And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (S.I.S.I.S.) writes:
S.I.S.I.S. note: Yesterday we distributed Canada's statement to the UN
Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
in which Canada attempted to undermine and block articles which would
guarantee self determination for indigenous people. Following are some
responses to that statement. We regret that some of the text was garbled in
transmission and is therefore incomplete. There has been no domestic
Canadian media coverage of these proceedings: Please circulate widely to
all media who have thus far remained silent
1. Canada's AFN on Self-Determination
2. Response: Ted Moses - Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Astchee)
3. UN IWG: "They brought foulness into the process"
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Forwarded message:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
From: NetWarriors/WarriorNET Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AFN on Self-Determination
Statement by
Assembly of First Nations
4th Session UN Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
08 December, 1998
Geneva
Self-Determination (Article 3)
and
Definition
We have listened over the past day and this morning to the discussion on
the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, as proposed in
Article 3 of the Draft Declaration.
Recalling the discussion on Article 3 at last year's session of the Working
Group, it is most disappointing that there appears to be a virtual absence
of forward movement or flexibility in the position of states after the
passage of one year.
State delegations may reply that similarly there is no evidence of
flexibility on the part of indigenous representatives. We must remember
that there are sound reasons for this. The recognition of the right of
self-determination contained in Article 3, and descriptions of its scope
and application contained throughout the Draft Declaration, are regarded by
us as an absolute minimum standard for the equal, indivisible and universal
right of self-determination of all peoples.
The arguments of representatives of indigenous peoples on the nature of
self-determination have been cogent, coherent and compelling. In our view,
all concerns of states - whether valid or trivial - have been addressed and
answered. We wonder when the states will hear this.
As has been observed by indigenous delegates, Articles 1, 3, 31, 45 and
others together address the central concerns expressed by governments on
the nature, scope and implementation of the right of self-determination.
Further elaboration or definition is unnecessary. While there may exist in
the minds of states uncertainty about the meaning of self-determination -
it has been made abundantly clear that there is no doubt in the minds of
indigenous peoples. And it is a view that cannot possibly be threatening to
states.
All existing international law on self-determination is incorporated, by
direct reference, into the Draft Declaration. To repeat these provisions in
the text, accompanied by additional clarifications and restrictions as
proposed by states, would be redundant and patronizing. It would be
discriminatory, and therefore offensive. Even worse, to constrain or
restrict the definition and application of the right of self-determination
of indigenous peoples would be to render the right meaningless - both in
the Draft Declaration AND in existing instruments. A right, is a right, is
a right. It cannot be anything less for one people or another.
We caution states not to attempt to use this process to construct a second,
and inferior, standard of rights for peoples who may hold a different world
view than you, and who, in most cases, preceded you in the various lands
where modern states have been imposed or erected.
For us, further definition of the rights contained in the Draft Declaration
is both inappropriate and is code for diminishment of our rights. We
suggest that states should not be here to impose a wide array of domestic
policy concerns on the development of an international instrument. No
doubt, indigenous peoples will have to cope with such constraints in the
eventual implementation of the standards of the Declaration in their
respective countries. While it is inevitable that such diverse and
particularized domestic concerns will inform government's approaches to
consideration of the Draft Declaration, we believe that these concerns are
wholly inappropriate and unhelpful to shape a universal instrument.
(missing section ********** ) subscribe
to a non-binding, aspirational guide to the conduct of relations between
states and indigenous peoples within their borders and within their legal
and constitutional frameworks?
May I remind the Working Group that many states apparently do not even feel
compelled to meet standards of rights to which they have subscribed in
supposedly binding covenants and treaties? The sharply critical findings
last week of the Committee of ECOSOC with regard to Canada's performance is
not, we think, an isolated occurrence.
Despite the continued insistence of states on re-drafting of most articles,
it appears there at least exists consensus on the inclusion of recognition
of the right of self-determination. Mr. Chairman, let us ensure that the
report of this session indicates this, and let us measure this consensus as
significant progress.
Thank you.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Forwarded message:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
From: NetWarriors/WarriorNET Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ambassador Dr. Ted Moses / Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou
Astch= ee) on Self-Determination Article 3
Commission on Human Rights
Working Group on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Statement by Ambassador Dr. Ted Moses
Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Astchee) December 8, 1998
Article 3 confirms that indigenous peoples have the right of
self-determination.
Indigenous peoples have stressed over and over again that the right of
self-determination is a fundamental element of the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an element that predicates the meaning of all
of its articles.
We have also pointed out that the history of rights abuses against
indigenous peoples is functionally linked to the denial of our right to
self-determination. Thus, if we are to have any hope of protecting our
human rights and preventing discrimination against indigenous peoples, the
right of self-determination stands as the foundation of that hope.
When we refer to the rights of peoples, we are discussing rights held
collectively.
Having said this, why is it that certain states decline to use the proper
term, "peoples", in respect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples?
We have been told explicitly that the reason is this: That certain States
hold the position that the recognition of our status as "peoples" would
place us within the existing international human rights instruments which
make use of this term-for example, the Charter. They have explained that if
we are recognized as "peoples" we would enjoy the protections set out in
those instruments.
They have
(missing part of the submission ******* )
status as peoples, in order to preclude the rights which flow from that status.
In international law, to deny one's status so as to deny the rights which
accord to that status, is a prohibited form of discrimination. To practice
this kind of discrimination on the basis of race or group identity, is
known as racial discrimination-another prohibited practice. It would be
particularly abhorrent for the UN to practice this kind of discrimination
while we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
The right of self-determination is already thoroughly qualified in the
existing international instruments. The territorial integrity of States is
already well protected. It would be discriminatory to place special
restrictions on the meaning of this right as it applies to indigenous
peoples, which do not apply equally to all peoples.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to draw attention to the report of the U.N.
Committee in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in consideration of
report submitted by state parties in this case the Government of Canada,
under article 16 and 17 of the Covenant.
This report demonstrates the connection between land rights and subsistence
which follows from the right of self-determination in article three of the
draft declaration.
With your indulgence Mr. Chairman allow me to refer to certain observations
or conclusions of the of the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights which are relevant to our work.
I quote the following from the U.N. Committee report:
"7. The Committee notes that in recognition of the serious issues affecting
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada, the Government appointed the Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), which released a wide-ranging report in 1996
addressing many of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.
15. The Committee is deeply concerned to received information that
provincial courts in Canada have routinely opted for an interpretation
which exclud
(missing this section ***** )
been little or no progress in the alleviation of social and economic
deprivation among Aboriginal people. In particular, the Committee is deeply
concerned at the shortage of adequate housing, the endemic mass
unemployment and the high rate of suicide, especially among youth in the
Aboriginal communities. Another concern is the failure to provide safe and
adequate drinking water to Aboriginal communities on reserves. The
delegation of the State Party conceded that almost a quarter of Aboriginal
household dwellings require major repairs for lack of basic amenities.
18. The Committee views with concern the direct connection between
Aboriginal economic marginalization and the ongoing dispossession of
Aboriginal people from their lands, as recognized by the RCAP, and endorses
the recommendations of the RCAP that policies which violate Aboriginal
treaty obligations and extinguishment, conversion or giving up of
Aboriginal rights and title should on no account be pursued by the State
Party. Certainty of treaty relations alone cannot justify such policies.
The Committee is greatly concerned that the recommendations of the RCAP
have not yet been implemented in spite of the urgency of the situation."
The right of self-determination has been linked by those States that oppose
its recognition to the concept of secession. More realistically it should
be linked to the other rights that flow by virtue of the right of
self-determination-ownership and control over natural resource
( missing section ********** )
burden of demonstrating that those changes are truly necessary. Let us hear
those arguments. But do not ignore the arguments that have already been
made. And do not set the false test for the success of this meeting in the
need to gain consensus on changes to the Declaration that are not based on
well-conceived, cogent and logical arguments.
Thank you.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:Forwarded message:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
From: NetWarriors/WarriorNET Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: INDIGENOUS CAUCUS SlaMs BACK!
Relatives:
Today the governments and the Chairman Jose Urutia Ambassador of Peru, made
an effort to take the session directly into a negotiation process by
bringing amendment proposals to the floor. Chile itself did in fact state
on the floor that they also had "changes of their own to present now that
we are moving into the negotiating process".
The: UNITED STATES, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND CHILE did all have serious
changes to articles 15, 16, 17. The US did in fact propose that the
language for collective become community. In short that the rights to
education of an appropriate form be given to Indigenous people as
individuals and in community.
The Caucus held up the process for nearly 45 minutes in extended caucus
after lunch. They did meet and discuss the question of dignity and respect
that was challenged by governments in the morning session. They returned to
the meeting with a statement made by Mic Dodson of the Aboriginal
Delegation which called governments to attention on the point.
He told them that they had brought foulness into this process. That the
Indigenous Peoples will not stand by and be party to any negotiations with
states and that the Chair had obviously allowed governments to enter into
these negotiations without even notifying the Indigenous Caucus.
The Chair responded that he was working on the basis of the Indigenous
Peoples request early in the session that the governments show their
positions and defend them. He then closed the discussion after what could
be seen as "double-talk" calling on Brazil for Article 16.
There have been many suggestions in the Caucus regarding strategies that
you would appreciate. We can let you know this.. that you would very much
be proud of the level of dignity the insist upon working with and for on
behalf of Indigenous Peoples.
A more cohesive report being written now on the current discussion....
____________________________________________________
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
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
"Demand the UN Draft Declaration be accepted without alterations!"
Prime Minister Jean Chretien: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lloyd Axworthy: Minister of External Affairs: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert
Fowler: Canada's Ambassador to the UN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at the UN sessions in Geneva)
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
S.I.S.I.S. Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty
P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/SISmain.html
SOVERNET-L is a news-only listserv concerned with indigenous
sovereigntist struggles around the world. To subscribe, send
"subscribe sovernet-l" in the body of an email message to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For more information on sovernet-l, contact S.I.S.I.S.
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
