Latest news with #Treaties
Winnipeg Free Press
21 hours ago
- General
- Winnipeg Free Press
History society honours Free Press columnist Brodbeck
A Free Press columnist is among the winners of the Manitoba Historical Society's annual Margaret McWilliams Awards. Tom Brodbeck won in the popular history category for his book, Treaties, Lies & Promises: How the Métis & First Nations Shaped Canada. The book, published by Ronsdale Press, was among four nominees in the category. 'I am so humbled and grateful for this award,' Brodbeck said. 'It is truly an honour to be recognized by the Manitoba Historical Society. I hope this helps bring greater attention to the importance of learning about our true history and to the many contributions Indigenous peoples have made to our province and country.' Tom Brodbeck's book beat out three other nominees in the popular history category of the Manitoba Historical Society's annual Margaret McWilliams Awards. A book by late former judge and senator Murray Sinclair, as told to Sara Sinclair and Free Press columnist Niigaan Sinclair, won in the local history category. Who We Are: Four Questions for a Life and a Nation was published by McClelland & Stewart. Niigaan Sinclair was also among the six nominees in that category for Wînipêk: Visions of Canada from an Indigenous Centre, published by Penguin Random House Canada. Gerald Friesen won in the scholarly history category for The Honourable John Norquay: Indigenous Premier, Canadian Statesman, beating out three other nominees. The book was published by the University of Manitoba Press. Each recipient receives $500. Weekly A weekly look at what's happening in Winnipeg's arts and entertainment scene. The society was founded in 1879. The awards, one of the oldest literary prizes in Canada, encourage the study and interpretation of Manitoba history. They were established in 1955 as a memorial to feminist, historian and author Margaret Stovel McWilliams. fpcity@
Cision Canada
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Cision Canada
The Chiefs Steering Committee Denounces Government of Canada's Ongoing Failure to Uphold Treaty Obligations
TREATY 6 TERRITORY, June 20, 2025 /CNW/ - The Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services (CSC) expresses profound disappointment in the Government of Canada's persistent failure to uphold its duties and agreements enshrined in Treaty regarding natural resources and water rights. Bill C-5 is being pushed through to fast-track 'nation-building' projects on First Nations lands and endangering Treaty rights. While Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly stated that First Nations input for this legislation is 'critical' to move forward, he failed to meaningfully consult with First Nations Chiefs in the Alberta region on this issue to date, despite multiple invitations. "The Treaties said that we, as Peoples, would live without interference. And yet, Canada has done nothing but interfere," says Chief Vernon Watchmaker from Kehewin Cree Nation and member of the CSC. "Treaties were intended to establish a nation-to-nation relationship, ensuring our Peoples would flourish for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the waters flow. Treaty exists, and it cannot be ignored." Despite generations of First Nations advocacy and explicit promises made by multiple governments, most First Nations continue to live without reliable access to clean, safe drinking water and the infrastructure to support it, a fundamental human right that stands in stark contrast to the abundance enjoyed by the rest of the country. "While the Government of Canada speaks of reconciliation and a renewed relationship with First Nations Peoples, its actions regarding water rights consistently fall short," says Chief Rupert Meneen from Tallcree Tribal Government and member of the CSC. "We demand that Canada honour its binding legal and moral obligations. Our inherent right to govern and protect our waters is not a privilege to be granted, but a right to be recognized and upheld. The health and well-being of our Peoples, our lands, and our future depend on it." "Bill C-5 recognizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) but provides no tangible ways to implement it," says Chief Wilfred Hooka-Nooza from Dene Tha' First Nation. Recent legislative efforts, such as Bill C-61 or the First Nations Clean Water Act, was actively criticized by the CSC for failing to adequately recognize inherent and Treaty rights to water, and potentially offloading Canada's responsibilities—a 'dump-and-run' legislation. "Canada is trying to step over the rights of First Nations, but our inherent right to self-determination comes from us, not from the government," says Chief Watchmaker. "The time for empty promises and incremental progress is over." The CSC calls upon Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Government of Canada to: Support and re-commit to the Treaty Bilateral Table on Water and Related Infrastructure, signed with the Crown's representatives in December 2024, crucial in demonstrating Canada's genuine dedication to upholding Treaty obligations and improving infrastructure for our Peoples. Immediately acknowledge and fully implement First Nations inherent and Treaty rights to water, including jurisdiction over source water protection. Provide immediate, adequate, predictable, and sustainable funding to address the severe infrastructure deficit in First Nations water and wastewater systems. Engage in true nation-to-nation co-development of all legislation and policies impacting First Nations water rights, based on the principle of free, prior, and informed consent. The CSC demands concrete action and accountability to rectify this ongoing human rights crisis and uphold the sacred spirit of the Treaties for all First Nations Peoples. About the Chiefs Steering Committee The Chiefs Steering Committee on Technical Services (CSC) was established to provide oversight and direction to the First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group (TSAG). TSAG is a not-for-profit group to serve First Nations in Treaty 6, 7, and 8 across the Alberta region to support the interests and needs of First Nations, working together with Chiefs and technicians to address water, housing, health, education and infrastructure.
Irish Examiner
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Billy Kelleher: Ursula von der Leyen does not speak for the EU on Israel
Twelve months ago, the screw was being turned on the Fianna Fáil MEPs to do a U-turn on their previous commitments not to vote for Ursula von der Leyen as European Commission president. The body politic, the chattering classes, and Ireland's political elite all sought to put pressure on us to go back on the promise we made to our voters. We quite rightly resisted. Twelve months on, Ms von der Leyen's recent utterances on the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict prove, in my opinion, that we were right to withhold our support for her re-election. Quite simply, the Commission president cannot help herself when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. So when presented with an opportunity to give fulsome, wholehearted and unequivocal support to Israel, she always jumps at the chance. In the immediate aftermath of Israel launching missile strikes on Iran, the Commission president tweeted that she had already spoken to prime minister Netanyahu and that 'Israel has a right to defend itself.' Israel does have a right to defend itself. Nevertheless, did Iran attack Israel in such a way that warranted the actions of the last week? Just spoke with Prime Minister @netanyahu. We are following developments in the Middle East with deep concern. I reiterated our commitment to peace, stability, and diplomatic efforts leading to de-escalation. In this context, I underlined that Israel has the right to defend… — Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) June 15, 2025 One has to ask 'why now?' Was the attack an attempt to distract from the ongoing genocide in Gaza or to scuttle the proposed two-state solution conference? Only the Israeli authorities can answer that question, but prime minister Netanyahu does have form in this regard. Of course, we all know that Iran is a rogue state. The evidence is clear that they are attempting to develop nuclear capacities for military purposes. This is something we should all be extremely concerned about if we want to make the world a safer place. However, Israel cannot simply launch its own pre-emptive strike whenever it sees fit. There is a global order, international law, and diplomatic channels to follow and respect. What is worse is that Israel has also developed nuclear capacities in the last number of decades. The global community should be just as worried about this development as they are about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Von der Leyen strays beyond her competence Getting back to Ms von der Leyen and her actions, it is obvious that she is straying outside of her competences as Commission president. The Treaties are quite clear on the issue of foreign policy. Article 18(2) of the Treaties on the European Union is clear. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Kaja Kallas, in conjunction with the president of the European Council, António Costa, speaks on behalf of the European Union on agreed foreign policy matters. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen flanked by the office holders who speak on behalf of the EU on agreed foreign policy matters — EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas, and European Council president António Costa. Picture: Kin Cheung/PA Unfortunately, Ms von der Leyen does not seem to accept or respect the treaties that frame and govern our Union. As per the principle of the Rule of Law, all European Union officials, no less the Commission president, must respect the division of powers and responsibilities within the EU institutions. The Commission president is consistently encroaching into areas that are not hers to lead on. It is part of her policy of centralising power in her and in the people she surrounds herself with. One only has to look at how she has reformed the reporting structures in the College of Commissioners to neutralise the power of the executive vice presidents and make herself the dominant decision-maker. EU's role as honest broker Under Ms von der Leyen's leadership, the European Union has moved away from the traditional role it played for decades in the Middle East, which is that of an honest broker committed to finding a peaceful two-state solution. The vast majority of the Arab world, but especially the Palestinian people, view the EU as being on the side of Israel, no matter what. It is hard to disagree with this assessment. The EU has been unwilling to sanction the Israeli leadership, something the UK, Canada and Australia have been able to do. We are prevaricating over the possible suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which gives preferential access to Israel to the European Single Market. Failure to face up to Israel Any honest appraisal of Israel's actions since Hamas' barbaric attacks on October 7, 2023 would determine it is grossly in breach of its human rights obligations under that agreement. Yet, as a Union, due to historical guilt, arising from the brutality of the Holocaust in certain member states, we cannot bring ourselves to do the right thing. It is time that the European Parliament, and indeed the member states, reminded Ms von der Leyen of the limitations on her powers. She should remember that the role of Commission president was designed to be that of a balanced chair of the College of Commissioners; not that of an all-powerful chief and certainly not the single voice on foreign policy. There has been movement regarding the attitudes towards Israel among EU member states. Even the new German chancellor threatened to take steps in response to the breaches of humanitarian law by Israel. Ms Von der Leyen must take heed of these shifts. She can no longer staunchly defend her position in the face of what is unfolding in Gaza, and can no longer act as an unaccountable voice of the EU. Billy Kelleher is the head of the Fianna Fáil delegation in the European Parliament and MEP for Ireland South
Hamilton Spectator
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
First Nations leaders provide national response to King's Speech
(ANNews) – First Nations leaders from across Canada gathered in Ottawa to provide a unified response to the May 27 Speech from the Throne delivered by King Charles III, with a statement from some of the leaders highlighting the 'profound gap between ceremonial gestures and the reality of unfulfilled Treaty obligations.' Prime Minister Mark Carney asked the King to deliver this year's Speech from the Throne, normally delivered by the governor general as the King's representative in Canada, as a symbol of Canada's independence from the United States. A small group of First Nations leaders were invited to the Senate for the King's speech as dignitaries, including Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. In a joint news release from the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Confederation of Treaty 6 First Nations, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN), Southern Chiefs' Organization (SCO) and AMC, Wilson said she finds it 'concerning that not all First Nations leadership were present or included in this historical moment.' Grand Chief Wilson struck a more optimistic tone at an Ottawa news conference responding to the Speech from the Throne, noting that it's a positive development that the King mentioned Indigenous rights and reconciliation in his speech. 'That makes me hopeful [for] the renewed relationship that we can have as First Nations people with the Crown,' she said. 'Going forward, my hope is that Canada can respect our Treaties, respect who we are as First Nations people and work together, because we are not going away.' FSIN Vice Chief David Pratt of Muscowpetung First Nation, located 65 km northwest of Regina, called on Carney 'to meaningfully engage our chiefs.' 'Don't just placate us with nice words. That day and age is over,' said Vice Chief Pratt. 'Don't come and try to take resources out of our backyards without sitting first with our Elders and treating us with the respect that we deserve.' Carney has come under criticism from First Nations leaders , as well as labour, climate and faith groups, for legislation enabling projects deemed to be in the 'national interest' to receive approval before moving through regulatory and consultation processes. In the Throne Speech, which is written by the government but delivered by the Crown, King Charles said the government wants to reduce the average timeline for approving major projects to two years from five. Pratt called it 'a shame' that not a single Cabinet minister or representative of the Crown attended the First Nations' pipe ceremony on Parliament Hill. He added that it would be a meaningful gesture for the King to return to Canada to visit Treaty First Nations, with the 150th anniversary of Treaty 5 coming up in the fall and Treaty 6 occurring next year. Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations Grand Chief Greg Desjarlais, who also serves as the chief of Frog Lake First Nation in eastern Alberta, said he was 'very disappointed' that the King spoke of reconciliation without any mention of the Treaties. 'I'm grateful to be here to share some words, to encourage each and every one of you, the chiefs, to keep pushing, for the people to get behind the chiefs, the leadership, and not to fight,' said Desjarlais. Chief Derek Nepinak of the Minegoziibe Anishinabe, located on the western shore of Lake Winnipegosis in Manitoba, was another chief invited to the Senate to hear the Speech from the Throne. He told First Nations people to 'get ready' for the government fast-tracking resource projects. 'This is the time for us to be prepared for what's next. Some of you can participate, some of us won't, but let's protect the water first,' said Chief Nepinak. 'That's the most important thing we have.' Chief Kelsey Jacko of Cold Lake First Nations in Treaty 6 said he was one of the First Nations leaders who 'travelled across Turtle Island hoping to speak to the King of the nation we entered into Treaty with.' 'I know he is busy, but imagine if you haven't seen your business partner in 150 years,' said Jacko. He called on King Charles to collaborate with Prime Minister Carney to establish a Royal Commission on Treaty in the 21st Century to uphold and affirm Treaty rights in the face of changing biodiversity and growing loss of water. Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi of Treaty 8 First Nations in Alberta, in which the oil sands are located, noted the amount of 'resource revenue … coming from our lands each and every day while our people are suffering.' 'Our people come here in duress today. We don't come here with peace on our minds,' said Mercredi, the former chief of Beaver First Nation. He added that it was 'unacceptable' that most Treaty First Nations leaders were forced to stand 'outside here on the sidewalks' while King Charles spoke in the Senate. When the King spoke of 'barriers and red tape removal, he's talking about us,' said Mercredi. National Dene Chief George Mackenzie, who represents five First Nations in the Northwest Territories, contrasted the 'modern infrastructure' in downtown Ottawa with the 'broken windows' and poverty on First Nations reserves. 'Our young people should be strong in their culture, language, can survive on the land and be proud of it, [and] at the same time, be the best they can be in education,' said Chief Mackenzie. 'We need to be given that opportunity.' Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro of Mikisew Cree First Nation in Treaty 8 noted that there are few things all Treaty First Nations leaders can agree on. 'Among the chiefs, we all have different agendas, but one thing we have in common is the Treaty, and we must fight for that for the future generations to come,' he said. He said the government's promise to reduce project approval timelines by 60 per cent is 'very alarming' for members of his community, given the impact of tar sands mining on their health. Addressing the federal government, Dene Tha' First Nation Chief Wilfred Hooka-Nooza emphasized the 'shared journey' of reconciliation. 'It requires more than promises. It requires action. It requires you to listen to our stories, understand our struggles and work with us to address the wrongs of the past and present,' he said. 'It requires you to honour the Treaties, not as historical documents but as living agreements that are vital to our collective future.' To his fellow First Nations leaders, Hooka-Nooza offered a message of hope, 'for it is hope that sustains us and guides us towards the future generation.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
AllAfrica
05-06-2025
- Politics
- AllAfrica
The rise of 'antidiplomacy' in a powerless Europe
Europe today practices a diplomacy that delivers no outcomes. Policies are not designed to protect interests, but rather scripted to signal virtue or hopeless transatlantic loyalty. What emerges is not influence but illusion—driven by theatrical posturing, improvised authority and leaders performing roles the Treaties never defined. This apparatus speaks for a Union it cannot command, confronts adversaries it cannot deter and preaches values it fails to apply—notably at home. The result is a simulation of geopolitics without the means to shape it. Nowhere is this more evident than in Kaja Kallas. As EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, she has, within months, inverted the role she was appointed to uphold—projecting the bloc onto the global stage with confrontational positions that undermine the very interests she is meant to defend. While the US slaps punitive tariffs on Europe, openly mocks EU leaders at every opportunity or restricts visas for officials accused of censoring speech, Europe defers to Washington's harassment while simultaneously picking fights with China's cooperation overtures. This diplomatic inversion is so surreal it reads like satire—except it's shaping European foreign policy in real-time. This isn't the misstep of an individual gone off script. It reflects the system that empowered her. Kallas is the crystalline expression of Europe's institutional breakdown—both architect and product of a structure where someone can improvise foreign policy from a legal vacuum, issuing declarations that member states neither endorse nor recognize. In any functioning order, this would resemble performance art. In today's Europe, it passes for statecraft. The decay predates her appointment. Since 2019, the European Commission has stumbled through geopolitics without strategy or constitutional authority, constrained by presidential-regime management, incoherent China positions and pathological American dependence. What emerges is not mere incompetence but institutional abdication. What follows is diplomacy reimagined as avant-garde theater: loud, self-referential and detached from leverage. Five recent episodes chart Europe's descent from foreign policy to geopolitical burlesque. Act I. The 'China Doctrine of Confusion' was inaugurated with Kallas's October 2024 confirmation hearing, branding China as 'partly malign'—plagiarizing Washington's talking points without evidence or nuance. She marooned Beijing in a gray zone between rivalry and threat, manageable only through Atlantic alignment. When Trump returned and that alignment vanished overnight, Brussels found itself speaking a political dialect nobody else understood. Act II. The 'Munich Humiliation' followed predictably. At the February 2025 Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance ridiculed Europe's irrelevance before its own leaders. The response? Crickets. Kallas later surfaced with desperate bravado: 'It seems the US is trying to pick a fight with Europe,' followed by, 'the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge'—a suggestion that collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. The remark blended wishful thinking, cowardice and diplomatic malpractice. Munich revealed Europe as the guest who doesn't realize the party ended hours ago. Act III. The 'Washington Snub' came next. Kallas's late February 2025 trip to Washington was supposed to reaffirm the transatlantic partnership. Instead, Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to meet her after she had already arrived—rather unprecedented. What Brussels still imagined as coordination now looked like supplication. The slight wasn't personal—it was re-educational; the US had moved from ignoring Europe to actively tutoring it in irrelevance. Act IV. At Singapore's Shangri-La Dialogue, Kallas declared that, 'If you are worried about China, you should be worried about Russia,' painting their partnership as the unified threat of our time. She accused Beijing of enabling Moscow's war machine with righteous indignation—while carefully omitting Europe's own complicity. Indeed, as Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen recently admitted, EU member states had spent the equivalent of 2,400 F-35 fighter jets on Russian fossil fuels since Ukraine's invasion began. If any party funded Putin's war chest, it seems it was Europe itself. Yet instead of confronting this inconvenient arithmetic, the blame is projected outward with the confidence of someone who's never audited their own receipts. Furthermore, the China-Russia relationship described as monolithic is shot through with friction. Moscow bristles at Beijing's reluctance to buy non-energy exports and fears Chinese products flooding markets abandoned by Western brands. China, meanwhile, has consistently opposed Russia's nuclear threats. But such complexity disrupts the performance. To maintain the narrative, Kallas must ignore partner contradictions and allied failures alike: don't let truth spoil a good headline. India-Russia worries less. While Brussels fixates on China's enabling of Moscow, it ignores the significant arms and trade flows between Russia and India. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India was the largest recipient of Russian major arms exports between 2020 and 2024, accounting for 38% of Moscow's total arms transfers. These include systems that would be considered destabilizing if sold elsewhere, alongside exports that help soften the impact of Russia's attempted economic isolation. Meanwhile, last February, the Commission staged its largest-ever diplomatic mission in Delhi, dispatching 21 commissioners while pointedly avoiding any mention of India's deepening ties with Moscow or the penurious condition of local human rights. None of this fits Brussels's narrative, so it is simply ignored. To question India would complicate the EU's Indo-Pacific fantasies; to confront it would expose the incoherence of a strategy that treats China as a menace and India as a partner, even when their behavior toward Russia overlaps. The issue is, therefore, not the scale of coercion—it's the selectivity of attention. Act V. The' Tyrolean Theater' marks the logical endpoint, a final act approaching with operatic absurdity. The EU is staging a spectacle in the Tyrol, showcasing 'multilingual education' alongside Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. As Finbarr Bermingham of the SCMP reports, the aim is to contrast Europe's supposed linguistic tolerance with China's 'coercive' policies in Tibet and Xinjiang. Kallas will star in this surreal production while Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez pushes to make Catalan, Basque and Galician official EU languages—despite all speakers being fluent in Spanish. The move isn't about linguistic rights; it's about securing Sanchez's grip on power through a pact with a fugitive from justice, even though Spain's own Constitution doesn't recognize these languages as official. The parallel is unmistakable: what Sanchez does inside the EU, Kallas does outside—politicizing institutions not to serve European interests but to consolidate personal leverage. Same logic, different scales. The Russo-Ukrainian war has exposed this parallel, revealing the theatrical void at the heart of European diplomacy. Kallas had a chance to become a serious voice by supporting a credible peace process. Instead, even Trump moved first. Her confrontational stance—driven more by Estonia's historical trauma than by her current responsibilities—only highlighted her inability to represent Europe as a whole. Sanchez is no different. Since the war began, Spain has spent 6.9 billion euros on Russian energy, nearly seven times what it has pledged in military aid to Ukraine (1 billion euros). That hasn't stopped the Spanish prime minister from posing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at every photo-op. By Brussels' own logic, for every euro sent to help Kyiv resist invasion, seven go to 'enabling' the invader. And yet, from this circus of contradictions, Brussels now prepares to lecture Beijing on language rights. While English is official in Hong Kong and Portuguese in Macau, the EU—lacking a unified language policy and operating beyond any Treaty mandate for foreign affairs—positions itself as arbiter of linguistic freedom. It does so while unable to define its own foreign policy, lacking the expertise, coherence and unity it claims to embody, and all while courting the trade of those it publicly scolds. All in all, since the Treaties never equipped the EU with functional foreign policy machinery, Kallas has reimagined her role as a late-stage European Parliament resolution: maximally loud, thoroughly self-congratulatory and utterly inconsequential. All this choreography builds toward the July EU–China summit in Beijing. To ensure its failure, Kallas is deploying every tool at her disposal—inflammatory statements, staged moralism and the inspired Tyrolean gambit: sabotage repackaged as statesmanship, a masterclass in how to alienate partners while accomplishing nothing. In pushing this agenda, Brussels has confused activity with authority, noise with leverage and moral posturing with purpose. Foreign policy is now produced like conceptual art: provocative in form, hollow in function and legible only to fellow insiders. The Kallas doctrine—if it deserves the term—is not a strategy but a method: generate friction, claim virtue and ignore the fallout. And yet she is not alone in this European opera buffa. The system allows it. The Union's institutional design enables gestures without mandates and declarations without coordination. What passes for diplomacy is, in truth, a vacuum being filled—because no one else in the EU system knows what to say or wants the responsibility of saying it. The rise of 'antidiplomacy' is not about Europe failing to act; it is about acting when no one asked, on behalf of no one, with tools no one agreed to use. Brussels acts abroad not because it is empowered to but because the machinery keeps moving even when its purpose is unclear. Unless someone pulls the brake structurally, the Beijing summit won't just fail. It will confirm what many partners already suspect: that Europe can no longer tell the difference between having a position and staging one. Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa is a Hong Kong-based geopolitics strategist with a focus on Europe-Asia relations.
