According to the official historical narrative embraced by the current U.S. administration, neither Indigenous peoples, nor descendants of enslaved Africans, nor Asians or Latin Americans have any place in the formation of the North American country.
Only “Western civilization,” now supposedly in decline, is said to possess values worth protecting and restoring in order to usher in a new era of prosperity. However, in other arenas, such as the UN, different proposals are put forward—proposals that are often silenced or simply disregarded, despite their solid grounding and well-founded basis.
Many of those who propose reforming or eliminating the United Nations are, more than seeking efficiency, aiming to silence those voices. If there were a genuine desire to move forward on matters of international security, for example, serious consideration should be given to the presence and territorial ownership of Indigenous Peoples in areas of strategic relevance, often rich in natural resources.
Context
In recent times, we constantly receive information about multiple conflicts around the world that cannot fail to provoke concern about the situation and future of humanity in any minimally attentive observer.
The information tsunami obviously presents notable imbalances in quality and credibility, making it very difficult to clearly understand what is happening. But the main characteristic of this news dynamic is the habitual lack of contextual and interpretative frameworks that would allow an understanding of causes, effects, and processes beyond isolated data or specific events.
In particular, there is a persistent absence of conceptual frameworks such as the stages of development of the capitalist system, intra-capitalist conflicts, the lack of inclusion of variables related to interests, actors, and even diverse cultural realities within states, or references to the colonial system—not as a fact of the past but as a present reality—among many other aspects.
For example, in light of the repeated intention (with concrete actions) of the current U.S. administration to advance the appropriation of territories over which it has no current rights, it is difficult to hear these variables taken into account, let alone used to explain events and applied in the search for conflict transformation.
When information about Greenland or Palestine appears in the media, there are almost no references to the ancestral characteristics of their populations or their internationally recognized collective rights—issues that generally have no place in responses to supposed or real global security problems.
Marco Rubio’s Speech
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered a speech on February 14, 2026, during the Munich Security Conference, before an audience largely composed of political leaders and members of European elites, although people from other parts of the world were also present.
The speech, available on official U.S. government websites, should be understood as an oratorical piece that lists not only the main characteristics and objectives of the U.S. administration but also as an official effort to sustain a justificatory narrative, while inviting the rest of the countries and organizations present at the conference to join these aims.
I would like to focus on this narrative aspect because it implies an official account of world history as well as its current composition—a narrative in which most of the planet’s inhabitants simply have no place, neither in the past nor in the present.
In other words, it represents a reformulation of the ideological and political foundations of the colonial system that justified the appropriation of goods and territories.
To that end, on the one hand, all current ills are attributed to international structures that the United States itself built after World War II. On the other hand, there is an attempt to culturally and historically disparage the rest of the world that is not part of what he calls “Western civilization.”
According to Rubio, the United States, founded more than 250 years ago, has its roots in Europe.
To support this claim, he begins with the expedition of the Italian Columbus, then refers to English, Scottish, and Irish settlers, German farmers and artisans, as well as the French who, according to the Secretary of State, helped in the so-called “westward expansion.”
As if something were missing, he reminds us that the first inhabitants of present-day New York were Dutch.
Rubio states: “The man who settled and built the nation in which I was born came to our shores carrying with him the memories, traditions, and Christian faith of his ancestors as a sacred heritage, an unbreakable bond between the Old World and the New.”
According to Rubio’s speech, this historical trajectory has generated deep ties based on: “…the Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our ancestors made together for the common civilization we have inherited.”
The precise selection of groups and geographic origins mentioned leaves no doubt: neither Indigenous peoples, nor enslaved Africans and their descendants, nor people from the rest of the Americas or from Asia have any place in the history of the United States, much less in its present. Nor do they hold any relevance in terms of constructing a new global scheme.
Each time Secretary Rubio uses the first-person plural (“our” or “we”), he includes a reduced number of countries and their populations. The rest do not matter; they are not part of the “we.”
Thus, when he claims that the so-called post-World War II “world order” can no longer be sustained because it places itself “above the vital interests of our peoples and our nations,” he is opposing international law to the interests of the nations of “Western civilization.”
So when he says that the Trump presidency promotes renewal and restoration, he is referring to those structures—basically colonial—that he longs for and seeks to recover.
Rubio’s narrative presents two other aspects worth highlighting.
His historical account is excessively sugar-coated (even considering the audience), without even minimal mention of the conflicts, wars, and deaths that occurred—many of which are causes of major current conflicts.
Moreover, he presents matters without any reference to internal differences and conflicts among the “nations” of his cherished West.
No matter how much he wishes to avoid it, he cannot think about the current reality of his own country without considering the perspective of the African American population or those of Latin American origin. The same can be said of each European country. It is therefore unclear how his vision of “Western civilization” could be applied to present-day societies except through a gigantic maneuver of exclusion of broad sectors.
Rubio states: “For five centuries, before the end of World War II, the West had expanded: its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers leaving its shores to cross oceans, colonize new continents, and build vast empires stretching across the globe.”
For Rubio, conflict exists only when explaining the fall of this “expanded West,” these “vast empires,” which conveniently serves to assign external blame and stereotype any view or action contrary to dominant hegemony.
He tells us: “The great Western empires had entered a terminal decline, accelerated by atheist communist revolutions and anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and cover vast stretches of the map with the red hammer and sickle in the years that followed.”
In other words: for Rubio, the problem of the world has been anti-colonialism, not the colonial system. Therefore, restoring it would be a good for humanity.
The UN and Indigenous Peoples
Since the final decades of the twentieth century, as a consequence of the struggles of Indigenous peoples and communities worldwide—particularly around the period leading up to the 500th anniversary of the conquest of the Americas—the United Nations has paid special attention to these groups.
Legal instruments have been adopted and specific institutional bodies created on this subject, enabling recognition and, at least partially, giving them a voice in the international arena.
The decolonization process promoted by UN member states involves several actions and measures, including recognizing Indigenous Peoples as historical collectives with a vocation for permanence rather than as subjects of colonial political subjugation.
The UN Special Rapporteur
One of the institutions within the universal human rights system specifically established for the promotion and protection of the rights of Indigenous Peoples is the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Created in 2001 by the then Commission on Human Rights as part of the system of thematic Special Procedures, its mandate includes, among other aspects:
- Promoting best practices, new legislation, governmental programs, and constructive agreements between Indigenous Peoples and States to implement international standards relating to the rights of Indigenous Peoples;
- Formulating recommendations and proposals on appropriate measures to prevent and remedy violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples;
- Submitting reports on the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples worldwide;
- Addressing specific cases of alleged violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Since the end of 2024, the mandate holder has been Dr. Albert Barume, originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with extensive experience in the field, including having served as Chair and member of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Senior Specialist on Indigenous Peoples’ rights at the ILO, and Independent Expert on the rights of Indigenous Peoples at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
As part of his duties, the Special Rapporteur conducts country visits to examine in detail progress and challenges in the realization of the rights of Indigenous peoples and communities.
In addition, the Special Rapporteur prepares studies on issues affecting Indigenous Peoples with the aim of identifying problems and offering recommendations to overcome them.
Territorial Rights
One of the most recent thematic reports prepared by the Special Rapporteur is titled: “Identification, demarcation, registration, and titling of Indigenous Peoples’ lands: practices and lessons learned.”
The document explores current challenges related to the right of Indigenous Peoples to their traditional territories and natural resources, including issues such as the criminalization of defenders and the relationship between ancestral Indigenous territories and international security.
On this latter point, the Rapporteur suggests that States consider Indigenous Peoples as allies in matters of international security—something that does not currently occur.
The Rapporteur starts from the premise that these rights derive from the social, historical, and cultural structures of the peoples themselves, as stated in the 2007 UN Declaration. Therefore, these territorial rights exist independently of State recognition, meaning that any demarcation, registration, or titling is declaratory of pre-existing rights. In other words, the State is not the source of the right but an entity obliged to recognize it.
Throughout history (and even today with similar arguments), Indigenous Peoples have been dehumanized and reduced to the status of “savages” in order to justify the occupation and ownership of their ancestral lands.
However, from the perspective of international standards, Indigenous territorial rights are legally solid and ethically just.
Territorial rights include the right of ownership over those lands.
Before colonization or the establishment of current state borders, Indigenous Peoples—like all nations—held full customary ownership of their lands.
The Rapporteur illustrates this by referring to the 2001 judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, in which the regional court affirmed that “possession of the land should suffice for Indigenous communities lacking formal title to obtain official recognition of ownership.”
He also notes that the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights reached a similar conclusion in African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, affirming that the Ogiek Indigenous People are the owners of their traditional lands.
Another relevant conceptualization by the Rapporteur is that Indigenous territorial rights are permanent: they do not expire and are not subject to temporal limitations.
Therefore, Indigenous Peoples cannot be denied territorial rights due to the passage of time without continuous possession, since dispossession can only occur with their free, prior, and informed consent and with due compensation.
This is a central issue in the debate taking place in Brazil regarding what some call the “time frame” doctrine, which seeks to condition Indigenous territorial rights on physical occupation prior to the current Constitution (1988). Although the Supreme Court has adopted the correct conception, legislative initiatives questioning it persist.
For Indigenous Peoples, land is the basis of their very existence: it is where their culture and livelihoods originate, where their knowledge is preserved, and where their spiritual life, food systems, and health systems are sustained.
For this reason, the Rapporteur emphasizes that territorial rights are also the foundation and guarantee of “other rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the rights to life, culture, dignity, health, water, and food.”
Threats to Territorial Rights
Although reality is not homogeneous, the report generally accounts for the many obstacles preventing the realization of Indigenous territorial rights.
Undeniable advances in the international legal framework and some historic judicial decisions have not significantly reduced the gap between rights and reality.
As the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stated in its 2020 report, “the implementation gap remains wide and the lack of recognition of territorial rights contributes to violence occurring in many regions.”
Latin America and the Caribbean are a clear example of this paradox: solid legal frameworks coexist with a notable absence of effective implementation.
In many countries, important constitutional and international commitments exist regarding Indigenous territorial rights, but political resistance, economic pressures, and corruption delay or cause the denial of land registration and titling.
Even favorable judicial decisions are undermined by poor enforcement and lack of consultation.
Gender-based exclusion, the criminalization of land defenders, and conflicts related to extractive exploitation of resources are widespread.
Within this context, however, the Rapporteur highlights community initiatives and international legal victories as reasons for hope.
The growing demand for recognition and protection of Indigenous territorial rights is driving an alarming increase in persecution and criminalization of human rights defenders worldwide.
A report by Front Line Defenders, cited by the Rapporteur, notes that 31% of at least 300 human rights defenders killed in 2023 were Indigenous or worked on Indigenous rights.
The Rapporteur points out that this figure is disproportionate, considering that Indigenous Peoples represent around 5% of the world’s population.
Some Conflict Areas
The Rapporteur highlights specific factors that provoke interest in appropriating Indigenous resources, including the effects of climate change and the actions of extractive companies.
Although Indigenous Peoples protect nature according to their own worldviews, they are being seriously affected by global warming and climate change precisely because of their strong connection to lands and natural resources.
In particular, the Rapporteur analyzes the serious challenges posed by the carbon market and conservationism.
For financial reasons, many governments are interested in Indigenous territories in order to enter the market and meet targets such as Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which promotes conserving 30% of terrestrial and marine areas.
The fundamental problem is that in order to reach these figures, there is a tendency to exclude Indigenous Peoples in violation of international standards, particularly participation rights and the right to free, prior, and informed consent.
The serious impact of extractive industries and energy projects on Indigenous territories is evident, as they are generally carried out without consultation or consent.
The Rapporteur mentions, among other cases, the so-called “lithium triangle” in Latin America, where Indigenous Peoples oppose projects that threaten their water sources and violate their right to free, prior, and informed consent.
Despite promises of sustainable development, many Indigenous leaders denounce their exclusion from decision-making processes and the growing pressure on their territories in the name of the global energy transition.
Another serious issue relates to so-called international security, as many Indigenous territories are located in areas considered strategic by political-military powers in light of current or potential conflicts.
Greenland, home to Inuit communities, is a clear example.
The island, rich in rare earth minerals, has drawn strategic attention due to its location, emerging maritime routes, and reserves of energy, oil, minerals, and other untapped resources.
Three Current Problems
According to the Rapporteur, Indigenous Peoples often face triple victimization:
- They suffer from the lack of support from an effective or protective State and the lack of accessible public services.
- They become vulnerable to occupation, harassment, or influence by extremist groups, insurgents, or criminal networks that exploit State absence and attempt to enslave or recruit vulnerable community members.
- They are subjected to unjust accusations, persecution, stigmatization, and criminalization by the State and society at large, and are often falsely labeled as threats to national and international security or as enemies of progress and development.
The report concludes with a long list of recommendations insisting on considering Indigenous Peoples as fundamental actors in the design and implementation of public policies, including those related to international security.
According to the Rapporteur: “Harnessing the knowledge, territorial rights, self-determination, cultural values, and resilience of Indigenous Peoples can enable them to serve as effective first-line protectors against extremism, trafficking, climate change, and biodiversity loss on their lands. To achieve this, States should forge a new partnership with Indigenous Peoples on international security, as emerging examples show that their involvement improves security.”
As the author notes, this document does not close the debate but rather seeks to initiate it, inviting contributions toward a new thematic report in which he will propose concrete strategies.
Conclusion
In his Munich speech, Secretary Rubio stated that the “world order” must serve the interests of the “West.” He also claimed that the United Nations has great potential as a tool for the world but must be rebuilt because, according to him, it lacks answers to urgent global issues.
On this point, he cited examples (Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, etc.), blaming the UN for its inability to resolve conflicts without mentioning the role of the United States itself or its veto power in the Security Council.
In reality, for the United States (and other powers), one of the UN’s “problems” is that, as a result of decolonization, countries and social organizations now have voice and vote—something that did not occur in the organization’s early years.
Until well into the 1960s, much of the world’s population lived in territories dominated by Western powers through colonial and other structures, while others (China being a good example) faced internal conditions that prevented them from having real weight in major global issues.
The functioning of the UN’s various commissions, agencies, and special procedures—within their limitations and still far from what many expect—allows for documented perspectives and proposals that differ greatly from those expressed in Rubio’s Munich speech.
Starting from an anti-colonial conceptual framework aligned with the major global agreements humanity has adopted in recent decades enables us not only to question the need for colonial restoration but also to learn about and work on other proposals that exist yet are systematically denied by those who believe only “Western civilization” deserves to exist and dominate the world.
In that path, the struggle over narrative is essential—something that helps explain the hysteria generated in the White House over fifteen minutes of performance by an artist not favored by the president during a sporting event.
The central issue was not aesthetic differences but rather a challenge to the political discourse of power voiced by representatives of a culture that is intended to be subjugated and therefore should not be allowed to express itself in spaces reserved for hegemonic structures.
It must also be said that Rubio’s speech was applauded by European political leadership.
Whether out of full agreement or for other reasons, the fact remains that little seems to be left—at least among current leadership—of the Europe that once defended human rights and social cohesion.
This point is highly relevant for opening political, social, and cultural spaces for debate that are not based on rebuilding colonial structures.