-------- Original Message --------
Subject: (Fwd) News: Working Group on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:53:55 +0800
From: "Jim Duffield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Settlers for First Nation Australia
To: Acker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Church" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"JIMLIST"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yagan Mob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 15:00:39 -0300
Send reply to: Innu People Forum list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Larry Innes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: News: Working Group on Rights of Indigenous Peoples
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NETWARRIORS REPORT:
Commission on Human Rights Intersessional Working Group on the
Draft
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples DAY 2 - 19/10/99
(Please
note that this is not a professional or comprehensive transcript, but
rather a summary of main points and event of the day in official
sessions. Any questions, comments, or corrections should be directed
to
John Stevens of Academic Council of the United Nations
System/Netwarriors)
MORNING SESSION:
The official morning session was, as on the first day, very brief,
but for different reasons. We were informed at 10:30 that the Chair had
given the Indigenous Caucus' counter-proposal to the governments, and
that he was now going to meet with them and discuss it. The
counter-proposal was simple: that the "Informal Consultations"
(basically closed government sessions) be removed from the workplan, and
that any informal meetings that were held needed to held with the full
participation of indigenous delegates. Mr. Chavez then went into
consultation with the states and returned around 11:30AM to talk to the
Indigenous Caucus, which in the interim had held a meeting of its own to
discuss this and other issues further.
Mr. Chavez returned with a response from the governments: that they
understood the indigenous representatives' concerns, and that they had a
possible solution to the quandary. The general debate would start at
noon, but without the approval of the agenda. This would allow the WG
to begin its deliberation and also give all participants time to think
about the governments' response proposal. The governments offered to
allow a small group of indigenous delegates to their consultations as
observers only, to witness the debates firsthand. Under this plan there
would still be daily "Informal Consultations" but indigenous peoples
would be able to monitor what happened in them. Mr. Chavez stated that
this was a "gesture of goodwill in the spirit of dialogue" on the part
of the governments, and he urged the indigenous delegates to accept this
compromise.
In response a number of indigenous delegates rejected this proposal,
saying that it was a step back from the idea of full participation that
they had fought for in this WG, and that it merely legitimized
government drafting groups that would rewrite the Declaration. Some
questioned the motives of the governments in trying to institutionalize
these sessions, and a few felt that it might be used to create a bloc of
states that would act contrary to the interests of the indigenous
peoples. After a lengthy debate the Chair realized that he could not
start the meeting and it was decided to return at 3PM to discuss the
issue further. He promised to take the indigenous delegates' response
back to the states.
AFTERNOON SESSION:
The meeting reconvened at 3:30. Mr. Chavez first went through some
preliminaries, such as adopting the agenda (not the workplan) and
moving
quickly to agenda item 3, "Organization of Work." Mr. Chavez decided
(partly due to pressure form the indigenous delegates) to move the
debate on the workplan to the floor and allow all sides to participate
in a dialogue to resolve the impasse. Several indigenous delegates and
states spoke on the matter. Mr. Ken Deer, Indigenous Caucus co-
chair,
delivered a statement which summarized the indigenous peoples'
position: that the "informal Consultations" needed to be stricken from
the workplan. He assured the group that this was not an indictment of
informal meetings where all parties had full participation, nor did it
rule out the need to break the meetings for caucuses when an impasse
had
been reached. But he, and the other indigenous speakers, emphasized
that there should be no workplan that excludes indigenous participation
in the proceedings.
States responded with a certain amount of sympathy, although all of
them
said that they felt the original workplan would be very useful. The US,
in a rather sardonic statement, implicitly affirmed the fears of the
indigenous delegates when they supported the original workplan as a
way
to create a "more concise text" of the Declaration. In the end, New
Zealand broke the impasse by moving that the "Informal Consultations" be
stricken from the workplan, with the proviso that parties or the Chair
could call for consultations during the course of the session. With
that, the workplan was finally approved, and the Chair opened the
general debate on Item m4 of the agenda, the Declaration.
Australia and the US were the first speakers, and both made fairly
short general remarks. Australia stated that they remained committed to
"productive engagement" to advance indigenous rights, and felt that if
all participants acts in the spirit of cooperation, more progress could
be made. The US used similar language, but further tied progress to
universality and existing human rights law. New Zealand also picked up
this idea and further stated that the Declaration should be "robust" yet
consistent with their national legislation and international law.
Several indigenous representatives made general remarks that
responded to these speeches. Andrea Carmen of the International
Indian Treaty Council talked about the idea of "peoples" in the
Declaration and maintained the long-standing policy of indigenous
representatives that there should be no changes to the current
version of the Declaration (her full statement will follow this
report). An Amazigh delegate pointed out that the UN Charter begins "we
the peoples" not "we the states" and that the UN should focus more on
the globalization of human rights rather than the globalization of
commerce. Ongoing problems such as discrimination against indigenous
peoples were an impediment to the growth of international human rights
and he called on governments to try to achieve genuine coexistence with
indigenous peoples and give them proper recognition.
Other indigenous representatives pointed out progress on indigenous
rights in other UN fora. Marceal Arias, a Kuna representative,
highlighted a recent commentary from the Human Rights Committee
regarding the self-determination of First Nations in Canada. The
Committee called on Canada to further explain its idea of
self-determination and expressed its concern that the Canadian
government had not yet implemented the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Committee called on Canada to
consider the implications of self-determination for First Nations, which
included their right to "freely dispose of their natural wealth and
resources" (para 8, the report's UN document number is
CCPR/C/79/Add.105). Mr. Arias pointed out that this demonstrated that
the right of self-determination was achieving greater attention in the
United Nations, with broad application.
Ms. Dalee Sambo of the Indian Law Resource Center went further and
cited a number of positive developments that supported maintaining
the Declaration in its current form. She pointed out that in the
past few years there has been progress in shifting government
attitudes towards the Declaration and that its underlying principles
were indeed consistent not only with international law, but with the
practice of the UN treaty bodies. She claimed that governments who
insisted on the Declaration being compatible with domestic law were
putting an unreasonable "ceiling" on the Declaration. Instead,
governments should continue to make forward progress and focus on "the
progressive evolution of fundamental human rights of indigenous
peoples." She called on government to observe the positive
developments taking place in the treaty bodies, especially CERD (the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) and the HRC, that
took universal human rights standards and applied them to indigenous
issues.
Other delegates, including the Government of Cuba and several Latin
American indigenous delegates, reaffirmed the importance of the
Declaration and called for greater dialogue and progress in getting the
Declaration adopted. Other indigenous delegates made statements on
self-determination which the Chair gently suggested be considered in
Wednesday's debate (we will try to transmit some of these interventions
later today or early tomorrow). After a closing prayer of Thanksgiving
by Mr. Billy Two Rivers, Mohawk, the meeting rose at about 6:15PM.
--
Greetings to you all!!
I have been asked by represetnatives from your area to send you this
update. The reports for Days 1 and 2 will follow soon, and I will then
send you subsequent reports as they are published.
If y<ou do not wish to recieve these reports, or have further
questions or comments about the reports, please reply to this e-mail
address.
Sincerely,
John Stevens
Academic Council of the UN System
Peace Studies Fellow, Cornell University
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], i Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 05:21:51 PDT
NETWARRIORS REPORT:
Commission on Human Rights Intersessional Working Group on the Draft
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples DAY 3 - 20/10/99 (Please
note that this is not a professional or comprehensive transcript, but
rather a summary of main points and events of the day in official
sessions. Any questions, comments, or corrections should be directed to
John Stevens of Academic Council of the United Nations
System/Netwarriors)
MORNING SESSION :
Wednesday was the first full day of work for the session, and most of
the day was spent on interventions discussing the concept of
self-determination.
The morning began with the last 5 general presentations. The first
speaker, a representative of the Metis National Council, spoke on the
governments' frequent assertions that the Declaration would only be
acceptable if it was consistent with domestic legislation. He proposed
an alternate perspective : that states should instead measure their laws
against the Declaration. No government can argue that existing laws may
fetter or limit the aspirations and rights of indigenous peoples, he
argued, as this would destroy the validity of these laws. The speaker
also highlighted the controversy over collective versus individual
rights. Only a people has the moral and political authority to create
conditions for such rights, and it is only through a healthy collective
identity that individual rights can function.
Terry L. Janis of the Indian Law Resource Center spoke on the
fundamental nature of the Declaration, stating that it was needed as a
statement of indigenous peoples' continuing existence. The complexity
and comprehensiveness of the Declaration reflected the minimal
aspirations of their existence. He stated that documents such as the
Declaration and other human rights instruments challenged governments to
advance their domestic laws and policies, and pointed out that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights was acceded to by the United
States at a time when racial and gender discrimination were rampant, and
the era of termination of Indian tribes had begun. "Strong and
confident nations who respect the rule of law do not fear such
challenges" he asserted, and he called on the delegates present to
respect the ideas of equality, non-discrimination, and opposition to
racism as they discuss and approve the Declaration.
A representative of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
and the Asian Indigenous Peoples' Pact noted the U.S. claims to
rethinking their position and hoped that this would be reflected in the
debates of this session. He then pointed out that delegates should be
mindful of the dynamic and evolving nature and content of law and
realize how this relates to the challenge of the Declaration. The
Declaration could do for indigenous peoples what the Convention on the
Rights of the Child is doing to help children's' rights. For vulnerable
sectors of society, he argued, measures such as this were needed to
uphold and respect their rights. Kapupu Diaw Mutimanwa of the Federation
Africaine des Autochtones Pygmees informed the Working Group that the
Declaration was necessary to protect his people from the depredations of
war surrounding them and the continuing destruction of the Central
African rainforests. He urged African governments to respect all
international human rights instruments when dealing with his people. A
representative of the Ogoni people also discussed the link between
indigenous rights and environmental degradation by detailing how his
people were affected by pertoleum extraction and incursions on their
land that were supported by the Nigerian government.
This ended the discussion on general issues, and the Chair turned the
debate to the issue of self-determination. Before doing that, he gave
some of his impressions of the debate thus far. He was encouraged to
see how gradually positions were coming closer together and was glad to
see points of agreement emerging. He stated that he detected a
political commitment not only by indigenous representatives but by
representatives of governments to the Declaration. He highlighted the
fact that there was agreement that the Declaration must be a substantive
document, both effective and universal. He also felt that there was
agreement that the document should reflect a consensus between all
participants. He was also happy to hear that delegates wanted the
Declaration passed quickly in an atmosphere of trust, understanding, and
full participation.
There were, however, some difficulties. Some contentious points remain,
such as the definition and usage of the word "peoples." He also pointed
out that some speakers (particularly from Africa) had emphasized the
lack of participation of many member states in the process, and that
this needed to be addressed if the document was to be universal in
application. He did feel, however, that progress could be made without
flagging the differences, and that going from the simplest to the most
complex issues might be the best approach, as had been done previously.
In this manner it would be easier to build consensus and proceed to the
Declaration's adoption.
With that, the Chair turned to the next item of the agenda, a general
debate on self-determination. For the purposes of this report, two
statements from the day before will be summarized here, as they directly
appertain to self-determination. Petuuche Gilbert, a representative of
the Indigenous World Association, stated that self-determination was at
the heat of what it mean to be "truly indigenous peoples." He informed
the Working Group that the NCAI at its summer meeting had condemned the
U.S. State Department's policy on the Declaration, in particular for its
ideas on self-determination. "[H]ow," he asked, "do we coexist
peacefully with nation states that control and prevent our
self-determination?" It was very necessary for this concept to be in
the Declaration and understood correctly.
Armand McKenzie, representing the Innu of Nitassinan, made an
impassioned statement on self-determination that focussed on the long
history of disregarding indigenous rights to self-determination. He saw
it as the fundamental problem in state-indigenous relations, and said
that the states' attitude was that "you presume that we cannot decide
about our own future." Indigenous peoples are distinct peoples, and
self-determination belongs to peoples, not states. Self-determination
was the right to make decisions about all spheres of life without
imposition by an outside authority. He cited the problem of Quebec's
attempts to secede and the HRC's comment on Canada as examples of the
lack of respect for self-determination for indigenous peoples.
The first speaker on the issue on Wednesday, Paul Chartrand of the Metis
National Council, emphasized using the concept of equality to
understand what self-determination means to indigenous peoples. It is
not absolute but is exercised with respect to the equal rights of all
peoples. He was the first of many indigenous speakers who called for
states to not see self-determination as an automatic threat. The
government of Canada restated its position, saying that
self-determination was central to the Declaration but that it must
respect "the political, constitutional, and territorial integrity of
democratic states." Self-determination's purpose was to "promote
harmonious arrangements for self-government within sovereign and
independent states." The representative stated that Canada was taking
steps to implement expanded rights to self-determination within Canada
and that it should be "implemented flexibly."
An indigenous representative from Bolivia stated that her people had
been self-organizing for a long time, but that they needed a full right
of self-determination to truly deal with issues of poverty and
malnutrition. The right to self-determination, she states, is nothing
other than respect for differences within the relations of different
societies to manage their own affairs.
The delegate of Brazil asserted that the idea of self-determination
contained in the Declaration showed an evolving meaning that exceeded
its colonial context and demonstrated its ability to adapt to a world in
constant renewal. He asserted that the exercise of rights and corollary
obligations must be carried out within the regulatory framework of the
society of which indigenous peoples are a part. Self-determination must
include respect for the political constitution and territorial integrity
of states. He stated that his delegation was eager to work on the
Declaration, and would consider the possibility of improvements to make
it more universal in nature, including the consolidation of the rights
granted to indigenous peoples
An indigenous delegate from Peru talked at length about the need for a
document that contained obligations and moral force so that a utopic
sort of self-determination, which focused on autonomy within the state,
could emerge. He discussed the legal history of the idea in the United
Nations and spoke eloquently about the ability of the current
declaration to create relations of peace and understanding between
indigenous peoples and states. The observer government of Colombia
detailed how its policies towards indigenous peoples expressed a useful
method of self-determination, one that gave powers of political and
economic management to the indigenous peoples but remained within the
framework of the state constitution and political system.
Andrea Carmen of the International Indian Treaty Council pointed out, as
did other indigenous delegates, that this is not the first international
instrument to contain the idea of self-determination of peoples (see her
statement, already released). She stated that it was paradoxical that
the US would ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which contains the right of self-determination, while refusing
to recognize the idea for indigenous peoples. A number of indigenous
delegates, while assuring states that self-determination's fulfillment
would not mean wholesale secession from states, nonetheless tried to
strengthen the idea of self-determination contained in the declaration.
Some critiqued the formulation of self-determination in Canada's
intervention, and also that of the United States. The speaker for the
US called self-determination "the most difficult question in the entire
text" and stated that while the US supports the UN Charter and the first
Articles of the Covenants, its definition of the concept is focused on
what it called "the entire peoples of a state or those that could
constitute themselves as a sovereign independent state, and not
particular groups within a state." The US also defined this very
precisely as "self-government: and "broad authority in local government"
for the indigenous peoples of the US. The US wanted a more precise
definition of the term and what exact rights this notion was needed to
substantiate.
The government delegation of Australia made an extremely brief
statement, wherein they said that it was "inappropriate" to consider
self-determination as implying "the establishment of separate nations
and separate laws" and Australia could not support this idea in the
Declaration. Mr. Tom Ross, a Bdewakanton Dakota from the
Pejutaziz/Yellow Medicine Upper Sioux Community read from an NCAI
resolution that supported Article 3 of the Declaration, and then
commented on self-determination in the United States, pointing out that
while the Us has restored some things, it is "what has not been restored
that is important." Self-determination was more than a list of
components; it meant establishing better with the government and other
sectors of society. It is "a tool for survival." Argentina reiterated
many of the points of other governments, and also expressed reservations
about the concept in the Declaration.
Ms. Tracey Whare of Maori Legal Service was one of the first to point
out the paradox of making the Declaration consistent with the domestic
laws of nation-states, in this case New Zealand. "To limit an
international Declaration to the domestic legal system of any one State
is in direct conflict with the purpose of international human rights
standard setting and is a contradiction of the principle of good faith."
Limiting the Declaration in this way made indigenous participation
worthless "because it would add nothing to the rights that we supposedly
enjoy in our domestic settings." A representative of the Indigenous
Peoples and Nations Coalition called to attention another paradox, "that
we must advocate self-determination at the United nations, which is
comprised solely of governments" who did not allow indigenous peoples to
participate in political life.
Mr. Tony Black Feather delivered a strong statement on the need for
remembering that self-determination meant responsibility, not just to
the people but to the earth and future generations. He pointed out that
indigenous peoples had been coming to the UN in good faith for 20 years,
but that member states like the US had broken treaties with American
Indians. He suggested that "the time has come for member nations to
remember their responsibility with the human rights process and to act
in good faith outside domestic politics."
The morning ended with a statement from Switzerland. The speaker
advocated a Swiss formula for self-determination which amounted to
granting self-administration to peoples. He advocated the idea of
subsidiarity to allow indigenous peoples to organize within the
nation-state.
AFTERNOON SESSION:
Mr. Billy Two Rivers, speaking for the Assembly of First Nations, opened
the afternoon meeting by reiterating the idea that self-determination
was the "responsibility" of indigenous peoples. He characterized it as a
determination to preserve land, culture, and laws. "We will determine
our future in the same way you determine yours." He pointed out that
many states had undergone self-determination struggles of their own.
The Declaration would provide a frame for indigenous self-determination,
but he emphasized that "there is nothing new here."
The government of Pakistan made a brief statement supporting the idea of
self-determination as expressed in the UN Charter. They also supported
it as it exists in article 3 of the Declaration, and in that spirit
would not accept dilution of the language. . Jimid Mansayagan of the
Lumad Mindanaw People's Federation stressed the urgency and clarity of
the right of self-determination when one compared nation-states to
indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples needed to maintain land rights
and powers of self-determination to pursue development in their own way.
His people do not want to usurp the nation-state, but they need
self-governance of their territories to survive as peoples.
The government of Finland stated that the right to self-determination is
a basic principle of the Declaration They stated that they would
support it provided that Article 31 stress that self-determination
applies only to local and internal affairs. The scope and content of
self-determination would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis,
given that there was no single solution to the problems indigenous
peoples faced. They also felt that Article 45 should be reformulated to
mirror Article 8(4) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities.
John Henriksen, speaking on behalf of the Saami Council, stressed
self-determination's place in existing international law. Government
fears of secession or dismemberment were groundless given that
international law had provisions governing the exercise of
self-determination. What governments needed to understand was that the
Western nation-state model was not compatible with the lives of many
indigenous peoples. He refuted the argument of some governments that
self-determination should not include resource management by citing the
HRC's report on Canada where it stated that indigenous peoples should
have control of their "natural wealth."
The government of Guatemala also stated that self-determination is a key
component of the Declaration, and they believed that a door had been
opened to create consensus wording on the relevant article.
Self-determination must be considered in the framework of national
unity and maintaining the territorial integrity of the state.
Indigenous peoples have a right to development within a single united
nation. The speaker stressed that the Working Group needed to get into
a draft exercise to make the article acceptable to all parties concerns.
Previous discussion showed that at no time can it authorize or
encourage actions that would partially or totally threaten the
sovereignty or integrity of states.
Jocelyn Terese of FOAG, an alliance of Indians of French Guyana, said
that cultural rights have often been counterposed against the exclusion
of indigenous peoples from politics. The struggle for
self-determination is ongoing, he stated, and indigenous peoples needed
the Declaration passed without change. The delegation of Mexico
reiterated the by now tired point that self-determination could only be
achieved without damage to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of
nation-states. Indigenous peoples in Mexico, he said, have many forms
of local autonomy as long as it is consistent with Mexican law. Such an
approach respects the integrity of the state and the congruity of the
national legal system.
A Maasai representative from Tanzania said that self-determination was
an integral need for indigenous peoples, but states were diluting this
by constantly stating the indigenous peoples could not secede. She
urged governments to see the notion of self-determination positively,
not as usurpation of sovereignty but a recognition of the collective
rights of peoples. The Maasai have suffered depredations because land
use decisions have been taken away from them. She cited UN documents
and conferences that demonstrated the self-determination was both a need
and a right for indigenous peoples.
The government of France stated that it realized how important
self-determination was and asserted that it was enacting the idea
selectively in its territories and departments. The representative
asserted that his government was grateful for all the clarifications
that indigenous peoples were providing and hoped that existing
differences would not bar the creation of the best possible text.
Self-determination must reflect the right to operate on the basis of
consensus and not be enacted to the detriment of other populations.
Warren Allmand of the International Center for Human Rights and
Democratic Development supported what many indigenous peoples
said about
self-determination not being a direct threat to nation-states.
Qualifications should not be put on the right, but rather the idea
should be negotiated between specific indigenous nations and state
governments to define its parameters. New wording was not needed
at this time, he asserted. He pleaded with governments to be
magnanimous on this issue: "Be generous; your fears are exaggerated."
The government of New Zealand agreed with many other states that
the notion of self-determination was important, but that its exercise
had to be congruent with domestic law. A representative of the
Navajo Nation pointed out that the US position taken here was "a step
backward from its official position" in the domestic context. Ecuador
sated that the Declaration needed to be passed, and that the draft
before them was an important first cast. They believes that only
minor changes were needed to make the text more congruent with
international law. After asserting that self-determination for
indigenous peoples was not equivalent to that of states and that it did
not imply dismemberment, the speaker detailed how indigenous
peoples in Ecuador had been granted self-determination in many
spheres of life. The Declaration would further strengthen such
processes and give special peoples special care internationally.
A representative from Asian Indigenous Peoples' Pact reaffirmed the
fact that the Declaration was indeed in congruence with international
law and that Article 3 could not be changed to be "in line" with
domestic laws since that would make it less than existing international
law. A representative of adivasi groups of India said that the right to
self-determination was a right of all peoples, and that this needed to
be doubly reaffirmed for indigenous peoples. He countered the
assertions of several state representatives that the concept needed
to be diluted in the Declaration. Mr. Stuart Patterson of the
Haudenosaunee that self-determination's definition was up to the
indigenous peoples, since it was their self-determination being
discussed. The concept could not be defined by governments and
could not be isolated from the web of rights and principles that the
Declaration embodied.
An indigenous representative from Peru stated that the challenge of
Article 3 as a right for indigenous peoples was an appeal to the
international community to formalize the situation of indigenous peoples
on threshold of the 21st century. Enshrining this right for indigenous
peoples would allow them to recover much of what they had lost in the
past due to the denial of this very right. An Amazigh representative,
presented a petition signed by 400 Amazigh organizations and
individuals reaffirming their rights, and he stated that oppressed
peoples needed the right to self-determination to enact their other
rights. This idea was enshrined in the UN Charter and all states
needed to support the right to self-determination.
Mr. Ormond Parker, representing a coalition of Australian indigenous
groups, expressed his disappointment with Australia's "inflexible"
attitude because the forms that self-determination take will vary
according to the law, customs, and needs of individual indigenous
peoples. The fundamental issues of equality and non-discrimination
must be paramount; to limit its applications to indigenous peoples
offends the principle of prohibition of racism. Mr. Frank Guivarra of
the National Aboriginal and Islanders Legal Services Secretariat
(NAILS) declared that self-determination "should simply be given its
ordinary and natural meaning," and that states fears about the
concept "were ill-conceived and without foundation."
Ambassador Ron Barnes, speaking for Alaskan peoples, highlighted the
paradox of asking the same governments who had oppressed
indigenous peoples to acknowledge their right to self-determination.
When law and order inhibits the ability of peoples to survive, he
proclaimed, indigenous peoples' law must replace it. This is the heart
of self-determination. Any change to the Declaration was contrary to
his mandate and would only benefit the colonizers. Bineet Mundu of
the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tro
pical Forests stated that self-determination was a way to change how
indigenous peoples were conceived of as social, political, and economic
entities. Doing this would allow indigenous peoples to live their lives
fully.
Terry Janis of the Indian Law Resource Center focused on the link
between the Declaration and the survival of indigenous peoples.
Self-definition was an important part of this, as was external
recognition of their existence as peoples. Indigenous peoples must not
be considered lesser peoples. He noted that there is currently no
standard that validates the survival of indigenous peoples, but that
indigenous representatives were aggressively addressing the
concerns of member states and moving the process towards
consensus, especially on Article 3. He called for the United States to
not compromise American Indian sovereignty in international
instruments.
The representative of Venezuela stated that her country was
undergoing many changes and renovating all aspects of life. This
included revising the constitution to acknowledge the role played by
indigenous peoples in constituting the nation. Self-determination
should reflect this; it should work by integrating peoples into the
nation-states of which they are a part, rather than giving rise of
separatism. An indigenous delegate from Chile said that dialogue was
important to really understand self-determination, but that dialogue
must exceed international instruments. Indigenous peoples have not
had much opportunity to affect international standards, and that this
reflected the oppression that indigenous peoples have been subject to
historically. The discussion here was on new norms; laws are not static
and governments constantly modify laws. TO think otherwise is to
deny the historical processes to which international law is subject. No
laws are cast in stone and states should not fear this process or the
right to self-determination.
The final speaker of the day, a Bolivian indigenous delegate, expressed
regret that the government of Bolivia was not in attendance to hear
these proceedings, as 60% of Bolivia was indigenous. Self-
determination must reflect the diversity of peoples and is in contrast
to the standardization and homogenization that is the legacy of
colonialism. It is the right of peoples to determine their own future
in
conjunction with international treaties. The speaker called for more
imaginative ways for states and indigenous peoples to consult on these
matters.
The meeting rose shortly before 6PM, when the last speaker, the
government of Norway, requested a delay to consult with their
superiors about the statement.
------- End of forwarded message -------
|\/\/\/| Jim Duffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| o o| 12 Hurrey Place BEECHBORO WA 6063 AUSTRALIA
C _)
| ,____| "[The government] would like to see us assimilated, little
| / black bodies and white minds, for that is what this current
| | native title debate is about...They can't rip babies out of
their mothers' arms any more but they can change the law
and appropriate our distinctiveness as a people and they
can try to assimilate us...There is no doubt that the
current native title debate is about racism."
Kimberley Land Council Chairman Peter Yu 11 November, 1997
http://www.omen.net.au/~anzac/ GMT+8hrs
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
