And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>X-Originating-IP: [192.91.247.212]
>From: "John Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Day 3 of Permanent Forum
>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 01:04:47 PST
>
>Summary of Debate - United Nations Open-Ended, Intersessional, Ad Hoc
>Working Group on a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples, 17/2/99 (Day
>3)
>(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:
>
> Wednesday began with a continuation of the previous day's discussion on
>the PF's mandate. Many of the suggestions and issues of the previous
>day were carried over into this debate, with a few new ideas and some
>noteworthy rejoinders from indigenous representatives and supportive
>states that created an incisive dialogue between the various delegates.
>While a number of delegates recapitulated previous opinions on the
>parameters of membership, rules of participation, number of members,
>etc. others suggested alternative formations.
>
> Indigenous representatives from Mexico, Russia, North Africa,
>Aotearoa/New Zealand, and the International Indian Treaty Council
>discussed the geopolitical issues involved in assembling an adequate
>membership base for the PF. They pointed out that the standard UN
>regional structure was inadequate to determine a "proper geographic
>spread" of indigenous peoples, and that relying on such a geopolitical
>structure might create imbalances and inconsistencies in indigenous
>representation (this was to some extent supported by Malaysia and Cuba).
>This was partly linked to the idea of full and equal participation, but
>also to the notion that the PF will be a very different sort of UN body;
>several delegates asserted that the PF would be a "unique" body ( a
>position taken early on by Denmark), and that its composition and
>process would have to reflect historical, political, and institutional
>concerns of indigenous peoples, from questions of colonialism and
>assimilation to the need to protect and enhance indigenous peoples'
>rights.
>
> Another significant issue that heated up in this debate was that of
>determining "valid" indigenous membership. Japan, China, and most
>fervently Bangladesh all commented that a strict definition of who was
>indigenous would be required . Chile made some intimations along these
>lines by stating that indigenous membership would have to follow UN
>rules, including the current regional distribution, but the three Asian
>countries that spoke in this session all highlighted the definition
>issue as tied to their final approval of a PF. A Chakma indigenous
>representative responded directly to China by pointing out that in other
>international conventions (such as ILO No. 169) self-definition of
>indigenous peoples was a primary determinant of their status, and also
>pointed out that Bangladesh had signed an earlier convention on
>indigenous peoples, ILO Convention No. 107. An indigenous
>representative from Southeast Asia responded to Brazil's contention that
>indigenous representation be channel through national governments by
>asking all states to trust that the indigenous peoples would be as
>responsible as possible in composing their part of the PF's membership.
>
>The previous day's intervention by the US, wherein they stated that
>indigenous peoples could not be on the same level as nation-states in
>the PF, was also remembered and attacked by Willie Littlechild
>(IOIRD/Ermineskin Cree), who pointed out the US's long-standing history
>of treaty relations with American Indian groups as "nation-to-nation"
>relations. A Russian indigenous representative called the US position
>"destructive" and unhelpful in creating a PF that would have real
>participation from indigenous peoples. Norway and Mexico both stressed
>in their interventions that indigenous peoples should have full rights
>of participation, and Mexico declared that the appointment of indigenous
>members to the PF should come from the indigenous communities
>themselves. Despite some problems, the Chair declared that he perceived
>consensus on a number of issues, and that he would try to accentuate
>this in his summary.
>
>After a short break, the Chair reconvened the meeting and delivered his
>summary (which I hope to transmit later today). Translation was a
>problem; the text was exclusively in English and Spanish-speaking
>delegates requested a text that they could analyze more carefully. The
>Chair explained that this was not in his power due to the situation in
>the other building with the Kurds. After some wrangling over this
>issue, the Chair left it to the delegates to work out and turned to the
>afternoon's work. He gave a brief precis of the afternoon's
>proceedings, which would focus on what level the PF should be situated
>at: should it be under ECOSOC, parallel to it, attached directly to the
>General Assembly, etc. He hoped to have that finished by 4PM, when the
>group could move on to a discussion of more technical matters, such as
>financing, location, etc.
>
>
>Afternoon session:
>
>What was supposed to be an hour-long discussion turned into, perhaps not
>surprisingly, a slightly longer discussion. The Chair requested that
>delegates respond to a very particular question in regard to the PF's
>level: "does the previous discussion on the mandate lead us to believe
>that the PF should in some way be attached to ECOSOC?" The Chair
>qualified this on several occasions by emphasizing that he was not
>asking if it was to be under ECOSOC, but asking what relation it should
>have to ECOSOC, based on the discussion to this point? This produced a
>torrent of responses that created a complex map of possibilities for the
>PF's placement, but it was obvious by the end of the discussion that
>many delegates agreed that ECOSOC was a good attachment point for the PF
>onto the UN system.
>
>Some delegates, such as Denmark, advocated a direct attachment of the PF
>to ECOSOC, and indigenous delegates such as the IITC advocated that it
>report directly to ECOSOC like one of the Commissions. A number of
>indigenous delegates agreed, while also bringing up the fact that the PF
>would also be a unique institution that should not be thought of in a
>strict UN mold; Norway supported this idea as well. Switzerland,
>Mexico, and Spain advocated a "tenth Commission" formula for locating
>the PF, while other states more vaguely located the PF within ECOSOC (a
>few states said they could not decide on this matter until a concrete
>mandate was nailed down). There was support for this from some
>indigenous delegates, but several others, such as Willie Littlechild and
>a representative of the Assembly of First Nations, felt that the PF
>should be attached to the General Assembly directly. Other, such as
>Joseph Ole Karia of the MAA Development Association (Maasai), thought
>that it should be a parallel body to ECOSOC. Also advanced was the idea
>that the PF report directly to the Bureau of the Secretary-General, but
>the Chair countered that the S-G's office was the highest
>administrative level, and that the General Assembly was the highest
>legislative body, so he felt that such a request was not to the highest
>effective level.
>
>The US position was that the PF should report to ECOSOC under the
>Commission on Human Rights, since the PF's focus should be on human
>rights. The US then attempted to go into a discussion of the need to
>eliminate or fuse the WGIP to the PF, but was soundly gaveled by the
>Chair for going off-topic. A number of other states agreed with the US
>delegation's CHR placement, such as Venezuela, the United Kingdom,
>Argentina, and New Zealand, while Holland specifically rejected this
>idea.
>
>The day ended with some procedural wrangling over the CRPs. The Chair
>broke and reconvened the meeting to present a CRP summary on the
>afternoon's debate, which led to a number of states requesting pinpoint
>clarification of the purpose and future of the documents. Several
>states seemed concerned that these would be the heart of the report, but
>the Chair tried to assure them that they were only talking papers to
>stimulate discussion and response, and that both the Indigenous Caucus
>and states would be allowed to give their views on them in separate
>consultations. He wanted to sue them to find points of consent and
>friction so that he could write a better report. Peru tried to open a
>larger debate, but was cut off by the Chair because it was 6PM.
>
>
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
