DDRIP NEWS / UPDATES
[17/12/05] NZ government considered 'hostile' toward Indigenous Peoples everywhere // Criticism levelled by Amnesty International at the government's 'package' of suggested amendments to the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, will be an embarrassment for the Labour government coming so close on the heals of the recent visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples, the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal in relation the Foreshore and Seabed legislation and the UNCERD decision earlier this year that also found the legislation discriminates against Maori >>> more...
[16/12/05] Amnesty International criticises NZ government position // A group of international human rights organisations have joined indigenous peoples groups and other countries in their opposition to the hostile position taken by New Zealand, Australia and the United States at a UN meeting on the rights of indigenous peoples. >>> more...
[16/12/05] Urgent Need to Improve the U.N. Standard-Setting Process
Importance of Criteria of “Consistent with International
Law and its Progressive Development” >>> more...[12/12/05] New Zealand Nukes Indigenous Peoples Right to Self-Determination. Today, New Zealand, along with the United States and Australia, again made a major attempt to completely negate Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination as set forth in the Declaration on the Rights of the World's Indigenous Peoples >>> more...
[12/12/05] NZ government make mockery of Treaty. The YWCA Aotearoa is dismayed by the blatant disregard for the Treaty of Waitangi and international conventions by the New Zealand government >>> more...
[9/12/05] Indigenous Rights Movement Alarmed by NZ's Policy >>> more...
09/12/05
Yesterday, New Zealand, Australia and the United States made the following intervention as a "package on self-determination." It completely obliterates the right to self-determination for Indigenous peoples and limits it to internal self-determination. Obviously, we vehemently oppose this. Here is the text they introduced:
"PP 14: Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
PP 15: Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right of self-determination, exercised in conformity with applicable international law.
PP 15: Encouraging harmonious and co-operative relations between States and indigenous peoples based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.
Article 3: Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination as enunciated in this Article.
(a) By virtue of this right they freely participate in determining their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
(b) In exercising this right of self-determination, they have the right to autonomy and slef-management in matters relating directly to their internal and local affairs;
(c) This right shall be exercised in accordance with the rule of law with due respect to legal procedures and arrangements and in good faith.Article 45: Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind."
Interestingly, several countries spoke after the introduction of this "package" and NOT ONE of them supported it. Several in fact took great exception to its introduction and its reversal of other proposals already submitted. Pressure must continue... this assault on the human rights of all Indigenous peoples cannot be tolerated and every resource available needs to be deployed in order to counteract this discriminatory, colonial and racist approach to human rights.
[8/12/05] NZ officials, along with representatives of the governments in Australia and the USA have launched a radical assault on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples >>> more...
[25/11/05] UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples Draft Report to the UN on NZ >>> more...
20/10/2005
General Assembly, GA/SHC/3826
Department of Public Information . News and Media Division . New York. Sixtieth General Assembly, Third Committee, 20th Meeting (AM)SPEAKERS CITE NEED TO ADOPT DECLARATION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' RIGHTS, AS THIRD COMMITTEE CONCLUDES DISCUSSION OF ISSUE
New Zealand Delegate Stresses Need for 'Inclusive' Declaration, Avoiding Suggestions of Two Standards of Citizenship
While some progress had been made in bringing the issues of indigenous peoples to the forefront of the United Nations development agenda, their rights had been under debate for more than 10 years, and it was necessary to adopt a draft resolution on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, several representatives told the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today as it concluded its general discussion of indigenous issues.
There was scarcely a single major international conference that disregarded the issues of indigenous peoples, the representative of the Russian Federation said. Special attention also needed to be given to the fact that together with the delegations of Governments, the representatives of the indigenous peoples themselves were also participating in events. However, the problems indigenous peoples faced were far from being fully resolved. While the First International Decade had given a powerful impetus, at the same time a number of the goals set forth had not been attained. The process of agreeing on the new draft declaration had also come to a halt, he said.
New Zealand's representative called the present text of the draft declaration "unworkable and unacceptable" for many States. It must be amended if a declaration was to be implemented as a standard of achievement, and the failure to recognize that would effectively mean no declaration. In elaborating the rights of one group of citizens, New Zealand could not agree to a document that suggested there were two standards of citizenship or two classes of citizens. In that sense, the declaration must be inclusive and not exclusive, and that imperative must apply to all provisions of the declaration.Furthermore, the Second Decade on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, which had started in January, should ensure that issues relating to indigenous peoples, including the recommendations of the Permanent Forum, be better taken into account in the implementation process of the Millennium Development Goals and the follow-up to major United Nations conferences, the representative of Finland said on behalf of the Nordic Group. The possibilities of indigenous peoples to contribute to and impact the outcomes of the various United Nations processes should also be further strengthened.
[20/10/05]
UN News: "ANDREW BEGG (New Zealand) said the draft text on the rights of indigenous peoples, which had been under debate for over 10 years, was unworkable and unacceptable for many States, including New Zealand. It must be amended if a declaration was to be implemented as a standard of achievement. Failure to recognize that would effectively mean no declaration. For that reason, New Zealand, along with a group of other countries, had tabled a comprehensive and amended text in negotiations in 2004. In elaborating the rights of one group of citizens, New Zealand could not agree to a document that suggested there were two standards of citizenship or two classes of citizens. In that sense, the declaration must be inclusive and not exclusive, and that imperative must apply to all provisions of the declaration.
While the negotiations had been inclusive, the declaration would be one for States to endorse and adopt, he continued. States must assume more leadership in the negotiations so that they could be brought to an early conclusion. His Government has not prepared to continue with what had become a protracted and inconclusive process, nor was it prepared to let negotiations labour on for another decade. Welcoming the chair’s text submitted to the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year, he said it required further amendments, both on self-determination and on lands and resources in particular, before it would be acceptable. However, it provided a sound and realistic basis for moving the negotiations forward and the potential for them to be concluded early next year. That must now become the collective objective, he added."
[11/03/05] "Bearing in mind the complexity of the issues involved, the legislation appears to the Committee, on balance, to contain discriminatory aspects against the Maori, in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Maori customary title over the foreshore and seabed and its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress, notwithstanding the State party’s obligations under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention." - Decision 1 (66), New Zealand Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, UN COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION - Sixty-sixth session: 21/02/05–11/03/05.
[21/04/05]
Please find below the report on the resolutions passed on Agenda Item 15 (Indigenous Issues). The resolution to extend the mandate of the Working Group on the Draft Declaration was passed without a vote. (Please see the bold portion in the report) However, the US wanted an amendment to paragraph 5 to say that the negotiations should be completed before the 62nd Session of the Commission and if there is a need to extend the number of days to another 10 days this should be done. A vote was taken on this amendment and it was 49 against the it, 2 for it (US and Australia) and 2 abstentions. So we will look forward to having another 10 days session of the Working Group before 2005 ends. There is another resolution which says that Mexico will offer to host a workshop which will be an attempt to bridge the differences betweeen indigenous peoples and governments. This was also passed.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have signed on to the Statement for the Extension of the Mandate of the Working Group on the Draft Declaration. If this step was not taken the possibility of a suspension of this Working Group could have happened. We will look forward to working with you in the near future in some processes to prepare for the forthcoming session of the Working Group. For a start, it would be helpful if you take a look at the Chairman's proposal and make your comments on this.
Warm regards and in solidarity
Mattias Ahren on behalf of the Saami CouncilVicky Tauli Corpuz on behalf of Tebtebba
Action on Resolutions and Decision on Indigenous Issues
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.56) on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour to 13 against, with one abstention, the Commission recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the twenty-second session of the Working Group to submit the report on that session to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues during the Forum's fourth session in 2005, as requested in Sub-Commission resolution 2004/15 of 9 August 2004; urged all States to continue working, in cooperation with the United Nations system, on the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the International Decade and to take the necessary measures to support the goals of the Second Decade; and invited the Working Group on indigenous populations to submit in due course to the Coordinator for the Second Decade, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a list of activities to be considered for possible inclusion as part of the human rights component of the comprehensive programme of action for the Second Decade that the Secretary-General has been requested to submit to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session. The Commission also requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit to the Commission at its sixty-second session, under the agenda item entitled "Indigenous issues", a report on the activities undertaken by her Office during the calendar year 2005 relating to indigenous peoples, as well as proposals both within and outside the framework of the Second Decade for enhancing the promotion and protection of the individual and collective rights of indigenous people, including their human rights and freedoms.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo et Zimbabwe.
Against (13): Australia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom et United States.
Abstention (1): Finland.
AMY MCKEE (United States), in a general comment, said that at the last session of the Commission, the United States had pointed out that the Working Group on indigenous populations had outlived its usefulness. The Special Rapporteur was helping States focus on improving their records, and the Permanent Forum was bringing the concerns of indigenous people to the mainstream of the United Nations deliberations. It would be better to replace the session of the Working Group with more time for the Permanent Forum on elaborating a Draft Convention. The United States of America would like a recorded vote, and would vote against the resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.61) on the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph five of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to none against, with one abstention, the Commission urged all parties involved in the process of negotiation to do their utmost to carry out successfully the mandate of the Working Group and to present for adoption as soon as possible a final draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; and also invited the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group and all interested parties to conduct broad informal inter-sessional consultations with a view to facilitating progress in concluding a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People at the next session of the Working Group. The Commission also encouraged organizations of indigenous people that were not already registered to participate in the Working Group and that wished to do so to apply for authorization in accordance with the procedures set out in the annex to Commission resolution 1995/32.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Against (0)
Abstentions (1): United States.
A proposed amendment by the United States on the text of L. 61 was rejected by a vote of two in favour, with 49 against and two abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (2): Australia and United States.
Against (49): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (2): Romania and Togo.
AMY MCKEE (United States), making a general comment, said the United States would like to amend operative paragraph five of the resolution to read "Calls upon the Working Group to complete the negotiations prior to the sixty-second session of the Commission, and to this end authorizes the expenditure of resources for ten working days of negotiations and, if necessary to extend that negotiating session for up to an additional ten days to accomplish this objective, the cost of the meeting to be met from within existing resources."
WAYNE LORD (Canada), in a general comment, said the delegation of Canada appreciated the efforts of the United States towards indigenous peoples. Canada's delegation had had a series of discussions with the co-sponsors and representatives of the indigenous peoples. However, Canada was not in a position to support the United States amendment.
LARS PIRA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said Guatemala supported all work on indigenous peoples within the United Nations system, and this was why it had supported the work of the Working Group on indigenous peoples. It would continue to work for consensus and to strike a balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and the needs of States. It would strive for consensus on this issue in a spirit of full and effective participation of all States so that the instrument would protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Any process of improving the drafting would be welcome, and therefore the Chairman of the Working Group should consider means of making the work more expeditious. What had been said by indigenous organizations that it would have been more effective to extend the mandate of the Working Group by six weeks was supported. The Working Group should adopt more dynamic methods of work and more definite deadlines. An informal consultation measure would be more effective.
LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), in a general comment, said that today the Commission was facing a crucial moment for the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as for the indigenous peoples of the world themselves. The future of the draft Declaration was at stake, as two different positions were being staked out. No one opposed the successful conclusion of negotiations on the draft Declaration, and Mexico supported a strong and vigorous draft Declaration. The first of the positions would put too much pressure on the negotiating process on the assumption that nothing had been achieved in the first decade, while the other extreme was that the draft Declaration could be concluded in ten days. Mexico felt that the process should not be forced faster than it could go, or be limited to one year. It was unrealistic to expect the process to be concluded in ten days, and Mexico supported the two-year extension and the proposal to explore alternative methods of work, as suggested in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Mexico wished to act as a facilitator to bring the diverging positions as close together as possible, and supported the holding of a workshop to build bridges of dialogue for new approaches to the toughest and most problematic issues contained in the draft Declaration. Flexibility should be given to the negotiating process in order to achieve a draft Declaration acceptable to all indigenous peoples. Mexico supported the position of Canada against the amendment proposed by the United States.
LEENA LEIKAS (Finland), in a general statement, said the delegation of Finland appreciated the work done so far in the Working Group in drafting a declaration on the right of indigenous peoples. The proposed United States amendment to give an ultimatum to the Working Group was not acceptable. Finland would vote against the amendment and called for others to do the same.
AMY MCKEE (United States) said in an explanation of the vote on L. 61 that the United States was committed to the work of the Working Group, but its work should had been finished in the original ten years allotted. In the past 10 years, strides had been made in the text. What was needed was not an open-ended mandate, but a commitment by all States to find an agreed text. This objective was the intention of the United States in proposing the amendment. The United States would like a vote on L61 and would abstain from the vote, as it thought that the changes should have been integrated. The United States was committed to the situation of indigenous people. It was the sincere hope that next year the United States would not be making the same intervention, but would be marking the approval of a Declaration to be forwarded to the General Assembly, one that would benefit people and States.MIKE SMITH (Australia) said the delegation of Australia would support the current draft resolution on the understanding that "as soon as possible" meant that the process would be brought to a conclusion by the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights. However, Australia would not be disposed to support another resolution of this kind.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.66) on human rights and indigenous people, adopted without a vote, the Commission requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, in performing his work, to consider the recommendations of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance on matters concerning his mandate, as well as the recommendations, observations and conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and requested him to begin preparing a study regarding best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in his general and country reports and to submit a progress report to the Commission at its sixty-second session and the final study at its sixty-third session. The Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur to liase with the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide with regard to the protection of indigenous people from genocide. It further requested all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated, to furnish all information requested and to react promptly to his urgent appeals; and urged States that had not yet done so to consider, as a matter of priority, ratifying or acceding to the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization.
In a draft resolution, recommended by the Sub-Commission, on the protection of indigenous peoples in times of conflict, which was adopted by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 13 against, with four abstentions, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide appointed under the Action Plan to Prevent Genocide took into consideration the need to protect indigenous peoples and their territories; that, in situations where there were forces present under a United Nations mandate, they protected vulnerable indigenous peoples, their territories and objects indispensable to their survival; and that the mandates of United Nations authorized operations included a requirement to protect indigenous populations and their territories. The Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to liase with the Special Advisor with regard to the protection of indigenous peoples from genocide and to develop an emergency response mechanism as part of his mandate.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (35): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.
Against (13): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (4): Congo, India, Japan and Republic of Korea.
CAROLINE REES (United Kingdom), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United Kingdom regretted having to call for a vote on the text. The United Kingdom was committed to the full and equal realization of the rights of indigenous people. It urged full implementation of international humanitarian law, including on the protection of civilians in time of conflict. The United Kingdom would vote against the draft decision and asked others to do the same.
The Commission adopted, by a recorded vote of 38 in favour to two against, with 12 abstentions, a decision containing a recommendation from the Sub-Commission concerning the final report on the study "Indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources". By that text, the Commission expressed its deep appreciation to Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene A. Daes for her excellent and comprehensive final report, and recommended the Economic and Social Council to authorize the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert seminar during 2005 to give further attention to and to discuss in detail the many political, legal, economic, social and cultural aspects and matters relating to that study, as well as the study on "Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land". ECOSOC would also be recommended to issue the two studies as part of the Human Rights Study Series.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (38): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Australia and United States.
Abstentions (12): Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) requested a recorded vote on the draft decision.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in an explanation of the vote, said Pakistan regretted that there was a request for a vote. Ms. Daes had done excellent work. The decision referred to the fact that an excellent and comprehensive report had been submitted. If it were not studied by an expert seminar, it would not achieve the objective of being discussed by indigenous groups and people. The draft decision was strongly supported.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the delegation of Cuba had been surprised at the request for a roll-call vote on this decision. Cuba had followed the Special Rapporteur's work closely for a number of years and she had done a good job. When a vote was called for, it was usually to express opposition to the content of the text. There had been no explanation, only a request for a vote. As there was no knowledge of why the vote had been called, Cuba would vote in favour of the draft decision.
Victoria Tauli Corpuz
[6 April 2005]
The purpose of this update is to alert Maori and other indigenous peoples organisations and groups to a significant development in the negotiations relating to the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is important that Maori and Pacific representative groups are aware that a significant rift has occurred and that currently two quite different positions are being advocated by indigenous networks at the highest level of the UN system. The two differing approaches to the draft have been long-standing, [i.e. 1 - retain the current text as is with no amendment, or 2 - agree to re-negotiate the text] What is new, is the recommended action.
We should be aware of these differences - know that both approaches are widely supported [but obviously not unanimously supported] - know also that highly experienced indigenous organisations who have been active in the negotiation of both ILO169 and the draft Declaration are endorsing both of these different approaches.
It therefore comes down to each of us - taking the time to contemplate the arguments for and against position one or position two (summarised briefly below) and articulate support accordingly. Clearly, we should also advocate our preferred position with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Maori Affairs and any others who can develop a government position.
Aroha Mead
POSITION ONE
A letter has been submitted to the Honourable Ambassador Makarim
Wibisono,President of the 61st Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The letter as you will see is supported by 129 indigenous organisations, including three Maori. The letter asks the Commission to adopt the existing text at the 61st session and to pass it on to the next step in the UN Process. The letter then goes on to say "But if this is not feasible or possible, a break or recess in this process according to accepted UN procedure in cases where there is a lack of progress in standard setting bodies would allow time so that the current process can be evaluated, reassessed and restructured by the CHR. This would need to be done with the full consultation with Indigenous Peoples, to ensure greater participation and a more equitable process which reflects the views and positions of Indigenous Peoples." In other words, they are calling for acceptance of the draft as is, at the UNCHR level, with a decision to then move the draft through the next decision-making levels of the UN system culminating in the General Assembly. If this position is not accepted, the letter then seeks A BREAK OR RECESS IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. This is the new element.
POSITION TWO
Advocates a position of continued engagement and negotiation on all aspects of the current draft Text.
"To avoid so much confusion the statement we circulated basically calls for an extension of the mandate of the working group which directly contradicts the call for a recess. the justification we have for this proposal was that this was the view of the majority of indigenous representatives at the 10th session of the wgdd and even the IITC at that time did not say anything.
What we find totally dishonest and unacceptable is for the IITC,et.al, to send a letter to the Chairperson and member-states of the Commission calling for a recess which goes against the position of extension of the mandate. we feel that to rectify this situation we have to speak out and represent that view. But to get more force behind this we saw the need to circulate an open statement which will get the signatures of those who had this view at the 10th session and others who share this view. This IITC letter most of us never saw. I only saw it when i was in Geneva at the second week of the Commission session and I got this from a government representative. this is what triggered this counter move. As you can see in the latest sign ups, we now have almost 190 signatories from all over the world.
Now, in relation to the arguments against the IITC position, i will attach with this the statement of Dalee on behalf of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and Romeo Saganash of the Grand Council of the Crees. This covers almost all the reasons why calling for a recess is a bad idea. Of course, you could have seen the response of andrea to this. Dalee says they will present their counter arguments to the IITC in geneva, as she feels many of what Andrea mentioned are untrue. Yesterday, in Geneva, Mililani officially made a statement withdrawing the signature of the Indigenous World Association from the IITC statement.
For me, what is dangerous with the IITC position is that governments who are not supportive of any declaration on indigenous peoples' rights from the UN will fully support this and later on will be the ones who will make it hard to call for a working group again. which is exactly what happened.
Indonesia who is the chair of the 61st session, circulated this iitc statement 3 times among the governments and claimed that this is the indigenous caucus position. This is in spite of the fact that as early as Monday of the second week, i already talked to an Indonesian delegate informing him that this does not represent the indigenous position. So what we did was to send to them officially the statement for extension and asked them to circulate this also widely. I do not know if they did this but what is clear is that Indonesia which is one of the worst governments in terms of violations of indigenous peoples' rights capitalized on the IITC letter for their own interests.What is happening now is that the Canadian government already drafted a resolution calling for an extension of the working group. There is no government who sponsored the draft resolution made by IITC for a recess.
The claim of the IITC that there is no progress in the Working Group is not shared by us. We believe there has been progress as evidenced by the latest report of the Chair of the Working Group. If you see the Chairman's proposals for a new text, it does capture the bottomline we wanted."
Victoria Tauli Corpuz
Executive Director, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education); 1 Roman Ayson Road, Baguio City, Philippines. Email: vicky@tebtebba.org | website: www.tebtebba.org
UNITED NATIONS DRAFT
DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS
OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
E/CN.4/SUB.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994)