And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >X-Originating-IP: [195.15.83.222] >From: "John Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Day 4 of Permanent Forum >Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:55:25 PST > >Summary of Debate United Nations Open-Ended, Intersessional, Ad Hoc >Working Group on a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples, 18/2/99 (Day >4) >(Note: this material is based on both taped transcription and real-time >notetaking, and does not perfectly or comprehensively reflect the >debates or responses. It is a basic, quick draft whose purpose is to >emphasize prevalent trends in the proceedings. Please direct any >questions, clarifications, omissions, or comments to John Stevens, >ACUNS/Native Americas magazine [for Netwarriors]. All errors are solely >mine.) > > >Morning Session: > > The day began with a formal announcement from the Chair that the >situation in Salle XVII with the Kurds had been solved, and that the new >building's facilities were open again. The working group had been >offered another room, but the Chair had decided to keep the working >group in Salle XII to maintain the "congenial atmosphere" that had >prevailed thus far in proceedings. He then turned to the day's work: >CRP4, a document that would become the Chair's part of the report, would >be ready for review after lunch, and the Chair hoped that an informal >drafting session could take place from 4-6PM. If he felt that there >was sufficient consensus, he would extend the meeting into an "informal >informal" that would not have simultaneous interpretation. There was >immediate resistance to this from several delegates, which became a >strenuous debate over the problem of translation. The Chair soon cut >off the language debate, citing the great difficulty in getting >documents ready given the fact that the translation facilities had been >cut off for most of the week. > > Discussion immediately shifted to another problem: Mexico and Argentina >both complained that there would not be time to critique CRPs 2 and 3. >Argentina in particular demanded that its views be "adequately" >reflected in the text. The Chair replied that these papers were part of >his summary and his perspective, and that while he wanted to accurately >reflect the debate, it was in the end his perspective. He would accept >critiques, but that was all. He then begged the delegates to not get >into this debate, since it was taking away from the very tight work >schedule the group had. Denmark attempted to get debate back on track , >but Brazil intervened and politely accused the chair of not being >transparent enough. The Chair was so startled by this accusation that >he suspended the meeting to talk directly to complaining state >delegates. > > About 15 minutes later the meeting recommenced. The Chair carefully >reiterated that the CRPs were his summaries and his interpretation. >They would figure into the final report somehow, but just how was still >up in the air. He realizes that some delegations thought he was moving >quickly, but that is "to have results." He then asked that they turn to >the next part of the workplan, the "nameplates down" informal discussion >of technical matters of the PF and the question of its relation to the >WGIP. The Secretariat was not taking formal note of this meeting, but >the Chair has asked those delegations who wished to file formal opinions >to do so in brief missives, no more than 5-10 lines. Despite this, it >was obvious in the vast majority of interventions that state delegates >were still parroting their government's line, and only on a few >occasions did they add their own personal opinions. > > Denmark opened the informal discussion by praising the Chair highly for >his work. He then gave "his" position on the relevant matters (a >state-by-state breakdown will be transmitted soon to demonstrate each >govt's position in detail). The most significant comment from Denmark >was on the WGIP: his position was that only the PF could determine the >future of the WGIP, and that to take any other position was premature. >Denmark also thought that a "review clause" that would assess the PF >after 5 years would also be useful. > > Several other states endorsed Denmark's ideas, but with qualifications. >Chile emphasized that this was a "forum," and not some other kind of >body or organization. Mexico and Peru substantively agreed with Denmark. >Other states departed from Denmark's position more explicitly. >Switzerland, while sympathetic on other points, felt that the PF should >replace the WGIP. Australia said that it could not decide on the PF >until a decision was made on the WGIP's dissolution, but that it favored >a "transitional" period for the WGIP. Several states emphasized that >given tight budget constraints it was unrealistic to have both, and that >the WGIP might have to be sacrificed to open up funds for the PF. The >US took this line of argument very strongly, to the point of saying that >the best option was to merely restructure the WGIP to include >development and related issues. Brazil and India also took this general >line of argument, and with minor qualification so did New Zealand, >Japan, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela. Argentina agreed with both >Australia and the US, and furthermore suggested that indigenous >representatives be part of government delegations. The main detractors >to this line of argument were Norway, who strongly supported Denmark, >and Canada, which seemed to waver in the middle by stating that the >WGIP's future should wait until the PF was formed, but that a >transitional period might be in order. > > Indigenous delegates spent much of their speaking time refuting the >majority arguments. Armand McKenzie of the Innu of Nitassinan pointed >out that Erica-Irene Daes has shown previously that indigenous peoples >comprised 5% of the world's population but only .01% of the UN's budget, >making the financial argument a hypocritical one. He also asserted that >indigenous peoples needed all the forums they could get to address their >concerns, and that the proposal to phase out the WGIP was unacceptable. >Victoria Tauli-Corpus of the Cordillera (Philippines) asserted that this >problem could be solved if governments contributed more generously to >the voluntary funds established for indigenous peoples. An indigenous >representative from Latin America pointed out that this "crisis" has >been created by these very governments, and that given the contributions >of indigenous peoples to these governments in the form of colonial >exploitation, it is up to the governments to give back to the indigenous >peoples they stole from in the first place. Marceal Arias of the >Mapuche pointed out that arguments over financial reform should not be >used to block civil society's access to the UN. All of these arguments >were echoed by a number of other indigenous speakers who tried to point >out the duplicity inherent in the line of reasoning that many >governments were using to in essence eliminate the WGIP or weaken the >PF. > >Afternoon Session: > > This session started rather late, since the Chair had been in a >consultation with the states over lunch about CRPs 2 and 3 and the >newly-released CRP4, which was an amalgamation of previous CRPs into the >Chair's synthesis of the proceedings. He again explained the rationale >behind this, and emphatically insisted that while these summaries would >be in the report they were not binding to any delegation, and that they >were "his responsibility" solely. The summaries would be placed in the >report in a way that future work was "only bound. . . to take it into >consideration.' After reading out the annex heading and some text, a >break was called so that the indigenous caucus could meet over CRP4. > > When the meeting resumed, the Chair first apologized for some confusion >over CRP4, since there was a full version and a summary version and >there was some problem with different translations. He then requested >responses to the summaries, but he reiterated that this was not a >drafting group. He asked for proposals on the introduction, and then a >discussion paragraph-by-paragraph thereafter. > > Kenneth Deer (Mohawk) opened with a statement from the indigenous >caucus on the heading of CRP4. The indigenous caucus was surprised by >the negative phrasing used in the heading to describe the labors of the >working group, and understood that it had come from the “serious >pressure” the Chair was under by some delegations. After some >discussion, the caucus came up with an alternate heading that they felt >reflected more positively on the week’s work. He then read the new >text: > >"The working group reached broad agreement on the establishment of a PF. >Some governments were not in the position at this time to give approval >without certain reservations. However, there is wide support for the >following proposals to serve as a basis for future work." > >Denmark immediately endorsed this rewording, and Canada, Norway, and >Russia all subsequently supported it as well. Unfortunately, the >afternoon soon broke down into procedural wrangling and a number of >off-topic requests for “clarifications” on the document from governments >who felt that their positions were not adequately reflected in the >document. Some states, particularly Australia, asked for a heading that >“provided more protection” for their positions. India continuously >brought up minor procedural points and asked for re-readings and >clarifications on the debate and the purpose of the Chair’s summaries. >The US delegation stated that it would not support the new wording and >suggested that the Chair make it his own perspective. Eventually Brazil >and Argentina blocked further procedural wrangling on the heading, but >then India, the UK, and the US began stalling or going off-topic. The >Chair attempted to keep open debate going to reach some sort of >consensus on the summaries so that they could be officially included in >the report, but it became very clear that some states were unsatisfied >with the summaries as part of the final report itself, and eventually >the Chair decided that further debate was useless and ruled that the >summaries would be put in an annex that was not an official part of the >report, thus making them his conclusions exclusively. When several >states, including the US, then tried to continue nitpicking (in >particular, the US blocked an attempt at compromise by Norway and >demanded that the Chair drop the “s” from “indigenous peoples” >throughout), the Chair suspended the meeting in utter frustration. >. > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
