| BARRIOZONA |
| Bilingual Community Expression Published by the Hispanic Institute of Social Issues |
September 4, 2007
To: Indigenous Peoples Global Caucus
New York, NY
Dear Relatives:
In regards to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted
on June 29th, 2007 by the UN Human Rights Council (CD), and the Modified
Declaration (MD) now being proposed by the Co-sponsoring states to be
presented for adoption before the General Assembly on September 13th, allow
us to submit the following comments and perspective as Nican Tlacah
Izkalotekah:
To: Indigenous Peoples Global Caucus
New York, NY
Dear Relatives:
In regards to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted
on June 29th, 2007 by the UN Human Rights Council (CD), and the Modified
Declaration (MD) now being proposed by the Co-sponsoring states to be
presented for adoption before the General Assembly on September 13th, allow
us to submit the following comments and perspective as Nican Tlacah
Izkalotekah:
Principle
For we Nican Tlacah, the power of self-definition is the precept of the right of Self Determination. This power is the
indomitable foundation of our millennial systems of jurisprudence and cultural identity as Nican Tlacah
Cemanahuac, Indigenous Peoples of the World. As Nican Tlacah Izkalotekah, we uphold to this day, the traditional
accords which were established under the protocols of International Law with the first representatives of
Christendom who arrived on the shores of our beloved Anahuac in the 1500's:
It was an honor to receive your delegation at our humble embassy, the NAHUACALLI (House of the Four Directions)
and we reiterate in this communication our willingness to work together for the benefit of all humanity under the
guiding principles upon which our tradition stands. Our TLAHTOKAN is bound by the archives of honor that were set
among stars when the first representatives of the European governments arrived on our shores. They too were
received with the smoke of copal, (as you were at NAHUACALLI), with the understanding that the relationship thus
initiated between our peoples, cultures, and governments was to be based on mutual respect and reciprocity in
recognition of our common humanity.
February 2, 1998 Communiqué to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor
UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance
Process
The CD and the MD are two distinct instruments, both created following a path of development that is
characterized by the systematic reduction of participation, proposition and submission by Indigenous Peoples of
the final texts to be presented for further review, amendment and adoption within the UN system. While the CD is
accorded a global consensus of support by the Indigenous Peoples, in spite of the defects in process and content
which are inevitable due to the process of reduction, the Global Indigenous Caucus strategically has supported the
CD for adoption without amendment by the General Assembly as an expression of the minimum standards of
recognition of the Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The distinction between the CD and the MD is marked infamously by the actions of November 2006 by the African
Group of States (AGS) to effectively prevent the CD from being adopted on the floor of the General Assembly. The
MD appears within two weeks of the close of the present session of the UN General Assembly as the latest
reduction, negotiated between the Co-sponsoring states and the AGS, modified with nine amendments to the CD.
Only the UN member States have power of negotiation over the MD text now to be submitted on September 13th,
with the Indigenous Steering Committee in New York operating within the extreme limitations of time and
resources that makes impossible the generating of consensus of the Global Indigenous Caucus.
The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first element within a more extensive and substantive
strategic process, the drafting of a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a
convention would codify the rights of Indigenous Peoples within the system of International Law of the States,
defining procedures and venues to address violation of these rights as violations of International Law.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (either the CD, the MD, or XD), upon adoption by the General
Assembly is understood as initiating the global standard setting process for the UN system internationally
concerning the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This could occur within the next two weeks, or next two decades. Yet
this standard setting process is already underway, and is evident.
Position
The CD is accorded a global consensus of support by the Indigenous Peoples assembled in Caucus at the UN as an
expression of the minimum standards of recognition of the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, here in
our territories of the O'Odham Nations the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Council (SRPMIC), acting
under sovereign authority an entity of Indigenous Peoples Self Government with juridically acknowledged territorial
jurisdiction, unanimously passed a resolution on March 6th, 2007 affirming the CD, as an initial step IMPLEMENTING
the standard setting process redefining of the relationship between the Nations of Indigenous Peoples and the
States as currently represented in the present UN System. To quote the SRPMIC resolution:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SRPMIC affirms throughout our tribal lands the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006, as an expression of
the minimum standards of recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Our ancestral forms of jurisprudence as Nations of Indigenous Peoples institute the principles of respect, inclusion,
reciprocity and community which leads to Peace within our regional confederations, which is to say that as Nations
of Indigenous Peoples we possess a body of jurisprudence that is international in scope, coherent in authority and
with powers of jurisdiction that supercede historically the government-state, and the government-state systems.
(i.e.: League of Nations, UN, OAS, AGS, etc.)
Under this system, we are traditionally obligated and thus empowered by our rights as Indigenous Peoples, to
continue to honor our affirmation of the CD to the extent that these principles are reflected in the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.
As further evidence and clarification that the process of standard setting (whether the CD or the MD), must be
being essentially driven by the elucidation of the inherent rights of the Nations of the Indigenous Peoples for
themselves, followed by actions of accord by the entities of the States and with final approval by the Indigenous
Peoples, the SRPMIC resolution was also proclaimed by two levels of local governance within the State of Arizona,
namely the Arizona House of Representatives and the City of Phoenix, with language as follows:
WHEREAS, the Arizona House of Representatives affirms the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as
adopted by the UN Human Rights Council; Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl - Indigenous Peoples Day - March 12, 2006
WHEREAS, the city of Phoenix hereby the affirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples as adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 29 June 2006, Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl - Indigenous
Peoples Day - March 12, 2006
Strategy
The statement has been made that the CD is not an International Instrument because it has not been adopted by
the General Assembly, although it was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006. Developments
in New York this week portend that the CD will not be adopted by the General Assembly, and that only the MD has
a chance for passage. While this may be true in the context of the present UN System, in the context of our
Indigenous Nations and in light of the above history and reality, the CD is already very much an international
instrument, having been implemented as a standard setting mechanism in O'Odham Nations territories to achieve
recognition, respect, and protection for the full right of self determination of Indigenous Peoples.
Standards once set, cannot and must not be lowered. That the standard setting process has been initiated from a
Nican Tlacah protocol of self-determination, and not the hierarchy of the UN system does not diminish the validity of
the standard as process and product. In fact this procedure expresses the universal and fundamental reality of all
systems of international jurisprudence, emerging from the evolving inter-relations of customs and usages of
distinct peoples, and finally codified in the statutes and mandates of the government states, individually and
collectively. The UN Charter itself proposes to defend this process as an instrument of world peace, by
implementing mechanisms of combined effort among the Peoples of the United Nations through international
cooperation. To deny the precedent the Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl would be to argue for the Divine Right of States, a
bastard relic of the regimes of intellectual doctrines that originate from the Divine Right of Kings.
The difference, now, in terms of the Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl is that it is a systemic standard that institutes
complementary readjustment among the entities of government states and the Nations of the Indigenous Peoples,
normalizing peaceful relations based on mutual respect and cooperation. This in itself is a higher standard than has
been historically practiced by the UN member states (individually and collectively) in historical relationships with the
Indigenous Peoples. In contrast to the agenda setting procedures of the UN, the Nican Tlacah engages
internationally with an order of priorities mandated from the LAWS of the natural world. The potential that this
systemic standard may serve to assist in addressing the global climate crisis is only just beginning to emerge,
linked with the principle of respect for cultural diversity and collective ecological responsibilities, and therefore,
rights, such as are proposed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The collective consensus of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus is a necessary element for presentation of any a
text of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in collaboration and consultation with the States, and
with final approval by the Indigenous Peoples. Without consensus from the Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples,
such a declaration would be disempowering on a prima facie basis.
We therefore stand on the principles of self-determination, autonomy and sovereignty of the Nations of Indigenous
Peoples, and Good Governance, clarifying that the process described above presents the legitimate and considered
expression of our position in regards to the issue of the status of the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous
Peoples.
Further we express caution on inferring support or neutrality regarding the discriminatory nature of the proposed
language changes in MD Article 30 (1) regarding military activities on indigenous territories and, MD Article 46 (1),
specifically the use of the concept of political unity, juxtaposed with the term territorial integrity of states.
The point is that though we must contend with the parameters of the UN system, we are obligated and ultimately
empowered by the collective obligations among our own Nations and Confederations of Indigenous Peoples. The
UN is a system, ultimately we must respond systematically if we are to be effective in fulfilling our obligations, in
asserting our rights as defenders of Tonantzin - Our Sacred Mother Earth. The systems that empower us, and do
not lend to the process of reduction are our traditional systems of International Law as Nations of the Nican Tlacah
- Indigenous Peoples.
In closing, we submit the following from the February 2, 1998 Communiqué to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, UN Special
Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance:
We of the TLAHTOKAN AZTLAN believe in humanity. We believe in the Spirit of Truth, which resides in Aztlan. We
also believe that the Sun of Justice which is dawning for Indigenous Peoples commands that the injustices of the
past be exposed and eliminated as forms of oppression and a deformation of our common humanity. It is our
desire that through the efforts of your commission as Special Rapporteur, this message serve as a reminder to the
organization of government states which you represent, the United Nations. A reawakening as to what should be
our relationship as cultures, nations, and Peoples of the Earth must occur for our future generations to achieve
true peace with dignity. We of TLAHTOKAN AZTLAN are bound by tradition to uphold our part of the agreement
which is transcribed in the smoke of our first encounters. There will be no modification or amendments made to the
understanding that we are all human beings and no one Peoples have the right to impose by force a doctrine of
superiority over any other.
Respectfully,
Tupac Enrique Acosta, Yaotachcauh
Tlahtokan Nahuacalli
TONATIERRA
chantlaca@aol.com
For we Nican Tlacah, the power of self-definition is the precept of the right of Self Determination. This power is the
indomitable foundation of our millennial systems of jurisprudence and cultural identity as Nican Tlacah
Cemanahuac, Indigenous Peoples of the World. As Nican Tlacah Izkalotekah, we uphold to this day, the traditional
accords which were established under the protocols of International Law with the first representatives of
Christendom who arrived on the shores of our beloved Anahuac in the 1500's:
It was an honor to receive your delegation at our humble embassy, the NAHUACALLI (House of the Four Directions)
and we reiterate in this communication our willingness to work together for the benefit of all humanity under the
guiding principles upon which our tradition stands. Our TLAHTOKAN is bound by the archives of honor that were set
among stars when the first representatives of the European governments arrived on our shores. They too were
received with the smoke of copal, (as you were at NAHUACALLI), with the understanding that the relationship thus
initiated between our peoples, cultures, and governments was to be based on mutual respect and reciprocity in
recognition of our common humanity.
February 2, 1998 Communiqué to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor
UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance
Process
The CD and the MD are two distinct instruments, both created following a path of development that is
characterized by the systematic reduction of participation, proposition and submission by Indigenous Peoples of
the final texts to be presented for further review, amendment and adoption within the UN system. While the CD is
accorded a global consensus of support by the Indigenous Peoples, in spite of the defects in process and content
which are inevitable due to the process of reduction, the Global Indigenous Caucus strategically has supported the
CD for adoption without amendment by the General Assembly as an expression of the minimum standards of
recognition of the Inherent Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The distinction between the CD and the MD is marked infamously by the actions of November 2006 by the African
Group of States (AGS) to effectively prevent the CD from being adopted on the floor of the General Assembly. The
MD appears within two weeks of the close of the present session of the UN General Assembly as the latest
reduction, negotiated between the Co-sponsoring states and the AGS, modified with nine amendments to the CD.
Only the UN member States have power of negotiation over the MD text now to be submitted on September 13th,
with the Indigenous Steering Committee in New York operating within the extreme limitations of time and
resources that makes impossible the generating of consensus of the Global Indigenous Caucus.
The UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first element within a more extensive and substantive
strategic process, the drafting of a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a
convention would codify the rights of Indigenous Peoples within the system of International Law of the States,
defining procedures and venues to address violation of these rights as violations of International Law.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (either the CD, the MD, or XD), upon adoption by the General
Assembly is understood as initiating the global standard setting process for the UN system internationally
concerning the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This could occur within the next two weeks, or next two decades. Yet
this standard setting process is already underway, and is evident.
Position
The CD is accorded a global consensus of support by the Indigenous Peoples assembled in Caucus at the UN as an
expression of the minimum standards of recognition of the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples. In fact, here in
our territories of the O'Odham Nations the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Council (SRPMIC), acting
under sovereign authority an entity of Indigenous Peoples Self Government with juridically acknowledged territorial
jurisdiction, unanimously passed a resolution on March 6th, 2007 affirming the CD, as an initial step IMPLEMENTING
the standard setting process redefining of the relationship between the Nations of Indigenous Peoples and the
States as currently represented in the present UN System. To quote the SRPMIC resolution:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SRPMIC affirms throughout our tribal lands the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006, as an expression of
the minimum standards of recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Our ancestral forms of jurisprudence as Nations of Indigenous Peoples institute the principles of respect, inclusion,
reciprocity and community which leads to Peace within our regional confederations, which is to say that as Nations
of Indigenous Peoples we possess a body of jurisprudence that is international in scope, coherent in authority and
with powers of jurisdiction that supercede historically the government-state, and the government-state systems.
(i.e.: League of Nations, UN, OAS, AGS, etc.)
Under this system, we are traditionally obligated and thus empowered by our rights as Indigenous Peoples, to
continue to honor our affirmation of the CD to the extent that these principles are reflected in the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.
As further evidence and clarification that the process of standard setting (whether the CD or the MD), must be
being essentially driven by the elucidation of the inherent rights of the Nations of the Indigenous Peoples for
themselves, followed by actions of accord by the entities of the States and with final approval by the Indigenous
Peoples, the SRPMIC resolution was also proclaimed by two levels of local governance within the State of Arizona,
namely the Arizona House of Representatives and the City of Phoenix, with language as follows:
WHEREAS, the Arizona House of Representatives affirms the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as
adopted by the UN Human Rights Council; Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl - Indigenous Peoples Day - March 12, 2006
WHEREAS, the city of Phoenix hereby the affirms the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples as adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 29 June 2006, Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl - Indigenous
Peoples Day - March 12, 2006
Strategy
The statement has been made that the CD is not an International Instrument because it has not been adopted by
the General Assembly, although it was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006. Developments
in New York this week portend that the CD will not be adopted by the General Assembly, and that only the MD has
a chance for passage. While this may be true in the context of the present UN System, in the context of our
Indigenous Nations and in light of the above history and reality, the CD is already very much an international
instrument, having been implemented as a standard setting mechanism in O'Odham Nations territories to achieve
recognition, respect, and protection for the full right of self determination of Indigenous Peoples.
Standards once set, cannot and must not be lowered. That the standard setting process has been initiated from a
Nican Tlacah protocol of self-determination, and not the hierarchy of the UN system does not diminish the validity of
the standard as process and product. In fact this procedure expresses the universal and fundamental reality of all
systems of international jurisprudence, emerging from the evolving inter-relations of customs and usages of
distinct peoples, and finally codified in the statutes and mandates of the government states, individually and
collectively. The UN Charter itself proposes to defend this process as an instrument of world peace, by
implementing mechanisms of combined effort among the Peoples of the United Nations through international
cooperation. To deny the precedent the Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl would be to argue for the Divine Right of States, a
bastard relic of the regimes of intellectual doctrines that originate from the Divine Right of Kings.
The difference, now, in terms of the Nican Tlacah Ilhuitl is that it is a systemic standard that institutes
complementary readjustment among the entities of government states and the Nations of the Indigenous Peoples,
normalizing peaceful relations based on mutual respect and cooperation. This in itself is a higher standard than has
been historically practiced by the UN member states (individually and collectively) in historical relationships with the
Indigenous Peoples. In contrast to the agenda setting procedures of the UN, the Nican Tlacah engages
internationally with an order of priorities mandated from the LAWS of the natural world. The potential that this
systemic standard may serve to assist in addressing the global climate crisis is only just beginning to emerge,
linked with the principle of respect for cultural diversity and collective ecological responsibilities, and therefore,
rights, such as are proposed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The collective consensus of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus is a necessary element for presentation of any a
text of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in collaboration and consultation with the States, and
with final approval by the Indigenous Peoples. Without consensus from the Global Caucus of Indigenous Peoples,
such a declaration would be disempowering on a prima facie basis.
We therefore stand on the principles of self-determination, autonomy and sovereignty of the Nations of Indigenous
Peoples, and Good Governance, clarifying that the process described above presents the legitimate and considered
expression of our position in regards to the issue of the status of the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous
Peoples.
Further we express caution on inferring support or neutrality regarding the discriminatory nature of the proposed
language changes in MD Article 30 (1) regarding military activities on indigenous territories and, MD Article 46 (1),
specifically the use of the concept of political unity, juxtaposed with the term territorial integrity of states.
The point is that though we must contend with the parameters of the UN system, we are obligated and ultimately
empowered by the collective obligations among our own Nations and Confederations of Indigenous Peoples. The
UN is a system, ultimately we must respond systematically if we are to be effective in fulfilling our obligations, in
asserting our rights as defenders of Tonantzin - Our Sacred Mother Earth. The systems that empower us, and do
not lend to the process of reduction are our traditional systems of International Law as Nations of the Nican Tlacah
- Indigenous Peoples.
In closing, we submit the following from the February 2, 1998 Communiqué to Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, UN Special
Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance:
We of the TLAHTOKAN AZTLAN believe in humanity. We believe in the Spirit of Truth, which resides in Aztlan. We
also believe that the Sun of Justice which is dawning for Indigenous Peoples commands that the injustices of the
past be exposed and eliminated as forms of oppression and a deformation of our common humanity. It is our
desire that through the efforts of your commission as Special Rapporteur, this message serve as a reminder to the
organization of government states which you represent, the United Nations. A reawakening as to what should be
our relationship as cultures, nations, and Peoples of the Earth must occur for our future generations to achieve
true peace with dignity. We of TLAHTOKAN AZTLAN are bound by tradition to uphold our part of the agreement
which is transcribed in the smoke of our first encounters. There will be no modification or amendments made to the
understanding that we are all human beings and no one Peoples have the right to impose by force a doctrine of
superiority over any other.
Respectfully,
Tupac Enrique Acosta, Yaotachcauh
Tlahtokan Nahuacalli
TONATIERRA
chantlaca@aol.com
| Hispanic Institute of Social Issues © 2006-2007 All rights reserved. webmaster@hisi.org |
tupac, enrique, acosta, tonatierra, indigenous, issues, phoenix, arizona, aztlan, avy ayala, continent, rights, united, nations, declaration, barriozona, video, interview
