“The future is Indigenous”: APIB’s cosmopolitical activism and the Free Land Camps’ mobilizations

Abstract

Indigenous political activism has been an emerging subject for International Relations scholars whose work has focused on critical concepts in order to engage difference and democratize the field. In this paper, we discuss the cosmopolitical activism employed by the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB) against neoextractivism in the country. In order to understand how cosmopolitics is deployed, we investigate the Free Land Camps’ mobilizations between 2004 and 2023. We explore the interconnection between Indigenous cosmology and the exercise of politics, arguing that Indigenous activism in the Camps offers a possibility to subvert the artificial boundaries of the international.

APIB; Brazil; cosmopolitics; indigenous peoples

Introduction

Indigenous political activism has been an emerging subject for International Relations (IR) scholars whose discussions have varied from stressing the limitations regarding Nation State’s sovereignty to pointing to the promises of Otherness (Beier 2009; Brysk 2007; Lightfoot 2016; Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskane 2013; Picq 2018; Shapiro 2004; Shaw 2008; Smith 2012). Not coincidentally, those two dimensions have worked together in the literature to uncover disciplinary boundaries already denounced by critical theorists regarding the construction of mainstream narratives and their reproduction of a specific sense of what politics is and who is considered to act politically, creating a chain of signification that linked the international to power politics (Ashley 1988, Der Derian and Shapiro 1989, Walker 1993, among others). The result was that not only IR as a discipline but what has been considered international was severely restricted to a “distinguished” domain: those who do not fit the interstate were projected to Other spaces and time, much of those related to a past/present with a colonial logic, as exposed systematically by postcolonialism (Grovogui 1996, Jones 2006, Inayatullah and Blaney 2004; Krishna 2009, Shapiro 2004).

That would be the case of Indigenous peoples, whose allusion in IR texts as actors and their role to uncover the international’s colonial feature took a long time to be realized by scholars, impacted by the proliferation of postcolonial critique and the work of Indigenous Studies theorists, many related to the Anglo-Saxon colonial world. In past years, debates have focused on notions such as cosmopolitics and pluriverse as critical concepts that would renovate the theorists’ goal of engaging difference and democratizing the field, bringing experiences of Otherness developed in Latin America, especially in the Andean region, into the discipline (Blaney and Trownsell 2021; Conway and Singh 2011; Delgado 2018; Querejazu 2016; Rojas 2016; Tickner and Blaney 2013; 2017; Tickner and Querejazu 2021; Trownsell et al. 2019). In this paper, we discuss the cosmopolitical activism employed by the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil [APIB]) against neoextractivism. In doing so, we echo Brazilian scholars’ efforts, whose analyses have contributed to enlarge discussions in the field, and put together two subjects that are either observed in isolation from one another or partially evaluated in the literature: APIB’s activism and cosmopolitics (Inoue and Moreira 2016; Maso et al 2022; Urt 2016; Urt et al. 2021; Vecchione 2014).

In order to understand how APIB exercises cosmopolitics, we investigate the Free Land Camps’ mobilizations (Acampamento Terra Livre [ATL], in Portuguese) between 2004 and 2023. We argue that activism in ATLs offers a possibility to subvert the artificial boundaries of the international. Although APIB, as any collective actor, is marked by diversity in its composition, we won’t approach its internal dynamics. Instead, we explore tensions and mediation between worlds symbolized by Indigenous and non-Indigenous/modern. We analyze articles as well as APIB’s documents, dossiers, derived from ATL mobilization. In the first section, we contextualize Indigenous activism and theoretical literature on the subject, followed by an analysis of ATLs and the discursive strategies employed by APIB. We conclude with an attempt to unveil a unique relation that brings together these local phenomena and international relations by exploring how Indigenous peoples, gathered in ATLs and represented by APIB, have mobilized the “abroad” discursively through expressions such as “The future is Indigenous”.

Denouncing and mediating between Worlds

Indigenous peoples have long resisted colonial domination against local and international imperatives. During the 60s and 70s, Indigenous peoples from all over the Americas have experienced many forms of organization, prompting debates over liberation and later constructing an international movement (Lightfoot 2016; Deloria Jr 1988; Manuel and Posluns 2019). In the case of Latin America, Indigenous peoples were historically the object of evangelization, violence by dictatorship, as well as agrarian reforms and extractivist projects promoted by distinct governments as an attempt to modernize the State and turn them into peasants (Becker 2015, Bengoa 2000, Escárzaga 2017). Against this context, Indigenous organizations started to emerge in the local and national levels initially, to which followed the creation of regional organizations during the democratization process.

In Brazil, the creation of assemblies that gathered Indigenous leaders, sponsored by the Missionary Indigenist Council (Conselho Indigenista Missionário [CIMI] in Portuguese) – an organization related to the National Conference of Bishops from Brazil – preceded the formation of the Indigenous Nations Union (União Nacional Indígena [UNI] in Portuguese). UNI was composed of several “worlds”, that is, many Indigenous ethnic groups, each reflecting a distinct cosmology. It performed a prominent role leading the debates on Indigenous rights during the Constitutional process along with other collective actors and allies, mediating a dialogue with international institutions. Nevertheless, the Union gradually lost its relevance once the New Constitution successfully incorporated Indigenous rights and other organizations emerged, such as the Coordination of the Indigenous Organization of Brazilian Amazon (Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira [COIAB] in Portuguese), in the late 80s (Cunha 2019; Lippi 2022; Munduruku 2012). Moreover, the great number of local demands and the difficulty accommodating those with a unifying claim imposed a serious challenge for Indigenous peoples to sustain organized collective actions.

The end of the 20th century was particularly symbolized by the advent of lively social activism in Latin America headed by Indigenous movements. In Brazil, despite the difficulties mentioned before, leaders managed to arrange the Indigenous March and the Conference of Indigenous Peoples and Organizations in order to denounce 500 years of conquest by colonizers. Both events congregated peoples from all over the country, the former being severely repressed by the government (Batistella 2020; Lippi 2022). Later, a common theme that gathered the movement and prompted the formation of the first ATL, in 2004, was the demarcation of land/territory reflected by the Supreme Court decision on Raposa Serra do Sol Indigenous Land (IL). The initiative resulted in the formation of APIB in 2005 as a network composed of seven regional organizations representing their demands, cosmologies, and providing mediation among Indigenous and between them and non-Indigenous worlds as well as local, national and international spheres, as reflected in each ATL edition and several campaigns¹. This last point will be further discussed in the next section.

Despite those mobilizations, extractivist practices abounded once again in the region in parallel with a large number of Indigenous leaders’ murders and their criminalization by national governments (Lalander 2017; Picq 2020; Pousadela 2016; Radcliffe 2012; Villarreal 2022). In fact, the period was marked by a political-economic model resulted by the conjunction of the commodities consensus and the rise of left-progressive governments in Latin America, whose implementation ensued an increase of socioenvironmental conflicts and land expropriation (Machado Aráoz 2012; Acosta 2011; Gudynas 2009; Lang and Mokrani 2011; Svampa 2012; Veltmeyer and Petras 2014). Against these circumstances, Indigenous organizations have made claims in regional and international fora, including formal and informal institutions like the International Criminal Court and the International Rights of Nature Tribunal (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2020; 2021b; Delgado 2021).

The intense Indigenous activism in the region has received the attention of scholars, sometimes being framed as an expression of ethnic or identity politics (Brysk 2000; Büschges et al. 2007; Martí y Puig 2010; Langer and Muñoz 2003; Postero and Zamosc 2004; Sieder 2002; Van Cott 2005; Warren and Jackson 2002; Yashar 2005). A distinct approach has been provided by academics whose work relates to “political ontology”, as well as Indigenous scholars. In that sense, while from a modern/Western/non-Indigenous point of view, such activism might be understood regarding merely ethnic, identity politics or rational goals, political ontology and Indigenous Studies literature subvert this immediate interpretation, offering Other lenses. A recurrent theme in such literature is the fact that Indigenous forms of resistance and claims cannot be isolated from their symbiotic relation to land, which is not understood as a space subject to domination and exploitation. Rather, land represents Indigenous existence and is central to their mode of life in a relationship of reciprocity and interconnection between them and what non-Indigenous would identify as “Nature”, in contrast with society, as Tuhiwai Smith (2008) recalls. Therefore, land is what informs and constitutes Indigenous peoples in their Otherness. In the case of APIB, this centrality of land is emphasized in statements according to which “land to us means life [...] without access to land, we are exposed to [...] loss of our ethnic identity, dissolution of our historical, social and anthropological ties, erosion of our own perception and conscience as people” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2016 – authors’ translation).

Thus, the modern division expressed in Nature vs. society – which corresponds to other dichotomous pairs (uncivilized vs. civilized, pagans vs. Christians) – is completely artificial to Indigenous life. As such, it does not contemplate the fact that absolutely everything lives in the cosmos and affects everything else, as exemplified in the relation between animate and inanimate beings as well as the seen and the unseen, and between complementary opposite forces. In order to maintain balance, this complex world requires constant and respectful interaction between its constituents, expressing a logic of inclusion impossible to be fully contemplated by its modern counterpart. This sense of impossibility is expressed in failed attempts to provide a translation between radically different worlds, resulting not just in misunderstandings, but in continuous silencing of Indigenous politics, often framed regarding environmental issues or legal conceptions of sovereignty (Blaser 2013; Cadena 2019; Viveiros de Castro 1996).

Although not every protest corresponds to this co-constitution between politics and their mode of life, it is important to highlight that modern logic and ontology impose limitations to Indigenous peoples, whose claims tend to be captured by the international and Nation-State’s grammar. Against this restriction, Coulthard (2014, 53) reminds us that Indigenous politics relates to what he conceptualizes as “grounded normativity”. In that sense, while the self-determination/autonomy (self-government) pair, which is a fundamental demand, might be understood solely in terms of minority rights by modern law, by introducing the expression the author recalls that those rights and Indigenous activism are ultimately linked to ancestral cosmology based on land. Therefore, contrary to a logic that relates politics to strategic and calculated action, according to which reason contradicts affection and, therefore, pertains to an irreconcilable domain, Indigenous politics operates by a distinct system. As expressed above, such a system, built upon their mode of life and their worlds, encompasses what might be perceived by non-Indigenous peoples as mutually excluding elements and, more than that, alien to political action as represented by Indigenous claims that Mother Earth constitutes a living being that requires care and is a subject of rights of its own.

The discussion developed above suggests that Indigenous politics is informed not just by the very systematic material condition of expropriation and violence, but also by the conceptions and forms of existence/resistance of Indigenous peoples centered in land, as expressed in several protests all over the world claiming the demarcation of territory. ATLs are just one example, along with Indigenous marches in defense of water, against extractivism and infra-structure projects in Bolivia, Peru, Canada, among others. That is why Coulthard (2014) argues that, while the modern world is marked by the centrality of time, for Indigenous peoples the world is characterized by the relevance of space. That proposition is consonant with Cadena’s (2010) statement that cosmopolitics exceeds modern liberal forms of politics since Indigenous peoples’ activism might combine strategic and relational features between every living being. That would be the case of earth beings, entities constituents of Indigenous territory and cosmology, understood simply as mountains and rivers by modernity and, because related to the natural, non-historical domain, are excluded from politics, as sustained by Cadena (2015, 277).

But while translation does not contemplate Indigenous politics as such, this does not mean that mediation is impossible. Rather, the former is achieved by what Cadena (2010, 348) identifies as “partial connections”, that is, the mobilization of a modern grammar by Indigenous peoples, giving their discourse a more comprehensible meaning to non-Indigenous worlds and simultaneously maintaining a sense of Otherness, exceeding modernity. The centrality of Mother Earth, pointed above, relates exactly to such a move, along with the mobilization of ancestrality and scientific discourse on climate change, which Bold (2019) recognizes as cosmopolitical negotiations. In such negotiations, partial connections function either to highlight commonalities between modern and traditional knowledge or to criticize scientific discourses and propositions on climate change that ignore Other cosmologies and their role in mitigating the phenomenon.

Concerning ATLs’ documents, the last topic emerges as another expression of cosmopolitics, comprising in this case the articulation of time and space as well. This is observed in the mobilization of “emergency” regarding climate change and the indispensable nature of Indigenous peoples to provide solutions and, consequently, life for “humanity” in the future, due to their mode of life, to which the protection of their land stands as a necessity (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2022a). This point is important not just because it expresses Indigenous strategy that identifies in space a condition of possibility to ensure time, but because in doing so they displace time as the main element of discursiveness by congregating original and modern grammars as mentioned above.

In that regard, Indigenous peoples manage to claim a sense of coevalness, whose denial by modernity worked as a central element in the constitution of the modern colonial international (Blanco and Delgado 2019; Fabian 2002; Hutchings 2007; Inayatullah and Blaney 2004; Rojas 2016; Shapiro 2000). Through the operationalization of dichotomous pairs stressed previously, Original peoples were marginalized as backwards, less advanced, and, as such, unsuitable for the State and the international/interstate realms, both of which are governed by linearity, that is, a specific and dominant understanding of time. Considering that Nature worked as a domain to be exploited for humanity to achieve progress/development, that civilized humans were understood to live in society and under State rule (in contrast to Indigenous peoples) and that such humans corresponded to colonizers, modern discourse produced a temporalization of difference, as reminded by Helliwell and Hindess (2005). Thus, time has in fact occupied a prominent role in modern logic and, along with colonization, worked in the formation of the international, subjugating Otherness and capturing many space dynamics.

ATLs have over the years comprised these issues, denouncing them and promoting mediation between distinct worlds through partial connections. Instead of representing the past, Indigenous peoples are, then, political actors in the present and future times whose ancestral existence, based on their relation to land, also acquires a sense of universality regarding the planet and humanity. In such coordination, Indigenous demands to land would surpass the local realm, subverting the boundaries of the international, based on the abyss between tradition and modernity, while maintaining their original particularities. Thus, it seems crucial not just to understand Indigenous politics, but how it is exercised, the cosmopolitical strategies employed by them. In the next section, this subject will be further discussed through an analysis of ATLs.

From land demarcation to Mother Earth’s protection and climate change mitigation

As the largest Brazilian Indigenous mobilization, ATLs arose from the coordination of 31 ethnic groups. The first meeting, held in Brasilia, sought to consolidate common agendas and resulted in a final document with general claims urging the State to promote demarcation, protection and removal of intruders from ILs, besides specific demands relating to health and culture (Sodré 2022). From 2005 on, APIB has been responsible for organizing ATLs. The objective of the camp was to “bring together in a large assembly Indigenous leaders and organizations from all regions of Brazil to discuss and position themselves on the violation of the constitutional and original rights of Indigenous peoples and anti-Indigenous actions of the State” (Brunoro and Tannus, 2020, 138 – authors’ translation). The first four editions were marked by Indigenous peoples’ defense of land, and denunciation of the State’s remaining colonial nature, represented by the violation of Indigenous rights and the delay of IL’s identification, study and regularization processes (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2004; 2005; 2006; 2007).

Between 2008 and 2012, among all discussions held in the ATLs, those relating to the Growth Acceleration Program (Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento [PAC] in Portuguese), implemented by the government, and its major infrastructure projects, such as the installation of hydroelectric plants, specifically Belo Monte, received special attention. Those projects, closely related to the extractivist model of appropriation of Nature and used rhetorically by governments as a means of national development, impacted Indigenous peoples all over the country directly and indirectly. The final document of the 2009 ATL connects Indigenous peoples to the care of Mother Earth for the first time, as mentioned in the final document: “As our leader Davi Kopenawa Yanomami said, Nature is worth more than money, and we will not allow our Mother Earth to be ripped away from us, and everything that we have preserved in it to this day, for thousands of years” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2009 – authors’ translation).

While uncovering the projects as violations of international conventions assumed by Brazil and the Brazilian environmental law itself, the documents also emphasize Indigenous peoples’ role as “guardians” of the global ecological balance and climate change mitigation (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2012). In that sense, the documents reflected a discursive mobilization of modern grammar and Indigenous cosmologies, initially as a means for criticizing Brazilian government but, simultaneously, positioning Original peoples internationally and globally. That is observed by the articulation of Mother Earth as an entity, not an object of exploitation towards development, as well as the relation established by Indigenous Peoples between its protection and IL preservation. Also, by attributing a historical character to such protection, APIB managed to align time and space, denouncing modern national policies in contradiction to traditional practices of peoples who “since time immemorial have played a strategic role in protecting Mother Nature, containing deforestation, preserving forests and biodiversity, and many other (natural) riches that shelter Indigenous territories” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2013 – authors’ translation).

We should mention that APIB’s reproduction of “Mother Earth/Nature” is consonant with the term’s mobilization by many Indigenous movements in Latin America in order to denounce expropriation and outline the differentiation between them and modern/Western societies (Choquehuanca Cespedes 2010; Delgado 2021; Huanacuni 2010; Macas 2010; Rojas 2016). Precisely because it exceeds modern/liberal politics, to use Cadena’s words, connecting what pertains to the domain of affection/family/humans to what, in Western lenses, is external to it and non-human, “Mother Earth/Nature” demarcates an ontological/cosmological difference. In parallel, it enables a mediation with non-Indigenous efforts to preserve Nature and, ultimately, humanity, as expressed extensively by Indigenous peoples, including APIB. Besides, through the exercise of cosmopolitics and the inclusive logic that underlies it, Indigenous peoples unveil the fact that the Nation State reproduces colonial patterns of power by transforming its “sovereign territory” in “productive areas” targeting development.

ATL 2012’s document reinforces denunciations against the colonial-extractivist approach adopted by the Brazilian State, the reduction of ILs, and states dissatisfaction concerning sustainable measures adopted in the financial scope. This is reflected in APIB’s rejection note regarding contracts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) and to negotiate carbon credits, both understood as “false solutions proposed by governments and the green economy” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2012; 2022b). Although currently publicized as projects to mitigate climate change, the goal underlying the solutions rejected by APIB is to guarantee the future exploitation of Nature in order to maintain the current modus operandi of developmental capitalist production (Lang et al. 2024; Ulloa 2023). In this sense, those projects often disregard Indigenous peoples, reproducing modern logic inasmuch “Nature” remains an object of control and intervention for the sake of humanity. So, by denouncing those solutions, APIB mobilized time, revealing how domination perpetuates through supposed green alternatives, unsuitable to preservation which, in order to be accomplished, demands Indigenous knowledge materialized in the local space.

Against this context, leaders in ATLs’ editions frequently reclaim cosmological difference, as stated during Indigenous women session: “let’s call the potency of the land [...] we are sacred trees in our territory [...] we have the power to heal the world [...] we are ancestral, let’s value our ancestrality [...] look around the amount of trees, trees produce water, wind, seeds, and that’s what we are” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2024 – authors’ translation). Moreover, we should remind that Indigenous peoples continued to face assault on ILs since neoextractivism integrated Lula and Rousseff’s governmental development projects, sustaining income distribution programs. In order to achieve this goal, it was necessary to open “sacrifice areas” to make economic growth possible. Not by coincidence, Indigenous peoples and other local communities, who protested against those projects, were categorized as obstacles to development, or even national enemies in some cases. Thus, as suggested by Laschefski and Zhouri (2019), neoextractivism has worked as a tool of colonial territorial appropriation for transforming “unused” into rational and productive lands, even though this kind of use causes massive socio-environmental damages.

Between 2013 and 2015, years marked by intense political crisis in Brazil, the ATLs focused on the legislative attacks that were taking place in the National Congress in order to remove mechanisms to guarantee the rights of Indigenous peoples. Legislative benches have been largely occupied by those aligned with agribusiness, who aimed, for example, to transfer the competence of ILs demarcation from the executive to the legislative branch as seen in Constitutional Amendment Proposal (Proposta de Emenda Constitucional [PEC] in Portuguese) 215/00. ATL 2015 had its final document sent to President Rousseff requesting the end of the interruption in identification and homologation processes of new ILs and the change of the president of the National Indigenous Peoples Foundation (Fundação Nacional dos Povos Indígenas [FUNAI] in Portuguese), who was also acting in favor of these interruptions (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2013; 2014; 2015).

Therefore, the final documents produced in these years highlight not just the remaining feature of expropriation and violence against Indigenous peoples, but also resistance based on their relation to land. Moreover, such documents show an articulation of time and space, advocating for the latter’s centrality, through the establishment of partial connections/cosmological negotiations. This move is observed specially after 2009, with references to climate change, also suggesting the relevance of the local for the international. By articulating key components of original and modern grammars, thus, APIB’s discourse reveals criticism towards the latter while emphasizing Otherness and, as such, the defense of ILs. Such criticism, disclosed in the following years, gradually began to encompass the aforementioned discussions to a point that Indigenous rights and climate change became almost inseparable signs in the last years.

Between 2016 and 2022, Brazil’s political instability was an even more challenging time for the Indigenous movement’s resistance. During the conservative governments in this period, the number of Indigenous assassinations grew drastically, which, in association with legislative attacks in the National Congress, set an explicit anti-Indigenous agenda, especially during Bolsonaro’s government, initiated in 2018 (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020; 2021a; 2022a; Conselho Indigenista Missionário 2022). As a result, the final documents of the ATLs between 2020 and 2022 display Indigenous leaders’ denunciation concerning the setbacks and governmental rejection of their demands. Moreover, such documents reveal the reproduction of the connections developed before, advancing the articulation of time and space and, in doing so, the internationalization of ILs’ demarcation as a necessity for Indigenous existence and, as such, for humanity:

All of these illegal and unconstitutional acts constitute a death project for our people. They imply the destruction of our forests, our rivers, biodiversity, our sources of life, in short, of Nature, of Mother Earth; a heritage preserved for thousands of years by our people and which to this day contributes strategically to the preservation of ecological and climatic balance and the well-being of humanity, providing important environmental services to the planet (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil, 2020 – authors’ translation).

This excerpt denounces a death project towards Indigenous peoples and, consequently, Mother Earth as representative of the modern logic and its development goals. In this way, APIB mobilizes more emphatically environmental issues in association with their Otherness, preserving biodiversity and fighting climate change, against governmental measures that weakened environmental protection mechanisms such as those of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Ministry of Environment. Such concern is also reflected in APIB’s Dossier (2021b, 7 – authors’ translation), sustaining that “when ILs are put at stake, climatic and environmental crisis, which already affect every region and peoples of the world, are aggravated”.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 and 2021 ATLs editions stressed the health crisis and governmental neglect in this issue, along with the dismantling of mechanisms regarding environmental protection and Indigenous peoples’ rights, including Indigenous health system, as a continuous act of genocide. Moreover, this period was marked by the advancement of illegal practices in ILs, such as mining and deforestation. Thus, ATLs’ discussions between 2016 and 2022 also evidence something quite symptomatic in these governments, which is the impossibility of dialogue. While in previous years representatives of the Federal Government still received those demands written in the final documents, from 2016 on governments bluntly rejected the demands made by APIB and acted to benefit extractivist economic sectors in detriment to achievements that had already been established (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2020; 2021a; 2022a). Considering this, in 2022 APIB centered its efforts on electing Indigenous representatives in the National Congress, stressing their role not just as “guardians” of Mother Earth, biodiversity, but of democracy itself, as reflected by Sônia Guajajara, the Executive Coordinator of the Articulation, during an ATL (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2022b, 40 – authors’ translation).

ATLs 2022 and 2023 took place at a time of political transition and both had the participation of Lula da Silva (first, as a candidate for the presidency and, then, as elected president) and his Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Sônia Guajajara. In the camps, leaders gave several speeches, connecting Indigenous ancestry to the care of Mother Nature and, therefore, distinguishing their cosmologies from modern anthropocentric logic. In doing so, they reinforced the defense of land as a need for life, as analyzed before, replicating Indigenous intellectuals’ discourse on the subject (Krenak 2020; Huanacuni 2010). Concerning Guajajara’s speech, attention was also given to the launch of candidacies by APIB to the National Congress, resulting in the conquest of two seats to be occupied by Célia Xakriabá and Guajajara herself (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2022a; 2023a). Besides the creation of the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (MIP), Lula’s third term appointed former Congresswoman Joenia Wapichana to the presidency of FUNAI². Regarding the 2023 edition, the ATL’s Open Letter stands out, with Indigenous peoples declaring a “climate emergency”:

We occupied the federal capital to declare a Climate Emergency, reinforcing our commitment to defend our biomes from the North to the South of the country. Our Lands are in the Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, the Amazon, the Pampas, Caatinga and Pantanal. Each demarcated area is an extra breath for the Planet, and each destruction, a sigh for the future (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2023b – authors’ translation).

As mentioned, there is a clear association between the ILs and the preservation of all the environment. Hence, Indigenous territories (and knowledge) are projected as highly important to humanity insofar it is “an extra breath for the planet” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2023a – authors’ translation). Considering this and previous documents, APIB maintained its discursive strategy to project resistance to international discussions on climate change, identifying Indigenous peoples as Earth guardians, whose Otherness confers an imperative role in combating the phenomenon. This document also reveals the colonial history faced by the Indigenous peoples from Brazil, highlighting how their genocide is still directly related to the ongoing destruction of all national biomes. It is argued that Mother Earth is sick, and needs to be healed. For that, the Brazilian State must expand its protective measures in association with the demarcation of and removal of intruders from all Indigenous territories (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2023a).

Finally, the document points once more to the mobilization of time and its articulation with space as a way to dislocate the former and centralize the latter. In that sense, the letter is constructed upon prior connections, overemphasizing elements of modern grammar: besides the sense of urgency linked to climate change, democracy remains an important significant that, despite alien to traditional governance, should ensure respect to difference. This is suggested by the title “The Indigenous future is today – without demarcation, there is no democracy”, chosen for ATL 2023 and preceded by the phrase “The future is Indigenous”, proclaimed during the first march of ATL 2022. Far from being just a slogan, the phrase stands out as a manifest that objectively synthesizes the articulation developed over the editions, and reproduced in 2023. In that year, ATL occurred in midst of the judgement of the Marco Temporal legal thesis, which advocates that Indigenous Peoples are only entitled to land demarcation if they were occupying it on October 5, 1988, when the Brazilian Constitution was promulgated. Such thesis has been claimed by conservative political representatives, many associated with extractivism, specially from 2017 on³. So, the idea expressed above is that a critical moment regarding the planet and humanity is not detached from a local realm that reinforces Indigenous marginalization and death based on time. In contrast, Indigenous peoples denounce the temporality of difference and state that “our history hasn’t started in 1988, our struggle is secular, our right is originary” (Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil 2023d – authors’ translation).

The passages above illustrate how time, an organizing principle of modern discursiveness, is captured by Indigenous peoples gathered in ATLs as a claim to ancestrality and Otherness and, in this way, as a condition of Indigenous existence in the present and future. In the same vein, this particularity is also enforced as a necessity to mitigate climate change. In that sense, APIB conciliates two distinct emergencies – the socio-environmental crisis and the imminent disappearance of the Indigenous – emphasizing that the solution to the former is intrinsically connected to the latter. In this way, modern logic is contested through the mobilization of its own grammar, contributing to internationalize the Indigenous demand to land and subvert the boundaries of the international/interstate, that historically relegated Indigenous peoples to the past.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have discussed cosmopolitical strategies employed by APIB concerning specifically ATL editions between 2004 and2023. This period covers from ATL’s first gathering, to which followed the creation of APIB after decades of Indigenous demobilization nationally and its concentration in regional organizations instead, to 2023, first year of Lula da Silva’s third term, after a period of political turbulence and the development of conservative policies that exacerbated neoextrativism and the expropriation of ILs. In our analysis, we have stressed how ATL editions have maintained a fundamental demand, that is, the defense of Indigenous land/territory against extratctivist practices stimulated by the State as well as an anti-Indigenous/anti-environmental/anti-democratic agenda openly pursued by Bolsonaro’s government. Such demand, which might be understood simply as local, has been framed by APIB during ATL editions in international terms, by establishing partial connections: the Indigenous discourse, then, advocates the defense of their land/territory as a necessity for the whole humanity since their mode of life, essentially based on a symbiotic relation to “Nature”, could preserve the environment and avoid a climate catastrophe via a process of regeneration.

This is expressed in Indigenous discourse and ATL editions through the mobilization of the “protection of Mother Earth/Nature”, the existence of a “climate emergency”, in parallel to APIB’s growing prominent role in international fora, such as COPs editions. It is important to stress that such a move, that connects environmental protection and the human life to the existence of Indigenous peoples, to which the defense of their land works as an imperative, is also employed by several Indigenous organizations. It should also be stressed that, while mobilizing a modern grammar centered on time, Nature and the environment, which provides a mediation with non-Indigenous/modern world also denouncing and criticizing neoextractivism, Indigenous peoples do not necessarily abandon their cosmology. Actually, they seem to reaffirm it by emphasizing their distinctiveness as a necessary condition to live in the future.

This is precisely what “The future is Indigenous” is about. As mentioned above, this phrase synthesizes a sophisticated articulation by Indigenous peoples, as it captures the centrality of time by modern logics and frames it to posit Indigenous peoples as fundamental actors, guardians of humanity. And because land/territory is crucial to Indigenous peoples and their mode of life, the expression calls for the relevance of space to assure time for non-Indigenous peoples. In that way, APIB’s cosmopolitical strategies employed in ATLs editions reveal Indigenous peoples as political subjects and, as such, contest the logic underlying modernity, to which Indigenous peoples are excluded as they are supposedly part of the past. Finally, our analysis reveals that far from being local gathering, ATLs consist of international events: although organized inside a national territory, they congregate several Indigenous nationalities gradually mobilizing an international discourse through their editions, developed by APIB. In that sense, those events and the cosmopolitical strategies employed not only subvert a conservative interpretation of IR that presents the international as a synonym of an “interstate” domain, but also the very frontiers of the international.

References

• Acosta, A. "Extractivismo y neoextractivismo: dos caras de la maldición." In Más allá del desarrollo, edited by M. Lang, and D. Mokrani, 83-118. Quito: Fundación Rosa Luxemburg, 2011.
• Altino, L. "Ministério dos Povos Indígenas fica sob críticas após volta do garimpo à Terra Yanomami." O Globo, January 24, 2024. https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2024/01/17/ministerio-dos-povos-indigenas-fica-sob-criticas-apos-volta-do-garimpo-a-terra-yanomami.ghtml
  » https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2024/01/17/ministerio-dos-povos-indigenas-fica-sob-criticas-apos-volta-do-garimpo-a-terra-yanomami.ghtml
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2004. Brasília, 2004. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2005. Brasília, 2005. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2006. Brasília, 2006. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2007. Brasília, 2007. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2008. Brasília, 2008. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2009. Brasília, 2009. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2010. Brasília, 2010. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2011. Brasília, 2011. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2012. Brasília, 2012. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2013. Brasília, 2013. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2014. Brasília, 2014. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2015. Brasília, 2015. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2016. Brasília, 2016. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2017. Brasília, 2017. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2018. Brasília, 2018. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2019. Brasília, 2019. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2020. Brasília, 2020. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2021. Brasília, 2021a. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Dossiê internacional de denúncias dos povos indígenas do Brasil. Brasília, 2021b.
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Não há solução para a Crise Climática sem nós. Brasília, 2021c. https://apiboficial.org/cop26/
  » https://apiboficial.org/cop26/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2022. Brasília, 2022a. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. O acampamento Terra Livre. Revista ATL. 2022b. https://apiboficial.org/atl2022/
  » https://apiboficial.org/atl2022/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Acampamento Terra Livre 2023. Brasília, 2023a. https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
  » https://apiboficial.org/historicoatl/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Carta aberta do Acampamento Terra Livre 2023: povos indígenas decretam emergência climática. Brasília, 2023b. https://apiboficial.org/2023/04/26/povos-indigenas-decretam-emergencia-climatica-no-atl-2023-em-brasilia/
  » https://apiboficial.org/2023/04/26/povos-indigenas-decretam-emergencia-climatica-no-atl-2023-em-brasilia/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. Não ao Marco Temporal! Cartilha sobre o julgamento decisivo para o futuro dos povos indígenas do Brasil e o enfrentamento da crise climática. Brasília, 2023c. https://apiboficial.org/marco-temporal/#
  » https://apiboficial.org/marco-temporal/#
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. O futuro indígena é demarcar HOJE! Brasília, 2023d. https://apiboficial.org/2023/04/28/o-futuro-indigena-e-demarcar-hoje/
  » https://apiboficial.org/2023/04/28/o-futuro-indigena-e-demarcar-hoje/
• Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil - APIB. "Construindo memórias: a trajetória do acampamento terra livre." APIBOficial, 23 May 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KOLBxDvkbM
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KOLBxDvkbM
• Ashley, R. K. "Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problem." Millennium 17, no. 2 (1988): 227-262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298880170020901
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298880170020901
• Baniwa, G. L. "Direitos indígenas e políticas indigenistas na era petista." In A antropologia e os direitos indígenas, organized by Associação Brasileira de Antropologia. Brasília, 2015. https://www.abant.org.br/files/CAP-000144909619.pdf
  » https://www.abant.org.br/files/CAP-000144909619.pdf
• Batistella, P. H. "A comemoração como lugar de disputa: um estudo das mobilizações do passado pelos povos indígenas nas Comemorações dos "500 anos do Brasil" (2000)." Ofícios de Clio 4, no. 8 (2020): 74-92
• Becker, M. Pachakutik!: movimientos indígenas, proyectos políticos y disputas electorales en el Ecuador. Quito: Flacso Ecuador, 2015.
• Beier, J. M. International relations in uncommon places: indigeneity, cosmology, and the limits of international theory Cham: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009.
• Bengoa, J. La emergência indígena em América Latina. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2016.
• Blanco, R. and A. C. T. Delgado. "Problematizing the ultimate other of modernity: the crystallisation of coloniality in international politics." Contexto Internacional 41, no. 3 (2019): 599-619. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.2019410300006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.2019410300006
• Blaney, D. L. and A. T. Trownsell. "Recrafting international relations by worlding multiply." Uluslararasi Iliskiler 18, no. 70 (2021): 45-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.985929
  » https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.985929
• Blaser, M. "Notes towards a political ontology of 'environmental' conflicts." In Contested ecologies: dialogues in the south on nature and knowledge, edited by L. Green, 13-27. Cape Town: HSRC, 2013.
• Bold, R. Indigenous perceptions of the end of the world: creating a cosmopolitics of change. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13860-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13860-8
• Brunoro, M. A., and R. M. Tannus. "Festa e guerra na esplanada: sons da política num Acampamento Terra Livre." Wamon 5, no. 2 (2020): 135-146. doi: https://doi.org/10.29327/229184.5.2-10
  » https://doi.org/10.29327/229184.5.2-10
• Brysk, A. "Globalización y pueblos indígenas: el rol de la sociedade civil internacional en el siglo XXI." In Pueblos indígenas y política em América Latina, edited by S. Martí y Puig, 17-30. Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB, 2007.
• Büschges, C., O. Kaltmeier, and G. Bustos. Etnicidad y poder en los países andinos Quito: Corporación Editora Nacional, 2007.
• Cadena, M. "Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: conceptual reflections beyond 'politics'." Cultural Anthropology 25, no. 2 (2010): 334-370. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01061.x
• Cadena, M. "Uncommoning nature: stories from the anthropo-not-seen." In Antrhopos and the material, edited by P. Harvey, C. Krohn-Hansen, and K. G. Nustad, 35-58. Durham: Duke University, 2019.
• Cadena, M. Earth beings: ecologies of practice across andean worlds. Durham: Duke University, 2015.
• Choquehuanca Cespedes, D. "Hacia la reconstrcción del Buen Vivir." America Latina en Movimento, no. 452 (2010): 8-13.
• Codato, A., T. Lobato, and A. O. Castro. "'Vamos lutar, parentes!' As candidaturas inígenas nas eleições de 2014 no Brasil." Revista Brasileira De Ciências Sociais 32, no. 93 (2017): 1-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.17666/329302/2017
  » https://doi.org/10.17666/329302/2017
• Conselho Indigenista Missionário - CIMI. Relatório: violência contra povos indígenas no Brasil 2021. Brasília, 2022. https://cimi.org.br/2022/08/relatorioviolencia2021/
  » https://cimi.org.br/2022/08/relatorioviolencia2021/
• Conway, J., and J. Sing. "Radical democracy in global perspective: notes from the pluriverse." Third World Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2011): 689-706. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.570029
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.570029
• Coulthard, G. Red skin, white masks: rejecting the colonial poltics of recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2014.
• Cunha, M. C. "Compartilhar a memória." In Os índios na constituição, organized by C. L. Dias, and A. Capiberibe, 35-84. Cotia: Ateliê, 2019.
• Cunha, M. C., and S. Barbosa. Direitos dos povos indígenas em disputa São Paulo: Universidade Estadual Paulista, 2018.
• Delgado, A. C. T. "Suma Qamaña as a stretagy of power: politicizing the Pluriverse." Carta Internacional 13, no. 3 (2018): 236-261. doi: https://doi.org/10.21530/ci.v13n3.2018.818
  » https://doi.org/10.21530/ci.v13n3.2018.818
• Delgado, A. C. T. Internal colonialism and international relations: tracks of decolonization in Bolivia. London: Routledge, 2021.
• Deloria Jr., V. Custer died for your sins: an indian manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1988.
• Der Derian, J., and M. J. Shapiro. International/intertextual relations: postmodern readings of world politics New York: Lexington, 1989.
• Escárzaga, F. La comunidade indígena insurgente. La Paz: Plural, 2017.
• Fabian, J. Time and the other: how anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University, 2002.
• Grovogui, S. Sovereigns, quasi sovereigns, and africans: race and self-determination in international law. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
• Gudynas, E. "Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo." Extractivismo, Política y Sociedad, no. 187 (2009): 187-225.
• Helliwell, C., and B. Hindess. "The temporalizing of difference." Ethnicities 5, no. 3 (2005): 414-418. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/146879680500500309
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/146879680500500309
• Huanacuni, F. "Paradigma occidental y paradigma indígena originario." América Latina en Movimiento, no. 452 (2010): 17-22.
• Hutchings, K. "Happy anniversary! Time and critique in international relations theory." Review of International Studies 33, no. spe. s1 (2007): 71-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007401
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210507007401
• Inayatullah, N., and D. Blaney. International relations and the problem of difference New York: Routledge, 2004.
• Inoue, C. Y. A., and P. F. Moreira. "Many worlds, many nature(s), one planet: indigenous knowledge in the anthropocene." Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600209
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600209
• Jones, B. G. Decolonizing international relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.
• Krenak, A. A vida não é útil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2020.
• Krishna, S. Globalization and postcolonialism: hegemony and resistance in the twenty first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
• Lalander, R. "Ethnic rights and the dilemma of extractive development in plurinational Bolivia." The International Journal of Human Rights 21, no. 7 (2017): 464-481. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1179869
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1179869
• Lang, M., and D. Mokrani. Más allá del desarrollo Quito: Abya-Yala, 2011.
• Lang, M., B. Bringel, and M. A. Manahan. Más allás del colonialismo verde Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, 2023.
• Langer, E. D., and E. Muñoz. Contemporary indigenous movements in Latin America Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield, 2003.
• Laschefski, K. A., and A. Zhouri. "Povos indígenas, comunidades tradicionais e meio ambiente a 'questão territorial' e o novo desenvolvimentismo no Brasil." Terra Livre 1, no. 52 (2019): 278-322. doi: https://doi.org/10.62516/terra_livre.2019.1552
  » https://doi.org/10.62516/terra_livre.2019.1552
• Lightfoot, S. Global indigenous politics: a subtle revolution. London: Routledge, 2016.
• Lindroth, M. and H. Sinevaara-Niskanen. "At the crossroads of autonomy and essentialism: indigenous peoples in international environmental politics." International Political Sociology 7, no. 3 (2013): 275-293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12023
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12023
• Lippi, C. S. "Fazendo diplomacia de outra maneira: um estudo de caso da primeira marcha das mulheres indígenas (Brasil, 2019)." Doctoral Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, 2022.
• Macas, L. "Sumak Kawsay: la vida en plenitude." América Latina en Movimiento, no. 452 (2010): 14-16.
• Machado Aráoz, H. "Los dolores de nuestra América y la condición neocolonial: extractivismo y biopolítica de la expropiación." Observatorio Social da America Latina, no. 32 (2012): 51-66.
• Manuel, G, and M. Posluns. The fourth world: an indian reality Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2019.
• Martí y Puig, S. "The emergence of indigenous movements in Latin America and their impact on the Latin American political scene." Latin American Perspectives 37, no. 6 (2010): 74-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X10382100
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X10382100
• Maso, T., L. Terena, V. Veron, and J. N. Urt. "Decolonial portraits: news from the frontline, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil." International Feminist Journal of Politics 24, no. 1 (2021): 156-173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2021.1981143
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2021.1981143
• Munduruku, D. O caráter educativo do movimento indígena brasileiro (1970-1990). São Paulo: Paulinas, 2012.
• Picq, M. L. "Resistance to extractivism and megaprojects in Latin America." In The Oxford encyclopedia of Latin American politics, edited by H. E. Vanden, and G. Prevost, 1-27. Oxford: Oxford University, 2020.
• Picq, M. L. Vernacular sovereignties: indigenous women challenging world politics. Tucson: University of Arizona, 2018.
• Postero, N. G., and L. Zamosc. The struggle for indigenous rights in Latin America Eastbourne: Sussex Academic, 2004.
• Pousadela, I. Contra viento y marea: los peligros de luchar por la justicia en la gestión de los recursos naturales. Johannesburg: Civicus, 2016.
• Querejazu, A. "Encountering the pluriverse: looking for alternatives in other worlds." Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600207
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600207
• Radcliffe, S. "Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits of decolonization in Ecuador." Geoforum 43, no. 2 (2012): 240-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.003
• Rojas, C. "Contesting the colonial logics of the international: toward a relational politics for the pluriverse." International Political Sociology 10, no. 4 (2016): 369-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olw020
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olw020
• Shapiro, M. J. "National times and the other times: re-thinking citizenship." Cultural Studies 14, no. 1 (2000): 79-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/095023800334995
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/095023800334995
• Shapiro, M. J. Methods and nations: cultural governance and the indigenous subject. London: Routledge, 2004.
• Shaw, K. Indigeneity and political theory: sovereignty and the limits of the political. London: Routledge, 2008.
• Sieder, R. Multiculturalism in Latin America: indigenous rights, diversity and democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
• Smith, K. "Contrived boundaries, kinship and ubuntu: a (South) African view of the 'international." In Thinking the international differently, edited by A. Tickner, and D. Blaney, 301-321. London: Routledge, 2012.
• Sodré, J. S. "Demarcação de telas: acampamento terra livre e apropriação do ciberespaço." Master Diss., Universidade Federal do Maranhão, 2022.
• Svampa, M. "Consenso de los commodities, giro ecoterritorial y pensamiento crítico en América Latina." Observatorio Social de América Latina 13, no. 32 (2012): 15-38.
• Tickner, A. B., and A. Querejazu. "Weaving worlds: cosmopraxis as relational sensibility." International Studies Review 23, no. 2 (2021): 391-408. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa100
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa100
• Tickner, A. B., and D. L Blaney. "Worlding, ontological politics and the possibility of a decolonial IR." Millennium 45, no. 3 (2017): 1-19 doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829817702446
• Tickner, A. B., and D. L Blaney. Claiming the international London: Routledge, 2013.
• Trownsell, T., A. Querejazu Escobari, G. Shani, N. C. Behera, J. Reddekop, and A. Tickner. "Recrafting international relations through relationality." E- International Relations, January 8, 2019. https://www.e-ir.info/2019/01/08/recrafting-international-relations-through-relationality/
  » https://www.e-ir.info/2019/01/08/recrafting-international-relations-through-relationality/
• Tuhiwai Smith, L. Decolonizing methodologies. research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd, 2008.
• Ulloa, A. "Aesthetics of green dispossession: from coal do wind extraction in La Guajira, Colombia." Journal of Political Ecology 30, no. 1 (2023): 743-764. doi: https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5475
  » https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5475
• Urt, J. N. "How Western sovereignty occludes indigenous governance: the Guarani and Kaiowa peoples in Brazil." Contexto Internacional 38, no. 3 (2016): 865-886.
• Urt, J. N., M. Secco, and P. M. C. Vasconcellos. "Amazônia, palco de lutas e reflexões." Monções 9, no. 18 (2020): 1-12.
• Van Cott, D. L. From movements to parties in Latin America: the evolution of ethnic politics. Cambrigde: Cambrigde University, 2005.
• Vecchione, M. G. "Managing borders, nurturing life: existences, resistances and political becoming in the Amazon Forest." Doctoral Thesis, McMaster University, 2014.
• Veltmeyer, H., and J. Petras. A post-neoliberal development model or imperialism of the twenty-first century? London: Zed Books, 2014.
• Villarreal, P. V. "Informe anual de la relatoría especial para la libertad de expresión." Informe anual de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, May 26, 2022.
• Viveiros de Castro, E. "Os pronomes cosmológicos e o perspectivismo ameríndio." Mana 2, no. 2 (1996): 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-93131996000200005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-93131996000200005
• Walker, R. Inside/outside: international relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993.
• Warren, K. B., and J. E. Jackson. Indigenous movements, self-representation and the State in Latin America Austin: University of Texas, 2002.
• Yashar, D. J. Contesting citizenship in Latin America: the rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge. New York: Cambridge University, 2005.

• 1
  Besides COIAB, APIB assembles Terena People Council, Aty Guassu, Guarani Yvyrupa Commission, the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples from the Northeast, Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo (Articulação dos Povos e Organizações Indígenas do Nordeste, Minas Gerais e Espírito Santo [Apoinme]), from the Southeast (Articulação dos Povos Indígenas da Região Sudeste [Arpinsudeste]) and from the South (Articulação dos Povos Indígenas da Região Sul [Arpinsul]).
• 2
  APIB launched 12 candidacies for Federal Congress aiming to occupy political space historically dominated by national extractivist elites. Although not new, the participation of Indigenous people in Brazilian State structure and their affiliation to parties remain a complex subject regarding political ideology, local contexts and organic articulations, as suggested by Codato et al (2017). Conversely, they are not evenly shared among Indigenous movement’s leaders as a common strategy. Recent criticism has been publicized over the creation of MIP and the constraints Indigenous peoples face in progressive governments in Brazil (Altino 2024, Baniwa, 2015)
• 3
  On Marco Temporal, see Articulação dos Povos Indigenas do Brasil (2023c) and Cunha and Barbosa (2018).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  06 Dec 2024
• Date of issue
  Nov 2024

History

• Received
  26 June 2024
• Accepted
  07 Oct 2024