There is an urgent need for more Indigenous individuals to collaborate before the few individual leaders burn out Originally published on Global Voices Deforestation in the Maranhão state of Brazil. Deforestation and land theft remain a persistent threat to Indigenous communities, including those who live near the Amazon basin. Image from Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY 2.0) . This post is part of Global Voices’ August 2026 Spotlight series, “ Indigenous Rights .” This series offers insight into the lives and experiences of Indigenous peoples to build connections across regions, center Indigenous experiences, and share the stories of leaders, activists, community members, and more. You can support this coverage by donating here . There are 476 million Indigenous people in the world, about 6.2 percent of the global population. Though only 25 percent of the Earth’s landmass is left to be stewarded by these original inhabitants, they have long protected global biodiversity — often better than any official government programs and efforts . For hundreds of years, Indigenous groups have weathered colonization, violent settler occupation, oppression, and forced assimilation. Yet despite this dark past — which continues today in the 21st century — Indigenous people continue to fight for their fundamental rights and their own lands and resources. As I read through the pieces Global Voices’ authors contributed to the August 2026 Spotlight series, “ Indigenous Rights ,” one common question stands out for me: Who gets to decide? We are past the question of whether Indigenous peoples deserve recognition, land, cultural, and political representation. The key is to ask who holds the power to grant or withhold, and who gets to decide on Indigenous identity, land, culture, safety, and profit. Not all Indigenous peoples can claim their Indigenous identities because the state sometimes denies this right. A genocide by the Ottoman Empire wiped out nearly 75 percent of the Assyrian people, and the Iraqi army led another genocide in 1933. Yet, not a single constitution of the region recognizes the Assyrians as an Indigenous people . It took 30 years for Taiwan’s Siraya people to be officially recognized as Indigenous, but Japan’s Ryūkyūan people have only seen denials by the state. The Ryūkyūan were once removed from their own lands by the U.S. military during World War II. Decades later, the U.S. military continues to hoard Okinawan land through its military bases and destroy natural resources through unchecked pollution. In Europe, “autochthonous,” perceived descendants of the original inhabitants, has become a discursive tool to promote nationalism and build hate against the “guests,” the immigrants. Ironically, depictions of Native American “heroes” in European popular culture have fuelled this. While recognition as an Indigenous people is a critical first step for any Indigenous community, it does not always translate to decision-making. When Indigenous leaders in Nueva Vizcaya, the Philippines, organized an anti-mining rally, they were arrested and charged, with over 30 criminal cases filed against them. Brazil’s case was even scarier — 258 Indigenous people were murdered in 2025 for defending their land rights, according to Cimi (the Missionary Indigenist Council). In Thailand, mining activities are polluting the Kok River. Hundreds of villagers, Indigenous leaders, monks, and civil and environmental rights activists carried out a “ peace walk ” to defend their Indigenous cultural identity and a vital source of drinking water, irrigation, fisheries, and transportation. Almost always, when the state goes against its Indigenous peoples, it is to extract the latter’s lands, waters, other natural resources, or community products. Lack of Indigenous recognition also translates to significant state control over lands and land-related decisions. China’s new cotton law mechanized cotton production, making the cotton supply chain state-traceable, state-inspectable, and state-governable through data. Concurrently, this policy coerced over seven million Uyghur, Tibetan, and other Indigenous farmers to use their own lands under significant government supervision. In northern Tanzania, the Indigenous Maasai lands are taken by the state in the name of environmental protection only to use them for tourism, hunting, and private investments. All of these stories raise the original question — who gets to decide. When Indigenous communities control decisions, they are able to protect and nurture their lands, resources, languages, and cultures. For example, 14 members of the Kam community in Nigeria created 307 audiovisual recordings in the Kam language , which has 8,000–11,000 speakers, after receiving training from a linguist, buffering against the threat of language endangerment. In India, Kshetrabasi Juanga , an Indigenous educator, goes from village to village, documenting the endangered Juang language . Far away in Russia, the Buryat fashion designer Oksana Alkhunsaeva has created an occupation for herself that both employs and supports her whole family, and keeps the Buryat textile heritage alive. The question of who gets to decide also shapes the impact of modernization on Indigenous communities. As Nepal’s Rana Tharu language is threatened due to the prioritization of English and Nepali, women often become the last line of defense, preventing the loss of local languages. Dambe, a martial art form of Nigeria’s Hausa tribe, sees the new safety measures, regulations, and modernization through organized tournaments as a welcome step. But YouTube contests that attract external participation and viewership are erasing the Hausa cultural heritage long associated with it. There is a strong case for the protection of Indigenous knowledge, and even state support, when its economic value flows into the community. Ghana’s traditional medicine sector serves 60 to 70 percent of the population, as the profit-driven Western medicine market fails to make medicines affordable. The cassava, millet, and sorghum market is expanding across Africa, as these Indigenous crops are a better alternative to imported wheat- economical and gluten-free- opening potential for leading an international market. Indigenous knowledge and data are a core part of AI policies. As Chadian environmental activist Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim rightly puts it, “Indigenous peoples must be recognized as rights holders and decision-makers — especially when newfangled technology has implications for their lands or intellectual heritage.” The state’s control over Indigenous bodies goes hand-in-hand with state surveillance. In Australia, Indigenous children are 23 times more likely to be under supervision and 28 times more likely to be in detention . What really stands out for me is what Genner Llanes-Ortiz , a Mexican Mayan researcher, argues — most modern state structures have categorically failed to understand the Indigenous communities. These societies once lived on the lands that provide homes to the descendants of settler-colonists as well as those who arrived in other ways. One important human aspect we may forget when discussing these issues is that the onus of protecting and preserving Indigenous cultures falls on individuals like Kshetrabasi Juang or Oksana Alkhunsaeva. There is an urgent need for resources — for more Indigenous individuals to collaborate before the few individual leaders burn out. Written by Subhashish Panigrahi

‘We cannot allow our young people to become victims of an unjust war of aggression.’ Originally published on Global Voices Representatives from Korean civil society marched from the U.S. Embassy to the Blue House (the executive office and residence of the president of South Korea) in Seoul. Image provided by People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy in its press release . Used with permission. This post is part of Global Voices’ September 2026 Spotlight series, “ Protest in Democracy .” With this Spotlight, we seek to explore the many forms of protest, the tactics states use to delegitimize and suppress them, and the complex relationship between protest and democracy. You can support this coverage by donating here . Upon Seoul confirming its plan to make a “substantive contribution,” including combat or non-combat military deployment options, to the Strait of Hormuz last week, a coalition of 601 civic groups gathered outside the U.S. Embassy on September 9, 2026, and marched towards the presidential office. The protesters were signaling their opposition to South Korea’s involvement in the Middle East conflict, arguing that the decision would undermine the country’s constitution and sovereignty. Since the United States and Israel launched their joint military action against Iran in early 2026, leading to Iran’s blockade of the Straight of Hormuz, U.S. President Donald Trump has been pressuring allies in Europe and Asia to help reopen the Strait by providing military support. As the U.S.’s November 2026 midterm elections approach, pressure to rally international support for this unpopular war is mounting, and Trump has started squeezing his allies harder . Weeks ahead of the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral military drill , Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that he is scaling down U.S. involvement in the exercise due to Seoul’s reluctance to engage in the Middle East conflict. Washington also announced in early September that it would enact a “targeted, thoughtful tariff policy” on semiconductor imports , clearly targeting Seoul, as South Korea is a major hub for the global semiconductor industry. Soon after this announcement , South Korean domestic media outlets quoted a presidential office official saying Seoul was set to deploy troops to Hormuz by late 2026. While President Lee Jae-myung stressed that the plan was still under review and no final decision had been made , the Ministry of National Defense dispatched a field investigation team to assess the situation in Hormuz on September 7. An imperialist war Since President Lee Jae-myung’s announcement on September 4, Korean civil society has released an outpouring of statements and launched numerous protests. On that day, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions issued a statement warning against any form of military deployment, arguing that if Korea were coerced into joining the “imperialist war,” it would risk the safety of Korean people and the country’s sovereignty. The Trade Unions also criticized the U.S. for trying to leverage semiconductor tariff negotiations to bargain for military backup, suggesting it was underhanded and unethical. Lee Mu-jin, Executive Committee Chair of the Seoul Candlelight Action, the civic coalition which successfully mobilized for former president Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment, also spoke out against the U.S. economic coercion in a public gathering on September 5th, urging officials to defend the country’s sovereignty by rejecting Trump’s demands. Many politicians and political parties issued similarly strong statements against the U.S.’s attempt to drag Seoul into the war with Iran. Both the Green Party and the Justice Party described Trump as a “warmonger,” with the latter raising the following question in a statement on X: 미국 내에서조차 트럼프의 소수 측근만이 옹호하는 이 군사작전에 왜 한국의 시민들이, 청년들이 방패막이가 되어야 하는가. 호르무즈 파병동의안은 “전쟁광 호위동의안”이다. Why should South Korean citizens and young people be used as a human shield for this military operation, while within the U.S. only a handful of Trump’s closest aides support the war? The plan to approve the dispatch of troops to the Strait of Hormuz will serve as a ‘consensus to stand by a warmonger.’ Small-scale protests were seen throughout the weekend. On September 5, People in Solidarity with Palestinians, a civic group composed of students and humanitarian workers, organized an emergency rally against the potential military deployment. “한국군 호르무즈 파병 반대한다!” “이재명 정부는 호르무즈에 한국군 파병 말라!” “No War! No Troops!” https://t.co/3AR1kVUKa2 pic.twitter.com/XmMTTqH5Ev — 팔레스타인인들과 연대하는 사람들(팔연사) (@ppl4pal_kr) September 5, 2026 “We Oppose the Deployment of Korean Troops to Hormuz!” “The Lee Jae-myung Government Must Not Deploy Korean Troops to Hormuz!” “No War! No Troops!” Numerous protests and peace actions took place on university campuses and downtown Seoul on September 7. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei wrote in Korean on X, suggesting that South Korea’s military presence in Hormuz would result in “serious consequences,” accompanied by an image reading “dangerous choices come with a price.” On September 9, a coalition of 601 civic groups, the Joint Action Against War of Aggression and Troop Deployment, organized a joint action condemning the U.S. diplomatic coercion. In a statement, the coalition described the U.S. and Israel’s attack on Iran as “an unlawful war of aggression” that violates international law and argued that military deployment to the Middle East will violate the South Korean Constitution, as, according to Article 5, the country should “renounce aggressive war.” The coalition stressed: 우리의 청년들을 부당한 침략전쟁의 희생양으로 내어줄 수는 없다. We cannot allow our young people to sacrifice and become victims of an unjust war of aggression. After stating their positions in front of the U.S. embassy, representatives from the civic coalition marched to the Blue House, the executive office and residence of the president of South Korea. The Seoul government has considered the U.S.-ROK security alliance vital to the country’s survival, as after the Korean War (1950–1953), Korea was divided into the North (backed by the Soviet Union) and the South. Hence, South Korea often stands by the U.S. During both the Vietnam War (1963–1974) and the Iraq War (2003–2008), the South Korean government backed the U.S. with military deployment. However, after the democratic transition, investigative news reports about South Korean soldiers’ involvement in the massacre of Vietnamese civilians have sparked self-reflection and a peacebuilding movement, 미안해요 베트남 (I am sorry, Vietnam), among the progressive NGO sector. Hence, under public pressure, the South Korean government took a non-combatant role during the Iraq War. Faced with U.S. coercion, South Korean civil society has adamantly opposed the country’s military involvement in the Middle East, launching numerous protests and peace campaigns since April. Now, despite the military threat coming from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs and the country’s oil supply being heavily affected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, various polls showed that a slight majority of South Koreans still opposed military deployment to the Middle East. As the Lee administration said that it would seek public consensus over the decision, the anti-war network will continue working to stop the country from being dragged into the Iran war. The next grand mobilization is set for September 12. Written by Oiwan Lam