>> From the Library of Congress in Washington DC. >> Carla Davis-Castro: Welcome to the Library of Congress and our celebration of Native American Heritage month. Our committee is pleased to have two impactful speakers with us today, which we will be filming. We would like to thank our sponsor, the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Programs, and our sponsor and host, the Law Library of Congress for supporting this event. Please take some time, if you haven't already, to see some of the items that we have on display. We have some items from geography and maps division and we also have some materials from the Law Library of Congress relating to the Seminole Tribe. And to get us started, we're going to watch just a short, introductory video about the work of the Indian Law Resource Center. [ Music Playing ] >> These are the core beliefs of the Indian Law Resource Center. For more than 30 years, the Center has been a global force, challenging and building legal frameworks, to enhance the lives of indigenous peoples. One of the major causes of the economic and social ills within native communities is the unfair legal rules that apply only to native peoples in the United States. We have taken on cases on behalf of the Timbisha Shoshone, and the Mohawk Nations, and others with the goal of changing some of these laws. We also seek to strengthen sovereignty rights so that tribes can better protect their people. This is more critical now than ever. >> One in three native women will be raped in her lifetime and three out of five will be physically assaulted. The center's hallmark work is related to the United Nation's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. >> Robert T. Coulter: We wanted to be sure, and we wanted to establish legal rules that would make it clear that indigenous peoples really do own their land. They really do have full and complete legal rights to those lands. But they have rights that can be protected in the courts. Rights that are protected by definite rules of law that can't just be thrown out or ignored by courts or countries and their governments. >> The declaration was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. >> President Barack Obama: And as you know, in April, we announced that we were reviewing our position on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And today, I can announce that the United States is lending its support to this declaration. >> This is just a snapshot of the work coming out of both the Helena, Montana and Washington DC offices. We at the Indian Law Resource Center are experts in Indian law, working to protect and preserve indigenous peoples and their communities. Our ultimate goal is to make positive contributions that will have lasting effects. Visit www.indianlaw.org. >> Carla Davis-Castro: Our speakers today are Armstrong A. Wiggins, the director of the Indian Law Resource Center, Washington DC office. Born in Nicaragua, Mr. Wiggins is a Moskito Indian from the village of Karata in Nicaragua. He was the founder of the Indian organization called [foreign language], and was the coordinator of municipal affairs of the east coast for the government of Nicaragua. He was also the national representative of the regional Indian organization [foreign language]. Mr. Wiggins was arrested twice during both the Somoza and the Sandinista regimes and became a political prisoner because of his work to promote human rights for his people in Nicaragua. In 1981, Mr. Wiggins was forced into exile. It was at this time that he began working for the Center as the director of its Central and South America program. For the past 20 years, he has worked on numerous human rights cases involving indigenous peoples, including the Yano Nami in Brazil, the case against Nicaragua in the inter-American commission on human rights in 1984, which led to changes in the constitution of Nicaragua for the recognition of indigenous rights and the creation of autonomous indigenous regions in Nicaragua. He worked on the case for the Maya in Belize. Mr. Wiggins played a leading role in the precedent setting [foreign language] in the Inter-American System. And he has also played a critical role in the Center's standard setting work with the United Nations and the organization of American States, particularly regarding the Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He currently supervises the works of the Center dealing with human rights, standards setting, and multi-lateral development banks. Leonardo Crippa is an international law scholar and practitioner. He holds a JD from the National University of Tucuman in Argentina, and an LLM from American University. As the Center for Justice and International Law's staff attorney, he litigated several human rights cases within the Inter-American Human Right's System. In his current work as the senior attorney of the Indian Law Resource Center, he analyzes multi-lateral development bank's policies, and continues to practice international law within the United Nations and the Inter-American Human Rights System. He is also the author of papers on constitutional law, international law, and multi-lateral development bank's policies. They will be interviewed by Carrie Newton Lyons, section research manager and legislative attorney of the American Law Division in the Congressional Research Service here at the library. She is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. Carrie, take it away. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Thank you. I'd like to first thank everybody for coming out today and supporting us for Native American Heritage Month. We really appreciate your taking time today to come and join us. And we have two fabulous guests with us. And thank you both for coming out. We are very honored to have you today. And I'm just going to jump right in with the questions right now. So first-- I also have to do a disclaimer though that any views expressed by me are my own and are not official representative of Congressional Research Service. So let me get to the question. So can you tell us, generally, about the work that you do at the Indian Law Resource Center, and a little bit more about the structure and how the organization came to be? >> Armstrong Wiggins: The Indian Resource Center is founded by Robert T. Coulter. He's a Potowatomi person. He's also a judge in this community. He represents his nation to the organization of American States and the United Nations. Tim went to Columbia Law School and, from law school, he realized that one of the biggest challenges that indigenous peoples faced was the very lack of law that indigenous people understand. And the law was very discriminatory against indigenous people. We're talking about the European legal system that came to the Americas that indigenous people had a hard time understanding. >> Could you speak up? >> Armstrong Wiggins: We're talking about the laws that came from Europe. Indigenous peoples had a hard time fighting against that system. In the past, they can understand their struggle between the cowboys and Indians. And you know that most of the time that cowboys were the good guys, Indians was the bad guys. And so that was a very heavy challenge. And when the legal system come, and very, very racist legal system against the Indian government that existed in this continent, it was very hard. First, because they don't understand the language, they don't speak English. And so it was very discriminatory. So after Tim went to law school and came out, he decided that he needs to form the Indian Law Resource Center to represent traditional Indian governments against the Washington influence of how to destroy Indian way of thinking, Indian philosophy, Indian way of looking issues. And so they gave lots of money to Bureau of Indian Affairs to destroy traditional Indian governments. And you know what happened. History will tell you what happened to indigenous people from this terrible legal thinking. And so Tim wanted to create Indian Law Resource Center so that we can represent them for free. Because lawyers were one of our Indian worst enemy. Because they were represent them, and then, if they do win a case, they owe the lawyer more than what they were supposed to pay. And so they didn't get any benefit from it. So the Indian Law Resource Center is a non-profit office that we don't charge our clients. We find our own money to represent native people. The other interesting thing is that we do not accept government money. We raise our private money from foundations, individuals to represent Indian governments. We do not individual, we represent collective governments. So that's how Indian Law Resource Center was created and founded in 1978. Since then, we've been there. We settle in Washington DC at the Eastern Market area, because we're close to the Library of Congress. In the old days, we used to come here a lot. We used to get to know everybody at the legal stop. Now, don't you don't see me anymore because of internet. [ Laughing ] But now we don't come. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right. >> Armstrong Wiggins: So that's the Indian Law Resource Center. So then Tim decided to move to Helena, Montana because there are more indigenous peoples there so then work with them closer. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And so the office is-- the Washington DC office deals with the Hill here, the Congress, the White House, the OAS, the Organization of American States because you have the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court, and the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. All this has to with policy affecting indigenous people. Because the bad economic policy also affect indigenous people, to take away their land and their resources. And a lot of people still believe that we're against development. We are not against development. We are against the kind of development that the capitalist system bring to the inter-indigenous community that take away their land. So we believe in sustainable economic development. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, right. Leo, do you have anything to add? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Yes. I have something to add. Despite the fact that [inaudible] I found the Center is unique in the way it presents tribes, communities, because the way the Center handles the cases, it's a very long process, through which the Center attorneys will, basically, sit down with the communities who they are attempting to represent. They will assess their-- yes. The attorneys will assess their legal means, the aspirations of their communities. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh, thank you. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: The legal systems of the country, with the local council that the community will select in the country. We will build a legal strategy. And that works. We, basically, translate into political strategy, the political aspiration of the community based on international laws, especially human rights law. That's unique. I've done that over here in the Center, and I work with [inaudible] another organization that also handles cases internationally. But the Center is unique in that way of working with the communities from the very beginning and building the legal strategy from the bottom. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Well, this leads-- oh yes. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And I want to-- I want to add to that because that is very important to understand what we do is the political leader's speeches is very important to us. When you are thinking about environmental issue, when you thinking about land rights issue, when you thinking about how we live collectively for generations, in this continent. So we take that. We listen to them, and we turn the project, their political speeches, into a legal project to educate what collective rights mean, what land surface or surface mean to them, as compared to Europeans, what they mean. What individual rights verses collective rights mean. You know that European doesn't believe in collective rights. Everything is individual rights. We do not really believe that. We also believe that their human rights is collective and individual rights. You live with community. You live with your village. And you protect your village people, not just you, individual. And that's where unfairness come. That's where, when people become rich, rich, and then you have poor, poor. You don't have that collectivity way of sharing your resources that you have, your land resources, whether it's gold, whatever. So that is why our way of thinking educate the legal system in the United States. And that's what we call law reform. Law reform is very important. And that's how Indian Law Resource Center challenge the legal system in the United States, and challenge university law schools. Because we believe lawyers have very influential position in our society in this country. Lawyers become president. Lawyers become senators, most of them. Lawyers become judges, from Supreme Court right down. And if they don't understand our way of thinking and the legal way of indigenous people look at their issues, their political issues, then, that's where discrimination comes, sometimes by ignorance, not understanding the power issue. So that's why the legal project. And one thing is very important. We don't tell our clients what to do. They tell us what to do. Because in the past, lawyers will tell them how they should think, how they should do things. We want them to tell us. They're our boss. So that's how we create a legal policy to help indigenous people basic human rights. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Speaking of law reform and cases, Leo, can you tell us about some of the most interesting, or maybe the most challenging cases you've had? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Sure. I'll tell about the most challenging one first. That was the Rapa Nui Case. Rapa Nui's the native of, basically, Easter Island. An island part of the Polynesian Triangle on the Pacific Ocean. >> Could you speak up again? I couldn't hear what that was. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Rapa Nui? It's an island in the Pacific Ocean. And the native people there are called Rapa Nui too. And so the case-- but we actually didn't have a case, but we got the request from the Rapa Nui parliament. The request, basically, helped them secure their lands-- regain control over their lands. Because, in the early '90's, the Chilean government, they moved them from their traditional lands to a concentration camp in the island called Hanga Roa. And in 1966, for the very first time, they were, basically, released and were able to walk free in their own island. They became, for the very first time, citizens of Chile. And so it was around 2009, we received this request. We had never heard about them. I was on vacation in Argentina and they decided to put me in a plane and send to me to Chile because it was a short flight. >> Carrie N. Lyons: So your vacation was cut short? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Yeah. >> Carrie N. Lyons: OK. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: That's why I remember. And so, basically, in landed in this island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a very small one, with the population of about 5,000 people, around 4,000 were natives, Rapa Nui. All of them speak the language. They're Polynesian. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Leo, can you speak up a little bit for the people in the far back? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: And they decided to go back to their official lands. In the past there were 18 traditional lands. And so they plans to go back. What they found, in some cases, were public offices, in other cases, business. And their own clan in that area started to [inaudible]. And so they were in the middle of that action when I landed there. And it was challenging because I had to assess, as I said, what were their legal means? How did Indian Law Resource Center from Washington or Helena, Montana could assist them? And I found myself visiting each of the areas having reoccupied by the Rapa Nui families and clans. I knew that Chile was going to react violently, because there's a history of how Chile, they interacts with the Mapuche people in the south of Chile. And so, basically, after a week of being there, I flew back to Washington DC, reported back to Armstrong and Tim what I was able to learn, reported about three actions that we could take. One was immediate. We had to secure the extra measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights here in Washington DC so that preventative actions could be ordered to Chile so the government of Chile would not, basically, act violently against the people of Rapa Nui. That was around October. The second action was, basically, recover a very important Moai. Some of you may know-- have heard about the Moai. It plays a very important role in the Rapa Nui culture, in Rapa Nui sense, a traditional occupation of each of the clans. And you will find statues like this all over the island. They are based on a rectangular base that is called ahu. And that's where the ancestors of each of the families are buried. I didn't believe that until they started to show me what was below. And so the second action was, basically, try to cover from the [inaudible] one of the most important Moai that was removed from the island. It was being shown there. And the third one, which was the most complex one, is the determination because it is an [inaudible] of Chile. And so the first one was challenging. I had to represent about 4,000 people. They never took a legal action against Chile. They prepared for the very first time from us. So I started to get the power of attorneys from each of the clans. And I ended up filing a request for precautionary measures with the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights here in DC. After two months of legal debates, with regard of Chile, the Commission decided to grant those protective measures. By the time it was granted, the entire island was already militarized. There were Special Forces. And, I'll never forget this, on December the 3rd of 2009, there was a huge operation against each of the families. And most of them were removed violently. And there were shots, people lost their eyes, and so forth. Unfortunately, the precautionary measures were granted afterwards. So I wasn't able to prevent that. And it was very violent situation. But in the end, the armed forces were moved back to continental Chile. The government was forced to have a dialogue with the traditional Rapa Nui authorities for the purpose of discussing the issues of their main concern. That happened for over four years. And so I stopped the violence in the end, but I wasn't able to stop the most bad operation that happened against them. And so that was very challenging to me. The most interesting one case that I have right now is against Guatemala to report Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It is represented a small Maya Q'eqchi' community in the northern part of [inaudible]. And it's a case where this community has been under a land-titling program for more than four years without getting the final title because of irregularities in the land surveys and the land-- >> Carrie N. Lyons: So they're supposed to get the land, but they haven't actually gotten it yet. OK. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: And, in the meantime, the Ministry of Mining has issued permits to a private mining company to explore and exploit legal on the land belonging to this one community. And so our lawsuit against the land titling agency. We never thought we were going to win, but we won that case. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh, good. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: And after two years with non-process, unfortunately, the government [inaudible] is not enforcing this court decision and so we were, basically, we had to sue the government for Maya before the Inter-American Commission. And this is now an international case. We are seeking the international responsibility of Guatemala because of the violation of these community's right of property over the lands that they possess. And it is now in the responsibility stage. We won that stage. The commission has released the responsibility report saying that we fulfilled all the requirements set for the in American Commission and Human Rights in May, Human Rights Treaty, ratified by Guatemala. And now we are discussing the merits. And it's very interesting because it touches the very structure on how lands are taken away from indigenous communities, based on how prevalent the land survey and [inaudible] system works in Guatemala. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh, so it seems like whenever you do take up cases, that it's a long-term commitment. And, you know, some of these cases can take quite a while before they are ever resolved. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Yeah, I remember that Leo came in later, but Indian Law Resource Center biggest challenge-- I mean, first of all, I'm a trained electrical engineer for my first career. I never dreamed to be speaking to you on legal and human rights issues. Because we used to-- and my specialty was in antennae. I was supposed to be an astronaut, right? That was my interest, you know, an electrical engineer, pilot, go to Cape Kennedy, and go up. But my people, the Moskito people called me back to come home. And that's how I get involved in politics and end up in jail twice. And I think one of the things that very challenging from Indian Law Resource Center perspective was to change things. And I guess that's what happened between us, the Indian Law Resource Center. I think that one of the thing that is very important is to work so close with our leaders, our people. And work with them and do the work that we need to do. And so our big, big, big first challenges was in Nicaragua because of the cold war. And I'm sure all of you know that. That divided us in Nicaragua, divided Americans here because of Reagan administration verses the Sandinista government, the contras, and the human rights was divided. And I was in the middle of it here, because I came out of jail here. And I challenged Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, Senator Dole, everybody that there was not black and white in Central America. There was indigenous people in the middle of that black and white, left and right. And so a lot of people didn't take side. And I'm sure today, in Washington, you will see what's going on. During the 80's, something was going on like that too. They divide the family, everybody was divided because of taking side. And Indian Law Resource Center was in the middle of that challenges. And from that challenges, we have, now, in Nicaragua, autonomous government with indigenous people. We have special system that was set up. And our constitution was improved. Because I bring cases against Sandinista government that changed the Nicaraguan constitution in 1987, and more progressive towards indigenous people. We brought a legal case against Yanomami case in Brazil. That now Yanomami have a Yanomami park in Brazil. These were uncontacted people that we represented. I went in there, in their community. That you have to deal with them to get their land rights. Now they have the Yanomami Park in Brazil, one of the biggest land, kind of, rights issue that happened in Brazil after the Kayopi in Brazil. Then we bring the case against Belize, the Mayan people. Now they have their land rights approved by Belize Supreme Court, recognized by the regional court in the Caribbean. It leads the Mayan people. Now they have their land rights. And then we have the biggest one was Stanley vs. Nicaragua, which is now the international community recognized indigenous people land throughout the Inter-American system. And so those are some of the challenges that we faced. And we struggled through that. And get support from the international community. And the other challenge was to create international development, international standard, international declaration. Which, this is the United Nation declaration. And this is the American declaration on rights of indigenous people that was just adopted last year, in the general assembly of the [inaudible]. So all this is here if you people want to read what these declaration. >> Carrie N. Lyons: I think they're out-- outside. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Outside. And so, this is what Leo was talking about just not too long ago. So we face a lot of challenges ahead of us still. And you see from even from yesterday at the White House, we still faces a lot of discrimination, a lot of struggle that we need to overcome regarding our people rights. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Can you tell us about some of your experiences working with tribal governments in the United States on VAWA. Because that's a bit of a success story. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Yes, that's VAWA is a big success story, but it's ongoing. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Yeah. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And a lot of challenges that we face in the United States because, as you know, VAWA was first introduced by Senator Biden in 1994. And they went through a lot of process till 2013, VAWA was approved. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, so VAWA is the Violence Against Women Act. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Violence Against Women Act, yes. 1994 and 2013. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, reauthorization in 2013, yeah. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And so as we speak here in Indian Law Resource Center, my stop is in Alaska meeting with Alaska native women organization that federal government just give them $1 million to work on their human rights issues. And that we're working how to implement both. So we're having workshop now as we speak in Alaska, talking about how to implement VAWA. Some of the challenges that we face has to do with economic aspect of it. For example, because of the jurisdiction issues between the non-Indian legal system verses the Indian legal system and how that can be worked out and negotiated. Who is going to pay for those expenses? And so it's an ongoing thing. But one of the thing that we feel very good is that we have a lot of good women, native women, leading this fight. And I can name many of them, Terry Henry, you know, others who are leading this fight nationally. And so we are just supporting them, and now working with them, helping them fundraising. A general worker from our office is the head of one of our senior lawyer from Basin, Montana, she's leading this work with Chris Foley [phonetic spelling]. And we have Karla General in our office here in DC. She just went back to work for her government in Six Nations Territory. But these are wonderful people fighting for this totally implement VAWA. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, right, great. I know you also did some work with the Seminoles in Florida and gave them the opportunity to buy back some land. Could you tell us about that? >> Armstrong Wiggins: Yes, Seminole, these are, you know, there's two group of Seminoles. One is the traditional Seminoles, and the other one that is more successful one, they have casinos. They have protect. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Hard rock, right? >> Armstrong Wiggins: We have Seminoles, I think that was one of my interesting experience. Because they don't believe in compromising. They believe that they need to be left alone. They want to have their own traditional ceremonies. And they lost land and so they used to borrow land from citrus growers in Florida, to do their green dance ceremonies. And so they look to us for help, how to get land that they lost to have their traditional and then their homes, to build their homes the way they want, tipis, basically. And so we represented them. And I think that was very difficult from my experience, because they won't compromise. In other words, it's hard to negotiate between non-Indian verses them. But we were lucky to go outside of Florida to look for help. I don't know if you heard about land foundation? It's based in Santa Fe, New Mexico. It's a very rich family. Patrick Lannan, one day, knocked at my door here in DC and said, in a blue jean, you know, dressed like somebody that don't have money. And he said, I am Patrick Lannan and I want to talk to you guys about how we can help. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Help the Seminoles. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Not only the Seminoles, Indian Law Resource Center. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh. >> Armstrong Wiggins: We are interested in education. We want to help tribal government, technical schools. We want to get them money. And so I'm here. I heard about you guys and we want to talk. And that's how we started. And Patrick Lannan paid for this huge land in Florida for the Seminoles, $1.5 million. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Wow. >> Armstrong Wiggins: From the citrus growers that they used to do their ceremonies. And so now they have a land that is not only the Seminole have a land to do their traditional work, but this land will be protected environmentally. This land, they have bald eagles, they have alligators, and there's not in that destructive way of development. And then the other fight we had with the state of Florida was the Tipis. Because they wanted to build their own homes. And because of rules of building codes, the Florida government said, no. so we tried to get, you know, all the newspaper on our side to make, you know, kind of challenge the state. And state finally give in and let them build their own typical homes to have their own traditional ceremonies. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Wow. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And so that's a great story. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Now, that's a success story, yeah. >> Armstrong Wiggins: And the other day I was riding the-- I ride the metro from Washington, from Virginia to DC. And there were some native kids, high school kids. And they were laughing and joking. And they come and sit by me and start talking to me. And I said, where you from? And he said, I'm a Seminole from Florida. We're visiting Washington. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Wow. >> Armstrong Wiggins: I said, do you know Uncle Billy? That's my uncle! >> Carrie N. Lyons: Wow. >> Armstrong Wiggins: How do you know my uncle? Because I work with him. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Serendipity. >> Armstrong Wiggins: They were excited. A week later the uncle called me and said-- >> Carrie N. Lyons: Nice, very nice. Have there been any cases or issues that you wanted to take that you've been unable to take at the Center. >> Armstrong Wiggins: Oh, there's so many. If we have, like some-- if we get money from the government, the European government offered lots of money, but we don't accept it. Because sometimes there are conditions of why. There's so many cases, tenure land title is so important to us, legal rights to their land. And if you watch the world changing toward our issues, European begin to support Indian thinking about how to manage land, how to manage natural resources, and climate issues. And so land titling is very important so that indigenous people can manage their land. Protected area, how we protect our way from World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International and others, that only follow the money trail, especially USA. But when that money finished, they move back to [inaudible] City, or they move back to Roselyn, because they don't have money to stay there. So then the bad guys move in and destroy the environment. And they don't respect indigenous people land rights. They only work with the central government. And so that's the problem. If indigenous people managed those areas, those land like Bosawas Nicaragua, and many other people in Brazil, you know. Only the bone that fell from these environmental organization, they get money from USAID goes to the indigenous people. But then when they move out, indigenous people have to face the poacher, the people that cut their land and their territory. We would like to work for them in Brazil. We would like to work with them with the Brazilian banks. That is very, very bad against Indian land rights issues, take away Indian lands by building the highways and the dams and stuff like that. Do you know that the [Foreign Language], which is the Brazil bank, has more money than World Bank right now? And so they give very destructive development that is not good for indigenous people. So we try to work with educate these banks and develop legal mechanism to restrict indigenous people land rights. But we don't have all that money to do that. European are now beginning to give some money. They just created an institute in Stockholm about Indian land tenure issues. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh, wow. >> Armstrong Wiggins: But I don't know if it will go to the indigenous people. And that's the thing. There are a lot of discrimination about money given to indigenous people also. And because, you know, intermediaries. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, right. Leo, is there any case you wish you could have taken? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Most of the-- I mean, reason why we don't take a lot of cases is money, basically. We can't represent all the clients that we would like to. So we are very selective of the cases that we take, especially looking into the issues. If we take a case, we will, basically, gain reform in the politics of that country. That's the main reason. However, there are situations where we start looking to the case, documenting the facts, starting to interview local authorities about the issues that the indigenous communities are concerned. In the end, when we are about to take the legal action, and we have secured some resources, the issue is resolved. So no case, right? I can mention a few examples. One is the [inaudible] community. It's a [inaudible] community in the Peruvian Amazon, close to the border with Brazil. There was an interoceanic highway was going to be built with funds coming from both the Brazil Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank that will, basically, connect Brazil [inaudible] on the Brazil side with Pucullpa Peru. And will, basically, divide up the land where this community was located. And so we started to inquire where the funds were coming, the permits that these companies had to build that road. In the middle of that, the [inaudible] the head of this community started to talk to civil society, locally in Pucullpa, and there nationally in Lima, the capital of Peru. So we started to make some noise about it. And in the middle of that, the transportation authorities started to cancel all the permits. They basically redesigned the project, and as a result, they weren't going to divide up that community. And so we had no case to take. >> Carrie N. Lyons: OK. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: And there were some cases like that. But mainly it is a lack of resources. We are very selective about the cases, because we actually want to have a huge impact on the country. And we want one case to benefit not only our client, but also other communities that are the same legal and factual situation. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right. >> Armstrong Wiggins: The other thing that we would like to, is the new thinking between United States all the way to, probably, Argentina. That most of the coastal communities are indigenous land and resources. And now because of wind and new energy system, they're going to affect them in a different way in indigenous community without consulting with them, without indigenous people planning to take from these wind. They're going to set out for energy provide use. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Oh, like the wind farms, and-- yeah. >> Armstrong Wiggins: The benefit doesn't go to indigenous people. It goes to Walmart, it goes to, like in Mexico, it goes to Corona, the factory, the Corona beer company, and other big corporations. And so we've been to us to help in that. And Leo can talk about that too, in Mexico. What we just did was one of the biggest project in Latin America. But it's going to happen. Even in my territory, in Moskito coast, is where all the Atlantic coast is where the wind is. And it's Indian land. And so now Indian land has been challenged by governments. One of the good thing is that Indian Law Resource Center, because of the negotiating with all these states for over 30 years in Geneva, I was the founder of the UN declaration, beginning in 1977. Tim and I was there at the beginning. I remember when we woke up that morning, we couldn't get out to go to our meetings because the school bus came from all over Europe to see Indians, right? Because that was the first time we came to Europe, to attend the United Nation, 1977. The working group started in 1982. And the declaration was adopted in 2007. Imagine how long we negotiated. Especially with England was the most difficult thing because England didn't believe that individual rights is human rights, so they will not support us. And so we wanted consensus to be developed in the United Nation. And then the Organization of American States, renegotiated since 1989, to work on the declaration. And that is because Spain wanted to celebrate 500 years of discovery and wanted to give money to the OAS, and so they wanted to come up with something about indigenous people. And, you know, OAS was a good old boys place. No NGOs would participate. No Indians come there. Only them elected people. We said, no, we want to be part of that negotiation. And, as Canadian ambassador said it, that Indian people kicked the OAS door open, not only for indigenous people, but for civil society, and for NGOs, Non-Governmental Organization. And so, really, Indian Law Resource Center was advising their leaders, coming that and giving legal advice. And because of that, all member states, whether OAS or the UN, have a lot of respect for us, because we are very serious about these challenges and try to, kind of, be balanced and diplomatic about, you know, our rights. I am not just professional in the Indian Law Resource Center, I was Indian leader, you know. So I can also keep the lawyers in balance too. And from the scientific perspective, as an electrical engineer, you know. So we have a different view in this world when we face these issues. So it's very challenging. And I hope that our young people can also follow that in the future. We trying to train our young leaders. But it's very hard because of the economic aspect of Leo was talking about. Because, you know, a lot of young people, a lot of our interns or fellows that come to our office want to do what we do. They love excitement, but then they all left to federal government to pay back after they become lawyers or professionals. I want other professional, not just lawyers. But they have to pay back their-- >> Carrie N. Lyons: It's true. >> Armstrong Wiggins: So it's very hard to do human rights work, you know. And that's the challenges that we face too. >> Carrie N. Lyons: So, we have a few more minutes, and I wanted to open it up to questions, if anybody has any. So, yes, sir? >> Audience: According you, sir, over in Nicaragua, you cut out, according to use the Panama Canal, construct with huge Chinese companies. I want to hear your view about this canal construction. I'm sure the environmental destruction, and effecting indigenous peoples in the area. Could you give me your opinion about this? >> Armstrong Wiggins: Yes. Nicaragua government is now populist government. You know what populist government means. You have one here. But there, more dictators than here yet. Because they have check and balance here in the United States. I hope we don't lose that check and balances. I hope we hang on to that so we can challenge the executive branch. But in Nicaragua, they control all of the government branches, whether the legislative, the legal branches, and the military, the police, and control the election process also. And so they negotiated with this Chinese guy, individual guy, and they decided to pass this Law 84 that is very, very bad against indigenous people and peasants-- poor people. And then Nicaragua Lake, it is the biggest lake that have freshwater, and we have freshwater shark, and that freshwater species. Nicaragua Lake give water supply-- drinking water to Chontales, which is one of the biggest states. Or [foreign language]. And then Rivas, which is another big state that get drinking water. Can you imagine opening up a canal from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Then, when you go to the Atlantic, you're dealing with indigenous people, the Rama Indian and Creole, block communities that feel like they are also, like, indigenous. They live there. And they got to live for themselves, so a block community. Their land is also owned collectively, not individually. And all that is going to be affected. Can you imagine all the shark will die when saltwater comes in? And so everybody is fighting against that. And seems like the guy who's the individual, very rich individual, it looks like he lost a lot of money in the crisis in China with the stock market. And so it's kind of calmed down. We are hoping that Chinese government is not behind that. And we are hoping that because Panama Canal is just being renovated, make it wider, the big ship can pass. The reason they wanted to do it through Nicaragua is because Asian ships, some of them are huge, that couldn't go through Panama. So they wanted to build a canal bigger, through Nicaragua. But what happened is Nicaragua is wider, longer to cross, more expensive, and one of the biggest problem is, Nicaraguan government cannot protect from terrorist attack against a ship. So it has to be very powerful country to protect like how US protect Panama Canal. And it has to be China. But China is not that far, yet, to do say-so. We don't know because we understand the US is also pushing China not to do that. So it's on hold right now. But we don't know what can happen going forward. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Did you have a question? Yeah, yeah? >> Audience: [inaudible] for your presentation. For one, you have a very good insight about a problem, and you recognize it according to your efforts. But, on the other hand, I think you are saying you cannot have a resources to tackle individual cases. The problem is you allow them to divide individual then, eventually, you have a nation from them where they face all individual who want to donate, but they don't have the resource, because their land, their home, their estate, their income are all victimized. So eventually, you are going to have some kind of unjust influence by those big donors, maybe financial institution, maybe some NGO. They get their money from Chamber of Commerce, or lawyers. So I think, probably, eventually, you may have dues, but you may have a better [inaudible] and you've victimized all your people. So how you going to solve that, unless you try some effort? How do you connect with other good people whose civic organization may not be an NGO, may not be NAACP? But you must have somebody to work with you to solve the individual problem. Otherwise you are going to have vicious cycle. So I just want to know, would you be able to do some effort in that? Because that would be American problem that would be Indian problem too. >> Carrie N. Lyons: I'm not really sure of the question. >> What is the question, I don't know. >> Audience: That question is, can you be able to solve the individual problem based off of justice and fairness? You are talking about America have check and balance, but I don't think so. Because everything is controlled by those in bloody interest group. And the individual are not protected. So you are basing it on private donation that individual cases. If they don't want to donate, they don't have resources to donate because they are victimized. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, well, I think. >> Audience: -- donation, unless, I said, the big corporation or the financial institution who are working to victimize you even further. Maybe individually you don't even have that. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Well, I'm not really sure what the question is, but I think it goes to the difference between taking on cases collectively or individually. >> The basic question is really, you must do some cost about justice and fairness. Not based on who is giving you donation. >> Carrie N. Lyons: Right, right. And, I mean, I think you've somewhat addressed those questions when you talk about how you pick cases and where you get the money from and, yeah. >> Leonardo A. Crippa: Yeah, so thank you for your question. There are some issues, maybe, that will help you, help all of us. We have various different projects through which we try to reform laws and policies that will, eventually, improve the situation at whole communities and individual members of that communities, in developing countries and in the US. One of those programs is actually in nature, where we take a case, we represent a community or a people against, it might be a government agency or a company, and we use the legal system of that country. Other programs include influencing policies of public sector financial institutions, like, for example, the World Bank Group, where you will find International Monetary Fund, the International Financial Corporation, the International Bank Reconstruction. The government will not hold bank, and other regional banks, like, for example, the Inter-American Government back. And what we've done since the 80s and the [inaudible] program, where we work on policies, is push these banks to create a policy, a safer policy that aims preventing harm to communities and the environment, through the projects that they finance. And so, even though, some countries and some donors with money with pressure these institutions to have policies. So that those getting funds from these institutions, in some cases, in developing countries, in other trans-national corporations operating in developing countries, would have to comply with the safe parts of this policy. For example, we got the World Bank, in 1981, to adopt the first indigenous people's policy. In 2006, we got the Inter-American Development Bank, for the first time, to approve an operational policy on indigenous peoples. We are now working with indigenous peoples in our organization in Brazil to get the Brazilian Development Bank to develop its first operational policy on indigenous peoples. And, at the same time, we educate donors how important it is to provide support to indigenous peoples from the ground that are fighting corruption, that are fighting government agencies trying to get their lands, conservation organizations trying to manage their natural resources. And sometimes we get supports, sometimes not. But we find ways to work through the legal system of the country or this international organization. So that we can either get an international instrument, like the declarations on the rights of indigenous peoples, or ban policies on indigenous peoples in an actual case to change the way indigenous peoples are treated sometimes. I hope that clarifies this a bit. >> Armstrong Wiggins: I think also, to try to understand, when you say, a vicious circle, what I want you to understand that, we, from our perspective, we do respect collective and individual rights. We respect that. I was jailed in my territory, my people defended me. That's why I'm alive. I was arrested in Managua, Nicaragua, in the capital from my office, close to the [inaudible] office. I was defended through my individual rights, not collective rights, through my villages, OK? So, sometimes it benefits us and we respect one aspect of it. But let me just tell you one example what just happened to us not too long ago. We, trying to get money from law offices, but there're sometimes conflict of interest. We had been trying to get money from corporation, but sometimes there might be conflict of interest, from corporation. We got some money from Mitsubishi Foundation in New York. It's this Japanese car maker's foundation. We decided, maybe, we can get that to work with the red issue that you heard about, talk about. This is environmental issue. Environmental is know what is red, a red program. The European come up with a list environmental thinking. The first one is gift, then now red, OK? Which mean the, what they were, if you have a lot of trees, you can get money from your trees that is in your yard or is in your community, OK? That's red program. So Mitsubishi was interested in that. But when we met with that, we didn't know when we decided to represent indigenous people in Mexico about the wind issues that I just talk about. One of the biggest money was coming from Mitsubishi and Inter-American Development Bank. And so Mitsubishi said, you stop representing the Indians or we will not give you the money. And we said, we will not stop it, you can stop the money. And that's what we did, OK? Something that-- >> Carrie N. Lyons: It's a balance, yeah. >> Armstrong Wiggins: It's a balance. So I just wanted to clarify that too. >> Carrie N. Lyons: So I think we have time for one last question. >> Audience: You have in Guatemala, which has almost half of its population indigenous. And they have been considering a law that would recognize indigenous law to some degree. But it stalled, in part, because of objections from business communities that might be able to exploit natural resources, indigenous lands, and for other reasons. So I wanted to know if you could discuss how can indigenous law, with its main emphasis on collective property, collective right, coexist with, like, the national laws of a country like Guatemala that emphasizes individual rights? How can you have those two function and coexist? >> Leonardo A. Crippa: There are some precedents still in Guatemala. I remember a decision issued by the Conditional Court where it was a Supreme Court case against [inaudible], a member of my community, after the Maya approached his community and applies a sanction against him because of behavior that was against the community's traditions. But, anyway, his case ended up in the Guatemala criminal system. So that case brought to the conventional courts, the conditional court basically said indigenous people of Guatemala have a legal system in which they can resort authorities. And a policy where criminal issues have been addressed by the own community, the state courts cannot reduce to persecute those that haven't already been sanctioned by traditional groups. So that court, the traditional court, applied what is non-criminal law. They [inaudible], which means, no one tell me subject to criminal charges once. But that's just one example, and one precedent. And I remember this because a lawmaker [inaudible] was one of the authorities [inaudible] members of my community. And the controversy around collective land rights and the country's legal system oriented to protect private property, that's not such a big controversy because there are already laws in Guatemala that tend to protect collective lands. Like, for example, the law that the created the-- it is called the [foreign language]. That basically will execute and enforce all of the agrarian laws that were passed by Congress in Guatemala. And that law, it tries to provide some protection for peasant communities. In that way, it was good objective. But it wasn't, at the same time, not as good because indigenous peoples were included there as peasant communities, until we solved all of the agrarian policies are applied to indigenous communities as though they were peasant communities, without consider their legal nature as indigenous people. We call this right are recognized by international law in the paper and so forth. So there are some precedents in both court positions and in actual legislation that tend to protect collective [inaudible] lands. But, unfortunately, Guatemala, there is no actual legislation that recognizes indigenous people's communities legal personality, nor their collective ownership over the lands that they possess. And that is why we started them, whenever there is a conservation project on Indian lands, or a constructive energy project on native lands. But, I would say, the best way to work towards a reconciliation of these different laws or legal approaches is by making indigenous peoples sit at the table and have an ad hoc conversation with them. So that when we stand here, them, and they can participate in the development of [inaudible]. And that is something that already happened in Peru. The consultation that was [inaudible]. >> Armstrong Wiggins: I think it's a very good question, and sometimes have me sleepless nights. And I remember when Kofi Annan was the Secretary-General of the UN. He went to Bolivia for the first time, and then he came back. And he called me up and said, can we have lunch? So I had lunch with him right at 8th Street. Now we get famous. And one of Kofi Annan question to me was Armstrong. I know that Bolivian are indigenous majority, just like Guatemala. But he didn't go to Guatemala, he was coming from Bolivia. And he said, but how can we find a leader that can bring everybody together instead of taking what happened to them to take to go against the minority, non-indigenous people. How we find, in Bolivia, something what happened in South Africa, you know, by South African leader? And so it's a tough question. I said, I don't have the answer. We just-- education is key to do, to do that, you know, like what happened in South Africa. Even though he was in jail that long, became president and he worked with everybody and pulled everybody together. Guatemala situation is the same thing. And yet, if you think about in China, it's a communist country, right? China? China economy is taking all of our bills here in the United States because China keep pulling out of our debt, right? And so, what's going on in China is now they're bringing to their politburo, all the rich people. But they can't question the collectivity, the corporative system of Chinese system of government, you know. So one of the thing that we're thinking, hoping, is that we get education to all indigenous communities. That they can become voting power. And it's not hard. In Guatemala, probably 60% in majority. Can you imagine if they vote in what your founding fathers said, our founding fathers said here? That educated people can vote the right way that who they believe can be a good leader. That's not what happened in Guatemala, OK? So if they can vote their own president, Mayan leader like [inaudible] will become the president. But we're not there yet. Even Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in San Jose, Costa Rica, which is the OAS Inter-American System ruled with the case of Yatama vs. Nicaragua. And they ruled in favor of indigenous people have the rights to have election according to their history, according to their culture, not enforced by the capital city political parties. If that happened in Guatemala, and I'm Indian person can be offered this in Guatemala. But we're not there yet. And so if Indian person can be in Guatemala, president, and negotiate with the business community, I'm sure they can meet in the middle ground to have a better life for indigenous [inaudible]. They can negotiate that. But we're not there yet. But it will happen, I'm telling you. Not in my lifetime, but in the future, that probably will happen, because they're the majority. >> Carrie N. Lyons: OK, so I'm getting the signal we should wrap up. But I'd like to thank you both again for coming out. This was wonderful. We are so grateful to have you here. And I'd also like to thank everybody for spending time with us today. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> This has been a presentation of the Library of Congress. Visit us at loc.gov.