Self-Determination in Times of Peace and Conflict: Internal Relations and Indigenous Diplomacies (UNPFII Side Event)

Okay, I won't take it from the top, but welcome. Thank you for being here. We are very grateful to our co-sponsors, the government of Australia, the National Congress of American Indians, Cherokee Nation, and CONAI, and really all of you for supporting our efforts. A special thanks to our team members, Hannah Aders and Danielle Pourie, who have been working very hard behind the scenes, and to the DOSIP interpreters for making it possible for us to have a multilingual dialogue on these important issues. We also have several University of Colorado law students sitting behind me, the next generation supporting us so well today. I'll offer a few framing points and then turn it over to our speakers. This audience knows that after the Second World War, various national representatives joined to establish some foundational principles to ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust would not recur. The basic concept captured by the UN Charter and foundational treaties is that by respecting territorial sovereignty and also ensuring the dignity of individuals and groups within each country, humanity can promote peace and security for all. Since that time, UN member states have devoted themselves to international relations and the negotiation of constructive agreements to address challenges, whether economic, political, or otherwise. This morning, both the Secretary General and the President of ECOSOC spoke about multilateralism, which requires respect, persuasion, and deference, and above all, the development of relationships to find common ground in difficult situations to avoid or end conflict and heal past harms. This is the work of diplomacy. And while the UN is distinctly a member state organization, indigenous peoples also have a long and storied tradition of diplomacy. They maintain protocols and instruments dating back centuries or even millennia that help to regulate relationships among each other and non-indigenous neighbors. Today, after years of effort and with thanks to previous generations, indigenous peoples increasingly assert a seat at the table, literally right here at the table, engaging one another and member states. They dialogue about global issues and even participate in international treaty negotiations, all toward the fundamental right of self-determination recognized as inherent to all peoples, including indigenous peoples. Today's side event brings together the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Aburumai, with indigenous leaders and state counterparts to focus on these dynamics, and more specifically on the relationship between domestic matters and international diplomacies in fostering indigenous peoples' self-determination. We have asked the Special Rapporteur to share some reflections from his first year on the job, so to speak, and for the panelists to reflect and advance points on self-determination and diplomacy in their own contexts. These issues are particularly pressing today for reasons that we can talk about, and we hope that this panel will give us a good chance to reflect and plan for the week and the decades and futures ahead of us. I will now introduce the panelists. Dr. Albert Kabirume, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was previously chairperson and member of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples when I was a new member, and has held positions at the International Labor Organization, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, and universities around the world, including my own. Next, Ms. Kim Teehee is Cherokee Nation's delegate to the United States Congress. Cherokee Nation is the largest federally recognized Indian tribe in the United States. Ms. Teehee previously served President Barack Obama as senior advisor for Native American affairs in the White House Domestic Policy Council and held other distinguished positions in tribal and federal government. To Dr. Barume's left, Mr. Justin Muhammad is Australia's inaugural ambassador for First Nations people and a Gurung Gurung man from Bundaberg, Queensland. Previously the Deputy Secretary of Aboriginal Justice in the Victorian Government, Ambassador Mohamed has also served as CEO of Reconciliation Australia and Chair of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. To Ms. Teehee's right, Dr. Sarah Olsvig is chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and an Inuk leader dedicated to advancing Indigenous peoples and human rights. She has served in the Parliament of Denmark and the Parliament of Greenland, as well as as vice premier and minister for social affairs, families, gender equality, and justice. To my left, Ms. Jane Merwas is a leader from the Samburu people of Kenya with over 20 years of experience advancing the rights of indigenous women and girls, particularly in policy development, governance, and implementation. The holder of several advanced degrees, she currently serves as the Africa representative for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples. To Ambassador Mohamed's left, Ms. Arcelia Castaneda is an indigenous woman from Ecuador and the vice president of CONAI, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador. An organization representing 15 nationalities and 18 peoples, CONAI defends collective rights and as a collective of indigenous peoples exercises power to govern their territories. I will cue each speaker through various things. The order got all messed up, but hopefully we'll be fine. And I'll say just briefly that following each of your presentations, my dean, Lolita Buckner Inniss, will offer some commentary. Dean Inniss is a distinguished scholar in her own right, the author of several books and many articles addressing racial equality and legal systems. She's the 17th dean of the University of Colorado Law School, holds the Provost Professor of Law, and has made it possible for our university to do much of this work in international human rights. Again, thank you all for being here. We appreciate your presence, and I will give the floor to Dr. Barume.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's really a privilege to be here. Thank you for inviting me. Thank you to the organizers. For me, I'm home because Colorado University is my academic home. Apparently, special rapporteur has to choose an academic home and Colorado is mine. So I'm not actually an invitee. I'm one of the, I just want to make a point that many of you probably have had me making. It's something is proving to be relevant and I'm glad more people are joining my point. And the meeting I was just in before I joined this one, which is almost the same topic, conflict and self-determinations, I did say is that If I was to add something to the topic of the meeting, I would have added high demand and land. Because the narrative, and this is what I did say, and this is my chapeau, is that the high demand for indigenous peoples' land is driving the current trend of conflicts, and the solution to it is self-determination. And that solution is a win-win for both states and indigenous peoples. And in saying that, I did make a point rapidly, that as a special rapporteur, our mandate mostly is to do what I call anatomy of violations, understanding the drivers, understanding what factors contribute, be able to tell states what not to do when they start moving on that path of human rights violation. That's really what the Special Rapporteur does. And as I've just spent 15 months in my job as a Special Rapporteur, I've realized there is a trend, a global trend of high demand for indigenous peoples' lands. And some of you've heard me saying this driven by five factors. globally, those five factors are transition minerals, so the old extractive industry in its new dress, transition energy, the carbon market, the extension of protected area to 30%, and the geopolitical interest and international security issue developing on indigenous peoples' land. It is for that reason that there are so much conflict on indigenous peoples' land as we speak from the allegation of violations that my mandate receive on daily basis. And because indigenous peoples are living on the least part of the land with no land to push back to anymore. So indigenous people have no other options that actually resisting. You go to Africa, through Asia, through Latin America, there is more and more clashes between indigenous peoples and states. And I have said this to states, that they should not think there is an end to this unless there is a shift in the approach because there is no more additional land indigenous people will push back to. This is what is in my report, my second report on land that I submitted to the UN General Assembly in October. And during that meeting, I did explain exactly as I'm saying to states, that they have to be a shift in a paradigm. And as a special rapporteur, it's obviously good to give a way, to lead the way in the thinking. And that's where the right to self-determination comes in. The right to self-determination just to break the ice on the rights. It's what life, the right to life represent for nations. Any nation does that doesn't really enjoy the right to self-determination is like a human whose right to life is threatened. So you're not really fully living, you're probably surviving. This is what indigenous people have been for decades, for centuries. They are nations that have never in most cases enjoyed the right to self-determination. So they are like human body, not in good health, but surviving. The rights, as you all know, and I have said this, I remember saying this in Colorado last time, the dean invited me for a lecture, it's conceptualized in the '60s, in the decolonization, it's part of the decolonization movement. In international law, that's the origin of soft rights. But how does it become a solution? And that's the point I'm making in my report to the States. Indigenous, the current global context makes indigenous territory at the center of major international geopolitics, and international security issues. And this because indigenous people live on borders and many indigenous territory are cross borders. So major national and international security issues such as migrant network, drug trafficking networks, terrorist group, Al-Qaeda or Islamic states, and as a trafficking network, first and first ones across the country, indigenous people. And because they have literally, as I said in my report to the states, have literally abandoned or not provided equally public services, basic services, and being present on those border areas. So there is a sort of vacuum in those areas. that these groups take advantage of. They tell those communities, listen, you are abandoned by your country anyway. I build you a few schools. Maybe we do some local projects, some housing, you know, when we can pattern what I'm doing. And there is some cash aside. And states have systematically making a strategic mistake. Once they know of this, they send in the security services, the military, the police, so they militarize the areas. And my point to them say, this is really a short-sighted strategy. You could, the same way this gang, trafficking network are taking advantage of indigenous traditional knowledge. You could partner with indigenous peoples by respecting their right to self-determination, to be able to govern their land, to secure their land, to police their land, and then they can become part of the national and international security infrastructure. This is a win-win. And my point here, as I said in my second report, is to call on state to shift the paradigm. And this is because we are in my last point, we are in a non-compliance era. And what I mean by non-compliance era is that you no longer count on how good your legal argument is, how good your communication as a special rapporteur is, States don't believe in international law anymore. Some on television are saying they don't even know what international law is. So the legal argument does no longer matters. Maybe it's time actually to be transactional. Transactional in showing that if indigenous people enjoy fully the right to self-determination on the land, it can solve a hell of a lot of issues for states. And that's where I think the topic, my last point really comes to the point and states, I do believe there is margin for them to understand this. And my, I just came back from, and I did say, and I'm constantly saying this to states, just did a mission to Ecuador a few weeks ago, and when I came back, I passed by Geneva and I had a long meeting with the ambassador of Ecuador and I did explain exactly what I've just said, that indigenous people in Ecuador has the potential to become part of the solution of the problem you are facing. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Dr. Barume. And I think in the interest of time, we will hold applause until the end, but thank you for your stirring remarks. I would now like to pass the floor appropriately to the representative from CONAI from Ecuador, Ms. Ersilia Castaneda. You may take the floor.

Microphone, please. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to extend my warm greetings from the peoples and the nations from Ecuador. We continue to resist, to create and to project for life in our territories. Today we're here to talk about a crucial issue, something essential for the survival of indigenous peoples, the self-determination, which would will enable in areas where there's conflict to survive. For that purpose, I would like to stress, as the rapporteur said, self-determination is a very tangible aspiration of us, the indigenous peoples. This will provide us the capacity to decide for our present and our future according to our cosmovision, our knowledge system, the way we are organized. It is not just an abstract aspiration, it is a recognized right in international law. Self-determination is something we do in our land, in our territories. Without that, we would not exist, we would not have survived. And we need to advocate for self-determination because this allows us to implement our cultural, our spiritual, the tangible part of us. So we need to look at Earth beyond a material approach, but rather to feel the Earth, to live on the Earth, and this is a space where we live. Next, next, she's asking for next slide. So it is important to advocate, even in times of conflict, for the Earth to be considered a space of life. It is our proposal that the territorial right should be fully respected. We should be entitled to free, prior and informed consent and effective protection of defenders of our rights. Self-determination enhances our identity, acknowledges our identity and the right to live our own identity, taking into account the fact that structural racism had made us invisible. For that purpose, we would like to propose that the indigenous people should be the protagonist, should be the one strengthening our own education system as the opportunity for us to be away from violence. They should acknowledge our governance system, our indigenous justice system, entailing harmony and healing for our territory. And for that purpose, we should have a full and effective political participation where decision is made. So we would be stakeholders together with the states and the nationalities. Next, please. So the right to reproduction, free reproduction. We, the indigenous women, are the carriers of culture, the carriers of our own knowledge. During COVID, for instance, in 2019, Our own medicinal plants allowed us to survive, and it was the women who had the knowledge. And yet, despite their contribution to healing and to survival, to economy, in Ecuador, seven out of 10 women are survivals of some kind of violence. And in this context, when there is a fight for natural resources, displacement occurs and women are at the frontline of displacement because they need to leave their homes, their own spaces, their own living spaces. So the respect for reproductive decisions should be guaranteed access to intercultural services and eradicating all kinds of violence and defending and protecting the body and the earth So health, well-being and development go hand in hand. We need a balance. We need to strike a balance between nature, community and spirituality. For that purpose, we propose intercultural health system respecting the indigenous people's food sovereignty, access to quality water, allowing us to fight malnutrition in children, which is really affecting more than 40% of our population. Support to community economy as well is required so we indigenous women become independent and autonomous. In Ecuador, I'd like to report that the defenders of rights in 2025 were arrested, 225 were arrested and they blocked their accounts, so they are set aside from the legal system and blocked away. So the state should guarantee indigenous peoples' rights, and we urge international bodies to keep an eye on the states so that they fulfil their duties as guaranteed in the constitution. had the visit of the Special Rapporteur a couple of weeks ago, and I am sure he will be carrying this message to the international community. This is supervised. Last but not least, I'd like to conclude by saying that all of these proposals will allow the indigenous people to survive with the help of multilateral bodies, the UN and society in general. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Castaneda, for giving us the opportunity to learn about what's happening in Ecuador so that we may all help to support it. I would now like to give the floor to Ms. Kim Teehee from Cherokee Nation.

Osiyo, that's hello in the Cherokee language. Wado, to the organizers for the invitation to join you today. It's an honor to be here with the special rapporteur and the distinguished international leaders at the Permanent Forum. I'm Kim Teehee, Cherokee Nation's delegate to Congress. I also serve as senior vice president of government relations for Cherokee Nation businesses. The Cherokee Nation is the largest federally recognized tribal nation in the United States with more than 475 citizens in the US and abroad. I proudly serve under the leadership as a cabinet level position for principal chief Chuck Coskun Jr. and deputy principal chief Brian Warner. Today, I'd like to focus on how Cherokee Nation puts self-determination into practice through our governance, our approach to health and wellness, our language and culture, and our long tradition of diplomacy. Cherokee Nation is a sovereign government, a tripartite form of government with its own constitution, laws, and institutions, including a fully developed court system exercising tribal jurisdiction over 7,000 square miles of reservation in northeastern Oklahoma. Our relationship with the United States is grounded in treaties and in distinctive nation to nation or government to government framework. Those treaties, which go all the way back to our initial encounters with Europeans, did not create Cherokee Nation. Of course, they recognize the sovereignty we already possessed as a nation pursuant to our own laws, customs, and traditions. Those treaties are also foundational to the federal trust responsibility. The federal trust responsibility is a legal and moral obligation of the United States to uphold treaty commitments and to support the health, welfare, and self-governance of tribal nations. It's not a matter of discretion. It's a matter of duty grounded in treaties, the U.S. Constitution, and court rulings. Our sovereignty, our treaties, and the federal trust responsibility shape what tribal self-determination looks like in practice today. We maintain a nation-to-nation relationship with the United States, as well as jurisdiction over matters arising within our territory. Cherokee Nation exercises self-determination every day through our constitutional government, through the laws we pass, and through the services we provide to our citizens. In the United States, tribal self-determination is deeply embedded in federal law. And under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, tribal nations have the authority to assume control over federal programs and to deliver services to our citizens. ourselves. At Cherokee Nation, we have used those federal authorities to ensure that governmental services and programs are delivered in our communities on our terms and in the ways that best reflect our values. But the Cherokee story in relationship to the United States cannot be fully understood without acknowledging the history that shaped it. Our history, like that of many indigenous peoples, include involuntary displacement of our homelands. For Cherokee Nation, that was the Trail of Tears, when our people were forcibly removed from the southeastern part of the United States and relocated to what is now the state of Oklahoma. Approximately one in four Cherokees died along that forced journey in 1838 and 1839. That's mostly elderly and children that perished. Our history also includes more than 150 years of federal boarding school policies with forced assimilation, which robbed our indigenous peoples of language, culture, and identity. For Cherokee Nation, the loss of language was not incidental. It was a primary goal of past federal policies. And so today, the restoration of our language is central to our self-determination. We've made revitalization of the Cherokee language a core part of our mission, making sustained investments in immersion education, teacher development, and community-based programs to ensure that our language lives on for future generations. Cherokee Nation hosted North America's very first launch event for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages. And we are proud to be involved in the global involvement and movement for language revitalization. The experiences that led to the loss of our language, culture, and wellbeing, most notably the forced displacement of our people and the boarding schools, were not distant or isolated events. They were systematic disruptions to our governance and communities, and they continue to shape the conditions our people face today. That is why Cherokee Nation approaches. health the way we do. We don't view health as limited to hospitals and clinics. We're guided by a holistic and integrated approach to wellness that reflects the understanding that health is connected to community, culture, language, and the environment. That approach aligns perfectly with what the permanent forum has described as the indigenous determinants of health. The recognition that wellbeing is shaped by systems, not just services. At Cherokee Nation, we've worked to put that understanding into practice. Through self-governance, we operate the largest tribal health system in the United States, delivering more than 2 million patient visits annually. We've built an integrated system that brings together primary care, behavioral health, public health, and community-based services across our reservation. We've transformed that system over time, taking control of federal facilities, expanding access and investing in modern infrastructure so that care is driven by local priorities and the needs of our people. And we're building for the future. We have established the very first medical school on the College of Osteopathic Medicine on tribal land on our reservation through our partnership with the Oklahoma State University. We have also recently announced a new nursing school on our reservation in partnership with the University of Oklahoma. That is what self-determination looks like in practice, not just delivering care, but building the system and the workforce that sustains it for future generations. Our experience shows us that when indigenous nations assert the legal authority to govern and the resources to act, we deliver results. Communities are healthier, cultures are stronger, and governments are more responsive to the people they serve. That brings me to diplomacy. and toward the end of my remarks. Indigenous peoples have long traditions of diplomacy. For Cherokee Nation, that includes relations with other tribes going back thousands of years and sending emissaries to Europe in the 18th century. We engaged in international relations well before the formation of the United States. That tradition continues today. I serve as the Cherokee Nation's delegate to the United States Congress, a role that was secured through our treaties, our forced removal treaty, in fact, the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. In that treaty, our nation successfully negotiated for the right to a delegate in the US House of Representatives. That right was not symbolic. It was a commitment that Cherokee Nation would have a voice in the government of the United States. The special rapporteur has often mentioned the right of indigenous peoples to political participation. Yet nearly two centuries after the United States promised to have us to have a seat in the United States Congress, the promise remains unfulfilled. And so the work of self-determination continues. not only in our communities, but in ensuring that the communities made through our treaties are fully honored, consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cherokee Nation practices diplomacy every day through our nation-to-nation relationship with the United States. That work requires constant engagement. advocating for our sovereignty, ensuring that treaty and trust obligations are upheld, and working to secure real outcomes for our citizens. At the same time, we engage in international spaces like this one because the issues being discussed, health, climate, environment, culture, women's rights, directly affect our people and our future. Too often indigenous nations are engaged as stakeholders rather than recognized as governments. But our experience shows that indigenous governance is not theoretical. It is practical, effective, and essential. When indigenous nations are able to govern effectively, we contribute not only to the well-being of our own people, but to a broader stability and resilience of the societies we are a part of. That is the message we bring from Cherokee Nation. determination works. It produces results, and it should be recognized, supported, and strengthened, both domestically and in the international community. I look forward to discussing these and other points with the indigenous leaders represented today from other regions during the remainder of this panel.

Thank you, Delegate Tihi, for sharing the perspective from Cherokee Nation. I would now like to pass the floor to Ms. Jane Merwas.

Good afternoon, colleagues, respected leaders, and relatives. I bring warm greeting from the pastoralist land of Kenya. And I am honored to join you today in my capacity as chair, board of trustee of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous People. Today's theme, self-determination in times of peace and conflict, it is not abstract for us indigenous people. It is lived, it is daily, and for many of our community, it is urgent. Determination, sorry. For us, it's not only about political status, it is about dignity. It is about the right to exist as indigenous people on our own terms, with our languages, our governance system, and cultures, and our relationship to the lands. My own community and across many indigenous territories, self-determination is expressed in the everyday resilience of women, elders, and youth who have continued to hold systems together despite exclusions, marginalizations, and at times violence. And it's expressed when communities protect their lands, pass on their knowledge system, and resist harmful practices while reimagining their futures. But self-determination does not happen in isolation. It is deeply connected to power, who hold it, who shape decision, and whose voice are heard. This is where indigenous diplomacy become critical. For generations, indigenous people have practiced diplomacy long before modern state exist. Our diplomacy has been rooted in relationships with each other, with nature, and across territories. and it has been guided by principle of respect, reciprocity, and collective survival. Today, we carry this tradition into international spaces like this one. Yet, let's be honest, these spaces were not designed for us. International diplomacy continue to be largely state-centered. Indigenous peoples often enters as observers, advocates or at its best, we are invited participants, but really as equal decision makers. And this is precise why mechanism like the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples are essential. The fund exists to support indigenous representatives, especially those from remote and marginalized communities, to access these global platforms. Because participation is not a privilege, it is a right. And meaningful participation is a cornerstone of self-determination. Through the fund, we have witnessed the transformative power of presence. When an indigenous woman speak for herself at the United Nation, when a community representative bring live realities into policy discussions, when voice from the ground influence global norms. But participation alone is not enough. We must ask, what change because we are in this room? How are our contributions shaping decisions? And how do we ensure that international diplomacy strengthen, not replaces our own system of governance and knowledge? Self-determination in this sense require both internal strength and external engagement. Internally, it means investing in our communities, our institutions, our leaderships, and especially our women and youth. It means addressing the intersection challenges we face, including gender inequality, climate vulnerability, and conflict over resources. Externally, it means engaging in diplomacy in a way that assert our rights, build our alliance, and hold states and institutions accountable. But importantly, it means redefining diplomacy itself, not just as negotiation between states, but as a relationship built across people grounded in justice and mutual respect. And as we listen to the reflection of Dr. Albert Barume and fellow distinguished panelists, I invite us to think critically and collectively about how we move forward. How do we ensure that self-determination is not only recognized in international frameworks, but realized in the daily lives of Indigenous people? How do we strengthen Indigenous diplomacy so that they remain rooted in our values while effectively navigating global system? And how do we ensure that no indigenous voice is left behind, especially those from the most remote and underserved communities? In closing, let me emphasize this. Self-determination is not about destination. It is an ongoing processes, one that require courage, solidarity, and sustained commitment. And as an indigenous people, we are not only claiming spaces, we are shaping the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Mary West, for those reflective comments about diplomacy and what we can do in this space and others. I would now like to pass the floor to Ambassador Mohammed.

Thank you and good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon and also attending the 25th session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. As we do in Australia, I'd like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands which we're meeting on, the Lenape people, and acknowledge their elders, both past and present, and thank them. Also in doing that, I want to acknowledge all indigenous peoples in the room, your elders, your leaders, and your ancestors for giving the strength to be here and representing very important issues like we're talking about today. I'm gonna be talking a little bit about Australia's journey and in self-determination. And though Australia, we have had our challenges and we've also had some successes and how we're working through that across the many decades and centuries since colonization took place on our continent. But we all know that indigenous diplomacy is not new. Australians First Nations people have engaged internationally, bringing deep cultural insights and diplomatic leadership for over 60,000 years. Australia's first people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, possess generations of knowledge, story and skill and have a crucial, a critical role in playing and in projecting Australia's full identity to the world in every room and at every negotiation table, not just the 240 plus years, but the 60,000 years. A First Nations approach to foreign policy recognises this and seeks to embed the knowledge and perspectives passed down from our land's first diplomats and traders. Today, this approach has two elements to it, a domestic engagement and consultation with First Nations communities and our international agenda to embed the importance of First Nations approaches and perspectives across important multilateral mechanisms and uphold the principles of UNDRIP. It is about the strengthening our connections between the domestic reconciliation journey of our and our international efforts. Since I first commenced in this role just over three years ago, I've made it a priority to engage domestically first and foremost, meeting many First Nations leaders, communities and organisations across Australia in every state and territory. From the Torres Strait Islands lying between Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea, where people share ancient kinship, language and culture, to the central heart of Australia, where indigenous rangers are caring for our desert country. This engagement has been crucial in mapping the community priorities and shaping a strategy to take forward on this agenda. Issues such as trade and investment, climate, intellectual property, human rights have been at the core of discussions with First Nations communities. This is self-determination in action. This is how Indigenous peoples directly shape our efforts to build and embed a First Nations approach to foreign policy. When I commenced in 2023 as ambassador, few of us could have anticipated the scale of ambition of the agenda we would like to take on. Every community and every group that I met and spoke to, no matter how remote or how urban, when I talked about the international fora and our foreign affairs, I had an overwhelming embrace that they wanted to be involved. And if they couldn't be involved individually, they wanted someone to be able to take their stories internationally and present them. And some of the achievements that I've been most proud of to include and with First Nations people of Australia. One was enhancing the participation of Indigenous peoples in the UN meetings throughout contributing to the historic decision by the UN Human Rights Council to establish a distinct status for Indigenous peoples accreditation to the human rights dialogues. Also, another one was expanding First Nations business opportunities through the conclusion of the historic genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge treaty at the World Intellectual Property Organization. And more recently, on a more domestic front, unlocking trade and investment opportunities for Indigenous peoples businesses through Australia's first dedicated chapter in a First Nations trade in the Australian United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, CEPA. First Nations diplomacy reaffirms that the inclusion of Indigenous peoples perspectives and leaderships in international engagement benefits not only Indigenous peoples, but everyone. Australia is happy to keep sharing our lessons learned as we continue on this path of learning. Thank you, and again, for inviting me here today, and look forward to working with many of you in the years to come of continuing this journey of bringing forward our First Nations people, our Indigenous voices and knowledges in the international stage. Thank you.

Thank you, Ambassador Mohamed. Many of us in other countries have looked at your position with some envy, wishing that we had a First Nations or Indigenous Peoples ambassador. Thank you for sharing your reflections and the success of that model. With that, I would like to turn the floor to Dr. Sarah Olsvig. I'm speaking too quickly. We've been very eager for your comments from Kalaluit Nunaa, and I will give you the floor.

First of all, thank you for gathering us here on Manahatta, on the land of the Lenape people. Yes, it is indeed a special time for us in Greenland, and it's also a special feeling to travel to the US. I just came from Alaska, where I visited a fellow Inuit, in Anchorage and in Kotzebue, again being confirmed as an indigenous people living across our homelands that stretch from Greenland to Canada to Alaska and to Chukotka, Russia. We have been divided by state borders and militarization. And I want to give some insights to some of the more recent years of development in our diplomacy and our leadership as Inuit and indigenous peoples of the Arctic in establishing the governance bodies and the cooperative bodies we have among states and indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Bodies that are today at risk, and I'll give some insights to that. But first of all, of course, as we've heard already, the self-determination is an inherent right. that is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other rights. That is something that we have not just seen and felt in Kalaallit Nunaat, but across Inuit Nunat. And we have been through decades and decades building the self-government arrangements that we have today, changing the landscape of governance in our whole region, in the whole Arctic. Our rights are of course interdependent, interrelated and indivisible. And that is one thing that I think we often forget to talk about. How our rights are not just affirmed in the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, but throughout the human rights instruments that exist. And I think it was very eloquently stated by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, not least in your recent report on the recognition of indigenous peoples, which we have actively referred to when making it clear that our rights are, of course, universal and legally binding. So in our region, the Arctic, we live in four very, very different nation states. And in spite of what we've been through in terms of colonization, in terms of militarization and being divided by the state borders that occurred and were established by those who came from the south into our homelands many years ago, we have insisted on working together across those state borders. And up through the Cold War, especially, we as Inuit reestablished our ties, reestablished Our sense of unity across these state borders, when I speak to Inuit in where I was ice fishing day before yesterday, we understand each other. We speak the same language, the Inuit in Alaska. When I hear words from Yupik Inuit in Chukotka, they are the same words that we use in Gullaklit Nunat. And those ties we have been now spending nearly five decades strengthening, reestablishing, being the united voice of Inuit on the international arena. So this started already during the Cold War. And our people came a decade before the very famous speech by the then Soviet Union leader Gorbachev when he talked about the Arctic as a zone of peace. This was something our people had already been pushing for and of course that had been heard by states. So in 1977 we gathered as Inuit calling for us to be united also across to the then Soviet Union and in 1987 we heard the speech by Mr. Gorbachev. In 1996, after the end of the Cold War, the Arctic Council was established, a historic and unique body for cooperation across states and indigenous peoples. A body where eight Arctic states sit together with six indigenous peoples organizations based on consensus and decision making, working through six working groups on matters that are so dear and near to us. the sustainable development of our communities, pollution, climate change, environmental issues that we need to work together on because they will not stop at the state border to ensure that we can continue to live and not just survive, but thrive in our own homelands. Today, our preeminent body for cooperation is at risk. It is at risk not just because of one state, but because of the world development we are seeing in these years. And as it was already said in the panel, we are in an era where legally binding instruments can only get us so far as more and more states are backing out of the support of these instruments. And therefore it is the time where we must walk ahead and be the front runners once again in ensuring that our regions are peaceful, Our region, the Arctic, is peaceful and that we can cooperate across those state borders. From the Inuit Circumpolar Council, we've said it again and again in the past two years, as we've seen an increased interest by certain states in our region and in Greenland especially. There is simply no such thing as a better colonizer. And we must be the ones to insist on a dignified cooperation. on indigenous people's leadership again paving the way for diplomatic cooperation across our differences and set in a different way like we did in the 70s. We must focus on those things that bind us together rather than those things that divide us. So I will end my remarks again by reminding everyone that indigenous peoples have led the way before and we are capable of doing that again. And therefore, the multilateral systems must include indigenous peoples at the table. We bring to the table a different perspective and a different way of governing that states seem to have forgotten. So I hope that this will be the starting point. of a world where we can learn from the mistakes of the past, but we can also learn from the good examples of how indigenous peoples have taken leadership throughout history.

Thank you, Dr. Ulssvig, for joining us from the Arctic and sharing these perspectives on Greenland and beyond. With that, I would like to turn the floor to Dean Lalita Buckner-Innes for some commentary on the panel.

And thank you to all of our esteemed speakers, and a special thanks to all of the audience here. This has been a remarkably rich convening. Our speakers have brought perspectives from around the globe, the Arctic, the African continent, the Pacific, Latin America, and North America. addressing historic treaty obligations, emerging trade networks, land rights, and the protection of intangible cultural properties, each contribution has been illuminating and deeply, deeply consequential. Despite all of the incredible things that were said here so far, I was particularly struck by the questions raised concerning indigenous peoples' political participation in domestic systems and international disputes. I think it goes without saying that colonial legacies continue to exclude indigenous peoples in far too many countries and remains the obligations of this generation and the generations ahead to ensure that all peoples are fairly represented in modern democracies and have a meaningful voice in international matters affecting them. I also want to note here a common theme that I heard from all of the speakers, and that theme had to do with health and well-being. This relates very much to some of the initial comments of Dr. Biruma. And Dr. Biruma, you noted that there is a significant analogy between self-determination for indigenous people and the human right to life. And I think that that is an analogy that really is at the core of so much of what we've been discussing here. I think it's also notable that when we talk about the human right to life, we often tend towards what I think is part of the colonialist legacy to think only of the individual when we talk about rights bearing, and instead we should look more towards the collective rights of indigenous people. I think we have to understand that self-determination and individual rights, individual human rights, the right to well-being, the right to health, those are deeply embedded and part of one another. Also essential to our discussion were conflicts regarding so much that's happening in the world. And whatever the origins, these conflicts fall with particular severity upon indigenous peoples, disrupting their lands, their homes, their families, and their lives. Our speakers have made a compelling case for recognizing so much of what is going on with indigenous people and seeing them as especially vulnerable in situations involving force or the threat of force. And equally for recognizing indigenous people's potential as partners in the peaceful resolution of conflict and advancing multilateralism. I want to pause here for a moment to offer thanks to Professor Kristen Carpenter, who heads much of this work at the University of Colorado Law School. Professor Carpenter, I have been deeply, deeply honored to serve as your dean. And while I am the titular head of the institution, I think it goes without saying that so much of the important work in this sector is advanced by your work and the work of your team. Thank you so much. I also want to specially acknowledge Dr. Albert Berume. who has made the University of Colorado his academic home here in the United States. We are so honored by his leadership and so grateful for his engagement with our students and our faculty in the study and the application of human rights law. And finally, I want to offer sincere thanks to our partners at the Native American Rights Fund. The implementation project, uniting academic research with legal advocacy in the field of indigenous people's rights, reflects the very best of what collaboration in this space can achieve. And again, I will end on a note referenced by Dr. Barume and about what sometimes feel like the decreasing importance of international law and legal norms in general. Yes, I do think, Dr. Barume, we need to be more transactional, but as I say to the students, law still matters. And I think that we want to be in a space where indigenous peoples can, yes, be transactional, but they can also wield the law in support of their rights. And with that, I will turn to Ms. Zunoe.

Thank you, Dean Ennis. Thank you so much for your remarks and thank you to Kristin and to all our distinguished speakers today. It's truly an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to partner with Kristen and with Colorado Law in the work of the implementation project, including offering tremendous panels like this one today. So thank you to all of you. I wanted to highlight just a few points that really stood out for me in the discussion. You know, we heard about the fundamental and essential nature of self-determination, as well as its various forms of expression, including various examples of practical exercise of self-determination in current circumstances in various regions around the world represented on the panel today. But some of the points that were highlighted are protection of lands and territories in the face of high demand due to the global factors that the special rapporteur identified and the conflict that arises from that. The preservation of indigenous identity, dignity, spirituality, and relationship with the natural environment, language revitalization, and self-determined forms of education and knowledge and cultural transmission. indigenous systems of self-governance and justice administration, providing health care services and building health care systems and community-based administration of other essential services. We've also heard about the interconnection and mutually reinforcing nature of the exercise of self-determination and engagement in indigenous diplomacy, highlighting the unique nature of indigenous diplomacy rooted in values of relationship, including with the natural environment, of course, respect and reciprocity. In this sense, indigenous peoples redefining or shaping modern diplomacy rather than seeking to conform and adapt to the existing systems. And we also heard about the various forms of indigenous diplomacy and exercise of self-determination, the forms that this can take, the Cherokee Nation and exercise of self-determination in its government-to-government relationship with the United States, intra-indigenous diplomacy with indigenous communities, such as in transboundary context, coming together to collectively resolve common issues and promote peace. of course, Dr. Barume's analysis of the role indigenous peoples can play in working together with states to promote peaceful resolutions to international conflicts, making states more aware of this reality. And then also importantly, in the negotiation and administration of international instruments, I think for me, a really critical part of all this are the requisites for indigenous diplomacy. And this was touched on the legal authority to be able to participate, to have a seat at the table, but more than this to affect the decision making. It can't just be participating as observers in member state driven processes. Indigenous peoples must participate as rights holders. And this is something that absolutely is an issue all the time, not stakeholders, rights holders, and as governments. And then also, in addition to legal authority, the resources needed to support Indigenous participation. So the need for the UN Voluntary Fund and other funding and support to enable Indigenous peoples meaningful and impactful participation commensurate with the right of self-determination and all the other rights articulated in the UN declaration and other international instruments. So we also have the example of the governments like Australia embedding indigenous representation in its foreign policy and diplomacy as a nation state. And we know here in the US, the National Congress of American Indians, I think as Kristen was alluding to earlier, has likewise called on the US government to establish an ambassador level position. So that's something that we can continue working toward to further strengthen and support indigenous diplomacy and self-determination. Do we have time for Q&A?

We have time for at least one queue.

Okay. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Okay. We are short on time, but I'm so glad to hear that we do have time for one question. So I'd ask someone to, the person to introduce Heidi, introduce yourself and provide your brief question, please.

Hi, my name is Heidi Totocini. Thank you for being here today. I'm a member of the Navajo Nation and I'm an attorney. And so I know we're running close on time, so I just want to ask a question just. Recently, I had the opportunity to attend the international treaty negotiations at the World Intellectual Property Organization, where the Indigenous Caucus was working together to accomplish common goals in treaty negotiations, which oftentimes go against longstanding laws and the US federal trust responsibility. which I assume is maybe similar in other countries as well. And so Dr. Barume and Ambassador Mohamed, I was just wondering if you could discuss examples of opportunities for indigenous peoples to work together when facing state opposition or how you see indigenous diplomacy reshaping maybe state relations in the future.

I will quickly go and hand over to the expert. I would say, and just as a quick answer, is we have seen over in the time that I have been in this role that the growth of the depth of expertise that we have as Indigenous peoples in particular specialised areas However, most of these people are spread right across the globe. And I saw this over in Osaka at the World Expo, we were talking about this and I sat on this panel and there was all these indigenous IP lawyers from all these different countries that if you've all got together, imagine the power behind that. So I think there's a way that we've got to I think technology may help us with this, but how do we bring our experts, our indigenous experts together to kind of learn from each other, provide that support, speak at a language which they can, you know, that they understand and be able to bring that back and to tie that in with many of our states, our member states, we would say as government of Australia that we've got good relationships with like-mindeds. that we can then take that back and then work with our indigenous people to start talking to our states and then hopefully together with some soft diplomacy move these difficult sensitive issues forward where there is conservative approaches from different parts of the economy in this particular case. But I think our depth of our expertise of indigenous people globally combined together is something we've got to work how we bring that together outside of probably forums like this, but more as indigenous to indigenous, but with a particular focus on those expertise.

Thank you.

And I also think that following what the ambassador was saying, that Again, the case of Greenland. We've seen how middle powers, small powers, indigenous peoples from all over the world have aligned themselves with Greenland and our call for international law, territorial integrity and human rights to be upheld. And that really is something that gives us hope in the sense that many middle powers and smaller powers together they form great power. And so I think we are not hopeless in that sense. But what we need to inform all those powers of state powers is that the example of the Arctic is also that decisions taken by us through the self-government arrangements we have today shape the policies of the states. So you cannot not engage with us in order for any development in our region to be legitimate. And I think that has really been galvanized in the way that mass media has portrayed the US interest in Greenland. The narrative has been that Denmark could sell Greenland. It cannot because we are self-determining. And we take our own decisions on whether to mine or not to mine, whether to build a deep sea port or not to build a deep sea port. And so therefore, the narrative created by mass media or international mainstream media has also displayed a gap in knowledge and recognition of how self-government systems already exist in ways that makes it inevitable for external entities to work with us in equal partnerships. And that's something I think we should address more.

To comment on really, maybe I shouldn't have said something because Sarah thinks she really covered, but just the one point is there is an opportunity. I do share that the current global system and the early sign that the middle powers might regroup and seek a new international order offers an opportunity. That's my first point, as Sarah said. My second point is, and that's what I'm trying to put across, is actually if that opens, indigenous people can really show that there is a value in the right to self-determination. There is a real value for state in indigenous people right to self-determination. And we can demonstrate, and actually Greenland is a demonstration because it is the right to self-determination of Inuit people that actually strengthens the Danish government position. If it wasn't for that right, I think whoever wanted to take it would have taken it. So Israel is really valid and it's a coincidence that that right to self-determination of indigenous people, state have been blind, unable to see in it and see value in it. Thank you.

Of you who've joined us today. With that, we'll conclude our panel and wish you all a really wonderful rest of the forum session. Thank you.