Submission by Kathleen Marquardt, American Policy Center

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is often presented as a framework to protect indigenous cultures and ancestral lands. But critics argue it could have much broader implications, raising concerns about private property rights, national sovereignty, and government control over land. At American Policy Center, we believe Americans should understand how these international policies are being debated, why similar issues are emerging in Canada and elsewhere, and what they could mean for future discussions about property ownership in the United States.

Before I get into what I see as the latest chicanery by elite political actors seeking to take private property, I want to point out that much of the land in America that is not privately owned is held by the U.S. government in trust for the people. Those lands ultimately belong to the American people.

Many citizens in western Montana have been fighting claims that Indigenous peoples own the entire Columbia River Basin. These disputes have existed since 1992, not only in Montana but also in other states and countries. While the methods differ, the result, in my view, is the same: expanding claims over land ownership.

These efforts appear to benefit Indigenous communities, but I believe they are part of a much larger global agenda. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, as well as their control over ancestral lands. Supporters view these protections as necessary recognition of historic rights. Critics argue that they may also create conflicts involving property ownership and governmental authority.

What Is UNDRIP?

The United Nations adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. UNDRIP is a nonbinding declaration, although national governments can use its principles to shape domestic laws and policies.

Supporters say the declaration:

• Protects Indigenous cultures and traditions.
• Recognizes historic ties to ancestral lands.
• Encourages Indigenous participation in decisions affecting their communities.
• Promotes economic and social self-determination.

Critics, including the American Policy Center, argue that the declaration raises broader concerns regarding:

• Private property rights.
• National sovereignty.
• Government control of land.
• International influence over domestic policy.

UNDRIP states that Indigenous peoples should have greater control over lands traditionally owned, occupied or used by their communities. Reservations throughout North America, however, remain subject to the legal structures and funding mechanisms established by their respective national governments.

I cannot speak to the legal circumstances of Indigenous peoples in Canada, but Native Americans in the United States live under the greatest and freest Constitution ever written.

Canada enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021, requiring the federal government to work with Indigenous peoples to bring Canadian laws into alignment with the declaration. In my view, this process is moving Canada toward greater centralized control over land and property policy.

My concern is that Indigenous communities are being used to advance a transfer of authority that will ultimately benefit governments and international institutions more than the communities themselves. Once the rights of private property owners have been weakened, those owners may have little recourse against the institutions assuming greater control.

One Canadian report argues that British Columbia’s implementation of UNDRIP could fundamentally reshape ownership of Crown lands by transferring authority over vast public lands to Indigenous governments. According to the report, supporters view this as fulfilling long-standing treaty obligations, while opponents believe it represents a significant shift in public land management and private property rights.

Critics also contend that Canadians have already begun losing private property protections through policies tied to UNDRIP implementation. They argue that similar efforts are being discussed in other countries, including the United States and New Zealand.

A Broader Concern

For years, American Policy Center has argued that international organizations and global political institutions seek greater control over land use, natural resources and private property.

We have worked with citizens and organizations from:

• Norway
• Iceland
• Mexico
• Great Britain
• The Netherlands
• Japan

Citizens in these and many other countries have expressed similar concerns.

The debate over UNDRIP, in my opinion, demonstrates how international institutions, governments and activist organizations are working together to reshape property rights. Whether through environmental policy, education, media or other avenues, I believe the long-term objective remains greater centralized control over land ownership.

You either own property, or you become property.

The public must understand these issues, become informed and participate in the debate surrounding private property rights, constitutional protections and international governance before decisions are made that could affect future generations.

Core Criticisms Raised by the American Policy Center

• Sovereignty threats: APC argues that implementing global U.N. agreements undermines the U.S. Constitution and local self-governance by substituting international standards for domestic legislation.
• Connection to Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030: The organization often discusses global U.N. agreements, Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Development Goals together, framing them as mechanisms for centralized global management of land and natural resources.
• Property and resource control: APC contends that collective Indigenous land-rights frameworks developed under international standards threaten private property ownership, rural land use and public access to natural resources.

 

Feature photo by Tom Rumble on Unsplash