Intersessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration on Indigenous Peoples
News from Geneva
by James W. Zion , Elsie RedBird Navajo Working Group for Human Right
Geneva, Day-One 20-11-00 Day Two, 21-11-00
The meeting of the Intersessional Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples began late on Monday, as the proposed chair (Luis Chavez of Peru) held
discussions with the Indigenous Caucus on the work of the body. The session
convened, and Mr. Chavez was elected chair by the state representatives by
acclamation. Chavez then announced that he would meet separately with state
representatives to discuss the Indigenous Caucus demands. Items 3 and 31,
concerning self-determination, were taken off the agenda at the request of the Indigenous
Caucus.
Following several hours of discussions, Mr. Chavez met with the Indigenous
representatives in mid-afternoon to propose two sessions to discuss procedure, the
appointment of an indigenous co-chair, and the issues of self-determination and
natural resources. There was a great deal of discussion within the Indigenous
Caucus of "formal" versus "informal" proceedings and separate
meetings of the Indigenous and state groups.
Following further discussions, the body convened, and Mr. Chavez announced the
following work plan:
There will be two formal sessions on Tuesday, November 21, to discuss the process.
Indigenous representatives will have the opportunity to air their concerns about the
discussion process, and state representatives will have a chance to respond. Given
that the proceedings will be "formal," all comments will be reflected in
the report to the Commission on Human Rights. Mr.
Chavez urged all to make brief comments, with "statements as substantive as
possible," and said that an "interactive dialogue is preferred."
On Wednesday, November 22, there will be two sessions to discuss the substantive
aspects of the draft declaration in Articles 1, 2, 12, 13,14, 44, and 45 - in no
particular order. The rest of the session will focus upon those articles.
The working group will finish at lunch time on November 30th, so that the following
day can be dedicated to drafting the report and translating it.
Commentary: There is a buzz about proposed Canadian language to change Articles 3
and 31, relating to self-determination. A copy circulated to Indigenous delegates that
"just fell off the truck," as the representative who leaked the document
put it. The Canadian comments are several pages long, but in essence, while they seem to
beef up the self-determination statments (changing "should" to
"shall"), they would put self-determination in the context of domestic
law. That is, domestic law will frame the peramters of the right. This is, of
course, the U.S. position as well.
It appears that the Indigenous Caucus demands fell into the hands of the states. That is,
the demands to the chair gave the states the opportunity to caucus separately, and
we can assume that gave Canada the time to talk about its proposals with Australia,
New Zealand, the U.S. and others. On the floor, the U.S. delegation could be seen
chatting with the folks from Australia.
There was a lot of confusion within the Indigenous Caucus. After the proposals
drafted on Sunday and delivered early Monday morning were given to the chair and he
responded favorably, there were protests about what was really wanted. There was a great
deal of confusion about the difference between "formal" and "informal"
discussions. Wilton Littlechild pointed out
that "formal" means voting on a specific proposal where consensus had been
reached, but the chair seems to see "formal" as meaning on-the-record
discussions where both Indigenous and state comments are put into the final
report.
The agenda shows that there is an assumption the working group will go on next year
(and on, and on, and on...), and the Indigenous Caucus still needs to address how to
conclude the discussion. While the chair urges that the work be done, there is no
discussion of finality.
A deputy high commissioner for human rights opened the session and urged the states
to be open about their positions and to discuss them with the Indigenous groups, but
he have yet to see whether states will be open and forthcoming on their positions.
The big question is whether the U.S. will initiate discussions, telling people what
its position will be, or whether it will play a shell game and stonewall, as in the
past.
James W. Zion Navajo Working Group for Human Rights
The Navajo Working Group for Human Rights is a NGO accredited by the Economic and Social
Council. It is not formally affiliated with the Government of the Navajo Nation.
Geneva, Day-Two 21-11-00
It is difficult to sum up what happened on Day Two of the Working Group proceedings,
which focused upon the process of attepting to "elaborate" a Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as mandated by the Commission on Human Rights. Of necessity,
this report must attempt to describe the tone of the day.
The Indigenous delegations tried to communicate their dissatisfaction with how things have
gone over the past several years. There were complaints about the states failing to relate
their positions and to justify them. The buzz over Canada's and New Zealand's
"secret" positions was reflected in comments about a lack of "transparency,
and candor, and discussions of "formal" and "informal" process.
Most Indigenous delegates said that they wanted the states to tell their precise
objections to the proposed draft and to back them up with specific objections that
were directly linked to standards of international law. Some delegates attempted to define
"consensus," because the Working Group is to operate with consensus when
adopting specific articles.
The divide in the room was obvious. The state members, who sit in the
front of the room, wore suits and expensive attire. The Indigenous representatives dressed
more casually. The Indigenous representatives each attempted to tell the group that the
states simply weren't listening and that there was a real question of a process where the
states would caucus separately to exchange their hidden agendas while leaving the
Indigenous representatives in the dark.
The state representatives who spoke declared their support of the Declaration -in
principle- while saying that there were problems with the Declaration draft. One declared
divide was that the Indigenous representatives insisted upon adopting the Declaration
draft word-for-word while there were "problems." The Indigenous position was
that the Declaration draft was the product of years of discussions among the
"experts," and that if there were any objections, they should be stated clearly
and specifically, and they should be justified in terms of principles of international
law.
Most of the state presentations were bafflegab; the UN-speak way of saying something
important without saying anything at all. New Zealand said that it had a "firm
commitment to getting a Declaration," stating its "but..." in a cloud of
smoke. Canada called upon the Indigenous Peoples to approach its proposals "with an
open mind." After one Indigenous delegate called
Canada to task for injecting internal politics into the proceedings and not offering an
international law basis for its position, Australia rose to say that there were problems
with the Declaration, and when it offered new language, it would be supported by
international law. Some states attempted to be helpful. Denmark proposed that the
Indigenous representativs should be invited to listen on on government consulations to
"demystify" the process; that there should be formal and informal proceedings
with an Indigenous co-chair; that there should be meetings by region to discuss the
issues; and that perhaps it would be a good idea to have academics discuss the issues to
find commonalities. Switzerland and Cuba made pleas for the Working Group to listen to the
Indigenous point of view.
The Indigenous representatives complained about the process and secret dealings among the
states, insisting that objections must have a basis in international law; that there must
be justifications for objections, a rationale, a statement of why specific proposals were
inaccurate, and criteria for changes.
It was interesting to watch the U.S. delegation. When the states wanted to speak, they
would tip their sign sideways to signal a desire to speak. At one point late in the
morning, the United States sign was tipped up, and we waited to hear what the U.S. had to
say. Early in the afternoon, two U.S. repesentatives intently debated a draft of notes,
which were covered with correction marks and crossouts. One delegate had a little pile of
hand-written, note card-like notes. Finally, the U.S. sign went down, and it did not
speak.
The chair would respond to the Indigenous points now and then, noting in a
schoolmaster-like tone that the Indigenous representatives were mistaken in their
complaints about separate discussions of the state delegates or in the definition of what
"consensus" happened to be.
In sum, there was a clear divide in the room, with the Indigeous represenatives
complaining of back room deals and bogus objections to the draft, while the states
declared their support in general terms -with reservations- and the chair lectured the
Indigenous delegations about how their objections were wrong or did not conform to UN
procedure.
The United States delegation called a meeting after the session in the large lounge
downstairs. The U.S. Indigenous delegates earnestly implored the U.S. to talk. They asked
what the specific objections were and how they were grounded in fundamental principles of
international law. They said that the U.S. could be an example and show leadership to
promote human rights for
Indigenous Peoples around the world. There was a general response byMichael Dennis to the
effect that while there might not be objections to most provisions in the case of the
Indigenous Peoples of the U.S., there were grave international implications. For example,
if there was a statement that Indigenous Peoples had the right to self-determination, that
might be used to justify an uprising in some remote part of the globe.
The meeting lasted about two hours. At the end, the U.S. told the Indigenous delegations
that there would be a response about having meetings to discuss the specific issues, but
that the logistic details would have to be worked out.
Today, there will be "general" discussions of self-determination and natural
resource issues before the body goes on to articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 44 and 45.
Opinion: "There is nothing new under the sun." The tone of proceedings is to the
effect that the Indigenous representatives are unreasonable in insisting that the
declaration draft be adoped as is. The complaints about process, back room talks among the
states, and a lack of reasoned dissent were countered by the chair in terms of
"that's not the way things are done at the UN;" "this chair always plays by
the rules;" and "you simply do not understand." The gulf on a statement of
the basic rights of indigenous peoples echoes the ancient Spanish debates over whether
Indians arehuman, and whether the states will grudgingly acknowledge that Indigenous
peoples have rights at all. Several of the states insisted that if there is to be an
international declaration of indigenous rights, it must be limited by national law.
The United Nations wants a declaration before the close of the Decade of Indigenous
Peoples, and several of the states want something on paper. The question is what the final
product will be. Indigenous peoples went to the UN because of horrible conditions
around the world, and there is still a hesitance to put anything on paper that has any
meaning, because of course that would give some support for indigenous demands that
their land rights, political autonomy, or ability to have some leverage for their position
would have UN sanction.
As I struggle to finish this to get ready for today's discussions of self-determination
and natural resources, I wonder how the obvious divide will be closed. While one state
delegate declared that "there is no hidden agenda," it is obvious that there is
one. Australia, New Zealand,Canada and the United States are up to something, but we do
not know what they are discussing. They are the "Abracadabra Boys," who make
pitty-pat in secret tongues, talking down to us, "the rabble." The problem is
that this is a deadly game, which has real meaning for Indigenous people who are being
murdered and robbed. The states quibble, while the Indigenous representatives
attempt to reach out for dialogue, asking simply, "What is wrong with the draft that
took so many years to write?"
James W. Zion Navajo Working Group for Human Rights
The Navajo Working Group for Human Rights is a private NGO which is not affiliated with
the Government of the Navajo Nation.