VARIOUS MAORI PERSPECTIVES ON THE CHAIR'S REVISED TEXT (MARCH 2006):   Kia ora, I support the views outlined below by Aroha. I am diffident about giving up on long fought battles and even more wary of supporting a Chair’s text that appears to have been hastily reformulated. Haste is never a good basis for making decisions and I’m not sure how you can accept a “little bit” of self determination which is what the Chair’s text amounts to. Self determination can only be full and inalienable human right and accepting anything less seems contrary to the very fullness of indigenous humanity that was one of the main reasons we argued for a Declaration in the first place. Historically the colonising States have regarded us as only a “little bit” human and therefore incapable of self determination so it puzzles me that we might now consider a return to that depiction which is in effect what the Chair’s text suggests. I am aware of the risks involved in not supporting the Chair’s position but our people have always been consistent on the issue. I don’t believe that weariness with the process should now prompt us to accept something simply because it’s the best or only deal available. There is never just one deal and if other strategies need to be developed or new avenues explored so be it. Anei nga whakaaro mäku. Moana. ___________________ -----Original Message----- From: SRCERD@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SRCERD@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of claire charters Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 9:26 p.m. To: SRCERD@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [SRCERD] FW: FW: Urgent letter to UNCHR Kia ora, I agree with Aroha and Tracey wholeheartedly. Given that it's been playing on my mind, I would add that, while the jury remains out on this question and people are still considering their positions, I have only heard of other indigenous peoples supporting the Chair's text. So, if we don't support it, we might also undermine other indigenous views (although we have v good reasons for doing so). We might also play into the hands of NZ and other states who don't like the Chair's text because they would then cite our resistence as a reason why they could not agree with the Chair's text as it stands. That would be rubbish, of course, and we could say as much but I think we need to be suspicious of what the Govt might make of our position. I would also add that the Chair's text with all its problems might be as good as it can get for the Draft Dec. In my view, even tho' I have serious concerns with it, it probably reflects the closest agreement I have seen generally. But, as Aroha says, it is a matter of integrity now that we are down to the wire. And, Maori at the meetings have always supported the Sub-Comm text as per the original position presented by Moana, Aroha et al (even tho' that has met with resistence from many other indigenous groups who have been pro compromise). Claire ___________________ -----Original Message----- From: Aroha Mead Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 9:43 a.m. Subject: FW: Urgent letter to UNCHR Importance: High Kia ora koutou, We need some feedback on a preferred Maori approach to the dDRIP developments. Attached is a copy of a letter seeking the following action: "We call upon the 62nd Session of the Commission on Human Rights to adopt a resolution submitting the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as contained in the Chair's Proposal (Annex 1 of UN Document E/CN.4/2006/79) to the forthcoming substantive session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council for its final adoption by the United Nations General Assembly at its 61st session." To support the position advocated in this letter, requires us to 'give-up' on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as drafted by indigenous peoples including Maori. Remember that at the end of last year, NZ was making sweeping statements about how the dDRIP was no longer a consideration as it had been replaced by the Chair's tex t. At the time, NZ was in favour of the Chair's Text. Now that the Chair's text goes beyond what NZ wants, they are no longer in support of it. At this stage of the negotiations - it comes down to integrity of position. 1. If Maori agree to support the Chair's Text, we are agreeing to NOT support the existing 1994 dDRIP 2. The risk of supporting the Chair's text is that if it doesn't get sufficient State support to get passed through ECOSOC then we are faced with not having any substantial international instrument on Indigenous rights (other than ILO169), as we have already agreed to discard the dDRIP. It places us in a 'Ground Zero' situation rather than resuming negotiations around the agreed draft dDRIP. As indicated below, NZ, US and Australia are not going to support the Chair's text. 3. The risk of not supporting the Chair's Text, is that this might be the last chance to get any movement on Indigenous Rights. I have my own views. I tend to agreed with Tracey Whare's comments below. Up to this point, Maori have never articulated any departure from working through the existing draft Declaration. We have not come out in support of the Chair's Text, even when NZ advocated that we should. We went through an exercise earlier this year with the Petition calling on the NZ Government "to fully engage iwi, hapu and Maori organisations in determining the NZ position on the UN draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Even with 1400 signatures, the Crown has carried on participating in negotiations, developing new positions, without any discussion whatsoever with Maori. I personally prefer that we stick to the existing dDRIP and NOT give status to document that is on such shaky ground (i.e. the Chair's text). But, what are your views? What do you suggest as a recommended position for Maori? ___________________ On March 14th, I sent the following notice out to you all .... March 14th - Winston Peters proves beyond any doubt - the MFAT bureaucracy is in full control of NZ's approach to the draft Declaration. The approach as articulated below, i.e. " New Zealand's longstanding position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that it must amongst other things, be consistent with New Zealand law and policy", presupposes that NZ domestic law is perfect as is and doesn't need to be refined or enhanced by emerging developments in international law. If governments such as Nigeria and Zimbabwe took this approach, the international human rights Treaties wouldn't ever get off the ground. This is a very narrow view on the inter-relationship between national and international law. Peters response also boasts about eleven years of "engaging with Maori" on the draft, but of course we all know, government hasn't actually initiated any engagement with Maori since 2002. Aroha Question: Further to his answer to question for written answer 10418 (2005), what monitoring is undertaken to ensure that officials are following the clear guidelines as advised by the Minister of Maori Affairs for fulfilling the government's "policy of engaging with Maori" before attending United Nations fora? ___________________ Portfolio: Foreign Affairs Minister: Rt Hon Winston Peters Date Lodged:01/03/2006 Answer Text: First, in answering this question I am also replying to other similar questions for written answer on the matter of officials engaging with Maori on New Zealand's policy at the United Nations. I refer to written questions 1276, 1277, 1278, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283 and 1284 to me and questions 1281, 1282, 1283 and 1284 to the Minister of Maori Affairs. The Government has made it clear in the House, on a number of occasions, that United Nations fora cover a wide range of issues and take place in a variety of formats. The issues fall within the portfolio responsibilities of a number of different Ministers, including my own, but also the Ministers of Maori Affairs, Agriculture and Forestry, for the Environment, Labour and Social Development, amongst other things. Officials do engage with Maori and this depends on the type of meeting, the subject of the meeting and its relationship to domestic policy and law. With respect to the UN negotiations on a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for example, there has been ongoing engagement with Maori over the eleven years that this negotiation has been taking place in Geneva. Feedback from those discussions has informed the development of policy on this issue, which has been determined by Cabin et along with engagement with Maori. New Zealand's longstanding position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is that it must amongst other things: * be consistent with New Zealand law and policy; * be consistent with existing international human rights law; * protect the rights of all citizens; and, * safeguard the territorial integrity and the political unity of States as well as the responsibility of democratically elected governments to govern for the welfare of all their citizens. For those who have been closely following this negotiation, it will be clear that these Cabinet imperatives have been consistently articulated by the New Zealand officials, along with the need for there to be an international consensus on the text for the Declaration. The imperatives N ew Zealand requires in the Declaration are legitimate ones for any democratically elected government. Other States take a similar position on these imperatives, including Australia and the United States. The UN negotiations have now concluded without any agreement on a text for the Declaration. There are divergent views internationally on all the substantive provisions in the new text that the Chair of the negotiations has now circulated on the Internet. Nor is there a consensus amongst States on the text as a whole. The Chair of the negotiations is to report to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva shortly and it is not yet clear where the process with go from here. Date Received:09/03/2006 ___________________ -----Original Message----- From: airtrust@paradise.net.nz [mailto:airtrust@paradise.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 9:09 a.m. To: Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: Urgent letter to UNCHR Kia ora Lili, Thanks for forwarding this email. This is the second letter being circulated calling for the Chairs text to be adopted (the first being the Asian statement). I do not support this position. The Chairs text is not a consensus position (not that it ever could be), it has only been released in english and their are some fundamental matters of concern for example the amendments to self determination and land rights and the deleti on of two articles without any explaination. The other problem is that the Commission on Human Rights is being restructured. There have been reports from those currently in Geneva, it may be that the meeting doesn't even consider indigenous issues on its agenda or if it does whether it has the legal capacity to do so given its jurisdiction has not yet been established. In terms of our response to this statement which was one of your questions, I do not believe it should be supported by the pacific caucus for the reasons set out above. I welcome others thoughts... Tracey Whare Trustee Aotearoa Indigenous Rights Trust ___________________ Quoting Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa <lilikala@hawaii.edu>: > >Aloha no, > > To those of you who have been involved in the negotiations over the > Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, what do you > think of the attached letter? What action do you recommend that we > take as members of the Pacific Caucus? > > Mahalo no, > Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa