Dear Editor,
Thanks for providing me some space in your daily, to give my continued support to our Sisters and Brothers of Isseneru Village, in their struggles to resolve the land issues that are affecting them. I want to categorically state that LAND ISSUES in Guyana do not only affect Isseneru, but most Indigenous Villages in the country. Stabroek News’ editorial of 7th June 2024 reflects some of the shortcomings of the Government of the day, as was found by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The State does indeed have human rights obligations, including related to Indigenous peoples, and these are also entrenched in our Constitution. As a member of the Organisation of American States, it is answerable to the IAHCR, which is responsible for investigating human rights violations brought before it, as was the case of Isseneru and Chinese Landing (the list could be a lot longer if other communities are forced to follow in their footsteps).
In its report, the IACHR referred to ‘Isseneru and other Indigenous Communities’ which is very important for other Indigenous Villages and institutions to take note of, understand, and to make full use of opportunities that institutions such as the IACHR provide. By bringing issues to the IACHR or other similar bodies, Isseneru and the APA (or others) are doing nothing more than using procedures that the State has agreed they can use. It is hard to understand why the Government has a problem with this, all the more as it apparently failed to seriously engage with the process in the eleven years it was at the IACHR. Isseneru and the APA successfully brought the plight of Indigenous peoples in Guyana to light, verifying what many of us – and various authoritative human rights bodies – have been saying for decades. Well done! Now it is for the Government to honour the rule of law and its international and Constitutional obligations as they concern Indigenous peoples and to collaborate with Isseneru to comply with the IACHR’s decisions.
In the South Rupununi, there are similar situations taking place, especially in the Marudi mining area. Complaints have been made, and I want to recall that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination communicated with the State more than once about this, and at the time of writing this letter, we have heard nothing from the State while mining has increased on and around our sacred mountains. There was an agreement signed between the Rupununi Miners’ Association and others, but we, the traditional owners and rights’ holders, the Indigenous peoples, were not involved or even mentioned in the agreement. Today, we continue to see huge stone crushing and other heavy-duty machinery being ferried into Marudi, the ancestral and traditional lands of the Wapichan People and one of our most sacred mountains. We were made to understand that the mining activity in Marudi is deemed to be a small-scale activity. But which small-scale mining actually involves the use of such heavy-duty machines, mostly coming from Brazil?
Now there is talk that the Mazoa Mountain will be blasted with dynamite. Small-scale? Under which law/regulation are such activities allowed and how is it permitted that our rights are simply disregarded? The Government has chosen not to require an ESIA because all these activities are falsely labelled ‘small-scale’ mining. Can we begin to understand the effects of such activities? Let’s not forget the plight of our sisters and brothers of Chinese Landing. I question the credibility of the Rupununi Miners’ Association. Is it really a Rupununi Miners’ Association or is it a Brazilian Miners’ Association? After reading the IACHR report on Isseneru and referencing this to related violations against Indigenous peoples in other parts of Guyana, my own included, especially on the titling of traditional lands, it would be interesting to see what the IACHR’s conclusions and recommendations on this would be about Marudi.
For one thing, the IACHR emphatically stated that our rights to lands are inherent and do not depend on the State for their existence – they are not “State lands”, they are Indigenous lands – and, moreover, as with Isseneru, the State is obligated to respect and promptly regularize our rights, whether title has been granted or not, and this includes obtaining our consent to mining operations in our lands, titled or not. I once again want to publicly state my full support to the people of Isseneru, and to thank them for illuminating the situation here and our rights for all to see. I also agreed with the editorial of Stabroek News that the State needs to rethink its approach to Indigenous peoples’ rights, including by honouring its international obligations, something that is long overdue.
Sincerely,
Tony James
Aishalton Village, Region 9
