Latest news with #Barume
Newsroom
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsroom
Disregard for indigenous rights comes straight from the top
Opinion: Earlier this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he 'fully agrees' with a letter the Minister of Regulation David Seymour wrote to Dr Albert K Barume, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Barume recently criticised New Zealand for breaching international human rights standards relating to Indigenous peoples. Among other things, Seymour's letter to Barume called these criticisms 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. This is significant, but the timeline of how we got here is a bit complex, so here's some background. A special rapporteur is a person, appointed by the UN, who has expertise in a particular area of human rights and has a responsibility to investigate, advocate for, and encourage countries to uphold those rights. First, what is a special rapporteur and how does this role relate to NZ? One high-profile special rapporteur you may have recently heard of is Francesca Albanese, who has a specific mandate relating to human rights in Palestine. Barume holds an equivalent position relating to the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, including Māori. Barume's criticisms, contained in a letter to the New Zealand Government, reportedly addressed a range of things, all broadly related to the Government's failure to uphold both te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). We don't know all the details of the letter but the part that seems to have annoyed Seymour relates to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Alongside his comment about New Zealand's sovereignty, Seymour called the letter 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced'. Remember, there has been virtually unanimous condemnation of the Regulatory Standards Bill by te Tiriti experts, as well as by the Waitangi Tribunal. So, you can decide for yourself whether Seymour's comments are accurate. Didn't the coalition agreements say something about UNDRIP? Yes. The NZ First and Act coalition agreements with National both mention the New Zealand Government should no longer recognise UNDRIP. However, an Official Information Act request last year revealed nothing had been done about it – there was no correspondence with the UN and no express withdrawal of the government's endorsement of UNDRIP. In any case, the rights of Indigenous peoples now carry weight on their own, as they are a recognised set of norms in international law. How did the PM get involved? In comments to reporters this week, the Prime Minister said that Seymour shouldn't have sent the letter because this was Foreign Minister Winston Peters' job. But while initially appearing to criticise Seymour for not following the right process, Luxon then said he 'completely agrees' with Seymour's letter to Barume. He called Barume's letter 'bunkum' and said the special rapporteur's comments were 'completely without substance'. Remember that Barume is appointed as a world-leading expert on these matters, so again, you decide who might be right here. To summarise so far, Seymour – in his capacity as the Minister of Regulation – wrote to a UN official criticising him for criticising New Zealand for breaching Indigenous peoples' rights, and then the Prime Minister publicly agreed with Seymour's comments. Indigenous rights scholar Tina Ngata has pointed out the message from New Zealand that we reject Indigenous peoples' rights therefore isn't a matter of Seymour going rogue. It is a message that comes straight from the top. This matters and is something we should all be embarrassed about. How did the UN find out about this so quickly? This week, an annual meeting was held at the UN by a group called the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (known as EMRIP). On the same day Luxon made his comments, New Zealand had its speaking slot at EMRIP. The Prime Minister's comments were reported by members of the New Zealand delegation to the group, such as Auckland University professor Claire Charters (members are independent, not part of the government). So, the UN, and therefore the rest of the world, heard about it the same day it happened (credit again to Tina Ngata for highlighting this). What's the bigger picture here and what happens next? As much as this might seem like just an egg on your face moment for the government, the broader implications are pretty serious. We all know by now about this Government's willingness to repeatedly disregard its Treaty obligations here at home, with the Waitangi Tribunal conducting an unprecedented number of urgent inquiries in 2024, all of which found breaches of te Tiriti and its principles. But this is bigger. The statement made by Seymour, and later endorsed by the Prime Minister, that the letter from the special rapporteur 'is an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty' will weaken our standing internationally when it comes to human rights. This is because the affront to sovereignty line is one wheeled out any time a country commits human rights abuses and gets told off. Israel and the US, for example, are currently using it in response to Francesca Albanese's criticisms of human rights abuses in Palestine. So, when New Zealand says the same thing, we undermine any moral authority we might have had to call out other countries over other things. This is one of the things Claire Charters pointed out this week when she spoke to EMRIP. It's bigger than just te Tiriti. We'll probably hear more about this in the next few weeks, but sadly it may not persuade the Government to do anything differently. We have seen over and over this term how willing the coalition is to disregard Māori rights. The only difference is that this time it has happened on a global stage.
The Spinoff
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response
The Act leader's unilateral reply to the UN has exposed fresh cracks in the coalition – and created a clean-up job for Winston Peters, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Letter row underscores coalition strain David Seymour's fiery response to a United Nations letter has turned into a full-blown coalition controversy, exposing divisions over both diplomatic conduct and the ideological direction of government. In June, UN special rapporteur Albert K Barume wrote to the government expressing concern that Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill failed to uphold Treaty principles and risked breaching Māori rights. Without consulting his coalition partners, Seymour fired back, sending his own letter to Barume telling him his remarks were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced' and branding the UN intervention 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. As RNZ's Craig McCulloch reports, prime minister Christopher Luxon yesterday described Barume's letter as 'total bunkum' but agreed Seymour had overstepped and should not have responded directly. What the UN said – and what Seymour wrote back In his letter, Barume said he was concerned about reports of 'a persistent erosion of the rights of the Māori Indigenous Peoples… through regressive legislations' that may breach New Zealand's international obligations. Seymour's response was uncompromising. 'As an Indigenous New Zealander myself,' he wrote, 'I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori.' He dismissed concerns about Māori exclusion from consultation as 'misleading and offensive', and accused Barume of misunderstanding both the bill and New Zealand's legislative process. While Seymour has since agreed to withdraw the letter to allow foreign minister Winston Peters to respond officially, he has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, insisting that 'we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy' and that the official response would be essentially the same as his own. When asked if that was the case, Peters sounded aghast, reports The Post's Kelly Dennett (paywalled). 'That's not true,' Peters told reporters. 'Why would he say that?' The government's position would be made clear only after consulting all affected ministries, Peters said. 'We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business,' he added acidly. 'Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media.' Māori opposition to the bill runs deep Behind the diplomatic drama lies the more substantive issue: widespread Māori opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. Writing in Te Ao Māori News, former MP Louisa Wall says Seymour's claim that the bill doesn't weaken Treaty protections is 'demonstrably false'. In fact, she says, 'the Bill is silent on Te Tiriti. It elevates a monocultural legal standard based on private property and individual liberty while excluding Māori values like tikanga, mana motuhake, and kaitiakitanga. This is not neutral. It is erasure.' Wall also defends Barume's intervention, arguing that he was fulfilling his mandate to monitor Indigenous rights worldwide and that his concerns echoed those already raised by Māori leaders and legal scholars. 'Dr Barume is not imposing an external ideology,' she writes. 'His letter reflects what Māori across the motu already know: our rights are being undermined.' Coalition fault lines widen over Seymour's bill The clash over the UN letter comes at a tense time for Act's relationship with NZ First, which has made no secret of its discomfort with parts of the bill. Seymour has 'made it clear behind the scenes' that the regulatory standards legislation is 'as bottom line as it gets', writes Thomas Coughlan in a fascinating piece for the Herald (paywalled). Translation: '[Seymour] is willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election' if he doesn't get what he wants. While that's an unlikely scenario – especially since the coalition agreement commits the government to passing some version of the legislation – Seymour's passion for the bill speaks volumes about the junior coalition partners' divergent ideologies, writes Coughlan. 'Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not.'
Scoop
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Brazil Must Abandon 'Marco Temporal' Doctrine Once And For All, Says UN Expert
GENEVA (11 June 2025) – A UN expert today expressed grave concern about Brazil's continued use of the controversial 'Marco Temporal' legal interpretation to revoke the legal foundation for indigenous land demarcation and annul the demarcation of indigenous territories in Santa Catarina. 'This legislative move enforces the discredited 'Marco Temporal' doctrine, which restricts Indigenous land rights to territories physically and permanently occupied as of 5 October 1988, the date of Brazil's current Constitution,' said Albert Kwokwo Barume, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Brazil's Senate has approved Legislative Decree No. 717/2024, which seeks to revoke the legal foundation for Indigenous land demarcation and annul the demarcation of the Toldo Imbu and Morro dos Cavalos Indigenous Territories in Santa Catarina. The Bill is now before the Chamber of Deputies. 'This is a deeply regressive step that undermines Indigenous Peoples' rights, environmental protection, and climate action, I urge lawmakers not to approve the Bill,' the expert said. The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil has already declared the Marco Temporal thesis unconstitutional. Despite this, the proposed decree threatens to hamper the work of the Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas (FUNAI), which plays a vital role in the demarcation of Indigenous lands. 'This is the fourth time in four years that the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples has raised public alarm over this issue,' Barume said, recalling statements issued in 2021, 2023 and 2024. 'It has also been the subject of formal communications with the Brazilian Government and should be of grave concern to the international community.' The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also issued warnings against the Marco Temporal thesis, which violates international treaties such as ILO Convention 169 and contradicts the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 'Marco Temporal not only undermines legal certainty and Indigenous land rights—it also fuels rural violence and environmental degradation,' Barume said. 'It threatens Indigenous Peoples' security, health and cultural practices, contributing to a slow and painful process that could lead to their extermination.' 'I urge Brazil to abandon the Marco Temporal once and for all. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has stated, Indigenous Peoples' rights are non-negotiable.'
Scoop
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Kenya: UN Expert Urges Immediate Halt To Land Demarcation Violating Ogiek Rights And African Court Judgments
GENEVA (4 June 2025) – A UN expert* today expressed grave concern over the ongoing land demarcation by the Government of Kenya in the Eastern Mau Complex, which threatens ancestral lands of the Ogiek Peoples and contravenes binding judgments of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (AfCHPR). 'These actions risk causing irreparable harm to the Ogiek's land rights, which have been unequivocally upheld by the African Court,' said Albert K. Barume, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. 'I urge the Government of Kenya to immediately cease all activities that undermine the Ogiek's rights and to fully comply with the Court's rulings.' Despite the AfCHPR's 2017 and 2022 judgments affirming the Ogiek's ownership of their ancestral landsand requiring their restitution, the Kenyan Government has yet to take any actions to return Ogiek lands. A hearing scheduled for November 2024 was postponed at the State's request and is now set for June 2025. In September 2024, Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Nakuru dismissed the Ogiek's claims to their ancestral lands in East Mau, contradicting the AfCHPR's decisions. Meanwhile, from December 2024 to April 2025, the Government convened a series of public forums to discuss how to implement the Nakuru court ruling, criticised as exclusionary and politically driven. These culminated in a rushed demarcation process beginning on 25 April 2025, without the necessary consultations with Ogiek Peoples. 'The demarcation threatens the rights of more than 8,500 Ogiek people in Nessuit, Mariashoni, and Sururu, and endangers ecologically sensitive areas vital for water catchment sustainability,' Barume said. On 6 May 2025, the President of Kenya issued a 250,000-acre land title deed for parts of the Maasai Mau Forest to Narok County, further alarming the Ogiek of Sasimwani, who remain displaced following the 2023 forced evictions of over 700 families. 'We call on Government, all states institutions and Indigenous Peoples to engage in dialogue grounded in mutual respect and human rights,' the Special Rapporteur said. He expressed readiness to visit Kenya to support efforts toward a just and rights-based resolution in line with the AfCHPR's judgments.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indigenous leaders at UNPFII underscore the need for genuine consent
This story is published through the Indigenous News Alliance. B. 'Toastie' OysterHigh Country News Biopiracy, women's safety and critical mineral mining were all hot topics at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues this year, but none of them took up quite as much space as the matter of consent and related rights. Roughly a third of the forum's panel discussions dealt with implementing the U.N. standards of Indigenous rights in nations that sometimes recognize those rights willingly but frequently ignore them. A few of the panels were specifically about the Indigenous right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to decisions that impact tribal people or lands. The U.N. listed its standards of Indigenous rights in the 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) — 46 articles that include the rights to ancestral land and self-determination. Some member nations, like Bolivia, have used this declaration as the basis for national laws. Others, like the United States, have lagged behind in implementing or even recognizing the declaration and the rights it describes. Since the Permanent Forum was established in 2002, said Forum Chair Aluki Kotierk (Inuit), the U.N. has made significant strides — adopting UNDRIP, for example —- but the on-the-ground reality has been slow to change. 'Let us be honest: Progress remains uneven,' Kotierk said, addressing the forum during its opening day. And even that progress, she added, is often merely symbolic. When global Indigenous leaders and other experts broke out into smaller groups to discuss their communities' biggest issues, FPIC was on the table. Here's a look at what some leaders had to say. Albert Barume, United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples: At a panel called 'Implementing FPIC Across the Regions,' which was hosted by the Native American Rights Fund, Barume said consent is at the center of Indigenous peoples' rights. But its purpose, he added, is to safeguard other rights. 'Free, prior and informed consent is a mechanism to redress one of the key environmental and historical injustices Indigenous people have been going through for generations,' Barume said: other people deciding things for them. This specific kind of racism violates the right to self-determination, a right Barume called 'pretty self-evident,'along with the right to racial non-discrimination. Substantive rights like these, as well as the rights to land and water, are what FPIC is meant to protect. 'It's like a gatekeeper,' Barume said. 'It's like putting a fence around substantive rights.' Fawn Sharp (Quinalt), former National Council of American Indians president and former vice president of the Quinault Indian Nation: Sharp said in a panel examining 'The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Context of Just Transition Economy' that climate change presents an opportunity for the rest of the world to align with Indigenous worldviews. She noted that when it comes to environmental care, Indigenous people are far outperforming others, even with little to no resources. 'Imagine what Indigenous people could do with resources,' she said. 'I see a world transitioning to a trajectory that Indigenous people have been on since the beginning of time,' she added. 'The world is desperate for truth. The world is desperate for solutions that are timeless and proven… Only Indigenous people have that knowledge.'In another panel, Sharp said that after years of unsuccessfully pushing state and federal lawmakers to recognize FPIC, she is now working to implement it in the private sector. Elected officials, while unwilling to support Indigenous rights, she said, are beholden to corporate interests – and companies have fiscal and reputational incentives to respect FPIC. Malih Ole Kaunga (Laikipia Maasai), executive director of IMPACT: Consent has become a buzzword because in practice it remains minimal, Kaunga said, adding that governments and companies typically just want to tick the box and move on: 'They want to demonstrate that it happened.' But he said consent shouldn't stop there. 'You can do an FPIC continuously,' he said with a hint of a smile. Continuous consent would require governments and corporations to check in with Indigenous communities throughout the life of a project, according to the needs of the community. FPIC protocols are too often externally imposed on Indigenous communities, even though every community has its own needs and cultural norms. 'There are certain laws that are practiced — they are not written,' Kaunga said. Ideally, FPIC protocols would spring from individual communities, taking the shape that works best for them, rather than being applied from the outside in a uniform way. He added that Kenyan courts have been progressive in applying FPIC, and that the process is intense and has resulted in halting several development projects. 'Free, prior and informed consent is a minimum,' he said. 'It's embedded in peoples' lives and cultures and identities.' Christine Croc (Q'eqchi Maya), spokesperson for the Maya Leaders Alliance: FPIC protocols are merely instruments, Croc said, and can only be transformative if they are owned and operated by Indigenous people themselves. If the state alone develops FPIC protocols, she added, it undermines Indigenous ways of governance, engagement and decision-making, which can cause irreparable harm. 'States often do not understand Indigenous peoples' rights under international law,' she said. The Maya of Belize developed their own FPIC protocols in 2014 in response to encroachment by extractive industry and the state. The state tried to file its own FPIC protocols with the courts — without consulting the Maya. But its version of protocols had regressed from consent to consultation. Another major challenge, second to state-implemented protocols, arises when Indigenous peoples have weak or eroding governance systems. There is no way Indigenous people can design an effective protocol without having a strong government first, she said. To actually enforce consent requires robust systems for community-investor negotiations, as well as benefit-sharing models. Benefit-sharing could come through Indigenous-owned and -led enterprises that bolster collective well-being, for instance. But developing such systems and models requires strong Indigenous governance. By 2022, Croc's community had finalized protocol negotiations, drawing from a Mayan framework to strengthen Mayan decisionmaking. Because of these long-term grassroots efforts, she said, the community has gained experience not just with implementing consent protocols, but also with financial administration and village-scale solar development. Hernán Eloy Malaver Santi (Sarayaku), president of Pueblo Originerio Kichwa de Sarayaku: Santi said his community's territory is a living body entitled to its own rights. When an oil company encroached on Sarayaku territory, Santi's community disrupted its camps, drove the company out and turned down its bribes and job offers. Santi, who is also a lawyer, spent years in court pushing the government of Ecuador to take responsibility. The court eventually acknowledged state wrongdoing, including letting the oil company abandon over a ton of dangerous explosives on the community's land. But Santi said there is no political will to enforce compliance with the court's judgment. Still, the Sarayaku community now has its own FPIC protocols, which Santi said forbid mining, timber or biopiracy — the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge — without consent. The protocols also say that any and all community projects — including health initiatives or housing — will require consultation and consent in advance. 'This protocol is binding, and the state is mandatorily respecting it,' Santi said, via an English interpreter. Seánna Howard, law professor at University of Arizona: It's a common falsehood that FPIC is a barrier to development, Howard said, speaking in a small side room with Croc, Santi and others. But it's more accurately a safeguard against exploitation. Indigenous people often end up developing FPIC protocols defensively, only after litigation with corporations or governments. But Howard explained that adopting protocols before the pressure from an encroaching development starts will send a message to project proponents, letting them know that the people are organized, self-governing, and that they will decide the terms of engagement. Governments and companies might actually welcome this, because clarity around FPIC can help them mitigate reputational harm. 'Protocols should reflect that FPIC is more than a mere formality, more than checking the box,' Howard said, 'that the process needs to be conducted in good faith and includes the right to either give or withhold consent, at every stage of the process.' She said Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean offer a number of models showing how to develop protocols successfully. Daniel Kobei (Ogiek), executive director of the Ogiek Peoples' Development Program: Kobei talked about the importance of domesticating protocol documents to ensure that the community in question understands them in its language and in the context of its own laws. 'We had to sit down as a community, and we learned from the Kichwa people,' Kobei said, which was challenging because their documents were in Spanish. But Kobei's community was able to use these documents as a basis to develop its own. 'This kind of system enabled us,' he said, and while it took some time, it was successful. Now his community has custom culturally appropriate FPIC protocols, which include references to Kenya's Constitution that were added to help make the document more mainstream. Forum Chair Aluki Kotierk (Inuit): 'The global push for the so-called green transition has intensified demand for critical minerals,' she said, 'many of which lie beneath sacred Indigenous lands and territories. We cannot ignore the threat this poses to our way of life.' She called the extraction of these minerals another form of colonialism. 'We are not anti-development, but development must be on our terms, and it must be just,' she said. 'Indigenous people are not merely beneficiaries of development projects,' she said, but should also be seen as partners. Only through this can we achieve justice, respect, and sustainability for all. 'The road is long,' she said. UNDRIP is not a document to be celebrated once a year. It must guide how we treat each other on this earth. 'It is a moral, legal and collective obligation.' 'I urge U.N. entities to embed Indigenous peoples' rights at the core of their work,' Kotierk added. 'Our unity, wisdom and determination are our greatest strength. Let us continue to walk together.'
