U.S. Homeland Security Director, Secretary Michael Cheroff, at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1207080713748.shtm.

Billing Code -4410-10
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Office of the Secretary
Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
as Amended AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security ACTION: Notice of determination.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the
intemationalland border of the United States.
DATES: This Notice is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. DETERMINATION AND WAIVER: The Department of Homeland Security has a mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the borders of the United States. Public Law 109-367, § 2, 120 Stat. 2638,8 U.S.C. § 1701 note. Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with a number of authorities necessary to accomplish this mandate. One of these authorities is found at section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat.3009-546,3009-554(Sept.30, 1996)(8U.S.C 1103note),asamendedbythe REALIDActof2005, PublicLaw109-13,Div.B,119Stat.231,302,306(May11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law
-----_U-
U-n -n ---n -n------. -n-----un 109-
367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. § 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26,2007). In Section 102(a) of the IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In Section
102(b) of the IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on not less than 700 miles of the southwest border, including priority miles of fencing that must be completed by December of 2008. Finally, in section 102(c) of the IIRIRA, Congress granted to me the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of the IIRIRA.
I determine that the area in the vicinity ofthe United States border as described in the attached document, hereinafter the Project Area, which is incorporated and made a part hereof, is an area of high illegal entry. In order to deter illegal crossings in the Project Area, there is presently a need to construct fixed and mobile barriers and roads in conjunction with improvements to an existing levee system in the vicinity of the border of the United States as a joint effort with Hidalgo County, Texas. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads that Congress prescribed in the IIRIRA in the Project Area, which is an area of high illegal entry into the United States, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of the IIRIRA as amended. Accordingly, I hereby waive in their entirety, with
-n---------------n
-_n__---~-m__respect
to the construction of roads and fixed and mobile barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the project area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of fences, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, surveillance, communication, and detection equipment of all types, radar and radio towers, and lighting) in the Project Area, all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following laws, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,
1970) (42 V.S.C. 4321 et seq.)), the Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884) (Dec. 28, 1973) (16 V.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act) (33 V.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16 V.S.C. 470 et seq.)), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 V.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Clean Air Act (42
V.S.C.
7401 et seq.), the Archeological Resources Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16
V.S.C.
470aa et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 V.S.C. 300f et seq.), the Noise Control Act (42 V.S.C. 4901 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 V.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 V.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 86-523, 16 V.S.C. 469 et seq.), the Antiquities Act (16 V.S.C. 431 et seq.), the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 V.S.C. 461 et seq.), the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 V.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L. 92-583, 16V.S.C. § 1451 et seq.), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub L. 94-579,43 V.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
-~----n_u-
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Pub. L. 89-669, 16 V.S.c. 668dd-668ee), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 V.S.C. 742a, et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73-121, 16 V.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 V.S.C. 551 et seq.), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 V.S.C. 403), the Eagle Protection Act (16 V.S.C. 668 et seq.), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 V.S.C. 3001 et seq.), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 V.S.C. 1996), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 V.S.C. 2000bb), and the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (31 V.S.C. 6303-05).
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary to accomplish the provisions of section 102 of the IIRIRA, as amended.
Dated:
Michael Chertoff, Secretary
\

"Why I Speak Out" Testimonies from Lipan Apache Elder, Eloisa Garcia Tamez

2011-02-03T17:29:00.001-08:00

By Melissa del Bosque, "All Walled Up", Texas Observer, January 20, 2010, at http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/all-walled-up/.

Native Peoples in the U.S., Mexico and the U.S.-Mexico Border Communities are Neither Hispanics Nor Latinos

2010-11-27T13:54:00.000-08:00

ARGUING WITH XENOPHOBE BEAR ON RACISM ALONG THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER AND INTERIOR

2010-11-24T13:04:00.000-08:00

THE HYPOCRISY OF THANKS-TAKING AND PERSISTENT ANTI-INDIGENOUS (ANTI-"MEXICAN") BIGOTRY
Film, by Time Wise.

TESTIFY PROJECT: U.S. ABUSES AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2010-10-31T09:46:00.000-07:00

Testify Project
"It is time for people in the United States to make their voices heard at the United Nations. The Testify Project collects stories of injustice from throughout the United States through one-minute video and one-page written testimony. The top videos and stories will be screened for United Nations delegates in Geneva, Switzerland during the United States’ Universal Periodic Review.

CORE QUESTION: How are human rights violated in your community? OPTIONAL QUESTION: What should the US Government do to protect these rights?

Videos and written testimony should tell us about human rights violations in your community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) specifies many rights everyone has simply by being human, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3), freedom from arbitrary arrest (Article 9), freedom of thought and religion (Article 18), right to form and join unions (Article 23) and right to an adequate standard of living (Article 25). You can read a full version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng, or a simplified version at www.adcq.qld.gov.au/pubs/UDHR_easyrefguide.rtf.

GET INVOLVED AND ORGANIZE! For more instructions about how to write, submit written statements, and/or how to make a youtube video and upload it to the Testify Project, click!

ORIGINARIOS, INDIGENOUS, FIRST NATION, PUEBLOS INDIGENAS, COMUNIDADES TRADICIONALES, BANDAS LIPANES, BANDAS TLAXCALTECAS ANCIANOS, INMIGRANTES INDIGENAS Y CAMPESINOS, PEOPLES OF LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY IMPACTED BY THE BORDER WALL, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE HORRIFIC EFFECTS OF FLOODING, LOSS OF LIVELIHOOD, RACIST, SEXIST, CLASSIST DISCRIMINATION BY GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL AUTHORITY, AND ON-GOING IMPACTS OF THE MILITARIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY: Lipan Apache Women Defense calls upon you.

PLEASE--if you desire to walk side by side and in ALLIANCE with Indigenous Peoples working on human rights and Indigenous Rights based upon the local community protocols of governance, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as key frameworks for strengthened and empowered communities, the dismantling of the Border Wall, the return of Indigenous lands, and return of Indigenous local authority and vision for sustainable communities: CONTACT US! sumalhepa.nde.defense@gmail.com

NATIVE PEOPLES & ARIZONA SB1070

2010-10-28T18:23:00.000-07:00

The American Indian Program at Cornell University presents a Roundtable Discussion on Arizona SB1070 and its impacts on Native Peoples.

Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Place: Goldwin Smith Hall, Room 142
Time: 4:30-6:00 p.m.

Light Refreshments to follow.

Panelists:

Dr. Margo Tamez (Lipan Apache) – Assistant Professor and Faculty in Gender and Women’s Studies and Indigenous Studies, University of British Columbia, Department of Community, Culture & Global Studies. Her research areas include the Indigenous peoples and Indigenous women from the regions currently bifurcated by the U.S.-Mexico border, and decolonial Indigenous historical perspectives of Nde’ and Nnee’ (‘Apache’) peoples of the Texas-Mexico border region.

Michael Flores (Tohono O’odham from GuVo) – Community organizer in border communities in and near Arizona. He has served three terms on his Tribal Council, and as a Board Member of the International Indian Treaty Council.

Dr. Alan Eladio Gómez (Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin) - Historian and Assistant Professor in the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University. He writes about the history of social movements in Mexico, the U.S. and the U.S.-Mexico borderlands; and the political cultures of U.S./Third World Left radicalism.

Facilitator:
Dr. Verónica Martínez-Matsuda (PhD in Borderlands/U.S. History, University of Texas at Austin)– Visiting Professor in Cornell ILR. She has held fellowship positions at Bryn Mawr College, Rhodes College, and the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. Her current research examines the role of the Migratory Labor Camp Program, established and managed by the U.S. Government during the late 1930s and early 1940s, in the lives of migrant farm worker families.

Co-sponsors: ILR International and Comparative Labor Department; ILR Labor Relations, Law, and History Department; Latino Studies Program; Minority, Indigenous, and Third World Studies research group; and Wells College Women’s and Gender Studies Program.

U.S.-MEXICO MILITARIZATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES & LANDS ON GUATEMALA-MEXICO BORDER/ENGLISH-SPANISH

2010-10-24T12:07:00.000-07:00

IN ENGLISH

INFO WARS

EN ESPANOL
Voces Mayos
La Jornada

LAW Defense Statement to the U.S. Social Forum

2010-09-14T18:20:00.000-07:00

STATEMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER,
LOWER RIO GRANDE RIVER, EL CALABOZ RANCHERÍA,
TO THE U.S. SOCIAL FORUM (2010) REPRESENTATIVES
Greetings!
The Lipan Apache Women Defense (LAW-Defense), an Indigenous Peoples Organization (IPO), established in 2007, and a Texas-Mexico border human rights working group, co-founded by Eloisa Garcia Tamez and Margo Tamez, is located in the heartland of Nde' shimaa hada'didla ('lands of the lightning people clans), in El Calaboz Rancheria. We exercise the right to pursue all the venues available and to create new ones for the application of customary laws of Indigenous peoples, human rights and international law, and the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
LAW-Defense welcomes and invites partnerships to work productively for Indigenous Peoples‟ pursuit of “self-determination, land and natural resources, cultural rights and sacred sites protection, subsistence, Treaty rights, health and social services, non-discrimination, environmental protection, education, language, and many others which Indigenous Peoples identified as essential to their dignity, survival and well-being.”1
At this time, LAW-Defense calls upon our sisters and brothers participating in the 2010 U.S. Social Forum to join us in the sustained interrogation of the human rights violations committed by the United States of America along the Texas-Mexico border in its construction of an 18 foot tall steel, concrete reinforced wall across Indigenous Peoples lands.
LAW-Defense calls upon the U.S. Social Forum participants to support the self-determination processes of the diverse Indigenous communities who are directly impacted and irreparably harmed by the U.S. border wall construction which unfolded, between 2006-2009 in community-held lands.
We call upon you to work productively and in partnership to articulate this year, at the 2010 U.S. Social Forum, the multiple ways in which the U.S.-Mexico border militarization and the Texas-Mexico border wall impacts workers, families, women, children, elders, the sick, rural agrarian societies, subsistence societies, family-based livelihoods, traditional trade and commerce, biodiversity, traditional stewardship of sacred sites and natural resources, the dissemination of both traditional and contemporary knowledge systems, and the human rights of Indigenous peoples with Aboriginal Title across the vast region. (Articles 20 and 21, UNDRIP)

Read full statement here

O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective: Indigenous Perspectives & Principles on Arizona SB 1070

2010-05-18T11:05:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, April 27, 2010, the O'odham Solidarity Across Borders Collective (OSABC) provided critical and incisive analysis about SB 1070 from Indigenous Peoples impacted directly. A youth movement with tangible roots connected to the larger human rights and Indigenous rights social movements across the U.S.-Mexico border region led by Native American and Pueblos Indigenas, OSABC is leading a vibrant challenge to the privileges of the settler colonial power structure across North America.

LAW-DEFENSE SUPPORTS CONTINENTAL MAY 1 MARCH

2010-04-28T16:04:00.000-07:00

javascript:void(0)

LAW-DEFENSE IN SOLIDARITY WITH PUEBLOS INDIGENAS TRANSFRONTERIZAS SONORA-ARIZONA

2010-04-28T15:58:00.001-07:00

COMMENTARY: UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES (UNPFII), 2010

2010-04-22T10:55:00.000-07:00

From April 19 through April 30, 2010, the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will be in session.

Statements (interventions) submitted to the Permanent Forum are available here. And, this service is provided by doCip (Indigenous Peoples' Center for Documentation, Research and Information.)

Access to the UNPFII is quite difficult for the common Indigenous peoples--from regional and national meetings (where agendas are established and set)to transnational meetings (where hemispheric understandings are shaped) to the annual UNPFII session (where Indigenous delegates shape the 'voice' of Indigenous communities.

The politics of access continue to incise and sculpt the disparities and unbalance reflected in Indigenous self-determination movements, and at times gloss over how much at odds community-level analysis differs from elites' articulations of 'crisis.' While 'self-determination' and 'sovereignty' continue to be defined through normative Western political-science frameworks within U.N. realms, the lack of will by Indigenous delegates to challenge 'sovereignty' as an artifact of Western thought and to determine frameworks that disrupt normative sovereignty is nowhere to be seen in this year's opening statements.

Indigenous communities defending themselves against intensified violence and the use of violence by states, nations and nations-within-nations (the Indigenous polity) is hyperperipheralized, again.

The use of normative sovereignty to evade the ways in which 'sovereignty' is used daily as an umbrella to glaze over the ways in which--locally, regionally, nationally, and globally--Indigenous polities are not innocent of their enmeshments with the state, and not innocent of the use of this legal platform to exert violence against their own--is marginalized. And, this is crucial because most indigenous peoples experience violence intimately, in their closest environs--where the Indigenous polity of the household, community center, council, is entangled with the violence of the state.

Indigenous communities challenging deep militarization--at the bordered peripheries of the 'core', are increasingly pushing back on the tightening of the fist around the throat of their communities by oligarchical polities and challenging this across entire regions (comprised of both non-Indigenous and Indigenous leadership). The communiites experiencing physical, economic, and penetrating psychological violence as a result of violent dispossessions, displacements, and persecutions through the apparatus of the state working with and through the nation-within-the-nation sort of violence absolutely threaten the ideation that Indigenous sovereignty is utopic and unscathed. The voices from below are indicators that 'Indigenous sovereignty' and its discontents--must be allowed open debate, and put up for scrutiny if true self-determination and autonomy will ever gain traction among the common people--who are at best skeptical of the UNPFII larger impact on the Indigenous peoples from below.

Restoring Lipan Apache Women's Laws, Lands, and Strength in El Calaboz Rancheria at the Texas-Mexico Border

2010-04-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

Published in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2010, vol. 35, no. 3, The University of Chicago.
Comparative Perspectives Symposium: Indigenous Feminisms

Abstract: Ndé gową goshjaa (Lipan Apache families or clan relations) produce a significant portion of indigenous alliances and resistances to imperialism, colonization, industrialization, and militarization in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in south Texas. The visibility of Ndé isdzáné (Lipan Apache women) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley changed radically after the passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006. In this essay, I speak from my position as one of the cofounders of the Lipan Apache Women Defense and as the third‐born daughter of vocal and consistent leaders of the reemergent Ndé isdzáné in the traditional territories of the Ndé. My analysis is not meant to substitute for the important analysis of local matrilineal leaders, nor is it meant to be static. Rather, as an Ndé isdzáné scholar, I must allow the space to make and to know the people, politics, histories, events, and meanings as they continue to unfold. I believe that Ndé isdzáné, as a basis for Ndé activism (which includes supportive brothers) and as a category of analysis, furthers the work of feminism in U.S., North American, indigenous, and global indigenous human rights defense work. Investigating the histories of our indigenous foremothers—respecting and acknowledging community‐based rights, wishes, and aspirations—challenges Ndé women and our allies to reflect on the rights work of contemporary indigenous women in militarized and state‐occupied policing zones and their roles and challenges as political actors in extreme struggles against economic enslavement, dispossession, land theft, vital resource deprivation, environmental destruction, detention, rape, racialized sexism, indentured servitude, and casta.

Indigenous Elders Singled Out for New Round of Federal Condemnations on Texas-Mexico Border

2010-01-05T08:43:00.001-08:00

January 5, 2010

Contacts:
Eloisa García Támez: Eloisa.Tamez1@gmail.com
Margo Tamez, sumalhepa.nde.defense@gmail.com

For Immediate Release

Lipan Apaches, Támez-Benavidez Stronghold on Texas-Mexico Border
Singled Out for New Round of Federal Condemnations

Feds Want More Land to Put 'Holes' in Border Wall for Commercial Users:
Native American & Traditional Peoples' Lands Targeted for Surveys

Recently, a communication from a spokesperson from the Office of Congressional Affairs, Customs and Border Protection to the Office of Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz stated, "We have not yet made a decision on whether to take any of Dr. Tamez’s land. If there is another way to allow other landowners access, we will try to accomplish it in that way; however, we haven’t yet identified another way.”

Eloisa Támez and her elderly relative, (Sr. Benavidez), have an active lawsuit against the United States and the Texas-Mexico Border Wall, which, last April 2009, sealed off the Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of El Calaboz from their lands, culture, and livelihoods on the south side of the wall. Tamez and Benavidez, who challenged the U.S. in a class action law suit, are currently awaiting notification of the new date of their 'compensation' jury trial, which has been postponed more than three times.

The extensively documented case, Eloisa G. Tamez, et al. Civil Action No.: 1:08-CV-0004 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Brownsville Division), has opened up new conceptual grounds about the contemporary challenges of states’ rights and human rights, and where these intersect with Indigenous peoples' rights to culture, environments, livelihoods, traditional ways of life and Peoplehood.

The lands in contestation have been held in continuity by Indigenous peoples prior to the Spanish colonization of northeast Mexico and Texas, and in 1749 were granted to the ancestors of Tamez and Benavidez. European legal traditions of granting lands collectively and individually to Native Americans has origins in 1526, when Hernán Cortéz granted encomiendas and hidalgos to Nahua and Tlaxcalteca peoples.

The tradition of granting lands to Indigenous peoples throughout Mexico’s northern states and the U.S. Southwest is a complex and entangled legal history between Native Americans on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border and the States, and often involving heated contestation when Native American rights to exist and to practice their laws, religions, and traditional organization are denied and threatened by the State em>especially when mega-development is an issue. In a previously published article, the Lipan Apache Women Defense has demonstrated that militarization, militarism, border walls, security technology, war contractors and dispossessing Indigenous peoples is big development for U.S.-based contractors. See 'Resources', below.

In the recent notification by the U.S. to Támez, it appears the U.S. government is considering the possibility of condemning more of her lands if she does not provide them entry to conduct more surveys. According to Cylke, the U.S. is seeking entry to “cure access” for land owners requesting commercial access to the levee and their lands on the south of the wall. Tamez, however, challenges this logic. “While it is true that access to the south side of the wall is important for many landowners, it is not rational that the government needs to possess more land on the levee—or beneath it—in order to open a hole in the wall. All they have to do is remove portions of what they constructed, not condemn more land to do so. The government is not being transparent. Condemn more lands to open the wall? Something is not right. I am refusing to allow them entry to my property for the 12 months they requested. If they want to open the wall, they should do so; the people need access to the titled lands on the south of the levee for their subsistence and livelihoods. However, the government should not require dispossessing individuals any further for that access to occur. The government and the contractors are targeting the Indigenous elders who have been most vocal in the exposure of the corruption which is at the foundation of the wall's construction. They are targeting us as a specific group. The government recently dismantled a large section of the wall down the road from El Calaboz at a locally well-known agricultural business. We feel at this time, given the history of this case and the history of non-transparency in all matters regarding the border wall construction, that we must stand firm.”

According to Margo Tamez, a Lipan Apache scholar at Washington State University, the U.S. may not have the final say if the Indigenous peoples are successful in gaining the ear of the Inter-American Commission/Organization of American States.

In October 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of the American States (OAS) held its 133rd regular period of sessions. In this period, the IACHR/OAS read briefs and listened to testimony of the University of Texas Law Working Group, comprised of faculty and law students of the University of Texas Law School, with Margo Tamez, an impacted community member. In their formal statement, the IACHR/OAS Jurists responded: "The Commission received troubling information about the impact that the construction of a wall in Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border, has on the human rights of area residents, in particular its discriminatory effects. The information received indicates that its construction would disproportionally affect people who are poor, with a low level of education, and generally of Mexican descent, as well as indigenous communities on both sides of the border."
(Available at: http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/borderwall/analysis/iac-Press-Release-re-Hearing.pdf).

Texas-Mexico IAS/OAS Testimony at: http://lipanapachecommunitydefense.blogspot.com/2008/10/texas-mexico-border-wall-hearing-at.html.

Indigenous peoples along the Texas-Mexico border—more than many other impacted groups—are burdened in multiple ways and disproportionately on all border wall construction projects because their communities have already been consistently targeted for State violence, militarization, repression and dispossession as a matter of the normative policies of the neo-liberal and settler State.

The ‘third world’ conditions of the Texas border communities are directly related to the structural violence which goes hand-in-hand with the the settler state and settler constitutionalism dominating the region’s violent race, gender, and class politics. The normalization of the Texas-Mexico border communities as 'sacrifice zones' is so deeply internalized within the consciousness of South Texas' white citizenry that the scale of the violence and injustice is invisible to them.

Many historians have anayzed Texas as a unique case in North American histories of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and the entrenched pockets of cultures of violence which sustain the creed of lawlessness. The idealogy of hatred which birthed the settler society and spawned South Texas' industrial corridors as the 'gateway' to Latin America is, as historian Gary Clayton Anderson stated, a culture where "Violence, especially against ethnic groups, had become economically institutionalized in Texas." In this cultural landscape, the promotion of lawlessness, turmoil, and opportunity collide, and 'South Texas', from Indigenous perspectives, was constructed as an excuse to develop, destroy and kill.

Tragically, today this consciousness has not evolved. Violence has become, as Anderson argues, "ingrained in Texas, especially in the southern counties." As in the past, today South Texas violence is laissez faire andfixed in an opportunistic manner--among governors, corporations, contractors, workers, congresspersons, commissioners, rangers, border patrols, and civil society.

Indigenous peoples along the Texas border were already under extreme deprivation before the border wall--at alarming scales and at comparitive levels with many Third World nations and militarized conflict zones around the world. Fernando Romero-Lar cross-analyzed this border with the world's top conflict zones: North Korea-South Korea; Israel and Palestine; Morocco and Spain; South Africa; and the Golden Triangle. Romero-Lar found that this border topped the list of all conflict-industrial global militarized borders to qualify as a 'hyper-border.' (See report: "Texas Borderlands: Frontier of the Future (2009)")

The fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples are distorted in the normative Texas Creation Myth which traditionally views Indigenous peoples as less than human, servants, laborers, and 'the multitudes of surplus workers.' This construction of Indigenous peoples as 'Other' is a popularized stereotype which contorts white heroic masculinity through rationalized acts of genocide, extermination and structural violence against South & West Texas' and northern Mexico's aboriginal inhabitants.

Indigenous peoples' precarious access to critical First Foods (necessary for the repair of their dietary health), safe and potable water, safe housing, healthcare, education, jobs, transportation, and an environment free of gender violence and militarization has been overshadowed by the general society's pre-occupation with 'security' thinly masking the development objectives of NAFTA, the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and ongoing projects of the lucrative corporate war occupation to militarize our environments. Indigenous elders, while they contend with degrading and destructive harrassment and surveillance upon them as they go about their personal lives, cannot help but speak out against the erosion of rule of law and human rights as a daily reality in South Texas.

The occupied aspects of their lives is anything but natural--militarized occupation in South Texas and northern Mexico, funded with U.S. tax dollars, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense, is socially and physically constructed by a Euro-American settler society which emigrated to the Texas border in the mid 19th century. Massive waves of Euro-ethnic emigrants and Anglos from the U.S. south appropriated Texas constitutionalized slavery as a normalized economic system of an expansion-prone, modernizing society. At its essence and most fundamental level, Texas embodies the principles of Liberal democracy and settler constitutionalism--based on a stratified society where Indigenous peoples, such as Apaches, Tlaxcaltecas, Coahuiltecs, Tiguas, Kikapoos, and Comanches, are viewed as 'enemies,' and exploitable as human battery packs energizing the dreamscape of the middle-class consumer.

Along the U.S. side of the Texas-Mexico border, the flavor of white America is most palpable on a one-on-one and up-close basis, as the Indigenous peoples witness, report and document their most fundamental human rights being further eroded. When they are not being followed by gangs of CBP patrol cars, U.S. helicopters, and government functionaries trampling through their lands unannounced, they are confronted with the new migrant workers imported to the region to consume the manly job of building the border wall.

With the new waves of Angl-American emigrants from states such as Nebraska and those incomes going out of state to households in the Mid-West, it seems as though the border wall is truly an import-export job. When the border wall was being constructed in Cameron County, community members reported that the increase in large vehicle (i.e. trucks) traffic on Hwy 281/Military Highway bearing license plates with NEBRASKA engraved upon them was obvious and noticeable. Government contractors tend to be loyal to their home districts and states, and Euro-American migrant workers from Nebraska importing a conspicuously Mid-Western consciousness of 'Indians' and 'Mexicans, i.e. savages/illegals' could be felt in the road and table manners of the Nebraska migrant workers exercising both militaristic and tourist-like behaviors with local Indigenous women--both on roads and restaurants, according to local witnesses. It seemed as though the daily work to build the wall included a conscious opportunistic will to exercise old-fashioned American masculinity and sexism upon the Indigenous women labor force.

Local communities are exposed daily to these ruptures and multiple others in their daily lives, from the perniciously benign forces of white privilege and racism to the most obvious obstructions to human rights of the wall itself. They bear witness to the criminality, dangerous behaviors, greed and thievery of the mega-wealthy--which is ironic--considering that the U.S. citizenry just endured one of the most severe economic depressions in a century.

These fixtures of violence in the heart of darkness continues to define and to mark Texas as a pernicious state within an outlaw State; an identity with a propensity for achieving 'public goals' exercised 'democratically' through violence against Indigenous peoples. In the whitestream, this violence generally goes unaddressed by the state, federal governments and U.S. civil society (who'd rather stay 'safe' in the boundaries of debating the progressiveness of 'Avatar' rather than hone in on the current ethnocides in the U.S. 'Congo'--South Texas.

This violent and negligent will to empire, from the perspective of many Indigenous elders along the Texas-Mexico border, must then be taken up at different levels of legal oversite. They are resolved that they will not be intimidated by the violent propensities of the settler society for Indigenous land, water, minerals and bodies which are the markers of mega-projects.

Mega-projects--such as the border wall--impede the Indigenous elders from accessing their ancestral medicine plants, their biologically diverse properties titled to their ancestors through Crown land grants and treaties, and their sacred burial sites such as cemeteries which align both sides of the border wall. Indigenous peoples’ genealogical ties to historical places along the border wall construction, such as rancherias, communal meeting places, religious sites, missions, pueblos, presidios, wildlife areas, and traditional subsistence areas throughout the Texas-Mexico border region are eroding every day as a result of the lack of access to the lands on the south side of the wall which are owned by Indigenous peoples.

Eloisa Támez, a vocal opponent to the wall, seeks secure and unharmed access to her lands on the south side of the wall. Támez has documented numerous important species of flora and fauna on her lands necessary for continuity of culture, and she watches over the sites of habitation of her ancestors due to the destructive methods of government contractors who destroyed portions of her properties vegetation during the construction of the wall. The Lipan Apaches, like the Kickapoo, Tigua, and numerous tribes in Arizona, argue that the racist politics which are the foundation of the border wall must be calculated as “irreparable damage.” She does not believe that the government’s new request for “curing access” should entail dispossessing her elders and her community from Indigenous rights and the protection of their human rights. The federal lawsuit documented the ancestral, genealogical ties of Tamez and Benavidez, and an important South Texas Lipan Apache band in the region, which are signatories on key treaties, accords, hidalgos, merceds and land grants with Spain, Mexico, Texas and the United States.

Margo Tamez, a scholar at Washington State University, notes, “By refusing this community’s requests for secure access to their lands and cultural properties—which are necessary to sustain their traditional subsistence vis-à-vis agrarian, pastoral livelihoods, traditional gatherings and religious practices— the U.S. is failing to protect their human rights under International Law. Negative consequences may be associated with the failure to do so.”

Eloisa Tamez, a strong proponent of the health of poor and traditional peoples of her community, restates her firm resolve. “The health of our elders is severely threatened by this singling out of our small community—and our elders—in El Calaboz and the possibility of further dispossession.” Numerous experts debating and writing about this case agree that the border wall mega-project and continuous dispossessions against numerous traditional and poor communities disproportionately targets the most vulnerable. Texas’ border counties are the poorest in the nation. The wall currently stands on the #1 and #2 most impoverished counties in the entire U.S., according to the last five years census reports. Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr and Presidio counties are often analyzed and cross-compared to many developing nations--globally.

Margo Tamez, who is also the founder of an Indigenous Peoples Organization at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, concurs with the community members. “We feel that Indigenous peoples’ human rights are being violated—and this serious concern explicitly involves the United States and state government representatives along the entire U.S.-Mexico border—on both sides of the border. Lipan Apaches have demonstrated their serious grievances against the violation of their human rights along with other Apache nations (San Carlos Apache Tribe) at the United Nations in the past two years. The international law forums are increasingly critical sites for Indigenous peoples divided by this border to seek out alternative partners, allies, and legal avenues to pursue reparations and their human rights against States which are violators.”

At the local level, the singling out of Indigenous elders is causing further injury and irreparable harm against future existences of Lipan Apaches and Traditional Peoples in the El Calaboz Ranchería. Their lifeways are threatened, and thus, so are Lipan Apache grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Indigenous children’s rights are increasingly taking on important visibility at the United Nations, where the U.S. has been taken to task for numerous violations against Indigenous children who live and work within its political borders. Eloisa Támez, in her on-going challenge to dispossession, is taking a firm stand for the rights of Indigenous children. She states, “This is for the children—ours and everyone’s. The government is possibly seeking to take possessory rights to the Earth beneath the levee. My grandparents would not have allowed that, and they actively fought against this in their time. This is an on-going struggle for Indigenous peoples. Those land cannot be taken from the Indigenous peoples, according to traditional beliefs. The Earth is not for taking."

Resources:

Gary Clayton Anderson, The Conquest of Texas: Ethnic Cleansing in the Promised Land, 1820-1875, (Normal: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005).

The University of Texas at Austin, School of Law & The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, "The Texas-Mexico Border Wall," at http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/centers/humanrights/borderwall/law/lawsuits-government.html.

Fernando Romero/Lar, Hyper-Border: The Contemporary U.S.-Mexico Border and Its Future, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008).

Margo Tamez, "The Texas-Mexico Border Wall Through the Eyes of Indigenous Communities in El Calaboz Rancheria," May 2008.
Excerpt:
The following is a list of corporate contractors involved in the building of the
Border wall in S. Texas.

Lockheed Martin
Texas Divisions of Raytheon (Network Centric Systems)
L-C Communications (Integrated Systems)
Northrup Grumman (Los Angeles, CA)
BAE Systems (Austin, TX)
SAIC of San Diego
Computer Sciences Corp of El Segundo, CA
America’s Border Security Group (Erriccson Inc, Plano, TX)
(NASDAQ: ERIKY)
Fluor Corporation (NYSEL:FLR)
SYColeman Corporation
MTC Technologies
CAMBER Corporation
AEP Networks, Inc.
Texas A & M University
University of Texas (Austin)
Boeing
Kellogg Brown & Root (Halliburton)
Secure Border Initiative Network
United Kingdom Home Office

Sources for the above:
PennWell. “Defense firms turn to border security.” Washington, 28, Dec. 2005.
“The government’s high-profile offensive to control the borders is spawning a growth market for the nations’s defense industry.” http://mae.pannet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=244491&p=32 Accessed 11/20/07.

AEP Networks, America’s Border Security Group. “Ericcson’s AMerioca Border Security Group (ABSG) Offers Proven Effective Solution for U.S. Border Security.” http://www.aepnetworks.com/news/press_archive/release_06012006.htm
Accessed 11/20/07.

Richey, Joseph. “Fencingthe Border: Boeing’s High-Tech Plan Falters.” July 9, 2007http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14552. Accessed 11/20/07.;

“Software Glitches Delay Virtual Border Fence.” Newsmax.com. Tuesday, Ocotober 30, 2007. http://www.newsmax.com/us/virtual_border_fence/2007/10/30/45069.html Accessed 11/20/07.;

Riley, Michael. “Fortress America--Building a Border: Part 2.” Denver Post. 03/06/07http://www.denverpost.com/fortressamerica/ci_5356695. Accessed 11/20/07.;

McLemore, David. “Border Residents fuming over fence plans.” June 26, 2007. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/062707dntex...Accessed 11/20/07;

Downing, Margaret. “Killing Fences: Totally Misconstrued.” Houston Press, May 31 2007. http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-05-31/news/killing-fences-totally-misconstrued/ Accessed 11/20/07;

Richey, Joseph. “Border for Sale: Privitizing Immigration Control. July 5, 2006. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13845&printsafe=1 Accessed 11/20/07;

PRNewswire. Garland, TX. “Raytheon Awarded Contract with U.K. Home Office for e-Borders Project.” November 14, 2007,http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/NEW03314112007-1.htm Accessed 11/20/07.

THE EAGLE AND THE CONDOR: Application of International Indigenous Principles to Halt the United States Border Wall

2009-12-05T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Eagle and the Condor of the Western Hemisphere: Application of International Indigenous Principles to Halt the United States Border Wall by Angelique EagleWoman

This article will discuss the interrelationship of the indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere regarding the proposed expansion of the United States southern border wall. This discussion will explore (1) the historical relationships in the Western Hemisphere, (2) the efforts on the international level to bring attention to the quality of life experienced by the indigenous peoples in this hemisphere, (3) the impact of the proposed United States border wall on indigenous communities in the political border region, and (4) application of international indigenous principles to halt further construction of the United States border wall.

Keywords: Indigenous, International Human Rights, Tribes, Border, United States Foreign Policy

HONDAH' --WELCOME!

2009-10-24T09:09:00.000-07:00

BORDER WALL UPDATE:
'Compensation': The hearings for 'compensation' for landowners along the last 70 miles of the Texas-Tamaulipas border have been delayed for the third time.
Although we do not have the specific date, we have been told by attorneys, and some have only found out through the scanty news reportage, that hearings will be held in December 2009.

Other Actions:

TAMEZ FAMILY LAWSUITS:
At the last hearing, in April 2009, the TAMEZ defense submitted the "CONSULTATION BRIEF."
For more information about the border wall law suits (U.S. Federal, International Human Rights), or specific aspects of the impacts of the border wall upon Indigenous peoples who are in litigation, see 'Texas-Mexico Border Wall, University of Texas School of Law'.

NDE' & NNEE TO GIVE PUBLIC TALKS IN PRESIDIO, TEXAS

2009-07-27T14:45:00.000-07:00

Ndé (Apache)
to Give Public Talks <<<>>>

Indigenous Peoples’
Principles and Perspectives

Presidio Activity Center 1400 E. O’Reilly St. Presidio, TX
July 28 to 30, 2009 7:00- 10:00 pm

Simultaneous Spanish & English Translation Provided
Childcare Available age 3 and up

Tuesday July 28th Michael Paul Hill, Nnee (San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chiricahua Apache)
Nnee and Ndé spirituality and culture
Protecting and restoring Ndé sacred sites, first foods, water, air, minerals, family-and-matrilineal centered governance

Wednesday July 29th Margo Tamez, Ndé (El Calaboz Ranchería, Lipan Apache) & Michael Paul Hill, Nnee (San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chiricahua Apache)
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples: How Ndé and Nnee Challenge the Legality of the U.S.-Mexico border and Harmful Development of Indigenous Peoples’ Lands. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be discussed; Indigenous Peoples contemporary cultural-political-economic movements to strengthen our communities, traditional law & governance, and futures.

Thursday July 30th Margo Tamez, Ndé (El Calaboz Ranchería, Lipan Apache)
Indigenous Peoples, Women and Families on the Texas-Mexico Border:
Local Challenges, Community Responses, Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples' Rights

Contacts for more information:
Margo Tamez, Co-Founder, Lipan Apache Women Defense (Indigenous Peoples’ Organization)
Sumalhepa.nde.defense@gmail.com; 509-595-9666
April Cotte, 432-384-2399

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pláticas presentadas por Ndé (Apache)
Principios y Perspectivas de los
Pueblos Indígenas

Presidio Activity Center 1400 E. O’Reilly St. Presidio, TX
28 a 30 de julio 2009 7:00- 10:00 pm

Habrá traducción simultánea inglés / español
y cuidado de niños de 3 ó más años

Martes 28 de julio. Michael Paul Hill, Nnee (Tribu San Carlos Apache, Chiricahua Apache)
La espiritualidad y cultura Nnee y Ndé
La protección y restauración de los sitios sagrados, primeras naciones, agua, aire, y minerales Ndé, así como sus formas de gobernación con base en la familia y las relaciones de parentesco matrilineal

Miércoles 29 de julio. Margo Tamez, Ndé (El Calaboz Ranchería, Lipan Apache) & Michael Paul Hill, Nnee (San Carlos Apache Tribe, Chiricahua Apache)
Los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Cómo los Ndé y Nnee refutan la legalidad de la frontera de Estados Unidos con México y el Desarrollo Dañino en las Tierras de los Pueblos Indígenas. Se dará a conocer la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y hablaremos, asimismo, sobre los movimientos actuales culturales, políticos y económicos para fortalecer nuestras comunidades, el derecho tradicional, las formas de gobierno tradicionales y nuestro futuro.

Jueves 30 de julio Margo Tamez, Ndé (El Calaboz Ranchería, Lipan Apache)
Pueblos Indígenas, Mujeres y Familias en la frontera de Texas con México:
Retos locales, Respuestas de las comunidades, Derechos Humanos, Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas

Contactos para más información:
Margo Tamez, Co-Fundadora, La Defensa de las Mujeres Lipan Apache (Organización Pueblos Indígenas)
Sumalhepa.nde.defense@gmail.com; 509-595-9666April Cotte, 432-384-2399.

"IN DEMOCRACY'S SHADOW: FENCES, RAIDS, AND THE PRODUCTION OF MIGRANT ILLEGALITY" by Daniel Ibsen Morales

2009-06-17T11:43:00.000-07:00

Dr. Eloisa Garcia Tamez separated from ancestral lands by the mega-project border wall constructed by the United States against the firm protests of the Nde' of El Calaboz Rancheria and from related Nde' across the United States.

University of Wisconsin Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No. 1068, January 2009, Daniel Ibsen Morales

Excerpt (pp 103-104):
"the government knows that the fence is ill-conceived. State-authored reports show, and experts agree, that the project is a classic white elephant; it is expensive, breachable, and its most dramatic effect is to shift migration pathways to dangerous areas where migrants are more likely to die en route to the United States."

Excerpt (p 129):
"The congruence, though, between Tamez‘s case in domestic court and in the international arena is not accidental; the origins of the international human rights regime are distinctly American.119 And, as in the domestic sphere, this story might be different if the Group was not conceding, as it must, the basic point that the right to property it asserts is very limited because ―the U.S. government has the right to subordinate the use of private property for reasons of public utility and social interest.‖120 As it stands, however, this international briefing (as well as the briefings in Tamez) attack and subjugate the administrative while reinscribing the primacy and unimpeachability of democratic authority, and leave out as uncognizable the deeper rights she has to the land (due to her Amerindian and Spanish heritage). Put plainly, the structure of the suits only reinforces the existing power relationships that lead to Tamez‘s problem in the first instance."

INTERVENTION DOCUMENTS (ENGLISH)--GLOBAL INDIGENOUS WOMEN'S CAUCUS--8TH SESSION--UNPFII

2009-06-08T10:34:00.000-07:00

These documents (INTERVENTIONS) of the Global Indigenous Women's Caucus (GIWC) are provided here to support the future work of Indigenous Women, Apache women, Apachean Peoples and Communities, Indigenous Peoples, and transborder-transnational communication and support work. LAW-DEFENSE hopes that these can support the important work of Indigenous Peoples in the on-going efforts to protect cultures, environments, livelihoods, and ways of life.

Spanish versions of all final documents will be loaded as they are available.

GIWC AGENDA 3a
GIWC AGENDA 3b
GIWC AGENDA 3c
GIWC AGENDA 4 a & b
GIWC AGENDA 7

SYLVIA ESCARCEGA READING 'FUTURE WORK OF THE PERMANENT FORUM', AGENDA ITEM 7

GLOBAL INDIGENOUS WOMEN CAUCUS MEETING, NYC, MAY 15-17, 2009

GLOBAL INDIGENOUS WOMEN CAUCUS MEETING, NYC, MAY 15-17, 2009

GLOBAL INDIGENOUS WOMEN CAUCUS MEETING, NYC, MAY 15-17, 2009

JUNE 22nd LECTURE,Berlin, Germany/"CONTEMPORARY NORTH AMERICAN INDIGENOUS HUMAN AND CULTURAL RIGHTS INJUSTICES"

2009-06-05T13:45:00.000-07:00

IN ENGLISH AND GERMAN

“Contemporary North American Indigenous Human and Cultural Rights Injustice”

There is a common idea out there that the injustices committed against North American indigenous “Indians” was a 19th Century and/or early 20th Century condition. While we all hold a general awareness that native reservations in the United States and reserves and Indian settlement areas in Canada may be marked by high rates of unemployment, substance abuse, suicide, gang activity, and domestic violence, and that these societal conditions may be regarded as a consequence of the colonization of North America; what is unknown is that these communities are still fighting a battle, today, that looks no different than the past.

North American indigenous communities, reservations, ceded territories, spiritual places, and traditional lands still in dispute in a court of law are under attack by multi-national corporations, governmental policies that abet domestic and foreign natural resource extractive industries, and judicial systems and processes that typically uphold legal edicts based on precedents without questioning whether it was fair, ethical, and just to begin with.

We will discuss the following three key and rapidly escalating areas of interest:

The Western Shoshone in the state of Nevada and their long-standing and continuing struggle against the mining and nuclear industries on their non-reservation lands under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley,
The Athabascan Chipewyan and Lubicon Cree, and other First Nation groups whose Treaty lands are being plundered by the Albertan Oil Tar Sands, and the oil pipelines from the Oil Tar Sands into the United States are threatening the Assiniboine and Lakota tribes of Montana and South Dakota and the Ojibwe in Northern Minnesota,

The conditions for indigenous tribes along the United States borders including the Tohono O’odham, Yaqui, Jumano and Lipan Ndé (Apache) whose reservations or traditional lands have a border, and now a border wall, running through it. These tribes are under severe pressure due to the onslaught of the drug cartels and the human traffickers from Mexico, American and Mexican Customs and Border Patrol personnel, multi-national global subcontractors constructing the border wall and associated components, and civilian border-monitoring groups who may not possess the cultural education tools to understand the needs of these native communities.

Indigenous tribes such as the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) along the United States and Canadian border are experiencing similar conditions with border patrol operatives, and the caseload of human rights violations continues to mount; especially due to pre-existing racial tensions regarding tribal land and treaty rights and a jointly-shared United States and Canada program called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that will commence on June 1, 2009, which may violate the terms of the Jay Treaty of 1794.

Additionally, we will discuss what role Germany and Europe plays in regards to the mining in Nevada, the oil production in Canada, and North American national defense mechanisms.

Furthermore, how will the Obama administration handle these North American indigenous concerns considering that his administration has begun reviewing the September 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Will it be the same policies as his predecessors or is there hope in indigenous communities that there will be a change?

Similarly, how is Canada handling indigenous issues in light of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s June 8, 2008 official apology to First Nations regarding the Indian Residential School era and the fact that Amnesty International of Canada and the Native Women’s Association of Canada has published reports in the past year detailing the high prevalence of missing and murdered native women in Canada?

The intent of this lecture, discussion, and dialogue is to educate and raise awareness about present-day North American indigenous community challenges and to examine them from not only a brief historical level, but to examine how governmental policies and the legal processes of today may undermine or adversely affect the sovereignty of indigenous tribes, some who may not have political recognition or it may be limited, and how this is reinforcing an atmosphere where human, cultural, tribal, and treaty rights continues to be infringed upon.

Please Note: The lecture and discussion will be communicated in the English language.

DEUTSCHE ÜBERSETZUNG

Es wird allgemein angenommen, dass das Unrecht an den nordamerikanischen Indianern vor allem im 19. und beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert begangen wurde. Während heute allgemein bekannt ist, dass vielfältige Probleme das indianische Leben in den Reservaten und Siedlungen der USA und Kanadas prägen, wie hohe Arbeitslosigkeits- und Selbstmordraten, Drogenprobleme und Gewalt, und sie als mittelbare Folge der nordamerikanischen Kolonisation anzusehen sind, scheint wenig bekannt, dass diese indigenen Völker nach wie vor Kämpfe auszutragen haben, die sich nicht wesentlich von denen der vergangenen Jahrhunderte unterscheiden.

Die indianischen Völker Nordamerikas, ihre Reservate, zugesicherten Gebiete, heiligen Plätze und traditionellen Stammesgebiete, über die noch heute vor Gerichten gestritten wird, werden bedroht von multinationalen Konzernen, politischen Entscheidungen, die die nationale und ausländische Rohstoffindustrie begünstigen, sowie Gerichten, die an überkommenen Präzedenzfällen festhalten, ohne zu hinterfragen, ob diese faire und ethisch gerechtfertigte Urteile darstellen.

Es werden folgende ebenso brisante wie aktuelle Bereiche diskutiert:

Die Western Shoshone in Nevada und ihre lang anhaltenden Anstrengungen gegen Bergbau- und Atomindustrie in ihren Nicht-Reservationsgebieten entsprechend dem Abkommen von Ruby Valley 1863.
Die Athabascan Chipewyan, Lubicon Cree und andere First Nation Gruppierungen in Kanada, auf deren durch Abkommen zugesicherten Gebieten ölhaltige Teersände gefördert werden, sowie die Ölpipelines, die auf der Strecke zwischen den Oil Tar Sands und den USA die Gebiete der Assiniboine und Lakota Stämme in Montana und South Dakota, und der Ojibwe in Northern Minnesota gefährden.
3) Die Lebensbedingungen indigener Stämme entlang der US-amerikanischen Grenzen, insbesondere der Tohono O’odham, Yaqui, Jumano und Lipan Ndé (Apache), durch deren Reservate oder traditionellen Gebiete eine Grenze bzw, nunmehr ein Grenzwall verläuft. Diese Stämme stehen aufgrund der Ausdehnung mexikanischer Drogenkartelle und Menschenhändler, durch US-amerikanische und mexikanische Grenzbeamte, durch die Praktiken multinationaler Subunternehmen, die mit dem Bau des Grenzwalls beauftragt sind, sowie ziviler Grenzschützer, die die erforderlichen, kulturellen Kenntnisse im Umgang mit den ansässigen Stämmen nicht haben , unter großem Druck. Stämme wie die Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) entlang der Grenze zu Kanada erleben ähnliche Probleme mit dem Grenzpersonal. Hier häufen sich Menschenrechtsverletzungen, die insbesondere durch (rassistische) Spannungen zwischen Landrechten und dem Abkommen „Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative“ bedingt sind. Dieses, zwischen Kanada und den USA geschlossene Abkommen tritt am 01. Juni 2009 in Kraft und verletzt möglicherweise im Jay Treaty von 1794 zugesicherte Rechte.

Darüber hinaus werden wir die Rolle Deutschlands und Europas im Zusammenhang mit dem Bergbau in Nevada, der Ölproduktion in Kanada und amerikanischen Sicherheitsbemühungen betrachten.

Auch wird die Frage diskutiert, wie die Obama-Administration die Probleme der indigenen Bevölkerung angeht, insbesondere, da sie begonnen hat, die UN-Deklaration über die Rechte indigener Völker von 2007 zu prüfen. Wird Obama die Politik seiner Vorgänger fortsetzen oder gibt es Hoffnung für Nordamerikas Indianer?

Ebenso stellt sich die Frage wie Kanada mit indigenen Fragestellungen umgehen wird, nachdem sich Premierminister Stephen Harper am 8. Juni 2008 für das an indigenen Völkern in der Ära der Indian Residential Schools begangene Unrecht entschuldigt hat und Amnesty International Kanada mit der Native Women’s Association of Canada im vergangenen Jahr einen Bericht veröffentlicht hat, wonach die Anzahl verschwundener oder ermordeter indianischer Frauen sehr hoch ist.

Vortrag, Diskussion und Dialog sollen vor allem informieren und das Bewusstsein für die Belange der nordamerikanischen indigenen Völker erhöhen. Die Probleme, denen diese Völker gegenwärtig gegenüberstehen, sollen dabei nicht nur vom historischen Standpunkt aus betrachtet werden, sondern es soll aufgezeigt werden wie aktuelle Politik und juristische Verfahren die Souveränität indigener Völker untergraben bzw, nachteilig beeinflussen und wie dadurch eine Atmosphäre kreiert wird, in der Menschenrechte, kulturelle und Stammesrechte sowie Vertragsrechte kontinuierlich verletzt werden.

Der Vortrag und die anschließende Diskussion finden auf Englisch statt.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Am 22. Juni um 19:00 Uhr wird Jessica Ossenbrügge zu Contemporary North American Indigenous Human and Cultural Rights Injustice im Robert Havemann Saal im Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte vortragen und anschließend unsere Fragen beantworten und mit uns diskutieren. Der Vortrag und die Diskussion werden auf englisch stattfinden. Ihr bekommt vorab noch mal eine deutsche Übersetzung der Kernaussagen, die wir auch auslegen werden. Weitere Details folgen demnächst.

Ich freue mich auf den spannenden Vortrag und verbleibe bis bald
mit herzlichen Grüßen
Eure Nina Althoff

Internationale Frauenliga für Frieden und Freiheit - IFFF / Women's International League for Peace and Freedom - WILPF
Deutsche Sektion
Dr. Nina Althoff
Geschäftsführung
althoff@wilpf.de
Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte
Greifswalder Str. 4
10405 Berlin
Webseite: www.wilpf.de

Global Indigenous Women's Caucus, Intervention, Agenda Item 4 (a) Human Rights ; (b) Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights

2009-06-01T12:01:00.000-07:00

SPACE DEBRIS FROM THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE (RIGHTS TO NON-MILITARIZED AIR, SPACE, AND THE SACRED MEMBRANE OF MOTHER EARTH)

CANAMEX HIGHWAY MEGA-CONTINENTAL PROJECT

BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION LOWER RIO GRANDE MEGA-SECURITY PROJECT

SOLDIERS & RECONNAISANCE OPERATIONS PROJECT, LOWER RIO GRANDE RIVER, TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER

CLIMATE CHANGE: HURRICANE DOLLY UNLEASHES FLOODS IN LOW-LYING RANCHERIAS AND COLONIAS OF INDIGENOUS FAMILIES, LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY, TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER; TEXAS GOVERNOR, U.S. DHS AND U.S. FEMA IGNORE MASS-SCALE PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER

BORDER WALL & INDIGENOUS WOMEN, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES' RIGHTS TO CUSTOMARY LANDS, RESOURCES, FIRST FOODS, WATER, HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE BY THEIR OWN LEADERSHIP, AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO THEIR OWN LANGUAGES, RELIGIONS AND CULTURES

-----IN ENGLISH & SPANISH-----

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eighth Session
May 19-29, 2009

Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus Statement

Agenda Item 4:

Follow Up on the Recommendations of the Permanent Forum

(a) Human Rights (Indigenous Women and Militarization)

Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (RE: Articles 21, 22, 42)

(b) Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and other special rapporteurs

Madame Chaiperson, Permanent Forum Members, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Member States, UN Agencies and Our Indigenous delegates, my brothers and sisters:

In regards to impunity, in recent years prior to the mass-scale global economic collapse, States declared a world-wide ‘war on terror’ which set in place the logic of unilateral voiding out of constitutional protections. This staged the collapse of any possible legal remedy for indigenous communities on a number of levels. The logic being, the global ‘war on terror’ guaranteed to the State the power to launch Martial Law against its own citizens, in the name of “national security.” To ‘save the world from terrorists’ the State essentially argues that it must void out constitutional freedoms and shut down democracy to protect national borders. This convoluted logic gave States’ impunity against the protests of Indigenous Peoples. Governments refusal to provide information and transparency to mega-projects associated with ‘no constitution’ zones, itself leads to serious concerns about States’ commitments to guaranteeing human rights. Thus militarization, terror, impunity and tyrannical States impose mega-projects with authoritarian vigilantes, violating lives, lands, and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous women.

Recommendations,

The Special Rapporteur is urgently requested to take up this issue immediately as an advocacy of Indigenous Women’s Rights priorities.

The Indigenous Women’s organizations and activists are functioning de facto as the front of human rights documentation and monitoring efforts within communities. This presents enormous challenges that the women must bear in isolation. They are largely unrecognized and unfunded and subject to harassment, persecution, libel, slander, death threats, rape, dismemberment, maiming, destruction of property, armed forced removals, en masse displacements, and violence against their family members at all levels of their communities.

We earnestly request a consultation session with the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, Mr. James Anaya, while the Indigenous Women’s Caucus is convened here in New York.

We are firmly committed to cooperating with the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, to share documentations of specific cases of human rights violations.

We request that the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples engage with his colleagues, other Special Rapporteurs, members of Committees monitoring the implementation of the different human rights treaties and conventions at the earliest possible occasion, to review the situation of the human rights of Indigenous Women and Girls and to put forward a joint report/statement and appeal for action by States and the appropriate UN bodies and agencies.

Thank you for your focus and attention to the collective statement.

EN ESPANOL:
Foro Permanente para las Cuestiones Indígenas, Octava Sesión

18 - 29 de mayo de 2009

Cónclave Global de las Mujeres Indígenas

Punto 4 de la Agenda: Derechos Humanos
Seguimiento a la Recomendación del Foro Permanente

Implementación de la Declaración de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas
Dialogo con el Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los pueblos indígenas y otros Relatores Especiales

Sra. Presidenta, Miembros del Foro Permanente, Relator Especial sobre la Situación de los Derechos Humanos y las Libertades Fundamentales de los Pueblos Indígenas, Estados Miembros, Agencias de la ONU y nuestros delegados Indígenas, mis hermanos y hermanas:

En relación a la impunidad, en los años recientes y antes del masivo colapso de la economía global, los estados habían declarado una “guerra contra el terror” a nivel mundial, la cual desató la lógica de la suspensión unilateral de las protecciones constitucionales. Esto asentó el colapso de cualquier remedio legal para las comunidades indígenas en varios niveles. La lógica es que la “guerra global en contra del terror” garantiza al Estado el poder de declarar la Ley Marcial en contra de sus propios ciudadanos, en el nombre de la “seguridad nacional”. Para “salvar al mundo de los terroristas”, los Estados esencialmente argumentan que deben de suspender todas libertades constitucionales y limitar la democracia para proteger las fronteras nacionales. Esta lógica tan enredada, otorga a los Estados impunidad a pesar de la protestas de los Pueblos Indígenas. La negación de los gobiernos a proveer información y transparencia en los mega-proyectos asociados con las zonas “sin constitución”, nos lleva a cuestionarnos seriamente los compromisos de los estados para proteger los derechos humanos. La militarización, el terror, la impunidad y los Estados tiránicos imponen mega-proyectos con la protección de grupos no oficiales que pretenden ejercer actividades policíacas, violando las vidas, tierras y formas de vida de los Pueblos Indígenas y las Mujeres Indígenas.

Recomendaciones,

Solicitamos de manera urgente al Relator Especial sobre la situación de las libertades fundamentales y derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas que tome cargo de este asunto inmediatamente como una forma de abogar por las prioridades de los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.

Las organizaciones y activistas de Mujeres Indígenas están funcionando de facto como el frente en la documentación y monitoreo de los esfuerzos dentro de las comunidades. Esto presenta enormes desafíos que las mujeres tienen que enfrentar solas. Ellas y su trabajo no están reconocidos ni debidamente financiados; además, las mujeres son sujetos de acosos, persecución, calumnias, amenazas de muerte, violaciones, desmembramientos, desfiguraciones, destrucción de la propiedad, desplazamientos forzados violento y masivos, violencia en contra de los miembros de su familia en varios niveles.

Pedimos de manera vehemente una sesión de consulta con el Relator Especial sobre la situación de las libertades fundamentales y derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, el Sr. James Anaya, mientras el cónclave de mujeres está reunido aquí en Nueva York.

Estamos firmemente comprometidas a cooperar con el Relator Especial sobre la situación de las libertades fundamentales y derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas para compartir documentación sobre casos específicos de violaciones de derechos humanos.

Solicitamos al Relator Especial sobre la situación de las libertades fundamentales y derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas que colabore con sus colegas, otros Relatores Especiales, miembros de comités monitoreando la implementación de diferentes tratados y convenciones de derechos humanos lo más pronto posible, para revisar la situación de los derechos de humanos de las Mujeres y Niñas Indígenas y escribir un reporte en conjunto y hacer una llamada de acción a los Estados y los cuerpos y agencias de la ONU apropiadas.

Muchas gracias por su atención a nuestra declaración colectiva,

Global Indigenous Women's Caucus, Intervention, Future Work of the Permanent Forum

2009-06-01T11:52:00.001-07:00

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eighth Session

May 18-29, 2009

Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus Statement Agenda Item 7:

Future Work of the Permanent Forum including issues of the Economic and Social Council and emerging issues

Honorable Chairwoman, Members of the UN Permanent Forum, distinguished representatives of Indigenous Peoples, sisters and brothers here today,

Indigenous Women are the human embodiment of Mother Earth. Thus, managing and protecting Earth’s nurturing gifts is our responsibility. Indigenous Women bring invaluable knowledge, which reflects the worldviews of Indigenous Peoples that recognize our interconnectedness with the world around us. The knowledge includes ecological managing systems that can correct the global crises, which are caused by unsustainable economies. As such, our knowledge and ways of life are essential for the perpetuation, promotion and development of the world’s biodiversity. For these reasons, we play a very important role in carrying out our communities’ self-determining development.

As keepers and guardians of Mother Earth, Indigenous Women have a special connection with our ancestral lands. We are the first, together with our families, to suffer from the impact of Climate Change, the current patenting practices under the Intellectual Property Rights regime, and the forced displacements of Indigenous Peoples happening all over the world. Indigenous Women are deeply concerned that the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have not recognized Indigenous Peoples’ rights to our traditional territories, lands and waters in the negotiations of an international regime of access and benefit-sharing due for completion by 2010. Also, Indigenous Women oppose all forms of patenting of any form of life and reject the potentially genocidal effects of genetic modification and contamination of land by genetically engineered technology. Further, these acts violate our rights, as contained inter alia in articles 11 and 24 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).

Key solutions to these challenges include environmental protection, peace and development, which are interdependent and interrelated. The imbalance of the environment is both a cause and effect of the political tensions and conflicts, which affects Indigenous Women and children in alarming ways. Therefore, our rights to ancestral lands and territories and to maintaining and preserving our Traditional Indigenous Knowledge (TIK) are key in mitigating these problems and for our own survival, as contained, inter alia in articles 8, 10, 11, and 25-31 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Given this, we offer the following interrelated recommendations that would help ensure our roles as Indigenous Women in facing the challenges outlined, and help the protection of our rights.

Recommendations for future work:

FREE, PRIOR AND INFORMED CONSENT

We commend the Permanent Forum’s numerous calls in document E/C.19/2009/L.2 for States and transnational corporations and inter-governmental banks to respect, implement, and guarantee the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.1 We underscore the critical need for the full and equal participation of Indigenous Women in these efforts. We therefore recommend that the Permanent Forum urge States, transnational corporations and inter-governmental banks to ensure that Free, Prior, and Informed Consent is sought with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Women on an equal basis, as well as the participation of all marginalized groups in Indigenous communities.

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

We strongly urge the Permanent Forum to set Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, including the revitalization of Indigenous Languages, as a future main theme for its work.

We recommend that the Permanent Forum undertake a study on the implementation of UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the protection of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. This reinforces our previous recommendation that the Permanent Forum advance a World Conference on TIK in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples, including a focus on TIK and Education. We recommend that the Permanent Forum hold preparatory sessions in all regions that provide examples of best practices by States, UN agencies and bodies and Indigenous Peoples of the implementation of the UN DRIP in relation to the protection of TIK.

We recommend that the Permanent Forum recommend the establishment of an International Year for Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. This International Year can, among other mandates, facilitate focused research and emphasize critical concerns of Indigenous Peoples’ access to educational opportunities related to TIK within their communities and outside of them.

HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS WOMEN

We recommend that the Permanent Forum initiate a gender-based analysis of the
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in consultation and collaboration with Indigenous Women at the local level. Articles 21, 22 and 44 of the UN DRIP mandate a full gender-based analysis of the Declaration. Any human rights process that considers the needs of Indigenous Women must be mindful of our specific customary laws, traditional beliefs and practices, and historical circumstances as well as our specific experiences of discrimination and marginalization. We recommend that the Permanent Forum undertake a gender-based analysis to set the framework for all States as they implement UN DRIP.

We recommend that the Permanent Forum study ways for the establishment of a mechanism to address violations on the right to maintain and preserve Indigenous cultures. Article 31 of UN DRIP asserts that Indigenous Peoples have the right to maintain their own cultures. Violations to Article 31, as well as other articles including article 11, are currently occurring as States prohibit the practice of Indigenous cultural traditions. We condemn the actions of States that criminalize Indigenous cultural practices or expressions of collective identity, where women are being detained and punished for expressions of their traditional cultures.

We recommend that the Permanent Forum undertake a study on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of unrecognized or unrepresented Indigenous Peoples. Historically known Peoples who are unrecognized and/or unrepresented within States have no access to remedies of collective or tribal rights. This undermines the stability of Indigenous Women and Children who carry their traditions and are unable to practice them without being criminalized.

TRADITIONAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

We recommend that the Permanent Forum sets traditional Indigenous justice systems as a future agenda item of the UN PFII. Acknowledging the efforts of UNIFEM to further the understanding of Indigenous Women and Ancestral/Tribal Justice systems through the forum held in Ecuador (October 2008), we encourage further efforts by UNESCO, UNDP, UNIFEM to coordinate additional forums that will promote knowledge and understanding of the value of Indigenous Justice Systems.

TRADITIONAL MEDICINAL AND HEALING SYSTEMS

We commend the Permanent Forum’s call to the UNDP to convene an International Expert Workshop on “Indigenous Peoples and health, with a special emphasis on sexual and reproductive health” (E/C.19/2009/L.2, para. 25). In preparation for this Workshop, we recommend the Permanent Forum to prepare studies of best practices on traditional Indigenous medicinal and healing systems. These studies should focus on: (a) greater visibility of Indigenous Women in reports and statistics that examine the impact of poverty, disease, violence, forced dislocation, climate change, pollution and other factors that affect Indigenous Women’s health; (b) the need of health care providers to have specific training to assist Indigenous Women who are disproportionately affected by problems such as cervical cancer, HIV/AIDS, and domestic violence; (c) understanding of and support for traditional medicines and practices such as traditional birthing practices, which are not valued by western health systems, or the chewing of coca leaves in South America, which at present is criminalized by national and international laws; (d) sexual and reproductive health and rights; and (e) more education within Indigenous communities, as problems such as HIV and tuberculosis are compounded when social stigma inhibits people from coming in to be tested and treated.

We also note the importance of continued support for the Indigenous Task Force at the International Diabetes Federation and the STOP TB Partnership.

MIGRATION

We commend the Permanent Forum’s recommendations for studying the situation of Indigenous Women migrants and the loss of their rights as they migrate (E/C.19/2009/L.2, para. 26 and 27). For this study, we recommend the PFII to produce studies and request from all UN bodies and agencies disaggregated data on Indigenous migration. We also request a gender-based analysis be completed in all reports that are produced. We would like to suggest the following:

Need for disaggregated data on Indigenous migration: We recommend that the PFII in collaboration with the relevant UN bodies and agencies, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Human Rights and Fundament Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, and Indigenous scholars/experts on Indigenous migration, create a taskforce to conduct a meaningful and comprehensive study that will advance the identified constraints in the research findings of the Indigenous Peoples and Migration: Challenges and Opportunities Draft Issues Paper (2006) Section D. This should focus on the lack of relevant data on Indigenous Peoples in migration, especially Indigenous Women who have been forced off their lands, often due to economic and environmental factors. Greater access to justice for migrant Indigenous Women needs to be facilitated, given that they are often faced with criminalization and incarceration rooted in discrimination. Related to this, there is also a need of disaggregated data on the physical and mental health of migrant Indigenous Women.

Gender-based analysis of Indigenous migration: We recommend that the PFII in collaboration with the relevant UN bodies and agencies, the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of the Human Rights and Fundament Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, and Indigenous scholars/experts on Indigenous migration undertake a joint comprehensive study on the specific concerns of Indigenous Women in the area of forced migration, including socio-economic marginalization, extreme exploitative labor practices fueled by undue influence of transnational corporations on immigration policies, violence against Indigenous Women and a lack of fair judicial review of racial and gender discrimination of migrants outside of their territories. This study should consider and integrate the analysis on migration and women developed in the Rural Women’s Declaration: Rights, Empowerment and Liberation (August 2, 2007, Manila Philippines).

DECOLONIZATION

We call upon the Permanent Forum to implement and prioritize its recommendations regarding decolonization. Specifically, these recommendations are in Document No. E/C/19/2004/23, para. 54, from the third session, regarding the impact of decolonization on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples of the self-governing territories; and in Document No. E/C.19/2008/13, para. 52, from the seventh session, recommending that an expert seminar be held on the decolonization process on Indigenous Peoples of non-self governing territories.

TRANSBORDER INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

We request that the Permanent Forum initiate an Expert Study and Dialogue on transborder Indigenous communities. This study should examine: (a) the interrelated causation of militarization and toxic spills from factories to infant, child and young mother’s mortality/morbidity; (b) contamination of land, air, water, and space; (c) the right to mobility within the traditional territory and access to cultural, sacred and ceremonial sites; (c) political identity and organization; (d) jobs; (e) education of women and children; and (f) armed and forced removal from customary lands.

DEVELOPMENT WITH CULTURE AND IDENTITY

We commend the Permanent Forum’s decision to organize an International Expert Group meeting on Indigenous Peoples’ development with culture and identity (E/C.19/2009/L.2, para. 15). Given that Indigenous Women play a very important role in carrying out our communities’ self-determining development, we urge the Permanent Forum to include the full and effective participation of Indigenous Women in this meeting.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 8th Session Highlights

2009-06-01T11:41:00.000-07:00

Filming courtesy of Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development

COLLECTIVE STATEMENT ON UNRECOGNIZED AND UNREPRESENTED PEOPLES

2009-06-01T10:44:00.000-07:00

Collective statement on Unrecognized and Unrepresented Peoples

Reading: Chief Caleen Sisk-Franco, Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Dear Madame Chair, Permanent Forum Members, Member States, UN Agencies and Indigenous brothers and sisters :

For hundreds of years, Indigenous peoples have struggled to resist and survive the affects of colonial legal domination and conquest, which in certain locations this created a legal divide between recognized and “unrecognized” indigenous peoples and in others it has completely denied their existence through an “unrepresented” status. This assembly applies to multiple historical tribes and indigenous peoples
worldwide; it is no coincidence that many of us sit on prime land and natural resources historically desired by governments and corporations for profit and expansionist agendas. Many more have been forcefully relocated, removed and/or pushed into Diaspora across hemispheres, creating global migrations
and displacement of indigenous peoples. This matter affects indigenous peoples in every continent. The effects are profound and require the attention of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the international community.

This collective statement is the product of a first and historic side-event held on May 18, 2009, during the Permanent Forum. The panel brought together Indigenous Women leaders from around the world, North America, South America, the Pacific, South-East Asia, and Africa, to begin identifying the common conditions that this colonial legal atrocity has produced in the lives of indigenous peoples, and in
particular indigenous women and children. The panel discussed some of the common issues affecting historical tribes, migrant indigenous women and their children born and raised outside of their territories, pastoral indigenous peoples and indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, indigenous peoples with recent
or no contact—all which are currently struggling with discrimination under the rule of law as unrepresented and unrecognized indigenous peoples.

Noting that all peoples should have the human right to be free from discrimination, unrecognized and unrepresented peoples currently do not have equal rights and protections to land, water, culture, identity, and child welfare protection as recognized indigenous peoples.

Noting that unrepresented and unrecognized tribes have less than equal rights to fair judicial review, unrecognized and unrepresented peoples are more vulnerable to discrimination, especially in exercising their right to land use, practice and preservation of culture, and in turn contributes to the cultural genocide
of these peoples.

Acknowledging the importance of the right to equal and fair judicial review, unrecognized and unrepresented peoples can not engage the state in legal address to their specific needs specifically related to land, natural resources, cultural custodialship, and their economic sustainabilities.

Further noting that unrepresented and unrecognized Indigenous women experience greater levels of discrimination due to the compound affect of ethnicity, gender, class, language, and, in particular, non-represented and unrecognized status.

Recognizing that the unrepresented and unrecognized status is a discriminatory status which denies the rights of historic, traditional tribes from the free exercise of their aboriginal rights and those basic human rights guaranteed under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People…

We submit the following recommendations to the UN Permanent Forum:
1. We strongly recommend to the UNPFII the inclusion of an item on unrepresented and
unrecognized indigenous peoples in its 2010 agenda.
2. We urge the UNPF to create a Task Force on unrepresented and unrecognized indigenous peoples, to include direct consultation with unrepresented and unrecognized indigenous peoples.
3. We request of the PF to appoint or designate a rapporteur to undertake a study on the conditions of unrepresented and unrecognized indigenous peoples, including but not limited to migrant peoples and their families born outside of their traditional territories.

We draw the attention of the UNPF, relevant UN Agencies and Member-states to the following matters:
1. We draw attention to the United States governments continuing efforts to suppress the rights of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe in California who are defending their historical territories, watersheds and the survival of their cultural
Government’s discriminatory statutes and practices which deny the rights of historic, traditional tribes from the free exercise of their aboriginal rights and those basic human rights guaranteed under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
2. We draw attention to the PF the case of Flor Crisostomo (see La Red Xicana Indigena statement on Urban and Migrant Indigenous Issues 2007), the face of migrant indigenous women in the US, Flor is in sanctuary in Chicago, Illinois resisting her order of deportation and is confronting the risk of federal charges with no legal recourse by either Mexico or the US for the effects of
displacement due to Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA).
3. We draw special attention to the present conditions of the Alifuru women and youth, see GIWC Statement on Human Rights 2008, who were incarcerated by the Indonesian government and prosecuted with charges of treason for possessing traditional fabric and presenting their traditional dances publicly. We urge the UNPF, Council on Human Rights, and the Special Rapporteur to report on the human rights violation of the Alifuru people.
4. We draw attention to the conditions of La Cuenca Amazonia (COICA) and encourage the PF to urge UN Agencies and Bolivia to promote the preservation of their right to self determination and territory, in order to secure their good health, education and livelihood.
5. We draw attention to the PF the excessive militarization due to the construction of the US-Mexico wall which is restricting the access to traditional foods, ceremonial sites, and are contaminating the water and riverbanks on the territory of the Lipan-Apache divided by US-Mexico border.

Signatories as of 5.20.2009:
La Red Xicana Indigena, Member ENLACE-North (Continental Network Indigenous Women)
Winnemem Wintu Tribe
Na Koa Ikaika Ka Lahui Hawaii
The Indigenous Worlds Association
Bansa Adat Alifuru
Touaregh Tribal People (Niger)
Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA)
California Indian Heritage Council
Lipan Apache Women’s Defense
Lipan Apache Band of Texas
Centro Sin Fronteras, Chicago, Ill
International Forum of Indigenous Women’s (FIMI)
Maya Visión
Comisión de Instrumentos Internacionales,
ENLACE Continental de Mujeres Indígenas
(Américas)

APACHES' INTERVENTION AT 8TH SESSION, U.N. PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES

2009-05-25T10:19:00.000-07:00

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE
P.O. Box 0
San Carlos Arizona 85550
(928) 475-2361

WENDSLER NOSIE, SR.
CHAIRMAN

DAVID REEDE
VICE-CHAIRMAN

Oak Flat/Apache Leap Statement

The purpose of this statement is to affirm why the Lipan Apache Woman’s Defense and the San Carlos Apache Tribe opposes the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and the proposed Resolution Copper mine at Chich’il Bildagoteel, how these proposed activities will seriously harm Apaches, and what steps the Tribe believes should be taken to resolve this matter.

Apaches have traditionally opposed large-scale mining, and the Tribe opposes large-scale mining to this day. Since 1996 the Tribe’s Elder’s Cultural Advisory Council has written several formal letters to Federal and local government agencies strongly opposing large-scale mining. Long before that countless Apaches fought, killed, and died protecting our homelands from large-scale mining.

Mining is inconsistent with our conservative, traditional Apache values. We have been taught to respect the natural world, and to keep it clean and natural. Our traditional relationship with the land is deep and personal. We depend on the natural world for our survival, and our survival depends on maintaining our personal relationships with all living things. Our word for this earth is Nigosdzan, “Earth is Woman”. We were taught never to desecrate her by digging deep into her veins.

In pre-Reservation days rape was punishable by death, the victim’s relatives exacting justice from the perpetrator. When our ancestors saw disrespectful miners raping Nigosdzan, they responded harshly in a proper, traditional manner. They viewed many of the early White settlers, especially miners, as filthy savages who destroyed the natural world wherever they went through mining, overgrazing, over-hunting, or by dirtying the land with their garbage and indiscriminate human waste. Our ancestors found these activities shocking and dangerous.

Everything in the natural world is alive and has a power. We have a name for everything: the plants, the animals, the birds, the atmosphere, the minerals, the winds, the stars, the bodies of waters, the places, and everything else. We recognize the power that each element of the natural world has, and that each individual power is directly related to particular Holy Beings.

We recognize that each of these elements works in concert with the other elements that make up an ecosystem. The power of each of these species is influenced by the other species in the ecosystem, and these combinations of power contribute to the power of the entire ecosystem. All of these powers are in turn influenced by the particular power of the place they are found, so that the power of each ecosystem cannot be duplicated or replaced.

Apaches often need to access these particular species and ecosystems, in person or remotely, by physical access, prayer, song, vision, or ceremony. Our traditional specialists use song cycles and ceremonies - just like modern scientists use formulas and technology – for the community’s healing, protection, and physical and spiritual well-being and happiness.

Damage to these ecosystems, and to the species found within them, weakens their power and shows great disrespect to the Holy Beings with whom they are associated, who have the ability to deny the benefits of this power, or the spiritual or physical access to these ecosystems. Losing access to these ecosystems – both by their closure or their destruction – profoundly weakens the strength of Apache prayer and ceremony, and severely limits the ability of Apaches to effectively practice their religion, ultimately resulting in physical and spiritual harm to Apaches.

Over the past 150 years our traditional Apache lands have been destroyed, place-by-place, ecosystem-by-ecosystem. We see parking lots covering our traditional food and medicine gathering areas, our sacred springs run dry by development, and trailer parks in our traditional corn and pumpkin fields. Now you are proposing more destruction.

The proposed mine at Chich’il Bildagoteel will destroy many particular ecosystems and the living things within them. These ecosystems and living things are associated with particular Holy Beings that we depend on, in particular a certain kind of Gaan – all-powerful Mountain Spirits – with whom Chich’il Bildagoteel is associated. Destroying this area will greatly hurt our ability to conduct public and private ceremonies involving these Gaan and other Holy Beings.

The area impacted by the mine includes cherished traditional food and medicine gathering areas, which would be forever lost if the mine were to open. We believe that the proposed mine will seriously affect the waters both above and below the ground that we depend on for physical and spiritual sustenance. We believe that there is no way to mitigate this loss or the serious impacts to Apaches. We believe that destroying these ecosystems will violate our civil and religious rights.

We, like you, believe in economic development for our people. We need jobs desperately. But we can’t accept an economy that is inconsistent with our most deeply held values. Just as you don’t want jobs for your young people that are based on drugs or prostitution, we don’t want jobs that are based on destroying Nigosdzan. We believe that an economy based on extractive industries is short-term, and physically and spiritually harmful. We believe, like so many international reports indicate, that extractive industries rarely benefit indigenous communities.

We want the Federal Government to proceed with a full administrative review through an Environmental Impact Statement so that we can more fully analyze the serious impacts that this proposed mine will have on our people. Existing cultural resource legislation has been ignored by the absence of meaningful, government-to-government consultation and the absence of responsible efforts to manage lands important to Indigenous populations, not to mention the pubic-at-large. At that time, we will be happy to discuss in detail these impacts, and the ways in which they may or may not be mitigated.

We would also like to work with our local, state, and Federal governments in identifying long-term, responsible economic development strategies for all of us, that are consistent with both traditional Apache values and scientifically-informed, environmentally sustainable practices.

Thank you for your attention to projects occurring on our traditional Apache lands, ancestral lands to many Indigenous populations and the many diverse publics who use and care for the Oak Flat/Apache Leap areas. If you would like more information, please contact Chairman Wendsler Nosie Sr. at (928) 475-2361, ext. 225.

<<<>>>
TRIBU APACHE SAN CARLOS
P.O. Box 0
San Carlos Arizona 85550
(928) 475-2361

Wendsler Nosie Sr. David Reede

Presidente Vice-Presidente

Declaración del Pueblo
Oak Flat/Apache Leap

El propósito de esta Declaración es afirmar la oposición de la Lipan Apache Woman’s Defense y de la tribu San Carlos Apache al Intercambio de Tierras del Sur Este de Arizona y a la resolución de la minera de cobre propuesta en Chich’il Bildagoteel, debido a que afectará gravemente a los Apaches y contradice los pasos que las Tribus consideran se deben tomar para resolver este problema.

Tradicionalmente los Apaches se han opuesto a la minería de gran escala, y aún en estos días las Tribus continúan oponiéndose. Desde 1996 el Concejo Consultor de Ancianos de la Tribu ha remitido varias cartas formales a las agencias de gobierno Federal y local, manifestando su determinante oposición a la minería de gran escala. Tiempo atrás, muchos Apaches lucharon, mataron y murieron protegiendo nuestras tierras de la minería de gran escala.

La minería no es consecuente con nuestros valores Apaches conservadores y tradicionales. Nos enseñaron a respetar el mundo natural, y mantenerlo limpio y en su estado original. Nuestra relación tradicional con la tierra es profunda y personal. Dependemos del mundo natural para sobrevivir, y nuestra supervivencia depende de mantener nuestras relaciones personales con todo lo viviente. Nuestra palabra para llamar a esta tierra es Nigosdzan, “La Tierra es la Mujer”. Nos enseñaron a nunca profanarla cavando profundamente en sus entrañas.

En los días de la pre-Reserva, la violación era castigada con la muerte, los familiares de la víctima clamaban justicia del violador. Cuando nuestros ancestros vieron a los mineros irreverentes violando Nigosdzan, respondieron severamente y en el modo apropiado y tradicional. Vieron a muchos de los primeros pobladores blancos, especialmente a los mineros, como asquerosos salvajes que destruían el mundo natural por donde iban con la minería, pastoreo y caza excesivos o con la contaminación de la tierra con su basura y desperdicios humanos indiscriminados. Nuestros ancestros consideran estas actividades como impactantes y peligrosas.

Todo en el mundo natural está vivo y tiene energía. Damos un nombre a cada cosa: las plantas, animales, pájaros, atmósfera, minerales, el viento, las estrellas, las formas del agua, los lugares y todo lo demás. Reconocemos la energía que tiene cada elemento del mundo natural, y que cada energía individual está relacionada directamente con los Seres Sagrados en especial.

Reconocemos que cada uno de estos elementos funciona en conjunto con los otros elementos que conforman un ecosistema. El poder de cada una de estas especies tiene la influencia de otras especies en el ecosistema, y que estas combinaciones de energía contribuyen a la energía de todo el ecosistema. A su vez, todas estas energías tienen la influencia de la energía especial del lugar en el que se encontraron, por lo tanto, no se puede reemplazar o duplicar la energía de cada ecosistema.

A menudo, los Apaches necesitan acceder a estas especies y ecosistemas especiales, personal o remotamente, accediendo físicamente, con oraciones, canciones, visiones o ceremonias. Nuestros especialistas tradicionales usan ciclos de ceremonias y canciones – al igual que los científicos modernos usan fórmulas y tecnología – para la sanación, protección, bienestar físico y espiritual y felicidad de la comunidad.

El daño a estos ecosistemas y a las especies que habitan en ellos, debilita la energía y significa la falta de respeto a los Seres Sagrados a quienes están asociados, quienes tienen la capacidad de negar los beneficios de esta energía, o el acceso espiritual o físico a estos ecosistemas. Con la pérdida de acceso – tanto por su cierre o su destrucción – se debilita profundamente la fuerza de las oraciones y ceremonias Apaches, y se limita gravemente la capacidad Apache para practicar efectivamente su religión, dando como resultado final el daño físico y espiritual de los Apaches.

En los últimos 150 años, nuestras tierras tradicionales Apache han sido destruidas, una por una, de un ecosistema al otro. Vemos áreas de estacionamiento sobre nuestras áreas de recolección medicinal y comida tradicional, nuestros manantiales secos por el desarrollo y campos de casas rodantes en nuestros campos tradicionales de maíz y calabaza. Ahora, Uds. nos proponen aún más destrucción.

La mina propuesta en Chich’il Bildagoteel destruirá especialmente muchos ecosistemas y todo lo que ahí vive. Estos ecosistemas y sus habitantes están asociados en particular a los Seres Sagrados que dependen de un cierto tipo de Gaan – todos los Espíritus poderosos de las Montañas – que están asociados con Chich’il Bildagoteel. La destrucción de esta área dañará profundamente nuestra capacidad de realizar ceremonias en público o en privado, incluyendo a estos Gaan y a otros Seres Sagrados.

El área impactada por la mina incluye las preciadas áreas de recolección de alimentos y medicina, las cuales se perderán por siempre si se abre la mina. Consideramos que la mina propuesta afectará seriamente a nuestras aguas tanto superficiales como de subsuelo que depende del sustento físico y espiritual. Consideramos que no hay forma de mitigar esta pérdida o los graves impactos para los Apaches. Creemos que con la destrucción de estos ecosistemas se violarán nuestros derechos civiles y religiosos.

Al igual que ustedes, creemos en el desarrollo económico de nuestro pueblo. Tenemos la necesidad desesperada de empleos. Sin embargo, no podemos aceptar una economía que es incongruente con nuestros valores profundamente arraigados. Del mismo modo en el que ustedes no quieren empleos para sus jóvenes que estén basados en el consumo de drogas y prostitución; no queremos empleos que estén basados en la destrucción de Nigosdzan. Creemos que una economía basada en las industrias extractivas es perjudicial a corto plazo, además de ser dañina física y espiritualmente. Tal como lo indican muchos informes internacionales, creemos que las industrias extractivas benefician vagamente a las comunidades indígenas.

Solicitamos que el Gobierno Federal proceda con la revisión administrativa completa por medio de una Declaración de Impacto Ambiental de tal modo que podamos analizar más en detalle los graves impactos que esta mina propuesta tienen en nuestros pueblos. La legislación existente sobre los recursos culturales ha sido ignorada por la ausencia de consultas significativas de gobierno a gobierno y por la ausencia de esfuerzos responsables para manejar las tierras importantes para las poblaciones indígenas, sin mencionar a todo el sector público. En dicho momento, estaremos gustosos de debatir en detalle estos impactos, y las formas en las que se puedan mitigar.

Del mismo modo, nos gustaría trabajar con nuestros gobiernos locales, estatales y federales en la identificación de estrategias de desarrollo económico responsable de largo plazo para todos nosotros, que sean consistentes tanto con nuestros valores tradicionales Apaches como con las prácticas de desarrollo sostenible, basadas en la información científica.

Agradecemos la atención a los proyectos que ocurren en nuestras tierras tradicionales Apaches, tierras ancestrales para muchas poblaciones indígenas y el vasto público que usa y se preocupa por las áreas Oak Flat/Apache Leap. Si desean más información, por favor contáctense con el Presidente Wendsler Nosie Sr. en el teléfono (928) 475-2361, anexo 225.

Lipan Apache Women Defense, Intervention on Human Rights, Indigenous Women, Families & Militarization

2009-05-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Eighth Session
May 19-29, 2009

Presented by Margo Támez, Co-Founder, Lipan Apache Women’s Defense,
Nádasi’né’ nde' isdzáné begoz'aahi' shimaa shini' gokal
Gową goshjaa ha’áná’idiłí texas-nakaiyé godesdzog
[El Calaboz Ranchería, U.S.-Mexico Border;
subregion: Texas, U.S.-Tamaulipas, MX]

Agenda Item 4:
Follow Up on the Recommendations of the Permanent Forum
“Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, Militarization and the Texas-Mexico Border Wall”
(a) Implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Women and Children

(b) Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and other special rapporteurs

Thank you Madame Chair, Permanent Forum Members, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Member States, UN Agencies and Our Indigenous Delegates, brothers and sisters all:
Dagotee’. My name is Margo Tamez, and I am the Co-Founder, with my mother, Eloisa García Tamez, of Lipan Apache Women Defense, located in El Calaboz Ranchería.
I speak today with the consent and consultation of my mother and lineal clans of Lipan Apache ranchería peoples of El Calaboz Ranchería, those of the Jumano-Apache, all traditional Ndé communities along the Texas-Mexico border whose customary lands are on both sides of the border.
In 2006 under the Bush Administration, the U.S. government implemented the Secure Fence Act, providing for the construction of the border wall and security, surveillance, infrastructural and technological barriers across hundreds of miles of indigenous lands. The U.S. waived 37 Federal laws in order to construct the border wall across tribal, municipal, National Park lands, and binationally revered sites. The U.S. obstructed numerous civil, constitutional, treaty, and international human rights of indigenous peoples spanning the 2000 miles of the border.
Our organization has been diligent to research and document the devastation and indigenous peoples’ responses to the travesty and injustice of the U.S.’ Border Wall Construction Mega-Security Project. I am deeply grieved to report to the Permanent Forum, that at the sub-regional level— our elders and our families are in severe mental, psychological, emotional, spiritual and physical crisis. We connect this pandemic human response to the crisis unfolding as a direct negative consequence of the corporate-driven. Lipan Apaches, and Lipan Apache women and children, are disproportionately impacted by the U.S.’ unilateral waiver of thirty-seven (37) U.S. Federal laws obstructing Civil and Constitutional protections for impacted communities.
Documentation and research necessary to launch intensive litigations, and in that regard, is costly and strenuous, depleting the already impoverished resources of indigenous communities. Our organization emerged to answer this need in the Lower Rio Grande region, of South Texas, in Cameron County. Please take note, that Cameron County is, per the U.S. Census, the poorest county in the entire United States on several important international social-economic indicators.
We mobilized a federal law case in the U.S. 5th District, and 5th Circuit; our International effort at the Inter-American Commission/OAS has been welcomed by the IAS. The Lipan Apache impacted lands are now divided by the 18th foot high steel and concrete wall, leaving cemeteries, sacred sites, biological resources, and subsistence grazing lands sealed off from bi-national access to community members who depend upon their grazing lands to the south of the wall, now a permanent barrier.
The Law Working Group of the University of Texas, in collaboration with the Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, analyzed and documented, in 5 briefing papers, a series of human rights violations taking place against Indigenous peoples of the Texas-Mexico border section, specifically. The briefing papers address issues relative to human rights violations which constitute breaches of the United States’ obligations under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, interpreted in the American Convention on Human Rights. These are documented and available on our website.

On October 31, 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, stated in a press release:
“During another hearing, the Commission received troubling information about the impact that the construction of a wall in Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border, has on the human rights of area residents, in particular its discriminatory effects. The information received indicates that its construction would disproportionately affect people who are poor, with a low level of education, […] as well as indigenous communities on both sides of the border.”

Madame Chairwoman and Special Rapporteur Anaya,

We denounce the United States’ untenable position of deploying “the war on terrorism”, “war on drugs”, and the “war on illegal immigration” because they are, from an indigenous standpoint, extensions of the global corporation’s use of militarization to further enslave Indigenous Peoples and Mother Earth— globally, and locally. States’ militarization historically accompanies the overthrow of indigenous law systems and governing systems.
We denounce the United States’ border wall contracts with the Secure Border Initiative Network, and its use of U.S. taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars in the harshest economic financial crash in U.S. History, and the deepened indebting of U.S. citizens to private corporations to construct the border wall. We denounce the following corporations whose boards, CEO’s, and stockholders, increased their personal and private financial wealth on the border wall construction. These include, though are not limited to Lockheed Martin, Texas Divisions of Raytheon, L-C Communications, Northrup Grummen, BAE Systems, America’s Border Security Group-Erriccson, Inc., NASDAQ, Fluor Corporations, MTC Technologies, Boeing, and Kellog Brown & Root-Halliburton.
We urgently recommend that the PF request S. James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, in coordination with the Permanent Forum’s members, and in coordination with local indigenous leaders, work decisively to schedule site visits to the impacted indigenous communities of El Calaboz and El Polvo on the Texas-Mexico border.
We earnestly recommend that the Rapporteur establish local community meetings in which local elders, families and Indigenous organizations can participate to the fullest extent to begin the process of a border-wide investigation into the border wall and its impacts on women, children, elders, families, community health and displacement.
We earnestly recommend the Special Rapporteur investigate ACLU’s analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border as a “No Constitution Zone”, and the implications for Indigenous women’s, children’s, families’, and communities’ rights to access their mothers, families, communities, education, health education, shelter, livelihoods and spiritual practice in militarized zones.
We earnestly recommend that the Permanent Forum commit to the key concepts: “Militarization, Borders, Customary-Use, Indigenous Peoples, & Gender” as a prioritized framework for the Forum’s 9th Session in 2010.

Thank you for your attention to these serious matters.

Margo Tamez
Co-Founder
Lipan Apache Women Defense
Sumalhepa.nde.defense@gmail.com

Signatories:
Brave Heart Society (South Dakota)
Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. Chairman
CORE, the Centre for Organisation Research and Education
Native Women’s Association of Canada

"WATER IS A HUMAN RIGHT" Intervention to the 8th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues May 2009

2009-05-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

(LOWER RIO GRANDE RIVER)

COLLECTIVE STATEMENT

Intervention to the Eighth Session of the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 2009
Submitted by the Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development
Agenda Item 3a: Social and Economic Development
PROTECTION OF WATER – WATER IS A HUMAN RIGHT

Madame Chair, esteemed Members of this Forum, brothers and sisters of the world community, thank you, for the opportunity of addressing the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development, an Indigenous Peoples’ non-governmental organization directly engaged with Indigenous communities and Nations to design and implement ecologically and culturally harmonious strategies for sovereignty, human rights, environmental and social justice, sacred sites protection, and the revitalization of traditional economies, submits this intervention on Agenda Item 3a, with the following signatories: Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Indian Reservation, American Indian Law Alliance, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribal College, International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development, Tonatierra, Dine’ Agriculture, Tatanka Oyate, International Indian Treaty Council, Lipan Apache Band, Maya Vision, Grupo Maya Kusamej Junan, CORE Manipur, and Western Shoshone Defense Project.

For the last four years our organization and co-signatories have addressed the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on the Protection of Water as a human right, and we are honored to do so again under this agenda item. We call for the recognition of Water as essential to Life; that it is crucial for bio-cultural diversity and for sustaining all aspects of Indigenous Peoples’ survival and well-being, assuring our physical health, nurturing us spiritually and central for the continued vitality of our cultures and traditional livelihoods. We recognize Water is the most vulnerable element of all forms of Life in light of climate change and its impacts, and coupled with the encroachment of invasive development – the terracide – raging across the globe and damaging Indigenous homelands and ecosystems, time is of the essence. We must take action now as some places are flooded and others stricken with drought. We urgently reiterate the critical significance of protecting Water sources and Indigenous Peoples’ full, unencumbered access to clean Water on our lands and territories for physical, cultural, and spiritual survival. With this in mind, we respectfully advance these recommendations.

Recommendations1. We urge that the Permanent Forum advocates for the establishment of a United Nations International Year for Water which can conduct focused research and emphasize critical concerns of Water access, potability, and holistic integrity for all aspects of life, including cultural and spiritual facets in relation to Indigenous Peoples, our Nations and ecosystems.

2. We ask that the Permanent Forum take action this year to establish Water as a theme for the ninth session of the Permanent Forum or to include Water in the self-determination theme.

3. Recognizing Catarina de Albuquerque is the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, we urge the Permanent Forum to call for her mandate to be extended. Further, to work with UNEP for an international study on Water that extends beyond drinking water and sanitation issues alone, and advance this concern in relation to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to access clean water for our spiritual sustenance and cultural livelihoods.

4. We strongly urge that the Permanent Forum recommends to ECOSOC in coordination with UNEP to call for the coordination of an official UN Experts Meeting on Water that specifically initiates a close review and assessment of Water allocation, regulation and access policies that affect the rights of Indigenous Nations, the health of our Peoples and ecosystems, and that of future generations. This high level Experts Meeting on Water can explore and establish indicators of Water Well-being for Indigenous Nations, and the world community.

5. We again implore the Permanent Forum for the immediate appointment of a Special Rapporteur for the Protection of Water and Water Catchment Areas to gather testimony directly from Indigenous Nations of the world targeted for or impacted by Water privatization, diversion, toxic contamination, dams, pollution, commodification, non-sustainable energy development, and other environmental injustices that damage Water sources on which Indigenous Peoples rely. This recommendation was carried forth by the Permanent Forum to the Economic and Social Development Council when we first requested this in 2005, and we ask that this appeal is recognized and advanced by this body to ECOSOC again this year.

6. That any initiatives related to Water must observe and recognize all articles of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including treaty rights to Water.

7. We affirm President Evo Morales’ call in 2008 for a UN Convention on Water, and further, that Indigenous Peoples fully participate in the development of that convention.

8. We commend the UN General Assembly for naming April 22nd the annual Mother Earth Day and ask that Water be highlighted as part of the related activities

9. We condemn the use of national militaries and corporate private armies employed to prevent Indigenous communities’ access to their traditional Water sources for drinking, agriculture, fishing, transport, and ceremonies, we call on the Permanent Forum to take leadership in working with ECOSOC to denounce repressive actions and call for a halt to such abuse by security forces and any legislation that inappropriately justifies this.

10. We affirm and support the Permanent Forum advancing the call for a World Conference on Water and Peace with full and effective participation by Indigenous Peoples and Nations and ask that steps are taken to make this a reality.

Narrative Justification
We call it K’yawe, Pa’a, Mni, Ishing, Mahpe’ and Nipi; Water – The Lifegiver. The significance of Water is expressed in a rainbow of songs, stories, and ceremonies, holding a potent place in our cultures, linking us together in a continuous, Life-affirming cycle. And yet, increasingly, our territories are either parched or flooded – being destroyed by the unquenchable greed of industrialization, a feature of colonization. Springs that our ancestors emerged from within the womb of Mother Earth, the precious watersheds that feed our lakes and fields and sustain our bodies, and rivers that carry our prayers to the forever after, are being contaminated, dammed, diverted, and siphoned. Ancient glaciers are fast melting into the sea, displacing our peoples, threatening our coastal zones with submersion and endangering the continuity of all Life.

Human rights violations, including the ongoing invasions onto Indigenous territories, and the attendant wrongful taking of our natural resources, particularly the nearly unhindered exploitation, diversion and commodification of Water, obstruct critically needed access to our Waterways and threaten the survival of Indigenous Peoples and of our distinct cultures. These assaults have direct and tremendously destructive impacts and further impoverish our already vulnerable, besieged Peoples, and threaten our spiritual and physical survival as Peoples.

Air poisons us and now the sun and the rain burn. The land, our Mother Earth, bleeds toxins. Water is undrinkable, or further unreachable. Our ancestors and leaders have prophecies that foretell of these changes now occurring across the globe. And, we must be proactive in finding ways to survive because the Natural Law – the spiritual justice that is unfolding in response to assaults against the Earth - will have no mercy. The accelerating impacts of Climate Change on Indigenous Peoples’ Water systems and accessibility, exacerbated by the continuing privatization and exploitation of Water on our territories by ever-thirsty multi/trans-national corporations, shortsighted governmental development policies, mega-development, and other encroachment by non-indigenous settlements, pose new challenges with which our Nations are faced. This forces us into poverty and pushes us further to the edge of existence, where many are already barely holding on by their fingertips for survival.

As different strategies are created to respond to the loss, contamination or diversion of Water resources, Indigenous Peoples’ retain our right to free, prior, and informed consent before any development takes place on our territories, by any outside entities, including the World Bank and States, whose actions may impact or abrogate our aboriginal and/or treaty rights including the human right of access to clean Water for all aspects of our life. We maintain that Indigenous Peoples have a right to say “no” to halt any development on our territories because we know that what some may consider sustainable solutions does in fact, displace our Peoples, exploit our territories, subvert our cultures, and further oppress the accessibility of our water systems and health of our homelands.

Esteemed members of this Forum, according to UN Water research, “884 million people in the world lack access to safe drinking water, and 2.5 billion do not have access to basic sanitation. ‘Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, those who suffer the most from lack of access to water and sanitation, are the poorest, the most marginalized and the most vulnerable,’ asserts Ms. de Albuquerque, noting in particular the situation of women, children, and persons with disabilities. Globally, 1.6 million people, mostly children, die each year from water and sanitation related causes.” Indigenous women throughout the world who often have the primary responsibility of locating and carrying Water for the survival of their families, and may risk their lives to do so, now find only dust instead of Water.

In the high desert, arid southwestern region of the United States, the Zuni River is critical to the physical and spiritual sustenance of the A:shiwi/Zuni people. During the fourth and fifth Permanent Forum Sessions (2005-2006), we shared with the Forum the unique characteristics of the River as a sacred waterway, an umbilical cord linking the A:shiwi with a spiritual destiny, carrying prayers and offerings to Zuni Heaven, a final everlasting place. When it flowed freely, the River fed streams and springs that nurtured thousands of cultivated acres of corn, beans, squash, and alfalfa fields that sustained the people, and supported an abundance of wildlife necessary to nourish A:shiwi cultural sustenance and a rich ceremonial life. In the 1890’s the River was dammed and diverted by the Ramah Cattle Company empowering Mormon missionaries upstream, altering the natural flow and life of the waterway. Today, what was once a vibrant, moving waterway that sustained thousands of people, animals, plant and water-dependent species has been drained, leaving only a dry riverbed. 1982 was the last time the Zuni River freely flowed through the village since the Ramah Dam was built. Now sadness lays hard on our land – now our land is always thirsty.

And on the same Indigenous territory, a sacred site known as Zuni Salt Lake, has been targeted for coal and methane gas development. Salt in an arid environment is critical to the Peoples’ survival. For the A:shiwi, this is also the dwelling place of a spiritual mother. It is also a place of peace for neighboring tribes to ceremoniously gather salt. The exploitation threatening Zuni Salt Lake would siphon millions of gallons of pristine water from beneath the lake for the mining, and create persistent toxins and contaminants that would forever alter the integrity and home of Salt Mother, including the well-being of the Zuni and other tribal Nations in the region who are culturally and nutritionally reliant on Zuni Salt Lake.

Elsewhere in the southwest region, when the Navajo Dam was built, it destroyed key cultural sites, including the place of the Water that Flows Together Clan. And the waters and riparian zone of the Rio Grande River, a primary waterway in the region, have been severely impacted by the spraying of toxic contaminants by non-Indigenous entities, where the Nde’ People’s traditional plants and herbs live. These poisons have leached in to the waterways and primary municipal waters sources affecting the plants, animals, peoples, lands, territories and cultural lifeways of the Nde’.

These are just a few examples in one region of the world. Such violations take place across the globe. We know that in too many places a polluted stream is our only source of Water. In too many places, our peoples are struck down by waterborne and vector borne disease, due to the lack of accessible, clean water on our territories caused by diversion and contamination, and the impacts of climate change. We hunger and can no longer plant our gardens, not because we have forgotten how to nurture life from a seed, but because without access to Water, our crops cannot flourish, and we cannot thrive without them. Our Water ceremonies are dying and our songs for the Water no longer fill the air.

Brothers and sisters of the world, are we prepared for what will happen when the world grows dry and quiet? What were once rich landscapes awake with forests and gardens, rivers and cornfields, alive with animals and birds, and a harmonious biodiversity of Indigenous cultures, are quickly becoming parched lands which only our tears can soften. Soon, even our most lush lands will be barren. Soon, even our tears will dry up and we will only have blood in our eyes as the wars for oil quickly transform into Water Wars that shroud the globe in a clash which humanity cannot survive. The Earth will burn. Too many of us are already dying of thirst. Our children, and the generations to come, will inherit this conflict and it is for them that we call upon the Permanent Forum and offer this intervention, for the Water - the essence of Life, for peace.

Elahkwa – Thank you.

Human Rights Violations Texas-Mexico Border Wall

2009-05-19T15:51:00.000-07:00

As we prepare to submit our intervention, tomorrow, on the issues of Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, Militarization and the Texas-Mexico border wall at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,

We warmly invite you, our sisters, brothers, and allies, to review the papers on these issues as they pertain to our case at this site, here.

Ahe'he'e

Margo Tamez

Lipan Apache Women Defense an Indigenous Peoples' Organization (United Nations)

2009-05-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

Today we are representing the community concerns of human rights violations at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

See the video of Global Indigenous Women Caucus, in which the Lipan Apache Women Defense has participated in dialogues, discussions and debates related to customary title, aboriginal title, cultural resource management, social and economic issues, and human rights related to the the issues confronting Indigenous Women in a local, regional, national, international and global context.

UPDATE: TAMEZ & BENAVIDEZ CASE & DOCUMENTS

2009-04-24T08:32:00.000-07:00

Your support is very important to the critical examination of the U.S. law system as it pertains to indigenous peoples whose customary and traditional lands are within the U.S. political boundaries, and at U.S. international borders.

Thanks to all who have been holding vigils for the Benavidez and Tamez extended clans on the El Calaboz side, and the Premont and Redford sides of the impacted families. Ahe'he'e to all the Nde' who are faithfully keeping watch.

There are too many to thank, so if you are reading this and are familiar with the efforts since 2006 of the elders of El Calaboz to retain customary and traditional rights to the lands in El Calaboz Rancheria, and you have been supporting this effort, then... at some point along the way you came to respond to this collective work even on your very busy path. You have helped us to support the wishes of the elders of El Calaboz in their legal, spiritual, political and social movement. El Calaboz Rancheria has a long and consistent history of indigenous peoples taking up issues of injustice, and the periodic rise of state violence in their lands.

Even if not directly, your work is making a difference in our lives and in the steady progress of this case--in the United States and in the international spheres.

The last 36 hours have been tough, grueling, as well as full of revelations, as they were back in 2006, when the government armed personnel attempted to take possession of customary and traditional lands along the last 70 miles of the Texas-Mexico border through the use of armed force and intimidation of the elders.

This was the famous 'waiver' period--when the Customs Border Patrol and DHS agents attempted to force community members to surrender their lands on the spot using a piece of paper, and forcing them to sign--in violation of constitutional and international law.

The last 24 hours has been focused on a temporary restraining order, the Judge's response to that order, and preparing the affected landowners (TAMEZ, BENAVIDES, et al)due to the fact that the United States, in direct violation of the condemnation and possessionorder, plowed ahead and built the wall on our elders' lands.

The Garcia, Cavazos and the Benavides lands are traditionally used for pastoralist goat and cattle herding, subsistence only, by the families also known as 'originarios'--First Peoples.

The wall went up in approximately 24 hours on both Garcia/Cavazos lands (Eloisa Garcia Tamez) and the Benavidez lands. Please reference Kevin Sieff's story in the Brownsville Herald.

As we continue to demand that the United States adhere to Judge Hanen's order to consult the families prior to building the wall (NOT a mute point), we are also looking ahead to the still-scheduled jury trial in October on the issues of compensation. Please recall that the United States government argues that the impact to the future generations of this possession and condemnation is $5000.

After the jury trial in October, we will then pick up the process of the 5th Circuit appeal, which will be led again by our attorney, Peter Schey (Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law) who on a conference call yesterday, faithfully committed to our elders to continue to challenge the gross violations of the constitution and civil rights.

One step at a time...this morning will be a challenge for effected landowners of the traditional and customary rancheria of El Calaboz. They are being represented by civil rights attorney, Corinna Spencer-Scheurich,a Texas attorney, who is standing in for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, who could not be present at the hearing on consultation violations, called less than 24 hours ago.

The last 36 hours and the work products which we completed and compiled to educate the government about 'consultation' for our community ("Consultation...", Temporary Restraining Order, Research Poster, Briefing on Indigenous Peoples by UT Law Working Group, and other supporting docs ) could not have come to existence without the tireless work of the following individuals: Attorneys Peter Schey and Chris Scherer; Dr. Jeff Sheperd--UT El Paso; Professor of Law, Denise Gilman, UT-Austin; Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Council Chair, Daniel Castro Romero, Jr.; Dr. Enrique Maestas; Erik K. Hrabovsky, and of course, the Benavidez elders and Dr. Eloisa Garcia Tamez.

Dagotee' gozhoole' (Beauty all around...)
Margo Tamez
Co-Founder, Lipan Apache Women Defense

"THE UNITED STATES TAKES THE LAND, BUT THEY WILL NOT TAKE MY VOICE" --Eloisa Garcia Tamez

2009-04-24T08:27:00.001-07:00

US seizes Tamez/Lipan Apache lands on the Texas-Mexico border for border wall
By Brenda NorrellEL CALABOZ, Texas --

With the hope of change evaporating during the Obama Administration, a federal judge ruled that Homeland Security can seize the Tamez family land. After a court battle, with an alert to the international community, the Tamez family said a federal judge condemned the Lipan Apache family land for the US/Mexico border wall.

"A federal judge in Brownsville, Texas issued an order today granting the federal government's request to condemn the ancestral land of the Tamez Family, who are Lipan Apaches," the Tamez family said April 16. "Although this land has been in the Tamez family prior to the Spanish colonization, and also designated to them through Spanish Crown law (1767, as of today, it is in the possession of the United States Department of Homeland Security.""The landowner, Eloisa Tamez, heard about Judge Hanen's order while participating in the Western Social Sciences Association Conference in Albuquerque, where she was participating in a Three part panel: 'Indigenous People's and the U.S.-Mexico Border: Militarization, Resistance, and Rights.' She is with a group of colleagues from several bi-national Indigenous Border communities and experts on militarization and the impact of the border wall," the Tamez family said in a statement.

The seizure of the Tamez family land raises new questions about the actual intent of the US government as it acquires private property from California to Texas for the border wall. The US covert scheme to acquire borderlands includes seizing private land and seizing the use of American Indian lands, such as Tohono O'odham land in Arizona, for the border wall corridor.
The land seizures were facilitated by the fear created by 9/11, then fueled by immigrant racism and xenophobia on television news and finally accelerated by the so-called drug war in northern Mexico. However, more questions are now being raised regarding the covert US government's role in the drug and weapons trafficking in the borderzone. The Zetas, the most notorious murderers, were trained as US Special Forces, while the US appetite for drugs provides the demand. The weapons also come from the US.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the Tamez family reports that this is an urgent situation which needs international attention and wide press coverage.

An interview with Eloisa Tamez, by Ansel Herz, is here.

Excerpt: "Mediahacker: I know that you met Barack Obama while he was campaigning. Have you seen any changes in terms of DHS policy since his taking office and do you hold out any hope that him and the new Homeland Security Secretary will change plans at all?
Tamez: I see no change. I’ve seen no comment on it. I don’t know what the plans are, because, well, they haven’t said much. So I’m still wondering what we’re going to see. And I still remember that he voted for the wall when he was a Senator. He voted for it ..."

Judge Hanen Orders Condemnation and Possession of Indigenous Lands; Tamez Family Continues Fight for Lands & Ancestral Sites

2009-04-17T05:45:00.000-07:00

"I am captive in my own land," Eloisa Tamez tells audience of researchers, scholars and indigenous peoples at Western Social Sciences Association 51st Annual Conference, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 16, 2009.

Eloisa Tamez, at the Albuquerque Peace & Justice Center, hours after hearing the news that the U.S. (Obama Administration) will take possession of her lands, irregardless of numerous attempts by her, Margo Tamez, attorneys, and the Lipan Apache Women Defense support community to encourage peace settlements, peace negotiations, and dignity for human and indigenous peoples' rights.

Press Release: Eloisa Tamez’ Land condemned for Border Wall
April 16, 2009

Albuquerque, New Mexico--A federal judge in Brownsville, TX issued an order today granting the federal government's request to condemn the ancestral land of the Tamez Family, who are Lipan Apaches. Although this land has been in the Tamez family prior to the Spanish colonization, and also designated to them through Spanish Crown law (1767, as of today, it is in the possession of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

The landowner, Eloisa Tamez, heard about Judge Hanen’s order while participating in the Western Social Sciences Association Conference in Albuquerque, where she was participating in a Three part panel: "Indigenous People's and the U.S.-Mexico Border: Militarization, Resistance, and Rights." She is with a group of colleagues from several bi-national Indigenous Border communities and experts on militarization and the impact of the border wall.

The Tamez family reports that this is an urgent situation which needs international attention and wide press coverage.

Opportunities for press interviews will be held at the WSSA Conference location, at the Hyatt Regency in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 330 Tijeras NW, following the panel discussions below.

Panel II Friday April 17 8:00am-9:30am Sendero Room 1 “Militarization”
Panel III Friday April 17th 2:45pm-4:15pm Sendero Room 2 “Resistance”

Contacts:
Cynthia Bejarano 575-571-7359
April Cotte acotte@igc.org

BOLETIN DE PRENSA

16 de abril

Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico, EEUU--Un juez federal de Estados Unidos envío ordenes para otorgarle libertad al gobierno federal en "condenar" las tierras ancestrales de la familia Tamez, ubicadas en el pueblo de El Calaboz a la orilla del Río Bravo, estado de Tejas. Aun sin embargo dicha tierra ha pertenecido a la Familia Tamez y los apache Lipan desde la época colonial pero a partir de hoy, se convierte en propiedad de Homeland Security en perpetuidad.

Eloisa Tamez e hija (Margo Tamez) son integrantes de una numerosa comunidad de indígenas binacionales e individuos o grupos expertos en asuntos migratorios y militarización quienes han sostenido una serie de medidas de resistencia y rechazo a las amenazas de Homeland Security desde agosto 2007. Aunado a ello se han organizado para elevar sus protestas a los tribunales federales, y al Presidente Obama quien mañana se reúne con el Presidente Felipe Calderón en la Ciudad de México.

El aviso oficial con fecha 18 de abril fue presentado por la Corte Distrital de Estados Unidos en Brownsville Texas. En términos legales le avisan a la Dr. Eloisa Tamez que el gobierno federal le decomisa el terreno de 0.25 acres para instalar, construir y operar caminos, cercos, barreras vehiculares, sistema de vigilancia y estructuras diseñadas en relación a la seguridad del muro entre Estados Unidos y México dentro del Estado de Tejas.

A partir del 25 de febrero de 2009, el gobierno federal sometió una moción para lograr posesión de dicha propiedad. La familia Tamez inmediatamente se negó a negociar pero por medio del documento de hoy, se busca ignorar dicha rebeldía.

Como resultado del programa federal por construir cercos o mayores barreras fronterizas a lo largo de la división territorial entre Estados Unidos y México, actualmente están en pie de lucha varias familias quienes se encuentran en la misma situación.

Lo extraordinario es que entre los grupos de familias y pueblos indígenas, también se encuentran empresas privadas quienes ya han resuelto la problemática de tener un muro vergonzoso en sus propiedades exclusivas y costosas. Como resultado de dichas negociaciones “privadas”, hoy se pueden apreciar una serie de “hoyos” o interrupciones oficiales en la secuencia del muro. Pero son amparados por el poder político de grupos multimillonarios como las familias Hunt y Moody, al igual que la Universidad de Texas en Brownsville y el campo de golf River Bend Resort.

Hasta la fecha la familia Tamez ha llevado sus quejas hasta los foros internacionales por medio de las Naciones Unidas, Foro Permanente de Asuntos Indígenas en su Séptima Sesión, Comisión Interamericana, OAS y Al-Jazeera, al igual que los medios europeos incluyendo numerosos diarios mexicanos como La Jornada, Reforma, El Universal, medios hispanos regionales y locales, etc.

Aun a pesar de ello se considera continuar insistiendo en la demanda de los grupos en rebeldía para obligar que el gobierno federal desista en condenar dichos terrenos. Entre los mas apremiantes continua la exigencia de que el gobierno inicie un dialogo conciliatorio lo cual han presentado por escrito pero hasta la fecha no han recibido respuesta alguna por el gobiernos federal.

Últimamente dichas familias presentaron una solicitud para negociar sobre la tenencia de la tierra argumentando que según los acuerdos virreinales –dicha oferta se les negó. Los afectados proponen llegar a un acuerdo pacifico pero ha fallado y aparentemente el gobierno prefiere la confrontación ancestral como el único medio para resolver los asuntos fronterizos.

LOS AFECTADOS SE ENCUENTRAN PARTICIPANDO EN LA CONFERENCIA ANUAL DE: WESTERN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ABRIL 15 – 18, 2009 EN ALBUQUERQUE, NUEVO MEXICO.

Como panelistas el grupo participara:
· Viernes 17 de 8:00 a 9:30 Cuarto Sendero I, sobre “Militarización” en la frontera.
· Viernes 17 de 2:45 a 4:15 Cuarto Sendero II, sobre “Resistencia” de los asuntos indígenas en la frontera.

A LAS 10:00 A.M. CONVOCAN A UNA CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA PARA LOS MEDIOS INTERESADOS EN MAYOR INFORMACION.

PARA ENTREVISTAS, FAVOR DE COMUNICARSE CON:

CYNTHIA BEJARANO (575) 571-7359
Por correo electrónico con Abril Cotte acotte@igc.org
Margo Tamez: 509-595-9666

NEW WEBSITE: UNIDOS CONTRA EL MURO /\/\/\/\ UNITED AGAINST THE WALL

2009-03-15T11:31:00.000-07:00

Eloisa Garcia Tamez signs banner of the people's protests that will travel to Washington D.C. with citizen delegation this week.

UNIDOS CONTRA EL MURO~UNITED AGAINST THE WALL LAUNCHES NEW WEBSITE

Friday, March 13, 2009
Delegation to DC

CASA members continue united against the border wall, and during spring break, CASEROS will embark in a trip to Capitol Hill in Washington, DC to challenge the consciences of our elected officials, and policymakers. As members of CASA, we want to make sure that our elected officials hear our position against the border wall. There is a tremendous lack of political representation in our area, CASA members feel that our elected officials are not advocating for the interest of their constituents. They have heard the voices of the people who are opposing the border wall, but they have fail to listen to the concerns of the citizens.

--Elizabeth Garcia, CASA

STILL BREAKING NEWS: NON-PROFIT SUES FEDS OVER BORDER FENCE

2009-03-12T13:05:00.000-07:00

Published on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 by the Associated Press
Non-Profit Sues Feds Over Border Fence
by Christopher Sherman

McALLEN, Texas - A national consumer advocacy group sued the federal government Wednesday on behalf of a University of Texas law professor seeking documents about the planning of the border fence.

Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in Washington against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The suit alleges the agencies didn't comply with a request from the University of Texas Working Group on Human Rights and the Border Wall. Denise Gilman, a law professor and member of the group, used the Freedom of Information Act to request documents in April regarding the location of the fence segments and criteria used in determining its placement.

The lawsuit asks that the government provide the documents.

The government is nearing completion of 670 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The project has met widespread opposition in South Texas, where segments will touch hundreds of private property owners and leave thousands of acres of farmland between the fence and the Rio Grande.

The Texas group has suggested the fence disproportionately impacted low-income minorities.

"Researchers have found statistically significant differences between the income and race of property owners whose land will be affected by the wall versus those whose land will remain unaffected," the lawsuit reads. "Affected property owners are, on average, less wealthy and include more people of color than property owners whose land will not be affected."

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Homeland Security referred Gilman's request to Customs and Border Protection, which is overseeing the fence project.

That agency has provided a partial response to Gilman's request. The Army Corps of Engineers told Gilman that her request would incur copying costs of $54,545 and after appeals partially filled her request.

A Customs and Border Protection spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.

"We sincerely hope that the Obama administration, which has pledged greater transparency and accountability in government, will release the requested documents so that informed debate and consultation regarding the border wall can take place before there is any further construction." Gilman said in a prepared statement.

© 2009 Associated Press

REPORT: NOW PUBLIC--CROWD POWERED MEDIA

2009-03-12T12:58:00.000-07:00

Pentagon warns of US military intervention in Mexico’s drug war

Mexico drug gangs threaten cops on radio, kill them
TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - Mexican drug gangs near the U.S. border are breaking into police radio frequencies to issue chilling death threats to cops which they then carry out, demoralizing security forces in a worsening drug war. "You're next, bastard ... We're going to get you," an unidentified drug gang member said over the police radio in the city of Tijuana after naming a policeman.Robin Emmott
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51558E20090206Violence spills over into the US
Just as government officials had feared, the drug violence raging in Mexico is spilling over into the United States. U.S. authorities are reporting a spike in killings, kidnappings and home invasions connected to Mexico's murderous cartels. And to some policymakers' surprise, much of the violence is happening not in towns along the border, where it was assumed the bloodshed would spread, but a considerable distance away, in places such as Phoenix and Atlanta.ALICIA A. CALDWELL
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_re_us/border_spillover_violenceEscalation, Escalation, Escalation.... something has to give (or be taken). -Seems to be playing out nicely.

GNN Reports: The United States Joint Forces Command issued a report last November to the effect that, in the very near future, Mexico is going to need the same kind of “help” as Pakistan.

USDFC Reports
The United States Joint Forces Command (USJFC), charged with anticipating global threats to US imperialism, issued a report last November entitled “Joint Operating Environment 2008 naming Pakistan and Mexico as the nations whose governments are most likely to undergo what it termed “rapid collapse.” This term goes largely undefined, beyond the assertion that it “usually comes as a surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems.”

Ominously, the study concludes: “Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.” The immense implications of this statement become clear when one considers that the USJFC—one of the nine branches of the Department of Defense—controls nearly all conventional military forces based in the continental United States—a force of 1.6 million.--Kevin Kearney

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. CONGRESS & OBAMA GEARING UP FOR TROOP DEPLOYMENT TO U.S.-MEXICO BORDER

2009-03-12T12:42:00.000-07:00

OBAMA & U.S. COMMANDER DISCUSS MILITARY "INTERVENTION" IN MEXICO

Obama and US commander discuss military intervention in Mexicoby Bill Van Auken

Global Research, March 10, 2009
World Socialist Web Site

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen briefed President Barack Obama over the weekend on the so-called drug war in Mexico and the prospect of increased US military involvement in the conflict south of the border.

Mullen had just returned from a six-day tour of Latin America, which took him on his last and most important stop to Mexico City. There he held meetings with Mexico's secretary of national defense and other top military officials and discussed proposals for rushing increased US aid to Mexico under the auspices of Plan Merida, a three-year, $1.4 billion package designed to provide equipment, training and other assistance to the Mexican armed forces.

In a telephone press conference conducted as he returned from Mexico, Mullen said that the Pentagon was prepared to help the Mexican military employ the same tactics that US forces have applied in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US military, he said, was "sharing a lot of lessons we have learned, how we've developed similar capabilities over the last three or four years in our counterinsurgency efforts as we have fought terrorist networks." He added, "There are an awful lot of similarities."

With US backing, Mexican President Felipe Calderon has increasingly militarized the country, deploying tens of thousands of troops in areas ranging from Matamoros and Reynosa in the east to Tijuana, Guerrero, Michoacán and Sinaloa in the west.

On the eve of Mullen's visit, the Mexican military poured some 5,000 additional troops into Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, redoubling patrols by combat-equipped units and effectively sealing the city off with roadblocks. Some 2,500 troops had already been deployed in the city last spring.

He said that in his meetings with Mexican military officials he had discussed US aid focusing on "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance," or ISR in US military parlance.

He indicated that intelligence-sharing had already been implemented, but that "there are additional assets that could be brought to bear across the full ISR spectrum."

In the first instance, this could mean the deployment of US manned surveillance aircraft as well as unmanned drones over Mexican territory. It could likewise suggest the deployment of Special Forces units or military "contractors."

Mullen refused to answer when questioned whether unmanned drones had already been deployed over Ciudad Juarez and other Mexican cities.

According to an unnamed US military official cited by the Associated Press, the meeting between Mullen and Obama on Saturday focused on how to increase US military aid.

"Clearly one of the things the president was interested in was the US military capability that may or may not apply to our cooperation with the Mexicans," the official said. "He was very interested in what kind of military capabilities may be applied."

In a March 1 television interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sounded a similar note, praising Calderon for having "taken on the battle" against drug trafficking by deploying the army and claiming that the "old biases against cooperation" between Mexico and the Pentagon were "being set aside." As a result, Gates added, Washington was prepared to provide the Mexican military "with training, with resources, with reconnaissance and surveillance kinds of capabilities."

The indications of more direct US military involvement follow a growing chorus of official as well as media reports portraying Mexico as a potential "failed state" and a mounting threat to US national security.

In its annual report assessing global security threats, the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command lumped Mexico together with Pakistan as countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse." The document added a warning: "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response, based on the serious implications for homeland security as well."

This was followed by a report released at the US Military Academy in January by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton. Mexico, he wrote, is "fighting for survival against narco-terrorism" and required greater US intervention.

"The proposed US Government spending in support of the government of Mexico is a drop in the bucket compared to what we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan." McCaffrey continued. "Yet the stakes in Mexico are enormous. We cannot afford to have a narco-state as a neighbor."

In the media there has been a steady drumbeat of reports warning that the drug violence, which has claimed over 1,000 lives in Mexico so far this year, will inevitably spill across the border into US cities.

Obama's US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano echoed these warnings in an interview with PBS television last week. While acknowledging that there was no indication that such violence had crossed the border, she continued, "But let's be very, very clear. This is a very serious battle. It could spill over into the United States. If it does, we have contingency plans to deal with it."

What is deliberately obscured in all of these responses to the situation in Mexico, is that the decision of Calderon to pursue a militarized response to the longstanding and essentially socioeconomic problem of drug-trafficking, has everything to do with immense social tensions building up in the country as well as the political crisis of his own presidency, which a substantial portion of the population still sees as illegitimate following the disputed 2006 election.

These tensions have been immensely exacerbated by the onset of the world financial crisis, which has wiped out more than half a million jobs in Mexico since November—while driving large sections of manufacturing, and in particular the country's extensive auto assembly and parts production sector—into depression conditions. Last week, Volkswagen announced another 1,050 layoffs at its assembly plant in Puebla.

Meanwhile Ciudad Juarez, where the Mexican army is carrying out its current occupation, is also one of the main centers of the maquiladora industry, the assembly plants that exploit cheap Mexican labor in the production of consumer goods bound for the other side of the border. Layoffs have swept through many plants in the city, leaving large sections of the population desperate for work.

The official unemployment rate rose to 5 percent in January, from 4.32 percent the month before. This figure grossly underestimates the real situation, however, as it excludes the so-called informal sector, which accounts for 40 percent of the economy, and counts as employed anyone who works as little as an hour a week.

Last month, Mexico's telecom mogul Carlos Slim, counted as the second richest man in the world, warned that "unemployment will rise as we have never seen in our personal lives [and] companies small, medium and large will go bankrupt."

Meanwhile, the number of remittances sent by Mexican citizens working in the US fell by 20 percent between January 2008 and January 2009. This money sent home for the most part by poorly paid undocumented workers constitutes the second largest source of foreign exchange for the Mexican economy after oil exports. There is also a growing fear that many of the Mexican immigrants in the US, unable to find work, will begin returning home to find even worse prospects.

It is in this explosive context that Calderon's deployment of the military serves as a means of social control and repression.

The sending out of the army has resulted in a growing number of denunciations of severe human rights violations, with the military charged with crimes ranging from massacres to extra-judicial executions, torture, rapes and illegal detention. The government's own National Commission on Human Rights has reported receiving a total of 1,602 such complaints between January 2007 and December 2008.

One representative case took place in Ciudad Juarez in January with the military's abduction of Jaime Irigoyen. A 19-year-old law student at the Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez and a varsity pitcher for the university's baseball team, he was dragged from his bed by uniformed soldiers as his family screamed in protest.

Later, as relatives protested outside the local military base, Irigoyen's blindfolded and gagged body was discovered dumped in the street. It is suspected that the abduction and execution was a case of mistaken identity, based on faulty intelligence obtained by means of torturing other suspects. Nonetheless, the military subsequently laid siege to the funeral home where Irigoyen's wake was held, searching the cars of mourners, blocking surrounding streets and arresting several of those in attendance.

It is under conditions of this type of ongoing military violence that the Obama administration and the Pentagon are now proposing to apply the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, while providing the hardware and advisors to prosecute a civil war against a restive working class south of the US border.

Bill Van Auken is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Bill Van Auken

BREAKING NEWS: INDIGENOUS PEOPLE ALONG TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER INVESTIGATE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES

2009-03-07T14:07:00.000-08:00

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ON THE TEXAS-MEXICO BORDER INVESTIGATING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Saturday, March 7, 2009, 9:57 a.m.

El Calaboz, TX, March 7. Dr. Eloisa G. Tamez, Lipan Apache, is talking with relatives and residents of the rancheria and collecting evidence related to her lands based upon reports from elder eyewitnesses who believe that the U.S. DHS/Contractors and U.S. Customs Border Patrol are encroaching upon the lands currently in dispute related to her legal case against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs Border Patrol and U.S. Army Corps Engineers to stop the construction of the Berlin-style wall on her ancestral lands. The construction of the wall, which now abuts Tamez' land, is clearly disturbing sensitive vegetation, wildlife, riparian, religious and cultural resources near, on and to the north of the levee. In a telephone communique this morning, Tamez indicated that she is documenting the possible violations against a standing court order which protects the lands in the area of dispute until her jury trial in June 2009. The land in question is situated within the International Boundary zone, which is governed by international customary law with related ties to indigenous international law. Tamez made telephone calls to the representative of the International Water and Boundary Commission numerous times on Friday. She attempted to communicate to IBWC officials of potential violations by contractors and to remind IBWC of the land-grant landowners' primary right-of-way in the dispute area. The IBWC failed to return her phone calls, nor has the IBWC provided a reasonable explanation as to why they have not processed her application to install a private property barrier across her section of the levee and riparian strip, an application which she filed more than nine months ago.

According to Tamez, the landowners of the original land grant have the first right of way to the land, resources, water and ecological and cultural resources. Tamez further insists that IBWC must consult land owners on all matters related to the levee and lands in question. According to Tamez, "the wall construction is now up to my property line on both sides--all the non-land grant peoples (those not descended from the original peoples) sold to the U.S. We're surrounded. By building the wall on the north side of the levee--literally at the foot of the levee--the U.S. reveals a rushed and forced process to spend the money Chertoff awarded to contractors. They built the footer right on top of the flood zone--putting the entire levee behind the wall and trampling over the property rights of land owners in litigation. When this weight dissolves the levee in a major storm, will they then ingress further? This is entirely out of hand. This is an outrage. They are encroaching upon my land and the impact is damaging. The Border Patrol units and the machines of the contractors are numerous; the high level of traffic in the area is intense. Not only is this harmful, it is dangerous. The levee is in no condition to hold this massive structure. It is obvious that this is about greed, payoffs and spending down the taxpayer's money in the final days of Chertoff's control. It appears that the new IBWC director (appointed by Bush after the sudden death of the former IBWC director, Carlos Marin) and the U.S. contractors made deals without consulting the land owners, nor did those of us-- in litigation against the construction of the wall-- receive prior notice or free and prior informed consent. By authorizing the construction of the wall on the north side of the levee, the IBWC is in violation of long-standing international laws, indigenous peoples' rights, human rights, and collective rights of indigenous peoples in El Calaboz. The customary laws of our community have protected lineal-descent land owners with Spanish land grant title."

El Polvo, Texas, March 7. Jumano-Apache community members are calling for an emergency investigation into widespread human rights violations targeting specific Jumano-Apache families by the U.S. Customs Border Patrol/I.C.E./DHS in the small community of El Polvo, situated on the banks of the Rio Grande River near the Big Bend National Park. A recent series of armed invasions by U.S. government personnel into the living spaces of noncombatant, unarmed Jumano-Apache communities have struck terror into parents, elders and children. Members of the Jumano-Apache community cite human rights violations stemming from forced displacement of rural indigenous families which they claim is a direct result of U.S. Customs Border Patrol abuses, threats, and armed assaults deployed against the quiet, rural village of traditional farmers in recent months. In the past year, numerous attempts by community members to resist Border Patrol violations of property rights, indigenous rights, community rights and human rights have been met with retaliatory measures in this community which is designated as one of the poorest in the United States, according the the 2008 U.S. Census. Eyewitnesses in El Polvo connect the violations experienced to intensified militarization of the Texas-Mexico border wall construction, the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war on migrant workers.
--Margo Tamez

Contact Eloisa G. Tamez (El Calaboz) at Eloisa.tamez1@gmail.com
and April Cotte (El Polvo) at acotte@igc.org
http://redfordtexas.blogspot.com/
lipanapachecommunitydefense.blogspot.com

Related Stories:

U.S. 'COUNTERINSURGENCY' 'AID' TO MEXICO

MEXICO SENDS TROOPS TO NORTHERN BORDER STATES/ (AFTER U.S. PROVIDES MONETARY & EQUIPMENT 'AID')

"BACK TO THE WALL"

2009-02-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

by Melissa del Bosque, Texas Observer
February 6, 2009

Back to the Wall:
Can Janet Napolitano stop the border-fence boondoggle?
Melissa del Bosque | February 06, 2009 | Features

As President Barack Obama champions change in Washington, D.C., Eloisa Tamez waits to see whether an 18-foot steel and concrete wall will be built in her backyard.

The Department of Homeland Security has already taken Tamez to court in an effort to condemn a piece of property, a mile inland from the Rio Grande, that has been in her family since the 18th century. The wooden survey stakes that sprout from her land remind her that the bulldozers could arrive anytime. “Just about every week, DHS announces that they will start building,” Tamez says. “It seems to be some kind of strategy to keep everybody here uptight and nervous.”

If that’s the strategy, it has worked. Last February, the Observer wrote about Tamez’ fight to keep her land in El Calaboz, a small rural community west of Brownsville (“Holes in the Wall,” Feb. 22, 2008). Since then, the 73-year-old has sued the federal government, held several protests against DHS on her property and, in the process, become an international spokeswoman for indigenous rights. (Tamez is part Lipan Apache.) But like many others, she remains trapped in the slow grind of a Washington bureaucracy that demands she forfeit her land to make room for a border wall that could end up costing taxpayers $30 billion—and which bypasses golf courses and resorts but targets working-class families and landowners like Tamez.

A new presidential administration and a new Homeland Security chief could bring an end to Tamez’ troubles. Along with the 121 other border residents embroiled in lawsuits with DHS, Tamez is cautiously optimistic that Janet Napolitano, Obama’s new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, will stop the construction before it’s too late.

“Once the wall is built, it means that DHS has lawlessly taken my land,” Tamez says. “It will take me until my last days to right that wrong. And after I am gone, my children will have to take up the fight.”

In 2006, with the passage of the Secure Fence Act, Congress mandated the construction of 670 miles of fence along the southern border by the end of 2008. As of Jan. 21, according to Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Angela de Rocha, 582.2 miles had been built. Despite the Dec. 31 cutoff date in the Secure Fence Act, DHS is still building its wall. So far it appears that properties entangled in lawsuits, like Tamez’, have been mostly bypassed. But there’s no telling how long that will last.

In Tamez’ case, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, has likely ensured that the bulldozers won’t be rolling in tomorrow. In March, he ruled that negotiations must take place between landowners and Homeland Security before property can be seized. The trial, set for June, will determine whether DHS has conducted “good faith negotiations” with Tamez over a fair price for her land.

Meanwhile, the agency continues putting up the fence on federally owned property such as the Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Refuge, just east of McAllen, where other federal judges have allowed DHS to move ahead without negotiations. In Eagle Pass, a small border city 145 miles southwest of San Antonio, a mile of fence has already been built through the city-owned golf course. DHS plans to build another mile through the city’s downtown park, says Mayor Chad Foster.

Eagle Pass was the first city in Texas to get hit with former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff’s prerogative to waive federal law and condemn property to speed construction of the wall. Congress granted this unprecedented power in the 2005 REAL ID Act. “We weren’t even aware of it when it came,” Foster says. “It was just another blow under Chertoff—a tactic to steamroller us.”

The mayor hopes that Napolitano, as a former elected official from a border state, will work with communities and local elected officials on both sides of the border to come up with alternatives to the fence. “Napolitano understands the border and she has a history with the border governors,” Foster says. “And in this country boy’s opinion, that’s the way we’re going to resolve this issue—by working with our neighbors.” Chertoff never showed much interest in that approach.

When she was governor of Arizona, Napolitano once said, “Build a 50-foot fence; I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.” Despite the comment, the new Homeland Security secretary is not completely against fencing. During her Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, she told senators that a fence in urban areas “might make some sense.” Napolitano was not asked to elaborate, but in past hearings, Border Patrol agents have testified that fencing in urban areas gives them time to detain crossers before they blend in with crowds of people.

Immigration reform and border control will not be the first items on the new Congress’ agenda, says U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who has been a staunch opponent of the border fence. And with an economic crisis and two wars being waged, they’re not high on the Obama administration’s agenda, either. “There’s a shift in priorities now with the economy,” Grijalva says. “Throwing $450 million at a fence pales in comparison to fixing our economy.”

The shift in focus away from border security might give Napolitano some much-needed time to evaluate and reinvent a department that has been taxpayers’ worst nightmare, and private contractors’ idea of heaven, ever since its creation after 9/11. In 2006, the agency estimated that a mile of fence would cost $1 million. By August 2008, the price tag had shot up to $7.5 million per mile.

Last year, legislators finally became frustrated by the agency’s lack of disclosure and escalating costs, and they refused to appropriate more funds to DHS to finish building the wall. Chertoff then transferred money from other programs, including port security and virtual fence technology, to continue the construction.

That’s been the mantra of the department Napolitano has inherited: Build fence, no matter the cost. “She has inherited that mentality,” says Grijalva, “and no doubt there is a rush to get the fence done.”

Napolitano has also inherited a pork-barrel mentality. From the agency’s inception, it has enthusiastically outsourced a majority of its duties. No one has benefited quite like the Boeing Corp. In 2006, Boeing won a three-year contract to build 6,000 miles of physical and virtual fences along the southern and northern borders. As of last August, Boeing had been awarded $993 million, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Boeing also has the right to three one-year extensions to the contract if Homeland Security is happy with the results.

Which raises another endemic problem: oversight, or the lack thereof. Private companies who get DHS contracts do not have to report the progress or outcomes of their work to the American taxpayer. Even members of Congress have difficulty getting answers about how the billions are being spent—another legacy of the Bush administration that Napolitano will have to grapple with. “The administration has ... hidden contractor overcharges from Congress, international auditors and the public,” Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California said in 2007, “impeding oversight and diminishing accountability.”

Conveniently enough, private contractors are also doing more of the oversight. The fence-building project, called SBInet, is a component of the DHS’s Secure Border Initiative program. In a 2007 audit report, Richard Skinner, inspector general for Homeland Security, said that 65 of the 98 DHS staffers responsible for oversight of SBInet were private contractors. After being criticized by Congress for the lack of oversight, DHS estimated that it would need at least 470 employees to properly oversee SBInet contracts. After a round of hiring, the agency still has only about half the staff it needs: 129 government employees and 164 contractors, according to a September 2008 GAO report.

“So much is kept under wraps, you don’t know what worked and what didn’t,” says Pete Sepp, a spokesperson for the nonprofit National Taxpayers Union. “You don’t know whether the expenditures that went out of the government’s treasury were worth it or not.”

But it is clear that those expenditures amount to a virtually bottomless pit. Stunningly enough, Boeing’s SBInet contract has no spending limit, despite repeated protests from government auditors. As costs continue to climb, DHS must go to Congress to beg for more money—and until last year, when Congress finally applied the brakes, they were getting it.

“We don’t want another industrial-military complex where contractors have an inordinate amount of control over policy,” Grijalva says. Referring to the Department of Defense, long known for its largesse in doling out private contracts, Grijalva adds, “We don’t need another DOD, which is what’s starting to happen at DHS.”

It’s been happening all along. A 2006 Forbes magazine article estimated that DHS had already doled out $130 billion in private contracts since 9/11. The department is certainly not shy about wooing private contractors; it even has a Web page called “Open for Business.”

“The federal government now spends nearly 40 percent of discretionary spending on contracts with private companies, a record level,” Waxman said in 2007. “This surge in contract spending has enriched private contractors like Halliburton, but it has come at a steep cost to taxpayers through rising waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement.”

Nobody has gotten richer off DHS contracts than Boeing. And as the lead contractor on the border, the company has in turn subcontracted out a large portion of the management, design and development of the fence to hundreds of other companies. Boeing will not release the names of those subcontractors, calling this “proprietary information.” Among the names that have leaked out is Texas-based Perot Systems, owned by former presidential candidate Ross Perot.

One classic example of the waste to which Waxman referred is Boeing’s Project 28. In this pilot project, a high-tech “virtual fence” with video surveillance towers, sensors and radar devices was to be put up along 28 miles of the Mexican border. After an original $20 million investment was run through, DHS gave Boeing $65 million to upgrade its software; the original version, one used by police dispatchers, did not meet the Border Patrol’s needs. The system had been developed, it turned out, without consulting with Border Patrol agents working in the field.

Last year, Congress deemed Project 28 a failure. Once touted as a key component of border security by the Bush administration, the virtual fence was put on hold, with the remaining money transferred to build more physical fence.

Sepp says it will be a stiff challenge for Napolitano to reform Homeland Security. “The new secretary will have to bring an outsider’s perspective and approach it as if it were a fresh initiative,” Sepp says. “It will have to be a top-down process. Congress will be the wild card, because they will have to decide how much power they are willing to cede to the executive branch to rein in costs.”

Members of Congress typically find it difficult to ignore the power of lobbyists from companies like Boeing, or requests from their home districts to invest in pet border-security projects. And when it comes to lobbying, Boeing, the second-largest aerospace and defense contractor in the world, has some of the most powerful connections in the Beltway. Its board of directors includes such Washington heavyweights as former Secretary of Commerce William Daley, who served on the Obama/Biden transition team, and Kenneth Duberstein, a former chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan. In 2008, Boeing was the top recipient of federal contracts, at $2.9 billion, according to the nonprofit OMB Watch.

During the 2008 election cycle, Boeing gave more than $2.1 million to political campaigns. The top recipient was Barack Obama, who received $167,098. Most members of the Texas congressional delegation also got some of Boeing’s bounty, led by Republican Ron Paul ($22,688) and Democrats Ciro Rodriguez ($10,250), Silvestre Reyes ($10,000), Solomon Ortiz ($7,500) and Ruben Hinojosa ($2,500). Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s re-election campaign got $9,000 from Boeing.

Reyes, Ortiz and Hinojosa all voted against the Secure Fence Act in 2006. Rodriguez was not a member of Congress at the time but told the Observer that he opposes building the fence. Obama, Cornyn and Paul all voted for the fence legislation. Cornyn did not respond to requests for comment. Paul’s media director, Jesse Benton, said that his contributions came not from Boeing but from individuals who identified themselves as Boeing employees. “Dr. Paul often says that lobbyists do not even bother to visit him on Capitol Hill because they already know they will get zero concessions,” Benton said in an e-mail. Ortiz reiterated his opposition to the border fence in an e-mail, adding that “campaign contributions have not altered or influenced my position on the border security.”

Janet Napolitano has thus far refused to talk about her plans for the border fence. She told the Arizona Star in December that she would have no comment “Until I actually get in and see what the status of the project is, the status of payment of the project is, what’s anticipated, what problems have been incurred and the like.”

Eloisa Tamez, Mayor Chad Foster and others who’ve been battling Homeland Security think Napolitano should come to Texas and take a gander. “The new secretary needs to come to Cameron County and see what the land looks like,” says Tamez. “Chertoff never set foot down here.”

In 2007, Congress tried to force DHS to reach out to border communities. Rep. Ciro Rodriguez added wording to a Homeland Security appropriations bill requiring the agency to consult with folks about plans for the fence. The agency’s response was to outsource the job—in this case, to E2M, a Colorado company. E2M asked border residents to submit their questions and complaints in writing to a stenographer. They have received no responses.

Tamez, long since tired of waiting, sued Homeland Security last February over the plan to run the fence through the center of her land. Tamez filed a motion for formal discovery in federal court in Brownsville to force the agency to explain how the value of her property is being assessed and what DHS plans to do with her land. Among other things that DHS hasn’t made clear to property owners like Tamez is whether there will be entryways to access their properties on the other side of the fence. Nor do they know whether the fence on their land will have cameras or other surveillance devices, which could be an invasion of their privacy.

Unlike most complainants, Tamez has been granted a jury trial, scheduled for June. “We’re really lucky here, because we have a judge who really values and follows the Constitution,” she says. Her lawsuit seeks fair market value for her land, claiming this right under the U.S. Constitution. (Most property owners have been awarded far less than market value by the feds.) Ultimately, she hopes her legal action will put off the fence-building long enough for the Obama administration to halt the construction.

Along with property owners, environmental and wildlife-conservation organizations have also been battling the DHS in court, but with little success. The nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last March, arguing that the Homeland Security secretary’s authority to waive laws to build the border wall violates the constitution’s separation of powers. In June, the court rejected the petitions without explanation.

The results of Homeland Security’s sweeping powers were all too vivid when Noah Kahn, a federal lands associate with Defenders of Wildlife, recently went to see some of the border fence under construction just east of McAllen. The steel and concrete fence is being built on a federally owned tract of the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge. “Mud and fill were being dumped in the wetlands,” Kahn says. “Palm trees and native hardwoods were covered in mud. A silt fence had been installed, but it was clearly too little, too late.”

Kahn sees the damage as directly related to Homeland Security’s ability to ignore legal restrictions. “When you disregard environmental laws, it leads to real adverse impacts,” he says. “It’s not just an academic argument.”

So far, the new Homeland Security regime has provided few clues about how it will reinvent the department—or overhaul the waste-laden SBInet project. During her six years as Arizona governor, Napolitano managed to anger groups on both sides of the immigration debate. She was the first governor to call for National Guard troops to patrol the border, pleasing the right wing. She supported drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants, angering conservatives.

Napolitano’s early actions at Homeland Security have hardly done more to indicate a clear direction beyond assessing the damage already done. Her first directives to the staff involved gathering information and reviewing programs and strategies inherited from the Bush years. Urging the staff to create a “more effective and efficient department” is about as specific as she’s gotten so far.

But like others who battled the old department and lost, Kahn sees reasons for hope, noting that Napolitano “has made the comment that DHS is still a new agency and there is still an opportunity to shape it. I think she will make the agency more transparent and more responsive.”

All of which is well and good, Tamez says. But she won’t rest until Napolitano stops the bulldozers. “I’m just really angry,” she says. “It’s aggravating and appalling that the executive branch continues to persecute us. They have tried in every way to keep us from having justice served.”

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2951

INDIGENOUS POLITICS FROM NATIVE NEW ENGLAND AND BEYOND: INTERVIEW WITH MARGO TAMEZ

2009-01-14T15:16:00.000-08:00

The interview is accessible here.

Show #5
Join host J. Kehaulani Kauanui for an interview with Margo Taméz (Lipan Apache and Jumano-Apache) co-founder of the Lipan Apache Women Defense/Strength - an Indigenous People’s Organization of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that was formed to protect sacred sites, burial grounds, archaeological resources, ecological bio-diversity, and way of life of the indigenous people of the Lower Rio Grande, North America. Margo Taméz and her mother, Eloisa G. Taméz, founded the group in response to the US Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to force their surrender of hereditary lands in El Calaboz, Texas for the US/Mexico border wall. The US department of Homeland Security had voided over 35 federal laws, including environmental laws and laws protecting American Indian cultural and burial places. However, South Texas Apache women took the lead, in December 2007 in organizing the most persistent, and to date most successful, constitutional law case against the United States Army, US Customs Border Patrol and the US Department of Homeland Security. On October 22, 2008, Taméz delivered testimony in Washington, DC before the Organization of American States (OAS) Inter American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission examines and monitors compliance by member States of the OAS, including the US, with human rights obligations established in international law. Taméz will explain to us how this crisis came about and how she is working to protect the lands of her people from being divided in a way that result in relocation-a forced Indian removal that would constitute a 21st century genocide. Original air-date: 10-28-08.

NATIONAL TELEPHONIC PRESS CONFERENCE--LIPAN APACHE WOMEN DEFENSE DELIVER LETTER TO OBAMA-TRANSITION TEAM

2008-12-23T16:10:00.001-08:00

PRESS CONFERENCE PANEL:

Dr. Eloisa Garcia Tamez
Margo Tamez
Diana Valenzuela (Jumano-Apache)
Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. (Lipan Apache)
Jose Matus (Yaqui)
Michael Paul Hill (Chiricahua Apache)
Chris Scherer, Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Denise Gilman, University of Texas Law Working Group--Texas-Mexico Border Wall
Jeff Wilson,University of Texas Law Working Group--Texas-Mexico Border Wall
Arnoldo Garcia, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights

NDÉ ISDZÁNÉ ŁANOHWILE’~~Lipan Apache Women Defense ~~El Calaboz Rancheria, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo