And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) >Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 20:27:14 +0100 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: NetWarriors/WarriorNET Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: UNPO Monitor Day 3 & Urgent Need request > >NOTE: There was no session Wednesday due to Governments leaving the caucus >to have a private meeting most of the afternoon. Thursday reports will >contain Indigenous Peoples response to that walk-out by the Governments. > >URGENT NEED: THOSE WHO WANT TO HELP ORGANIZE THE PRESS FOR THIS WEEK >CONTACT US AT: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Find Government Foreign Ministers, Missions and Consulate contact >information at: http://www.hookele.com/hawaii/links > >_______________________________________ > > >Day 3 >Wednesday, December 2, 1998 >Morning Session > > >1. Chairperson: Opens the meeting by explaining that the official meetings >are devoted to general debate, with discussions on specific items held in >informal meetings. Stresses the fact that this afternoon's meeting is open >to all governmental organisations. Articles 1 and 2 are tabled again. > >2. Mr. Nolasco Mamani, Consejo Indio de Sudamerica: Informs the floor that >he has been asked to speak for the Indian Council of South America. Points >out the risk of imposing the principle of force. Notes that some States >make suggestions without bearing in mind the discussion that has been held >for 13 years. Although this discussion is supposed to be equal, the views >of the States seem to prevail. Reminds the Committee that the Draft >Declaration is based on justice and equality. There are two principles >clashing in this room- the principle of justice and the principle of force. >Queries this preponderance of the states, and attributes it to the >colonisation of indigenous peoples. These latter base their >self-determination on the principle of justice. Refutes the position of >certain states that focus only on individual rights, since indigenous >peoples were colonised as groups, rather than as individuals. Believes that >those focussing on individual rights are those who perceive the indigenous >peoples as inferior. Exhorts the representatives of the Nation States to >apply justice, not force, and to pass the Draft Declaration without >changes, as well as to encourage other States to pass it. Urges respect for >the indigenous peoples and their traditional boundaries. Mentions the >European Union as an example of peaceful cohabitation between different >countries. > >3. Representative of the UK: Says he would like to express support for the >principle of non-discrimination. Non-discrimination applies to everyone so >it should be applied in the Draft Declaration. Yesterday afternoon, was >asked to comment on the drafting and principles of the Article. Has >concerns about use of "peoples" in plural. Attracted by yesterday's >suggestion of the French delegation about redrafting the article to avoid >this inconsistency. > >4. Representative of the United States: Recalls that in the general >statement she made on Monday, she suggested that the phrase "persons >belonging to" might be a way to resolve the dichotomy between individual >and collective rights. In referring to International Covenant on Civil and >Political Rights, the US delegation hoped to borrow a useful formula, not >suggest an identity between indigenous and other groups. Affirms that the >Government of the United States strongly supports Articles 1 and 2 of the >Draft Declaration. However, shares the concerns expressed by other >governments that human rights and fundamental freedoms constituted >individual rights and not group rights. > >5. Representative of Peru: Reminds the floor that the Peruvian delegation >supports Articles 1 and 2 as they are formulated, and wonders whether it >might be appropriate to ask those delegations who have raised difficulties >to be so good as to submit more specific and concrete objections. Has the >impression that there is a significant amount of repetition, and would like >the establishment of a process that would speed up the deliberations. > >6. Representative of Brazil: Has already intervened on Articles 1 and 2 and >expressed agreement on their principles. Since not engaged in drafting >exercise now, should refrain from being too specific on those Articles. >Nevertheless, there are still difficulties regarding the use of >'individuals', 'peoples' and 'populations'. The Delegation is willing to >explore ways and means to overcome the problems regarding the use of >'individuals', 'peoples' and 'populations' and emphasizes its flexibility >in exploring alternatives. > >7. Representative of Japan: Refers to the use of the term "indigenous >peoples". Wonders about the use of this term to express collective rights, >which are not regularly established in international law. Suggests that >human rights are individual rights. States that Articles 1 and 2 of Draft >Declaration should therefore be redrafted. > >8. Representative of Bolivia: Reiterates the fact that they have no >problems with the principles of the Articles 1 and 2, and share the >statement of the Peruvian delegation. > >9. Representative of Norway: Since yesterday's meeting was informal, states >for the record that they wish to reiterate agreement on principles and >wordings of Articles 1 and 2. Hopes that the final report will state that >there is widespread support for both Articles 1 and 2, even though there >may still be some differences about their exact wording. > >10. Mr. Aucan Huilcaman, Consejo de Todas las Tierras: Says that the >instrument should recognize individual rights and protect indigenous >peoples from discrimination. In some instances, discrimination is >institutionalized and practised openly. The aim of the articles was in some >way to redress the wrongs done against the indigenous peoples. Supports the >text as it stands. > >11. Ms. Kaori Tahara, Ainu Association of Sapporo: Claims that to apply the >statement of the delegation of Japan would be to go back 20 years. Claims >that the Japanese government has double standards regarding the terms >"indigenous" and "peoples", and has already recognised the Ainu people as >indigenous peoples. Would like to encourage the Japanese government to >progress on this issue, and to have their own independent opinion from >other States. Wants the Articles adopted by consensus. > >12. Mr. Marcial Arias, Asociacion Nabguana: Says he would like to address >Articles 1 and 2. Having heard various views of governments, asks why talk >of indigenous peoples if in UN Charter and international law on human >rights already reflect the fundamental rights of his peoples? So far, all >governments and representatives of indigenous peoples are aware that >Article 1 is all about guaranteeing the full enjoyment of all human rights. >Throughout the whole history of his organisation, there has been a policy >of assimilation of indigenous peoples. Today, it can be asked how many >indigenous peoples have disappeared this year. In Panama, there are seven >indigenous peoples of different sizes and populations. This year, several >died of disease and several years ago many died through cultural >assimilation. Thinks that Articles 1 and 2 try at least to safeguard these >minimum standards of existence of indigenous peoples. Some governments have >proposed to replace "indigenous peoples" by "persons". This is not the time >nor the circumstances. They do not deserve the name "persons". They are >peoples and nations because have their own language, culture and territory, >like any nation state. It's time for government delegations not to insist >on replacing this term. If do away with peoples, would be going back. >Thinks that there is vast majority of consensus about this. > >13. Mr. Warren Allmand, International Centre for Human Rights and >Democratic Development: Says that the Canadian Constitution provides for >collective rights explicitly referring to the rights and freedoms of >Aboriginal indigenous peoples of Canada. Those rights in the Canadian >Constitution are instrumental to international law. Section 25 of the >Constitution on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has also recognized the >collective rights of the indigenous peoples. In addition, individual rights >exist in harmony with collective rights. This has not caused a problem so >far. > >14. Lars Anders Baer, Sami Council: Comments upon individual versus >collective rights as are associated with Article 2. Finds terms used rather >un-controversial, as these are found in many other texts that also refute >racial discrimination. > >15. Ms. Sarah Foster, Navajo Nation: The US makes a point that the Draft >Declaration on Indigenous Peoples should be consistent with basic human >rights instruments. The concept of group rights is not made up, so asks why >the US is not recognising indigenous peoples' rights? They are not >inconsistent with legal international instruments on human rights. The >delegation supports the Draft Declaration in its entirety and wishes to >thank all other participants that have supported it as well. > >16. Mr. Ted Moses, Grand Council of the Crees: Commends those governments >that supported the text as it appeared. Regrets the position taken by other >States with regard to the document. In the name of flexibility, these >countries were questioning the principle of non-discrimination. In their >argument not to support the text, these countries were allowing the >practice of discrimination to continue. These countries also believe that >certain rights should only be applied to some peoples alone. Their >position is unacceptable. > >17. Representative of Guatemala: Points out that Guatemala recognises the >identity of indigenous peoples, and that this is a foundation of the >indivisibility of the Guatemalan nation, since this emphasises the >plurality of the State. Supports the principles outlined in Articles 1 and >2. > >18. Mr. Petuuche Gilbert, Indigenous World Association: Grateful for >support of Peru in advocating for the adoption of Articles 1 and 2 as they >stand. Delegation supports Article 2 in its entirety and opposes any >replacement of "peoples" by "persons". > >19. Mr. Rod Townes, New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council: Says he >challenges any government or organization that opposed the adoption of the >text in its present form. Numerous United Nations instruments have >recognized the principle of non-discrimination as non-negotiable. Calls all >those governments opposing the text to accept it as did other States. > >20. Mr. Dennis Eggington, Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia: >Attempts clarification for those States having a lack of understanding of >the term of Collective Rights. Explains that the Noongah consider >themselves to have come from one person, the Mother, and that the concept >of collective rights is an ancient one amongst them. Points out that it is >now a term accepted in Australia, and urges the delegates to adopt the >principles embodied in Articles 1 and 2. > >21. Mr. Willie Littlechild, International Organization for Indigenous >Resource Development: Wants to commend the US delegation for agreeing to >use the term "indigenous peoples". Wonders whether the delegations of >France, the UK and Japan wish to use the term "indigenous peoples" for >example in reference to Article 2, and if not why not. The US >representative said that they referred to Article 27 only to borrow wording >from the international conventions on human rights. Recommends to borrow >wording from Article 1 and apply it to indigenous peoples as in Article 3. > >22. Mr. James Anaya, Indian Law Resource Center: Says that international >law does not preclude collective human rights. In addition, States should >make collective rights as their policy. Many have argued the affirmation of >collective rights as part of international law. So far, there is no >impediment for affirmation of collective rights of indigenous peoples. > >23. Representative of the Netherlands: Holds the view that the primary >subject of international human rights law is the individual. Thinks that a >number of rights can only be given to individuals, but that a number of >those can be exercised collectively. Finds that the problem with Articles 1 >and 2 is not a question of "people" versus "peoples", and that the true >subject of the debate is that situations can arise where individuals >claiming their rights as a group clash with an individual claiming another >right. Thinks that here the important right is that of the individual, but >that until this question is resolved, the concept should not be included. > >24. Representative of Switzerland: Would like to state clearly that they >are in favour of adopting Articles 1 and 2 as they stand. Some states do >not want to accept collective rights in those articles so can make some >proposals. Could dispense with specifying in the articles when they refer >to indigenous whether they are peoples or individuals. Recommends just >saying "indigenous". For example, state in Article 1: "the indigenous have >the right�" and in article 2, "the indigenous are free�". Says his proposal >probably doesn't work in English but wishes to reiterates acceptance of >Swiss Delegation of Articles 1 and 2 as they stand. > >25. Mr. Juan Le�n, Defensoria Maya, Consejo Internacional de Tratados >Indios: Wishes to address those governments that did not recognized the >term "peoples" as it is. Says that individualism is not part of the >philosophy of indigenous peoples. The indigenous peoples live in a >community and not individually. It was evident that most societies are >based on community. Why not recognize the indigenous peoples as >communities? What the indigenous peoples wanted is recognition. > >26. Ms. Andrea Carmen, International Indian Treaty Council: Wishes to add >to the comments of the other indigenous people's delegations, and >especially to thank that of the Mayans for putting forward the concept that >individuals and communities are inextricably linked for all indigenous >societies, peoples and communities; and have been thus since time >immemorial. Understands the relationship between every sacred person, and >how they can only survive in the context of their collectivity. This >relationship is not recognised or seems to create a tension in the >societies of the states speaking here, and this is regretted by the >indigenous peoples. Notes that other indigenous peoples' delegations have >spoken of the precedents of the usage of the term "indigenous peoples". >Does not consider the recognition of these "peoples" a threat to nation >states, but a prerequisite for the harmonious relationships between all >nations. Re-iterates the position that cannot in good conscience accept any >changes, deletions, or qualifications of the essential concept of the Draft >Declaration upon the themes of collective rights and the wording of the >term "indigenous peoples". Reminds delegates that Article 44 has already >been recognised, and that this should indicate to all representatives that >progress on these matters can be made. > >27. Mr. Lazaro Pary, Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru: Would like to answer to >statements made by France, the UK and Japan about different wordings of >collective rights. Wants to tell great powers that over the past 500 years, >they have not kept pace with the socio- economic changes in the world. At >dawn of third millennium, must overcome colonial mentality. Collective >rights are inherent, inborn in indigenous peoples or ancestral >civilisations. No one can take this away from them. Will continue to be >peoples, because anyone that has studied international law should know that >to be a people, that population has to meet historical requirements, such >as culture, tradition, ancestral values, language and territory. Indigenous >peoples have those conditions and, protected by international standards, >are peoples, whether others like it or not. Says this Draft Declaration is >even not a multilateral convention. How can state still oppose this idea, >try to delete an "s" or argue about "shall" or "should"? Urges the >international community to take its responsibilities. Indigenous >civilisations should be the pride of all states. Pleased with statements >from representatives of Bolivia, and with Canada for recognising the term >"indigenous peoples" in its national legislation. Would like to say that >Article 1, with the amendments suggested yesterday, that expand on scope of >promotion of indigenous rights rather than limiting them, should be adopted >by consensus this morning. As for Article 2, supports it with amendments >suggested, which place responsibility on states to ensure that right of >non-discrimination protects indigenous peoples against genocide for >example. Important to have commitments of states. Many states and >indigenous peoples wonder why he is willing to make amendments. Referred to >Resolution 1995/32 that he suggests gave mandate not to de facto adopt >articles but to make constructive amendments to the draft and improve on >it. The Draft Declaration currently has many loopholes and the UN is not >going to solve the problem. All or nothing is not a positive attitude to >the debate. Says he is in favour of negotiations. > >28. Mr. Marcelino Diaz de Jesus, Asamblea Nacional Ind�gena Plural par la >Autonomia: Says the question of the term "indigenous peoples" has been >raised since 1982. >Says they will not renounce recognition as indigenous peoples with rights. >These rights are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, >yet want to be considered indigenous peoples with collective rights. Our >indigenous peoples live in community which means in collectivity. They are >not here to fight for individual rights which are already guaranteed in >other instruments. Therefore, the question here is of collective and not >individual rights. > >29. Mr. Torres Cortez, American Association of Jurists: Insists on the fact >that the United Nations has constructed several legal instruments that >recognise human rights and specifically the rights of indigenous peoples. >Would like to stress that this is not all a matter of legal technique, but >a matter referring to social and cultural matters, but most of all a >political matter. Insists on the right to develop as people, without >constraints. Refutes language colonisation, also refutes the refusal of the >rights of the community. Insists upon the right for self-determination for >all indigenous peoples' communities. States it is curious that states which >have refuted Articles 1 and 2 use unconsciously the collective right since >they talk in the name of the collectivity they represent. Appeals to other >indigenous delegations to continue to uphold the self-determination and the >collective rights of indigenous peoples. > >30. Mr. Tomas Alarcon, Comisi�n Jur�dica para el Autodesarrollo de los >Pueblos Originos Andinos (CAPAJ): Throughout the debate yesterday afternoon >and this morning, had satisfaction to hear that governments of South >America and Andean regions have adopted in their constitutions forward >concepts such as pluriculturalism. Witnesses a change and pleased to see >that change comes from Andes. For western cultures, the main stakeholder of >rights is the individual. For others it is the community, the people. These >are very respectable concepts. The first steps taken to develop the concept >of human rights were made by the French people. Today, witness evolution >and follow on first step they took. Within this Forum, a seed could be >planted for a pluricultural system of human rights to grow. To give human >rights a pluricultural dimension is not counter to it. Urges for agreement >on this concept. > >31. Chairperson: Adjourns the informal session until 10 am, Thursday, and >informs the floor that a caucus meeting will be held this afternoon at 3 >pm. > > >This Monitor is not an official transcript of the Working Group, but >represents substantially what was communicated during the meetings. UNPO >apologizes for any inaccuracies. If you have corrections please contact the >UNPO Secretariat in Room E1006 > > >UNPO > >Office of the General Secretary Americas Coordination Office Tartu >Coordination Office >Javastraat 40A 444 North Capitol Street Tiigistr. 78-117 >2585 AP The Hague Suite 846 Tartu >The Netherlands Washington DC 20001 Estonia > USA Tel/Fax:+372-74-30805 >Mailing address: >PO Box 85878 Tel: +1-202-637 0475 >2508 CN The Hague Fax: +1-202-637 0585 > >Tel: +31-70-360 3318 >Fax: +31-70-360 3346 > > >UNPO Monitor is produced with equipment kindly lent to us by >Texas Instruments/Micro 2000 > > > >Dedication to Solidarity >< Calling for World Action > >>>>>>>>>>> NetWarriors <<<<<<<<<<< > http://hookele.com/netwarriors > Peace without Truth is Genocide > Una Paz sin la Verdad es Genocidio > La paix sans la verite est Genocide > >>>>>><<<<<<< > Subscribe to WarriorNET > A discussion listserve dedicated to > Indigenous Solidarity > > SUBSCRIBE? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > no subject in the header and in the body write: > subscribe warriornet your email addresss > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment ...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ `"` `"` `"` `"` `"` `"`
