Capitalism vs. Indigenous people

Issue #388: One of the hardest things about understanding the world right now is that people have become very good at saying, "It's complicated." And to be fair, it is. This week's issue alone connects a recent Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to war, displacement, international neglect, the M23 rebel group, extractive politics, and decades of underfunded healthcare systems.

But there's a danger in stopping at "The world is complex." Because once everything becomes "complicated," people also start losing sight of what is actually being described, and what values are shaping those realities in the first place.

That's especially true when it comes to Indigenous struggles. These stories often take time to fully understand because before the story can even begin, you first have to unlearn a whole set of assumptions: who has the right to land, who gets treated as legitimate, who defines "progress," and why states are automatically seen as more legitimate than the communities they displaced.

And underneath this week's stories lies the same tension: We are living in a world where forests, land, minerals, and even entire ecosystems are understood through their economic value first. Growth is treated as inevitable. Extraction is treated as normal. And Indigenous communities are often expected to defend their existence through the same institutions built by states that historically denied their sovereignty and existence in the first place.

Also this week: Turkish democracy is not doing so well. Iran executed two men last week simply for being members of a political party that advocates regional autonomy (yes, they were Kurdish). The U.S. has charged a 94-year-old former president with murder for something from 1996. And: Indian workers' rights in Guyana, how to resist AI (there's an entire list!), why Benin's (or West Africa's) Eid al-Adha is called "Tabaski," and so much more.

This newsletter has been edited by Jonathan Ramsay.

The world has become a more dangerous place for Indigenous Peoples, says UN

Context: Before you read this news story, I think it would be advisable to understand how the world has decided to deal with Indigenous Peoples' concerns. There is international consensus (sort of). In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as UNDRIP, recognizing Indigenous Peoples' rights to self-determination, to their lands and territories, to their cultures and languages, and to "Free, Prior and Informed Consent," meaning governments and companies must actually consult and get agreement before doing anything on their land. However (and this is where that consensus becomes a bit laughable), no government can be forced to follow the declaration, because it is only a declaration, and not a treaty. When a country violates it, there's really nothing one can do. There's embarrassment, at best.

How does the UN 'honor' this declaration then? With three UN bodies. They're mostly to monitor, collect knowledge, and advise on next steps. One of them is the UN PermanentForum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). This is the most visible body with members: 50% come from governments, 50% from Indigenous organizations, and they meet once a year to discuss future work. Another UN body is theSpecial Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples' Rights. They're basically an independent expert who can act as a moral voice, calling out governments and all, but again, with no power to make anyone do anything.

What happened:
(All this context to now get to the main news story) The Forum met for the 25th time in New York City from April 20 to May 1. This year's focus: Indigenous People's health. The Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, Albert Barume (he's from the DRC and one of the first lawyers to work on Indigenous Peoples' rights in the 1990s in Africa), warned that the world is moving backwards on Indigenous rights, "primarily for immediate political and economic benefit." Even supposedly "green" or progressive projects are increasingly colliding with Indigenous sovereignty.

Why this matters: The world wants Indigenous land more than ever before, while simultaneously becoming less committed to the international legal frameworks that protect Indigenous rights.

Tell me more:
As a solution, Barume suggests that we save multilateralism. With all the talk right now about the state of international law (Europe keeps asking whether it is dead, I don't think that's the right question to ask), Barume says that Indigenous groups often rely more heavily on it than the stronger states do, because states' legal systems historically excluded Indigenous people. So when international law weakens globally, Indigenous protections weaken too. "Twenty-five years ago... we lived in a compliance era... Now, that unity is beginning to fracture," he says in his most recent statement.

"Fun" fact: This whole set-up is rigged from the start because Indigenous sovereignty and well-being is still being negotiated in colonial institutions. In practice, Indigenous rights frequently only become "recognizable" once translated into the language of courts, NGOs, treaties, and UN bodies, even though many Indigenous nations existed long before the modern states now deciding over their land.

What "green" or progressive projects does Barume mean?
Governments and corporations continue taking Indigenous land for mining, logging, and oil extraction. But increasingly, conflicts are also emerging around "green" projects: lithium mining, conservation parks, carbon offset programs, and renewable energy infrastructure.

I researched two examples for you:

In Kenya, the government has its eyes set on the Mau Forest for "carbon credit" projects. The country wants to become a major player in the global carbon credit market. The idea is: A big company elsewhere (for example, in Europe or the U.S.) pollutes a lot, and instead of reducing all of its pollution, it pays Kenya money to "protect" a forest. In return, the company gets a certificate (called a carbon credit), basically saying, "Don't worry, we balanced out our pollution because this forest absorbs CO₂." Now, here's the problem: The Ogiek people have lived in that forest for generations. But because the forest is now financially valuable for carbon credits and conservation projects, the Kenyan government wants tighter control over this ancestral land. Several courts have even backed the Ogiek people's claim of this land. The government still didn't let them return. In 2025, the courts again said, "How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?" And even if there were no courts, the Ogiek people's relationship to their land existed before this legal recognition.

In the U.S., the electric cars and AI data center boom(s) is turning Nevada into a minefield (literally). The government and mining companies want and need a lot of lithium, and most of that is on Nevada's Indigenous land. On May 12, Amnesty International said they found out that the U.S. government was breaching international human rights standards by building new lithium mines across the state without getting Indigenous People's consent for these mines, which are being built on their ancestral lands (and, mind you, they're not just being built on random empty desert but on burial sites, sacred areas, water sources, etc.). The companies are saying, 'we didn't do anything illegal,' and they are technically correct. Amnesty's response is, "You still have moral and international human rights obligations."

Zoom out: Climate change is hitting Indigenous People very hard. Even though they've done the least to cause it, Indigenous communities are losing their homes to floods, droughts, and deforestation. For example, in Aotearoa New Zealand, storms and flooding are impacting Māori land, health, and culture. And, according to a new national climate report, colonization has made those risks even bigger.

Good to know: (This isn't happening anymore, but it is still relevant:)Indigenous kids used to get stolen. For example, in Canada, kids were forcibly taken from their Indigenous families for decades. And just recently, after years of protests, the government finally admitted that it was wrong (but is still dragging its feet on justice). If you're not informed on the topic of so-called residential schools, I watched this documentary over the weekend, and it's a 10/10 recommendation. The last federally run school of that kind in Canada shut down in 1996. Settler colonial states, like Canada, often maintain liberal reputations while their foundational violence remains structurally unresolved. Bye, bye, bye to the "Canada is so friendly" myth, I...