PERMIT me to refer to an article in the Stabroek News in its issue of Monday June 17, 2013 under the caption ‘Amerindian Association denies claims carried by Chronicle’.
Permit me to state the following:

** 1. In relation to this anti-national group calling itself the Amerindian Peoples Liberation Front (APLF),the APA claims that its vice-president Tony James “is not a member of this group and neither is the association connected with it.” The APA further said that “the group (APLF) also has a Facebook page which boasts a number of posts referring to James.”
But isn’t this a blatant contradiction

of James’s non-connection with this ghastly cabal (APLF)? The ‘APLF’ claims to have four “commanders” who are given indigenous call-names. The “Commander” for Southern Guyana is “Commander Kokoi”. Who is Commander Kokoi of Southern Guyana? Very soon the residents of Southern Guyana will uproot this person from his rat hole and have him exposed.

** 2. The APA said that James “has long been a defender of the rights of the indigenous peoples of Guyana and he has vowed to continue to do so until the rights of our peoples are fully recognised and respected”. Well, even a child knows that the rights of Guyana’s indigenous peoples are   respected and upheld. The Constitution of Guyana, the supreme law of the land and the Amerindian Act 2006 provide for the safeguarding of indigenous peoples’ rights. Is James therefore a defender of something that does not exist? Is James a dreamer?

** 3. The Amerindian Act 2006 provides for the self-determination of Guyana’s indigenous peoples under the law where indigenous peoples have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs. Who on earth can deny this? What I think is happening in Guyana is that the rights of our indigenous peoples are being taken advantage of  by extremist cabals such as the so-called ‘APLF’ which needs to be hunted down and gotten-rid of as quickly as possible.

** 4. But James is not alone in the so-called struggles in the deep south, where some residents took protest action because they were not included in the distribution of mining lands to conduct mining activities which had nothing to do with Amerindian land issues as the APA claims. In fact, the communities of South Rupununi have had their lands titled and demarcated where some are part of the Amerindian Land Titling project. The problem with the APA is its ignorance about the State Lands Act, which does not address ‘Territorial Titles’  to land which it is currently promoting and at the same time misleading the Amerindian communities in Guyana.

**5. The APA claims that it respects article 46 (1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which rejects any activity by any person, state or group designed to violate the territorial integrity of independent states. But what is unfortunate about the APA’s claim is its deliberate silence on article 46 (2) of UNDRIP which states that, “in the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present declaration, Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected.”

Further, paragraph 17 of  UNDRIP states: “Bearing in mind that nothing in this declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self-determination, exercised in conformity with International Law”. Basically, what the UNDRIP is telling us as indigenous rights activists in Guyana is that in our activism we have to respect the rights and freedoms of others in our multi-cultural society.

** 6. In conclusion Mr. Editor, the APA must know that while the UNDRIP is a standard of achievement it must be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect (24th paragraph of UNDRIP).

This means that as indigenous organisations we all have to work in partnership with government and other key players and not on our own to bring about the achievement of UNDRIP.

I hope that the APA has learnt a lesson on UNDRIP.