------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/lGEjbB/6WnJAA/E2hLAA/1dTolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:40:58 -0000
From: "ngo_ip_undecade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Extention of the mandate of the WGDD
Dear Friends,
Please find below the report on the resolutions passed on Agenda
Item 15 (Indigenous Issues). The resolution to extend the mandate of
the Working Group on the Draft Declaration was passed without a
vote. (Please see the bold portion in the report) However, the US
wanted an amendment to paragraph 5 to say that the negotiations
should be completed before the 62nd Session of the Commission and if
there is a need to extend the number of days to another 10 days this
should be done. A vote was taken on this amendment and it was 49
against the it, 2 for it (US and Australia) and 2 abstentions. So we
will look forward to having another 10 days session of the Working
Group before 2005 ends. There is another resolution which says that
Mexico will offer to host a workshop which will be an attempt to
bridge the differences betweeen indigenous peoples and governments.
This was also passed.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have
signed on to the Statement for the Extension of the Mandate of the
Working Group on the Draft Declaration. If this step was not taken
the possibility of a suspension of this Working Group could have
happened. We will look forward to working with you in the near
future in some processes to prepare for the forthcoming session of
the Working Group. For a start, it would be helpful if you take a
look at the Chairman's proposal and make your comments on this.
Warm regards and in solidarity
Mattias Ahren on behalf of the Saami Council Vicky Tauli
Corpuz on behalf of Tebtebba
Action on Resolutions and Decision on Indigenous Issues
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.56) on the Working Group on
Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in
favour to 13 against, with one abstention, the Commission
recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the
Chairperson-Rapporteur of the twenty-second session of the Working
Group to submit the report on that session to the Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues during the Forum's fourth session in 2005, as
requested in Sub-Commission resolution 2004/15 of 9 August 2004;
urged all States to continue working, in cooperation with the United
Nations system, on the implementation of the conclusions and
recommendations of the International Decade and to take the
necessary measures to support the goals of the Second Decade; and
invited the Working Group on indigenous populations to submit in due
course to the Coordinator for the Second Decade, through the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a list of activities to
be considered for possible inclusion as part of the human rights
component of the comprehensive programme of action for the Second
Decade that the Secretary-General has been requested to submit to
the General Assembly at its sixtieth session. The Commission also
requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to
submit to the Commission at its sixty-second session, under the
agenda item entitled "Indigenous issues", a report on the activities
undertaken by her Office during the calendar year 2005 relating to
indigenous peoples, as well as proposals both within and outside the
framework of the Second Decade for enhancing the promotion and
protection of the individual and collective rights of indigenous
people, including their human rights and freedoms.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India,
Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo et Zimbabwe.
Against (13): Australia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United
Kingdom et United States.
Abstention (1): Finland.
AMY MCKEE (United States), in a general comment, said that at the
last session of the Commission, the United States had pointed out
that the Working Group on indigenous populations had outlived its
usefulness. The Special Rapporteur was helping States focus on
improving their records, and the Permanent Forum was bringing the
concerns of indigenous people to the mainstream of the United
Nations deliberations. It would be better to replace the session of
the Working Group with more time for the Permanent Forum on
elaborating a Draft Convention. The United States of America would
like a recorded vote, and would vote against the resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.61) on the Working Group of the
Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in
accordance with paragraph five of the General Assembly resolution
49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in
favour to none against, with one abstention, the Commission urged
all parties involved in the process of negotiation to do their
utmost to carry out successfully the mandate of the Working Group
and to present for adoption as soon as possible a final draft United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; and also
invited the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group and all
interested parties to conduct broad informal inter-sessional
consultations with a view to facilitating progress in concluding a
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People at the next session
of the Working Group. The Commission also encouraged organizations
of indigenous people that were not already registered to participate
in the Working Group and that wished to do so to apply for
authorization in accordance with the procedures set out in the annex
to Commission resolution 1995/32.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil,
Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon,
Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal,
Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of
Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Against (0)
Abstentions (1): United States.
A proposed amendment by the United States on the text of L. 61 was
rejected by a vote of two in favour, with 49 against and two
abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (2): Australia and United States.
Against (49): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany,
Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal,
Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of
Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Swaziland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (2): Romania and Togo.
AMY MCKEE (United States), making a general comment, said the United
States would like to amend operative paragraph five of the
resolution to read "Calls upon the Working Group to complete the
negotiations prior to the sixty-second session of the Commission,
and to this end authorizes the expenditure of resources for ten
working days of negotiations and, if necessary to extend that
negotiating session for up to an additional ten days to accomplish
this objective, the cost of the meeting to be met from within
existing resources."
WAYNE LORD (Canada), in a general comment, said the delegation of
Canada appreciated the efforts of the United States towards
indigenous peoples. Canada's delegation had had a series of
discussions with the co-sponsors and representatives of the
indigenous peoples. However, Canada was not in a position to support
the United States amendment.
LARS PIRA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said Guatemala
supported all work on indigenous peoples within the United Nations
system, and this was why it had supported the work of the Working
Group on indigenous peoples. It would continue to work for consensus
and to strike a balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and
the needs of States. It would strive for consensus on this issue in
a spirit of full and effective participation of all States so that
the instrument would protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Any
process of improving the drafting would be welcome, and therefore
the Chairman of the Working Group should consider means of making
the work more expeditious. What had been said by indigenous
organizations that it would have been more effective to extend the
mandate of the Working Group by six weeks was supported. The Working
Group should adopt more dynamic methods of work and more definite
deadlines. An informal consultation measure would be more effective.
LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), in a general comment, said that
today the Commission was facing a crucial moment for the draft
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as for the
indigenous peoples of the world themselves. The future of the draft
Declaration was at stake, as two different positions were being
staked out. No one opposed the successful conclusion of negotiations
on the draft Declaration, and Mexico supported a strong and vigorous
draft Declaration. The first of the positions would put too much
pressure on the negotiating process on the assumption that nothing
had been achieved in the first decade, while the other extreme was
that the draft Declaration could be concluded in ten days. Mexico
felt that the process should not be forced faster than it could go,
or be limited to one year. It was unrealistic to expect the process
to be concluded in ten days, and Mexico supported the two-year
extension and the proposal to explore alternative methods of work,
as suggested in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights. Mexico wished to act as a facilitator to bring the
diverging positions as close together as possible, and supported the
holding of a workshop to build bridges of dialogue for new
approaches to the toughest and most problematic issues contained in
the draft Declaration. Flexibility should be given to the
negotiating process in order to achieve a draft Declaration
acceptable to all indigenous peoples. Mexico supported the position
of Canada against the amendment proposed by the United States.
LEENA LEIKAS (Finland), in a general statement, said the delegation
of Finland appreciated the work done so far in the Working Group in
drafting a declaration on the right of indigenous peoples. The
proposed United States amendment to give an ultimatum to the Working
Group was not acceptable. Finland would vote against the amendment
and called for others to do the same.
AMY MCKEE (United States) said in an explanation of the vote on L.
61 that the United States was committed to the work of the Working
Group, but its work should had been finished in the original ten
years allotted. In the past 10 years, strides had been made in the
text. What was needed was not an open-ended mandate, but a
commitment by all States to find an agreed text. This objective was
the intention of the United States in proposing the amendment. The
United States would like a vote on L61 and would abstain from the
vote, as it thought that the changes should have been integrated.
The United States was committed to the situation of indigenous
people. It was the sincere hope that next year the United States
would not be making the same intervention, but would be marking the
approval of a Declaration to be forwarded to the General Assembly,
one that would benefit people and States.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) said the delegation of Australia would
support the current draft resolution on the understanding that "as
soon as possible" meant that the process would be brought to a
conclusion by the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human
Rights. However, Australia would not be disposed to support another
resolution of this kind.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.66) on human rights and indigenous
people, adopted without a vote, the Commission requested the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms
of indigenous people, in performing his work, to consider the
recommendations of the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance on matters
concerning his mandate, as well as the recommendations, observations
and conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination; and requested him to begin preparing a study
regarding best practices carried out to implement the
recommendations contained in his general and country reports and to
submit a progress report to the Commission at its sixty-second
session and the final study at its sixty-third session. The
Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur to liase with the
Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of
Genocide with regard to the protection of indigenous people from
genocide. It further requested all Governments to cooperate fully
with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and
duties mandated, to furnish all information requested and to react
promptly to his urgent appeals; and urged States that had not yet
done so to consider, as a matter of priority, ratifying or acceding
to the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour
Organization.
In a draft resolution, recommended by the Sub-Commission, on the
protection of indigenous peoples in times of conflict, which was
adopted by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 13 against, with four
abstentions, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to
ensure that the Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide
appointed under the Action Plan to Prevent Genocide took into
consideration the need to protect indigenous peoples and their
territories; that, in situations where there were forces present
under a United Nations mandate, they protected vulnerable indigenous
peoples, their territories and objects indispensable to their
survival; and that the mandates of United Nations authorized
operations included a requirement to protect indigenous populations
and their territories. The Commission also requested the Special
Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms
of indigenous people to liase with the Special Advisor with regard
to the protection of indigenous peoples from genocide and to develop
an emergency response mechanism as part of his mandate.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (35): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia,
Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.
Against (13): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and
United States.
Abstentions (4): Congo, India, Japan and Republic of Korea.
CAROLINE REES (United Kingdom), in an explanation of the vote before
the vote, said the delegation of the United Kingdom regretted having
to call for a vote on the text. The United Kingdom was committed to
the full and equal realization of the rights of indigenous people.
It urged full implementation of international humanitarian law,
including on the protection of civilians in time of conflict. The
United Kingdom would vote against the draft decision and asked
others to do the same.
The Commission adopted, by a recorded vote of 38 in favour to two
against, with 12 abstentions, a decision containing a recommendation
from the Sub-Commission concerning the final report on the
study "Indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural
resources". By that text, the Commission expressed its deep
appreciation to Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene A. Daes for her
excellent and comprehensive final report, and recommended the
Economic and Social Council to authorize the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert seminar during
2005 to give further attention to and to discuss in detail the many
political, legal, economic, social and cultural aspects and matters
relating to that study, as well as the study on "Indigenous peoples
and their relationship to land". ECOSOC would also be recommended to
issue the two studies as part of the Human Rights Study Series.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (38): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada,
China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India,
Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Australia and United States.
Abstentions (12): Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and
United Kingdom.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) requested a recorded vote on the draft
decision.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in an explanation of the vote, said
Pakistan regretted that there was a request for a vote. Ms. Daes had
done excellent work. The decision referred to the fact that an
excellent and comprehensive report had been submitted. If it were
not studied by an expert seminar, it would not achieve the objective
of being discussed by indigenous groups and people. The draft
decision was strongly supported.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the
vote before the vote, said that the delegation of Cuba had been
surprised at the request for a roll-call vote on this decision. Cuba
had followed the Special Rapporteur's work closely for a number of
years and she had done a good job. When a vote was called for, it
was usually to express opposition to the content of the text. There
had been no explanation, only a request for a vote. As there was no
knowledge of why the vote had been called, Cuba would vote in favour
of the draft decision.
Victoria Tauli Corpuz
Executive Director, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International
Centre for Policy Research and Education)
1 Roman Ayson Road, Baguio City, Philippines, 2600
telephone no: 63-74-4447703
fax no. : 63-74-4439459
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.tebtebba.org
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/
