An indigenous rights protest. Photo: Flickr user KeithBacongo

In 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, laying out the fundamental rights of the more than 370 million indigenous people living throughout the world.

The Declaration’s main goals are to protect the traditional lands of indigenous communities, as well as their right to self-government and control over natural resources. It also aims to safeguard cultural independence.

The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia — the four English-speaking nations with significant indigenous populations — were the only countries to vote against the Declaration. Recently, Australia’s new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reversed this decision and signed the document.

During Worldfocus’ series on Indigenous Cultures, we have shown the severe threats facing native communities across the world. For more on the issue, Jamie Macfarlane interviewed Renee Davis and Tiffany Waters, research associates at the Center for World Indigenous Studies.

Worldfocus: Has the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People made a meaningful difference to the lives of indigenous communities around the globe?

Davis: The Declaration holds meaning in setting a standard of Indigenous sovereignty over their lands and resources and to self determination. However, at this point, the Declaration holds more meaning as a standard to be embraced than a legally enforceable document.

Worldfocus: Why do the United States, Canada and New Zealand refuse to sign the Declaration?

Davis: While Australia has recently overturned their opposition to the Declaration, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand say they oppose the Declaration for various reasons.

Much of the opposition from the US, Canada, and New Zealand surrounds Articles 3 and 26, in which the inherent right to self-determination and control over Indigenous resources and lands are recognized, and Article 32, in which it is required that the State Government obtain an Indigenous peoples “free and informed consent” before exploiting resources or lands that affect Indigenous peoples.

One analyst, Ronald Kakungulu (2009), has suggested that there is a fundamental reason for opposition that joins these three states: “They have a history of using the now discredited doctrines of discovery and terra nullius (empty land) to grab indigenous people’s lands.”

Worldfocus: How does the treatment of Native Americans in the United States compare to the treatment of indigenous peoples in other English-speaking nations?

Davis: We can’t answer in a “better/worse than” way. Structurally, these States have similar relationships with their indigenous populations: treaties, trust relationships, etc. But there is something that does stand out. Compared to the other English-speaking countries, American Indians have a much greater bureaucratic interface with the federal government, cultivated over the last 40 years of American tribes assuming more functions of the federal government in their own communities.

Worldfocus: Are there examples of Indigenous self-government that you see as models that could be introduced across the world?

Davis: We don’t see one broad model of indigenous self-government that could be applicable worldwide. With so many culturally diverse societies, we can’t expect there to be one single way in which self-government emerges.

A structure of self-governance has to come from within and be built on a peoples own place and culture specific foundations. Thus, we cannot point to one particular group and take them as an example of successful self-government to be applied worldwide.

However, we can look at what qualities and characteristics can facilitate an indigenous nation’s strength: it must build and assert its political authority, formulate its own policies, laws, regulations and standards, and have Indigenous and tribal leaders that can maintain political flexibility and agility in a constantly shifting and changing world.

- Jamie Macfarlane

Should governments make laws about how to punish children? Or it is a private matter?

In a nationwide non-binding referendum that ended on Friday, nearly 88 percent of New Zealanders voted “NO” when asked this question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense?”

There is already a law on the books in New Zealand that prohibits parents from hitting their children. Some parents think the law is intrusive and that this form of discipline is a private family matter.

The government has said that the existing law will not be changed.

Should governments make laws about how to punish children? Or it is a private matter? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

New Zealand bloggers weighed in on the issue.

Kiwi blogger Kelvin Hartnall takes issue with the language of the referendum:

My first complaint is with the unnecessary adjective ‘good’; how can ‘good’ parenting be wrong? To see the effect of this word, just try rereading the question by placing a negative adjective in this place such as ‘abusive’.

My second complaint is with the word ‘smack’ in the question. My issue is that this word doesn’t actually appear in the Act at all. In this question it helps conjure up a loving gentle smack on the bottom. The Act was passed to prevent physical assaults on children that would be prosecutable if the child was an adult.

Blogger “KiwiPolitico” explains why s/he voted yes to overturn the smacking ban:

I voted yes because I believe smacking children is wrong.

I voted yes because I want to reaffirm that the Christian right do not speak for me. Many many (many) Christians in New Zealand believe, as I do, that smacking is wrong.

I voted yes because countless people gained the signatures of 300,000 voters to give me the opportunity to say out loud what I believe.

I voted yes because I want to live in a country where children are hugged, held, comforted, and raised to be non-violent adults.

At a Facebook group urging a “NO” vote, “Bart” writes:

It demotes Parents from being the highest authority in their childrens lives and devalues the role of parents in the family, and the family is the cornerstone of civilised society.

It leaves children without guidance, a quick smack is effective at communicating without resorting to emotional blackmail and other methods which are actually more damaging and have a longer lasting “scaring” effect.

It supposes that behaviour (if it is bad, but it’s not when done normally in loving correction) can be changed by legislation. If it is such a good thing to not smack (for the correct reasons) then why is there not several years of education instead of the intrusive law telling good parents how to bring up their own children.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Stephen Poff under a Creative Commons license.

Germans have been asked to eat less meat for the sake of the environment.

The German government has recommended that citizens eat less meat in order to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming and production.

Germans are among the highest consumers of meat in Europe. Meat consumption is expected to double globally between 2000 and 2050, and yet agricultural emissions are just beginning to come under scrutiny.

A blogger at “Transatlantic Politics” worries about state-planned eating schemes and rationing that could infringe on personal freedoms.

Elsewhere in the world, other governments and scientists have taken steps to lessen the environmental impact of methane emissions from livestock and energy-intensive production.

Australian researchers suggested going on a kangaroo diet, as the creatures emit less methane as a part of their digestive processes than do cows or sheep.

British researchers recommended rationing meat, restricting citizens to four portions a week.

A British blogger at “Eco Curious” describes her decision to eat less meat, but also provides advice on where to find the most environmentally-friendly meat in the United Kingdom.

The “Inhabitat” blog writes about a Dutch power plant that converts poultry waste into reusable energy, which prevents the manure from seeping into the ground and releasing emissions.

The “Ethical Eating” blog urges people to become vegans, as meat production in Brazil is contributing to Amazon deforestation.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user dmscvan under a Creative Commons license.

Nationality laws vary greatly around the globe.

In Greece, for example, some children face insecurity and confusion because they are not Greek citizens, despite being born in and living in the country. In Japan, the government may pass a law granting 20,000 mixed race children Japanese citizenship.

When a child is born, he or she can gain a nationality in a variety of ways – from the place of birth or from parents’ nationalities or ethnicities; sometimes automatically and other times requiring an application process.

Standard basis for citizenship:
Jus soli — birthright — a rule that the citizenship of a child is determined by the place of its birth
Jus sanguinis — blood right — a rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by its parents’ citizenship

The chart below details the foreign populations in world countries, residency requirements for naturalization (excluding special factors such as marriage to a national) and types of citizenship.

Data is from 2005, the latest available date for comprehensive comparative information. For more detailed information on citizenship laws and requirements in a particular country, visit that country’s Web site.

	642,000 15.9% of population *	Residence for 1,350 days of past 5 years	Eliminated birthright  citizenship in 2006
	1.2 million 15.1% of population 40.9% are nationals	10 years continuous residence	Blood right
	585,000 14.1% of population 45.2% are nationals	3 years residence	Eliminated automatic birthright citizenship in 2004
	38.36 million 12.9% of population 46.4% are nationals	Legal residency for 5 years	Birthright
	10.14 million 12.3% of population	At least 8 years  residence	Blood right
	6.47 million 10.7% of population 53.1% are nationals	5 years residence	Blood right; delayed birthright (can acquire citizenship on request)
	5.41 million 9.1% of population	5 years residence	Many types of  citizenship (vary)
	974,000 8.8% of population 41.5% are nationals	10 of last 12 years	Blood right; birthright if  no other nationality  acquired
	2.52 million 4.3% of population 47.5% are nationals	10 years residence	Blood right; birthright if no other nationality acquired
	168,000 2.7% of population	3 years residence	Birthright
	1.11 million 2.3% of population	4 of 8 last years	Blood right
	124,000 2.3% of population	5 years residence	Blood right
	2.05 million 1.6% of population	5 years of residence	Blood right
	644,000 0.6% of population	5 years residence	Birthright; recognizes  dual nationality
	596,000 0% of population	Settlement in China	Blood right

*When data on foreign-born nationals is blank, the information is not available.
Sources: United Nations, NationMaster. Photos courtesy of Flickr users under a Creative Commons license.

Puerto Ricans celebrate the Nov. 4 election.

Though the U.S. election is dominating headlines, screens and airwaves across the nation, several other countries are also going to the polls.

American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, Palau and Guam held elections on Nov. 4.

The “Memoires from the Middle of the Ocean” blog writes about the openness of elections in Palau and the vibrant campaigns.

Puerto Rico also held parliamentary elections on Nov. 4.

The “Petchie’s Adventures” blog outlines the different political parties and issues at stake.

A blogger at the “El Jibaro Gringo” blog describes his experience voting. Watch a video of Puerto Rican election events here.

Zambia elected Rupiah Banda of the ruling party to replace the deceased president, Levy Mwanawasa. The Oct. 30 election was tight, as opposition leader Michael Sata lost by less than two percent.

However, as blogger “Percymwale” writes, questions remain about the integrity of the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ), the group in charge of monitoring the election.

Maldives recently completed a runoff election that unseated 30-year incumbent Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. See our previous Blogwatch on the election here.

Several other nations will elect leaders in the coming weeks:

New Zealand will hold its parliamentary election this weekend.

The “4:20 a.m.” blog compares the New Zealand and American elections.

Guinea-Bissau will hold parliamentary elections on Nov. 16.

Blogger “Andrew” writes about world involvement and interest in the election, including the role of the United Nations. See an example ballot from the country here.

Romania will hold elections on Nov. 28, with as many as 2,965 candidates running for a seat in parliament.

Two of those candidates have their own blog, which blogger “Violet” describes in English.

Several west African countries, including the Ivory Coast and Guinea, may delay elections that had been planned for November due to reliability issues.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user abnelphoto.com under a Creative Commons license.