------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/1dTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
From: "ngo_ip_undecade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: AILA: Report on the Xth Intersessional WGDD
From: "American Indian Law Alliance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Greetings to our Indigenous Brothers and Sisters, allies, supporters
and friends:
The following is the "executive" summary of our Report on the Xth
Session of the Intersessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration
held in September in Geneva. In the complete report we tried to
highlight the most important issues, some of the nature of the
debate and some of the language presentations that were made. The
full report also contains the Chairman's summary. A copy of the
full report can be found on our website in PDF format at
www.ailanyc.org by following the link to the 2004 InterSessional
Working Group page. If you need to contact us about a hard copy of
the report, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . We hope the
summary and report are useful to you and welcome any comments you
might have. As you know, the December session is being convened on
November
The chairman of the Working Group, Sr. Chavez, seemed to have his
own agenda for completing the Draft Declaration before the end of
his tenure in December 2004. It was generally agreed amongst the
Indigenous representatives that his plan to discuss every preambular
paragraph and article in the Declaration during this two week
session, despite the fact that many had never been addressed
(including the critical issues of lands, territories and resources
and treaties), seemed to undermine the substantive work of the 10th
session and the effective participation of Indigenous delegates.
Some speculated that by reporting to the Commission on Human Rights
("CHR") that every article had been "discussed" and consensus was
not reached, he would be justified in submitting a completely
original text (incorporating unacceptable language from States)
without the direct approval of Indigenous peoples. Some of these
fears were validated in the release of the Chairman's summary
(E/CN.4/2004/WG.15/CRP.4; 14 October 2004) which utilized an
alternative text (CRP.1) as the basis of his report.
Almost everyone in the Indigenous Caucus agreed that additional time
was needed in order to come to a consensus that would give
Indigenous nations and peoples a Declaration that justified the
years of sacrifice of our leaders and elders and adequately
protected the rights of our future generations.
Although the Chair seemed to close the door on this possibility,
there were indications from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR),
that it was not unreasonable. The CHR representative who opened the
meeting said that additional time might be necessary and,
historically, the CHR has never abandoned a Declaration on any human
rights issues (especially after 20 years of work). The best way,
however, to get additional time would be to show that substantial
and productive progress was being made in the Intersessional Working
Group.
There was increased cooperation between some States and Indigenous
peoples. Many thought we could have reached consensus on as many as
20 articles and paragraphs if the Chair had called for a vote. For
many, the "order of work", "the method of work", and the Chair's own
inclinations seemed to conspire against encouragement of this
increased cooperation. It is important to note that the Chair has
defined consensus as meaning that no one objects which in effect
would allow one State the power to veto specific language even if
the overwhelming majority of Indigenous delegates and States come to
an agreement.
Nonetheless, we had our supporters. Guatemala and Mexico fought
hard for much of the original language as well as some language
changes that met our criteria (improved clarity of Indigenous
rights, consistency with human rights law, and principles of non-
discrimination and equality). Even Canada conceded some major
issues (acceptance of Article 3 on self-determination as drafted).
Many others States were willing to be more cooperative than ever
before.
In this spirit, a proposal was worked out between certain Indigenous
nations and peoples living within Canadian borders (with the support
of the Canadian State delegation) that would have provided for the
very realistic opportunity of having Article 3 passed in its
original language. Article 3 calls for an unqualified right to self-
determination for Indigenous peoples and, along with treaty rights,
is considered the most important single article of the Declaration.
The "Package" proposal included;
Article 3 as originally drafted
preambular paragraph 15 as revised last year (which many believe
actually improved the text and added to Indigenous peoples' rights
under the Declaration, referred to as the AILA/Guatemala Proposal)
a new preambular paragraph completely consistent with Indigenous
nations' treaties (it basically states that all parties enter into
this Declaration with mutual cooperation, peace and friendly
relations in mind).
This new paragraph was designed to avoid the concern of some States'
about territorial integrity, "secession", etc. Resolution of this
issue in our favor would have been a major coup for Indigenous
peoples and an end to one of the major obstacles preventing progress
on the Declaration as a whole.
The "Package" was considered so important that the Indigenous Caucus
called for a suspension of the official session to discuss it
amongst ourselves for an hour (with full translation). States were
dismissed and the Indigenous Caucus met in closed session. The
proposal was put forward by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. A
long discussion ensued, but the vast majority seemed to support the
proposal. Although some delegations have a strict "no change"
mandate to any of the language in the Declaration, none of them
seemed willing to break consensus. The Caucus Chair, at the
insistence of some of the delegates, asked if there was anyone
present who would absolutely oppose this proposal coming forth as a
Caucus consensus statement. Oral objection came from only three
delegations. Support for the consensus statement came from
Indigenous blocks as large as the Latin American Caucus, the Asian
Caucus and the African Caucus along with
substantial support from North American and Pacific Rim
delegations.
The passage of Article 3 as set forth in the original Draft
Declaration and approved by the Subcommission would have also
represented enormous progress in terms of the work of the
Intersessional Working Group, and made it next to impossible for the
CHR to not extend the time necessary to work on the other articles.
Passage of Article 3 could also make it less difficult to find
consensus on the other articles. Article 3 provides the framework
for the entire Declaration and from there the details are much
easier to fill in.
The Draft Declaration must preserve the right of self-determination
for Indigenous peoples in compliance with both our own objectives
and the tenants of existing international law. It has the added
advantage of also permitting the evolution of international law to
be more just and equitable for all the world's peoples. This is the
amazing legacy that Indigenous peoples can leave for our descendants
and the world as a whole. The "Package" proposal presented by the
vast majority of Indigenous nations, organizations and peoples,
along with the support of many States, represents a major
breakthrough in advancing the aspirations of Indigenous peoples and
moving the Declaration into the body of international law and
standards that govern our relations with one another and with the
environment upon which we all depend.
The InterSessional Working Group will meet for the 2nd part of the
10th Session from November 29 through December 3, 2004. Delegations
who participated in the September session of the InterSessional
Working Group need not reregister for the December session.
However, new participants may either contact the American Indian Law
Alliance for further information or the secrtariat of the Commission
on Human Rights ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nat-International/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
