Must Love Peoples, Not Personas
The mindset that's fragmenting Indigenous diplomacy.
I need to talk about something that’s breaking our collective power in UN spaces.
Two completely different games are happening in the same rooms where decisions affecting 476 million Indigenous Peoples get made. One builds lasting power for peoples. The other builds impressive CVs for individuals.
I spot the difference. And I’m writing this so the next generation knows what to avoid.
What Real Mandate Actually Looks Like
I get my mandate from my traditional council. Maluku first, always.
Yes, I carry the IITC badge at the Human Rights Council and BBNJ. Yes, I coordinate the Indigenous caucus on Article 6 Carbon Markets at the UNFCCC. But my first responsibility is always to my traditional government.
Fork in the road? I check in with my Secretary General. Present the choices, give my recommendation, wait for instruction. Years of this builds trust, so check-ins get shorter. But the accountability never goes away.
Getting Broader Mandate
Before BBNJ PrepCom 2, before UNOC3, before Article 6, I ran Zoom coordination meetings. Not just to coordinate, but to get broader mandate and bring people along. Teach them how to read and edit resolutions.
Here’s what people miss: being an expert on something is not a mandate. You can know everything about Indigenous rights law and have zero authority to speak for peoples.
Mandate comes from peoples, not your CV.
What It Looks Like in Practice
At the Human Rights Council, I send the zero draft with my edits to IITC. Outline the three main asks, wait for feedback. During sessions, I’m consulting Indigenous reps on the ground, listening to States in bilaterals, then checking back before I respond.
Last two years, Ambassador Juan Leon joins me for the fall HRC negotiations. Sometimes I stop by his hotel: “Can I have five minutes? Here’s what I gathered. Here’s my proposal. Thoughts?” He edits, approves. Then I can prep for the next informal.
Climate negotiations? Morning Indigenous caucus check-ins where I report back on carbon markets. Daily team coordination meetings. Daily debriefs I record and post online.
The result? Specific. Transparent. Accountable.
The Proximity Game
But there’s another mindset floating around. Doesn’t anchor in peoples, but anchors in proximity. It gravitates toward whatever looks powerful, not because they have a mandate, but because being close looks important.
Always gathering information, always seeming to know things. But, look closer though, they’re not building anything. They’re collecting.
The tells? “I was consulted.” “I was instrumental.” Sounds important, means nothing. Who consulted you? About what? With what outcome? The vagueness is the whole point.
What This Actually Costs
While coordination work I mentioned is happening, this other game runs parallel. Private meetings nobody can verify. Hallway conversations. “Helping” with language reps never reviewed. Then claiming involvement in positions or appointments.
States start trusting people who brand themselves as having proximity to Indigenous Peoples. They think they’re engaging someone representative. Then mandated reps show up with different positions and there’s confusion. The State thought they already spoke to Indigenous Peoples. They didn’t realize they were talking to someone without a mandate.
It fragments our collective voice. Erodes the discipline that won every breakthrough we have.
What to Watch For (In Others, and in Yourself)
Ask these questions about anyone engaging in these spaces, including yourself:
The mandate test:
Who gave you your mandate?
Who do you report back to?
At forks in the road, who do you check in with for guidance/instruction?
Can you name the specific person or council that approved your role?
The expertise trap:
Are you confusing your expertise with mandate?
Do you have knowledge about Indigenous rights, or authority from Indigenous Peoples?
When you speak, whose voice are you carrying?
The transparency check:
Can others verify your claims of influence?
Are your consultations and coordination visible to the movement?
Do you share your process, or just your outcomes?
Are you having side conversations with States that coordinated delegations don’t know about?
The accountability question:
If your traditional council called you tomorrow and said “stop,” would you stop?
Are you accountable to peoples, or to your positioning?
Do you celebrate wins collectively, or frame them as personal achievements?
If you don’t have clear answers:
Go get that mandate. Run coordination meetings.Build the relationships that create accountability. I bring people into the BBNJ process, have calls that teach them how to read/edit resolutions.
Don’t claim that your expertise gives you the right to speak for peoples.
For the Next Generation
Indigenous diplomacy is peoples, not personas. Mandate, not positioning.
Real work is specific and transparent. Not vague “I was consulted.” It’s “I sent Andrea at IITC the three asks and waited for feedback.” Not mysterious influence. It’s “I showed Ambassador Leon my proposal, he edited it, then I had mandate.”
The proximity game offers instant feedback. You engage, people notice, you get the photo. Feels like progress.
But only mandate builds lasting power.
If This Hits Different
Feeling uncomfortable? Good. That discomfort is information. It shows where you might have drifted from peoples toward personas. From mandate toward proximity.
You have a choice. Dismiss this as someone else’s problem. Or ask honestly the questions abve.
Every time someone operates solo, every time proximity gets mistaken for power, it makes real work harder for everyone.
Before You Go
Proximity to power looks impressive until you realize it’s built on nothing.
The mandate game, the coordination game, that’s what builds lasting change. Rights that outlive your career. Fragmented voices into unstoppable movements.
If you don’t have mandate, go get it. Don’t claim it from expertise.
Peoples over personas. Every single time.
See you next time!