Pantone-denouncations

Letter to Australian Ambassor in Peru

 

FEDERATION OF THE YAGUAS PEOPLE OF THE APAYACU RIVER “FEPYRA”

           “YEAR OF NATIONAL INTEGRATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUR DIVERSITY”


Iquitos, August 20, 2012

Mr JOHN WOODS
AMBASSOR OF AUSTRALIA IN PERU.
Lima City.  PERU


Javier Fasanando Julcas, identified with identity document Number 05317320, President of the Federation of Yaguas Peoples of the Apayacu River, District of the Amazons, Loreto Region, properly registered in the Public Records of Loreto with entry 11043561 and through the following we interpose our COMPLAINT for the meddling of the Australian citizens STEVEN DERIC, Rice with passport N.   N3265331 and LIA ROSS, Bartlett in business of strict PRIVATE nature, being an illegal act and insulting in the prejudice of our ethnicity.

That, in the month of April of the current year, a journalistic team of the television program 60 minutes from channel 9 Australia, without our authorization entered our territory with the intention of knowing the business activities and participation of the Australian citizen David John Nilsson referring to the Agreement of Sustainable Forest Management for Amazonian Communities, Agreement to which we subscribed on the 31 of October of the year 2011 with the company Amazon Holdings Limited by own will and in full knowledge of its content and consent of the native communities of Cuzco, Sabalillo, Boca Apayacu, San Augusto which are members of our federation for being an alternative to our requirements and necessities.

The contents of the coverage of 60 minutes transmitted by channel 9 of Australia is an aggression to our sovereign rights and it’s against our wishes of exiting the extreme poverty in which we are immersed.

The Australian citizens STEVEN DERICK, Rice - Producer, LIAM ROSS, Bartlett - Reporter of the television program 60 minutes of Australian arranged with the North American citizen nationalized Peruvian Dan James Pantone Dobbratz and other actors, who conspired and invented a story indicating that the Agreement to which we are subscribed is “illegal” because according to them we are intellectually incapable people (illiterate) by not knowing to write or read and that our communities were dissatisfied and discontent by the subscription and contents of the agreement plus a significant discontent of the communities.

While it’s true that some people are against it (in fact, just one person has been identified) in no way does this mean that the agreement is not valid if it were the case, that the agreement did not have an overwhelming support, then it would have been impossible to ratify it.
 
 

Share with others

Delicious

Translate

Search

Articles: