from�Alexander White Plume &�Kent Lebsock
As stated repeatedly, we are opposed to moving forward in inequality and agree with the position Glenn Morris expresses herein regarding the�High Level Plenary Meeting �("HLPM")�known as the World Conference on Indigneous Peoples. �The title itself is disingenuous and deceptive giving the impression that this conference is equal in form and substance to other World Conferences such as the World Conference on Racism and the World Conference on Women. �T�his HLPM is not, and never was, a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, being entirely controlled and directed by member states of the United Nations with no relevant input from any but a select few Indigneous organizations and even then, that input has been completely ignored. ��
It is our postion that we should "redirect our collective efforts, now, away from campaigning for HLPM reform." �(Glenn Morris, 2/6/2014). � Anything less than cancellation and/or boycott will compromise the rights we have worked so hard to gain since 1977. We recall the elders who repeatedly made the trip to Geneva, most of whom are gone now, and how the Declaration was considered imperfect and at best, a minimum standard. �Moving forward under the direction�given�to us by the UN states would be disrespectful to that standard and the trust we have assumed.
Owe Aku Internaational Justice Project stands in solidarity with the numerous communities and nations that have expressed opposition to continued participation in a purposely slanted process that will only hurt the international human rights of Indigneous peoples. �As stated by our ally, Glenn Morris, we are left "with the position for the HLPM to be cancelled. �…�[I]f this meeting moves forward, it will be a horrible outcome for indigenous peoples. Given that eventuality,�I am raising on this listserve, for purposes of discussion and direction for the NAIPC delegation to Chiang Mai, Thailand (which begins �this weekend), that the NAIPC representatives (Ron Lameman, Debra Harry and Cody Harry) be charged with advancing the stance that NAIPC's position is that the HLPM should be cancelled, and that our call be reinstated for a genuine World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, with the full, equal and complete participation of indigenous peoples, in every phase of the conference. I also suggest that the delegation be�charged with the�responsibility strongly to encourage other regions to reject the PGA position, and to call for the cancellation of the HLPM.�Thank you."
Story telling can be a poignant tool in making a point. �Here is what was also shared by Glenn Morris:
An old, but timely, story
�
There was once a psychologist who wanted to study the behavior of two twins, one was a pretty hard-core realist, and the other was an eternal optimist. The psychologist put the two twins in separate, but identical locked rooms, with identical, eight-foot-high piles of horse manure, and closed the door.
�
An hour later, the psychologist returned to the room of the realist child, and opened the door, which had been severely battered and damaged. The room was a shambles, with holes in the walls, and obvious attempts to break out the window; the child clearly had tried every possible method to escape from the room. “What happened in here?,” asked the shocked psychologist.��“Look,” said the child, “you had no right to keep me locked in this room with a pile of horse manure for an hour, and I had every right to try to escape. It stinks in here, and I knew that no one was going to come to help me get out of here, so I tried every way I knew to get free.”
�
The psychologist went to the other room, where she had left the optimist twin. She opened the door, and the child was at the top of the manure pile, digging, and flinging the manure in the air, laughing with glee. The psychologist was stunned, and asked what the child was doing, and why he was so happy? “Well, “ said the child, “I’m really happy to be digging here, because I figure that with a pile of horse manure this big, there’s got to be a pony in here, someplace!”
�
So, that’s our dilemma. How many piles of their horseshit are we going to continue to dig through, optimistically hoping to find the pony? How many times are we going to give them the benefit of the doubt? How much longer are we to be patient, waiting for them to abandon their racist, sexist and genocidal ways? How many times are we going to accept a half a loaf, or a piece of crust, as the “reasonable, pragmatic, compromise” solution to a problem that they created in the first place? Now, they expect us to meet with them to beg for�one�seat in a�planning process�that�might�lead to�not-so-bad outcome document�from a sham meeting that they are calling a "World Conference,"�but is not�a World Conference (as they promised us it would be). And we are supposed to accept that? Would our ancestors have accepted that kind of duplicity?�
�
One reason that the UN fully expects us to cave in, and to participate in their racist charade to find and implement “best practices” for the Declaration, has been aptly described as the resistance-renewal process by Isabelle Schullte-Tenckhoff. Isabelle, some of you might recall, was the primary assistant to Ambassador Miguel Alfonso-Martinez, the author of the 1999 UN�Study on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous populations.�Schullte-Tenckhoff describes resistance-renewal as “a process based above all on the need of international institutions to garner legitimacy for their expansion by giving the impression that [their expansion] was based on the genuine participation of those ostensible beneficiaries [indigenous peoples].” Schullte-Tenckhoff, “The Permanent Quest for a Mandate: Assessing the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. “�Griffith Law Review�20 (3), 2011.
This process is precisely what Steve Newcomb and Mike Myers were describing in their earlier posts. Isabelle explains that the success of the international state expansion machine into the territories and lives of indigenous peoples takes place through de-radicalizing and co-opting the foundational principles of the indigenous peoples' movement, in order for indigenous gatekeepers to earn acceptance and legitimacy within the UN system– again, exactly what Mike Myers describes in his earlier post.��Each time that we compromise essential principle to gain the acceptance of the state system of domination, we are drawn more deeply into the resistance-renewal process. �
�
For those who have authorized Kenneth, or some other representative, to speak for them in a meeting with PGA Ashe this week, that is their prerogative. I, and those I represent, decidedly withhold our authorization. We have not been persuaded that there is anything to discuss with Ashe. He is free to reverse his position at any time, without our having to beg for meeting to plead for him to do so. We are not going to request permission of the invader system simply to be respected as equal human beings, with equal rights to self-determination and freedom. As Mike Christian pointed out, the Alta Outcome Document is unambiguous – “full, equal and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples.” Ashe has made his position quite clear, he disrespects our work as indigenous peoples, he disrespects the Alta document, and he even disrespects other states, who are not quite as anti-indigenous as is he. Fine. If others want to dig in his horse manure pile looking for the pony, go ahead.�Spoiler alert: there is no pony.
Glenn Morris
Leadership Council, American Indian Movement of Colorado
Director, Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/05/walking-backward-international-arena