July 10, 2006
Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights Signed
On June 29th the new UN Human Rights Council approved the "Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Thirty of the states members of the council voted for it, albeit some with understandings or reservations. A number of countries abstained, while Canada and Russia voted against it. Canada said it had problems with provisions on land, territories and resources which were unclear and open to interpretation, and provisions on land claims, the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" and issues relating to self-government provisions. Philippino media speculated that Canada's surprising position may be related to the Canadian company TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc. which has been accused of numerous human rights violations (see below). Inuit activists, meanwhile, think the Canadian government is reluctant to give Indigenous Communities more power.
You can read the Declaration here
http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl104354.htm
MANILA, JULY 3, 2006 (STAR) By Artemio Dumlao - After more than 20 years in the pipeline, the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally approved on June 29.
With 30 states voting in favor and only Canada and Russia against it, the declaration marks a milestone in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples around the world and brings to an end indigenous peoples’ long struggle for self-determination.
Under the declaration indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.
It also says that indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.
The declaration recognizes and protects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and, by virtue of that right, they may freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
The declaration also states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state.
Those who voted for the resolution’s adoption were Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia.
Those who voted against were Canada and the Russian Federation.
Twelve nations, namely the Philippines, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine, abstained from voting.
The nations of Djibouti, Gabon and Mali were absent when the resolution was voted upon.
Quoting some of the explanations of their vote for the declaration, Guatemalan Carla Rodriguez Mancia said, "enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples."
"Adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all states to adopt the draft by consensus," Mancia said.
Mexican Xochiti Galvez said they had finally closed the circle. They were at a historic point in time where the UN member-states acknowledged the fundamental rights of the world’s indigenous peoples.
"Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," Galvez said. "Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed."
Mexico, he said, asked those countries that still had misgivings to vote favorably on this resolution: "It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights."
Indian representative Ajai Malhotra explained India’s vote: "India had consistently favored the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of (the term) ‘indigenous.’"
The entire population of India was considered indigenous, Malhotra added. "With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft declaration, and would vote in its favor."
The United Kingdom’s Nicholas Thorne said his country welcomed the declaration as "an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples."
The UK, Thorne said, felt its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.
The UK, however, did not accept the concept of indigenous peoples’ collective rights in international law, Thorne said.
According to him, the UK understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a state and "which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of states."
The UK position on the matter is that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the UK and its territories overseas do not fall within the scope of the declaration, he added.
Paul Meyer of Canada explained his regret over their negative vote, though he acknowledged the important role that Canada played in the process of the drafting of the declaration.
Meyer said the draft declaration did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous peoples’ representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues.
He added that Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world.
Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues, he added.
--------------
Comments by signatory nations (from http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/BE82C77003776B9EC125719C005D5994?OpenDocument)
Action on Resolution on Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.3), entitled Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted after a roll-call vote by thirty in favour, two against, and twelve abstentions, the Human Rights Council adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 in annex I to the report of the Working Group on its eleventh session (E/CN.4/2006/79); recommends to the General Assembly that it adopt the following draft resolution:
The General Assembly, expresses its appreciation to the Council for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and adopts the Declaration as contained in the annex to Council resolution 2006/….
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (30):
Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switerzland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia.
Against (2):
Canada, Russian Federation.
Abstentions (12):
Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine.
Absent (3):
Djibouti, Gabon, Mali.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples. The adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all States to adopt the draft by consensus.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), in a general comment, said the text was a compromise one which met with agreement with most of the delegations and most of the representatives of indigenous groups. Switzerland would have wished for the text to be adopted by consensus, but if this was not the case, it would vote in favour of the text.
XOCHITI GALVEZ (Mexico), in a general comment, said that they had finally closed the circle. They were at an historic point in time, finally acknowledging the fundamental rights of the world’s indigenous peoples. Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed.
Mexico exhorted those countries that still had misgivings to vote favourably on this resolution. It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights.
PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, acknowledged the important role that Canada, as well as other indigenous organizations, had played in the process of the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The proposal did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues. Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating Aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues. Regrettably, however, Canada would vote against the resolution.
AJAI MALHOTRA (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India had consistently favoured the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of “indigenous”. The entire population of India was considered to be indigenous. With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft Declaration, and would vote in its favour.
GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Indonesia had been following closely over 11 years the negotiations on this draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Human Rights Council, as a new body, had to address such important issues as this draft declaration. Therefore Indonesia supported the adoption of the draft declaration to protect and support the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Indonesia was a multicultural nation that did not discriminate against its population on any grounds. All of Indonesia’s citizens enjoyed the right to equal treatment before the law.
TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the text did not follow the usual procedure before it was put as a final text for adoption. Bangladesh was a party to the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and Political Rights and was making all efforts to implement them. Until some of the articles in the text were not amended, Bangladesh would abstain from the voting.
ALEXEY AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said great importance was given to defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption by consensus of the draft would constitute a major step forward in ensuring the powers of indigenous peoples. Many provisions of the draft were acceptable. The draft should be effective and an authoritative international document. To date, the proposed text which had been submitted to the Council did not represent all of these characteristics, as the text did not enjoy genuine consensus, and had not been agreed on by all sides. Its adoption would set a negative precedent, and in this context Russia could not support the draft declaration in this form and in the procedure that had been used, and would vote against it. However, this did not mean that Russia was against a continuation of a discussion of the issue, and would work for international cooperation in the protection of the rights of indigenous persons.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that China was in favour of the draft resolution under review on a draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of this United Nations instrument would be done after extensive consideration, China noted. China regretted that this instrument would have to be adopted by voting, at this very early stage of the work of the Human Rights Council. China hoped that in the future work of the Council members would conduct their work in a constructive spirit of cooperation.
ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Government of the Philippines was fully committed to safeguarding and promoting the rights of its indigenous peoples. Because of that commitment, the Government had enacted a national indigenous people’s rights act and had two autonomous regions in the country. If the draft resolution on the declaration were to be put for a vote, the delegation of the Philippines would abstain.
CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Brazil had voted for the resolution, and believed that the decision was a major achievement which augured well for the Council’s work, and commended States and indigenous peoples who had made great efforts to ensure this memorable result. The Declaration asserted the importance of the indigenous peoples in societies, acknowledged diversity as a richness of countries, and aligned the past and present contribution of indigenous peoples to States. Brazil recognised the invaluable contribution of indigenous peoples to the political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development of its society. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of utmost importance to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples and distortion created by centuries of discrimination. It would help to create societal harmony. Brazil had no doubt that the declaration was a reaffirmation of the commitment of the international community to ensure the enjoyment of indigenous peoples of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value of their indigenous cultures and identity.
IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that he wanted it to be noted that he had joined in the standing ovation that had marked the adoption of this declaration by the Council. Unfortunately, Algeria had had to abstain. He would like to plead for this declaration to have the maximum number of positive votes. In fact, Algeria had numerous indigenous peoples and had hoped the declaration would have been adopted unanimously, in which case it would have been able to join the consensus. Unfortunately the declaration was in conflict with the Constitution of Algeria, which contained a provision on political parties that stipulated they could not be on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. For that reason Algeria could not vote in favour.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Japan had been participating in the Working Group for the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights Indigenous People for the last 12 years and it had voted in favour of the draft resolution. The Government would interpret the declaration that the meaning of autonomy that it might not affect the territorial integration of State sovereignty. Further, the Government did not recognize collective rights.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Argentina had abstained, and regretted it had not been able to join the favourable vote. Despite Argentina’s clear adhesion to the rights of indigenous peoples, Argentina regretted the lack of time to deal with certain provisions of the declaration, which were of particular importance, namely the process of self-determination and territorial integrity. Argentina hoped that the situation would be rectified in the General Assembly, and Argentina would be able to vote in favour there, especially as this was one of the most important and legitimate topics to be dealt with by the international community.
VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Ukraine had always supported the elaboration of an international instrument for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The protection of indigenous peoples was one of the core rules of Ukrainian law. For that reason, Ukraine had been striving to elaborate an instrument that would provide the proper balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and those of sovereign States.
Ukraine said that the document just adopted by the Council contained important protections for the rights of indigenous peoples, but it also contained important flaws. It purported to define a right of self-determination for indigenous peoples. For that reason, and because it failed to fulfil the need to preserve the territorial and political integrity of sovereign States, Ukraine could not support it. Ukraine regretted that the text had been adopted without allowing Member States to improve the document so that it could reach consensus.
NARSINGHEN HAMTYRAGEN (Mauritius), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the declaration would consolidate the existing universal human rights. It was expected that all States would contribute in resolving the difficulties of indigenous peoples. There was a fear that some self-designated indigenous groups might threaten the sovereignty of a State by following a wrong interpretation of the declaration. The concept of autonomy should not be interpreted to jeopardize the sovereignty of a State.
ANDREAS PFAFFERNOSCHKE (Germany), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said along with other efforts undertaken during the past decade to improve the situation of indigenous peoples throughout the world, Germany had closely monitored the development of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of the document proved that the new Council was able to produce concrete results for the benefit of indigenous peoples, who were entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as everybody else. The respect and application of existing binding international human rights law remained essential. The primary importance of individual human rights protection was asserted in the Declaration. Germany understood the right to self-determination set out in the Declaration to be a new right, specific to indigenous peoples, and it could not influence the territorial integrity of a State. The Declaration, being an important instrument to enhance the rights of indigenous peoples was non-legally binding. Germany’s own national minorities and ethnic groups, which enjoyed protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, did not fall under the scope of the Declaration.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the United Kingdom welcomed the declaration as an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and regretted that the declaration had had to come to a vote. The United Kingdom felt that its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.
The United Kingdom observed that it did not accept the concept of collective rights in international law. The United Kingdom clarified that it understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a State and which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of States. The United Kingdom emphasized that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the United Kingdom and its territories overseas did not fall within the scope of the declaration.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Morocco had abstained during the vote. The delegation of Morocco would have preferred that the resolution be adopted by consensus so that Morocco could have joined. Morocco was making progress in building its democratic system and in strengthening the human rights of its people.
ADELE WILDSCHUT of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, said on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the League of Nations had not acted on the demands of the envoys of the Maoris and others, and the roots of the discrimination went back to the 1970s, a time when the international community had been prompted to pay attention to the indigenous peoples in the Americas. The repeated demands for the distinction of the distinct status of the indigenous peoples had at last been addressed, after substantive debate with positions that had been consistent with international law. The international community had been educated as to the status, rights, and lives of indigenous peoples in every corner of the world. The true legacy of the declaration would be the way in which the lives of the indigenous peoples would be affected on a daily basis. It was the implementation of the declaration at the community level which would have the greatest impact. The States that had worked with the indigenous peoples would not be forgotten. It was hoped that each State would stand with the indigenous peoples at the General Assembly. Indigenous peoples wished for harmony in accordance with the natural world and hoped that all would be brought together to embrace the positive contribution that indigenous peoples made to mankind.
Action on Resolution on Working Group on Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.4/Rev.1) entitled Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by consensus, the Human Rights Council welcomes the report of the Open-ended Working Group with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/CN.4/2006/47); decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in order to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, in this regard, requests the Chairperson of the Working Group to prepare, taking into account all views expressed during the sessions of the Working Group, on, inter alia, the scope and application of an Optional Protocol, a first draft Optional Protocol which includes draft provisions corresponding the various main approaches outlined in her analytical paper, to be used as a basis for the forthcoming negotiations; requests the Working Group to meet for ten working days each year and to report to the Human Rights Council; decides to invite a representative of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to attend these meetings as a resource person; and decides that the Human Rights Council shall remain seized of this matter.
ANGELA CHAVEZ (Guatemala), in a general comment, said that the provisions for the possible Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been exhausted by the Working Group. Guatemala thought that the Chair of the Working Group should now move to the drafting stage, which would be the most rapid way to promote the adoption. Guatemala hoped that the resolution presented by Portugal would be adopted by consensus.
ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), in a general comment, said the delegation of Saudi Arabia would stand by its previous stand. The delegation was of the view that the resolution should contain clauses on international cooperation so that developing countries would enjoy economic, social and cultural rights. Saudi Arabia had certain reservations on the Optional Protocol.
ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Canada) in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Canada was happy to join consensus on this resolution, and was happy for the efforts that had been made to reconcile different positions. It was important for the Working Group to continue its work. It was important that the draft did not prejudge a range of issues. Canada continued to question the merits of a communications procedure for economic, social and cultural rights, and was concerned for the potential of undue interference by an international body, and the absence of a clear definition for many economic, social and cultural rights, as well as for clear criteria for judging compliance. Canada’s decision to join consensus was without prejudice to future decisions.
--------------
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1146.htm
26th June 2006
100 TVI Armed SCAAs Harass Helpless Farmers, Demolish House and injure four 26th June 2006
Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines – It is difficult to imagine how terrified helpless farmers were, when they were harassed two nights ago by around 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) of the Canadian mining firm TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.
According to Nonong Purigay of the Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) four farmers were seriously injured, one of whom is a local catholic chapel lay minister called Jimmy Acope. The other three farmers injured were John-john Romano, Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy Galves.
The heartless SCAAs, who were led by Retired Lt. Cortes, mercilessly demolished the house of the Galves family and looted valuables such as the television, VCD and DVD player, other personal belongings and an undetermined amount of cash.At around 10pm on June 24 this year, Nonong Purigay telephoned the DCMI office and reported an unusual troop movement of the company’s SCAA. He warned at the time that TVI’s SCAA forces were gradually moving towards the Galves residence.
When they were a few meters from the house, the SCAAs stalled for a short while, but then finally overran the property, demolishing it and looting all the things found inside, according to Nonong Purigay’s account.
Purigay noted that around 50 SCAAs directly assisted on the demolition of Galves residence while the other 50 secured the surrounding area and prevented other farmers from assisting the Galves family in stopping the demolition. As a result of the incident, Mrs. Galves collapsed, and the SCAAs forcibly dragged her away from the house, while they were continuously demolishing the house. The SCAAs pointed their guns at the people who wanted to help Mrs. Galves.
According to Purigay the commotion ensued for an hour until the SCAAs gradually retreated from the Galves residence, after putting the materials from the house on TVI dump trucks and moving them to places unknown.
DCMI personnel telephoned the mobile phone of Eugene Mateo, the President of TVI Resource Development Philippines on the night of June 24 to inform him about the action taken by his SCAA in Canatuan, but despite ringing several times it was not answered. It was also not possible to get through to the mobile of Ed Coronel, the company’s Director for Social Commitment.
Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy suffered serious physical injuries as a result of the incident. It is hard for them to walk around without assistance, due to the punches and bat strokes employed by the SCAAs. The four who were injured are in need of medical treatment in the town of Siocon, or elsewhere in the province. However, the four victims feel anxious about reporting to the proper authorities for documentation and medical attention because the company bans them from passing through the company’s numerous checkpoints.
On June 13, fifty families near the open cut mining pit of TVI staged a vigil to guard their respective residences from any act of demolition by the company’s SCAA. Because of the vigil the company’s bulldozer operator failed to move the equipment towards the residences.
But on June 17, TVI - using large numbers of SCAA - bulldozed the farm-plants of the farmers, such as root crops, bananas and other farm durable plants. On this date, two staff of Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) Cagayan de Oro office, the team leader, Carl Ceasar Rebutta, and Zherwinah Mosqueda, a paralegal officer, were to visit Canatuan.
When they arrived the company’s SCAA officer was initially instructed not to allow them to enter area of the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), but then relented. But this was after people distinctly heard the instructing voice talking to the relevant office over the handheld radio say that "if they are from the LRC, do not let them enter the MPSA area, and ask them where they are going and for what purpose".
The SCAA forces of TVI have monitored the movement of the two LRC staff by keeping members of its forces close to the residence of Timuay Tii, which is close to Canatuan, but outside of the MPSA.
The two LRC personnel felt highly restricted in their work with the community, and decided to go back to R.T. Lim, Zamboanga Sibugay. The family of Timuay Lino Tii accompanied them to R.T. Lim, but when they returned home, the company’s SCAA held them for an hour at the checkpoint before allowing them to pass, because "they had received guests".
TVI takes Hostage Four Injured Residents
26th June 2006
Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines – The Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) today accused TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc of taking hostage the four injured farmers who were maltreated by the company’s 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) two nights ago during its sudden harassment against the helpless farmers for force negotiation.
Manolita Galves, a resident of Canatuan, who suffered serious physical injuries during the incident, in a phone interview today accuses TVI of banning them from passing through the company’s checkpoints. It is doing this to force her, and her family, to enter into a negotiation with the company against their wishes. The company’s emissary has continuously been looking for her inside the ancestral domain because it wants to talk to her. But she has advised her companions to tell TVI’s negotiator that she does not want to even look at the shadow of any TVI negotiators.
The company has placed all its checkpoints in a red alert status to ensure that the injured residents cannot get away from Canatuan and seek police assistance for official documentation or proper medical attention, in case people discover the extent of the SCAAs maltreatment while their injuries are still current. At company checkpoints, SCAA have asked travelling passengers whether they know the exact whereabouts of the four injured people. But no one has yet provided information to the SCAA.
On June 24 in the morning, the victims called Mayor Ceasar Soriano of Siocon by mobile phone to help them escape from this ‘hostage situation’ and seek proper medication. The victims said that the Mayor promised them to go to Canatuan and rescue them, but until now, he has not arrived.
The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI) yesterday instructed DCMI staff to coordinate with the Very Rev. Edgar Agora, Parish Priest of Siocon, to assist in rescuing the alleged TVI hostages.
In March 17, 2004, TVI SCAAs indiscriminately fired at legitimate protesters in Barangay Pisawak, Siocon, wounding four including the 70 year old Subanon chieftain Timuay Macario Salacao.
The said shooting generated moral support from neighbouring barangays that caused Alnor Construction from Surigao, a subcontractor of TVI Resource Development Philippines, to withdraw.
Affected Communities Launch Anti-TVI Resource Development Philippines Campaign
26th June 2006
Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues
Jose Dalman, Zamboanga Del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines - Around fifty community leaders from thirteen towns of the provinces of Zamboanga Del Norte, Sibugay and Del Sur are expected to gather at Millennium Formation Center, St. Augustine Parish during 27-29 June 2006 for a Zamboanga Peninsula Conference on the ‘Impact of TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.’
The event aims to sum up the community experience in dealing TVI and the company’s attitudes towards affected communities, forge a common position and a people’s movement against TVI, and formulate a concrete steps against this aggressive mining firm.
The thirteen areas are composed of Mt. Canatuan Siocon, Baliguian, Labason, Liloy, Bacungan, Sindangan, Barangay Tamarok Jose Dalman, Katipunan, and Sergio Osmeña, which all belong to the province of Zamboanga del Norte. Others are coming from Bayog, Dumingag, Mahayag and Midsalip which all belong to Zamboanga Del Sur.
The delegates are expected to arrive at the venue in the morning of June 27. At 1:30-2:30, the Parish Priest of Jose Dalman, Rev. Fr. Nemesio Sayon, will celebrate a mass.
The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI), is expected to give his inspirational message to all the delegates. He is expected to share why he strongly stood up against large-scale, foreign-owned and open cut mining.
The community leaders from Canatuan, downstream of Siocon, from Barangay Tamarok Jose and from Bayog are expected to share their experiences and positions on TVI issue.
On the second day of the conference Jun Urot, Secretary General of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Western Mindanao will tackle the issue of debt and mining. The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) National Office will talk on confronting the mining industry and why the Mining Act of 1995 should be scrapped. It is likely that a declaration will be signed, and an action plan formulated as the final output.
It is also expected that the conference will culminate in a parade that the delegates and the youth of St, Augustine Parish will participate in.At this moment, TVI is the most aggressive mining firm operations in the Zamboanga Peninsula, expanding beyond its current operation in Siocon, Zamboanga Del Norte. TVI’s modus operandi there has included armed harassment against the affected communities, especially the legal and legitimate holder of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).
Posted by marga at July 10, 2006 11:41 PM | TrackBack