|
|
 |
DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES |
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
SUPPORT THE DECLARATION
- The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples will be adopted by the General Assembly during this session. Consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights for all, it is in best interest of all states to support the adoption of this historic Declaration.
- For more than 20 years the provisions of the Declaration were discussed in depth by member states, Indigenous peoples, and other parties. No other United Nations document has ever been elaborated with such full and democratic participation of all parties concerned. As a result the Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration at its first historic session on June 29, 2006
- The Declaration affirms that Indigenous peoples make a unique contribution to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitutes the common heritage of humankind. The Declaration promotes and enhances the plurality of societies. The 2005 World Summit Outcome document reaffirms the commitment of the international community to adopt a final text of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as soon as possible. .
- The Declaration is of utmost importance to combat discrimination against indigenous peoples created by more than five centuries of racism, marginalization and exclusion. The Declaration explicitly encourages harmonious and cooperative relations between states and Indigenous peoples. Every provision of the Declaration will be interpreted consistent with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith.
- The Declaration is a reaffirmation of the commitment of the international community to respect cultural diversity and the right to be different.
- The Declaration is based upon principles of partnership, consultation and cooperation between Indigenous peoples and states. This is fully consistent with the theme of the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples “Partnership for Action and Dignity” adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005.
- The Declaration is an aspirational human rights instrument of great value for all. It establishes a valuable framework for resolving issues and achieving the common objectives of the international community and the UN Charter.
- The Declaration does not create new rights. It elaborates upon existing international human rights norms and principles as they apply to Indigenous peoples.
- The Declaration promotes equality and non-discrimination for all. The Declaration is essential for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world.
- The declaration strengthens the international human rights system as a whole.
Issued by the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus – October 18, 2006 |
UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE 61st SESSION
ITEM 64 (a)
THE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
STATEMENT BY H.E. AMBASSADOR ROSEMARY BANKS
ON BEHALF OF AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND AND THE UNITED STATES
16 OCTOBER 2006
Mr Chairman, this statement is made on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America.
The Working Group charged with drafting a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples was unable to reach a consensus on a text. The text adopted by vote by the Human Rights Council in June was prepared and submitted after the negotiations had concluded. The Chair of the negotiations has acknowledged, on several occasions, that his text does not in fact enjoy consensus. Equally disappointing, there has been no opportunity for States to discuss this new Chair’s text collectively. We are also concerned that the Human Rights Council and its President rejected calls that we and others, such as Canada, made urging for more time to improve the text so that it could enjoy universal support. This process is extraordinary in any multilateral negotiation and sets a poor precedent with respect to the work and role of the Human Rights Council.
Mr Chairman, in order for a declaration to provide States and indigenous peoples with a blueprint for harmonious and constructive relationships, it must be clear, transparent and capable of implementation. Unfortunately, the text before us fails on all three counts. It will risk endless and conflicting interpretations and debate in its application. That is apparent both from the text of the declaration and from the interpretative statements that were made when the text was adopted at the Human Rights Council and from those that are likely to be made at the adoption of the declaration by the General Assembly.
Mr Chairman, we worked hard for a declaration that could become a tangible and ongoing standard of achievement that would be universally accepted, observed and upheld. The situation in some countries for indigenous peoples is very worrying indeed. What the world needs is a declaration that can make a practical and positive difference in the lives of indigenous peoples in every region. Instead, the text before us is confusing, unworkable, contradictory and deeply flawed. Mr. Chairman, our countries therefore cannot support its adoption.
Self-Determination. For example, Mr Chairman, the provisions for articulating self-determination for indigenous peoples in this text inappropriately reproduce common Article 1 of the Covenants. Self-determination in the Chair’s text therefore could be misrepresented as conferring a unilateral right of self-determination and possible secession upon a specific subset of the national populace, thus threatening the political unity, territorial integrity and the stability of existing UN Member States. The provision regarding territorial integrity and political unity was also inappropriately removed from the Chair’s text.
· Veto Power? The text also appears to purport to confer upon a sub-national group, a power of veto over the laws of a democratic legislature. Indigenous peoples in our countries can already fully and freely engage in our democratic decision-making processes. But, our governments cannot accept the notion of creating different classes of citizenship. To give one group in society rights that take precedence over those of others could be discriminatory under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. While the Convention does allow States to take special measures, the power to do so is discretionary, and cannot be used to take measures that are unlimited in duration.
· Lands & Resources. Mr Chairman, the provisions on lands and resources in the text before us are also equally unworkable and unacceptable. They ignore the contemporary realities in many countries with indigenous populations, by appearing to require the recognition of indigenous rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous. Such provisions would be both arbitrary and impossible to implement.
· Universality of Human Rights. Other important provisions in the Chair’s text are potentially discriminatory. It seems to be assumed that the human rights of all individuals, which are enshrined in international law, are a secondary consideration in this text. The intent of States participating in the Working Group was clear that, as has always been the case, human rights are universal and apply in equal measure to all individuals. This means that one group cannot have human rights that are denied to other groups within the same nation-state.
· Redress. The provisions for providing redress, even for those few countries that are addressing this imperative, are unworkable and contradictory.
· Lack of Definition of “Indigenous Peoples”. Mr Chairman, we cannot accept the argument some are making, disingenuously, that this declaration will only apply to countries that have significant or obvious indigenous populations. There is no definition of “indigenous peoples” in the text. The lack of definition or scope of application within the Chair’s text means that separatist or minority groups, with traditional connections to the territory where they live – in all regions of the globe - could seek to exploit this declaration to claim the right to self-determination, including exclusive control of their territorial resources. And this text would allow them wrongly to claim international endorsement for exercising such rights.
These fundamental flaws in the text leave us asking ourselves whether States have carefully examined the provisions, and have thought through all the ramifications within their own countries. And if they have, we wonder how they propose to reflect domestically the provisions on the rights to traditional lands and resources, the right of self-determination, the rights to redress and the apparent veto on democratic decision-making, for example.
The flaws in this text, Mr Chairman, run through all of its most significant provisions. Because these provisions are fundamental to interpreting all of the provisions in text, the text as a whole is rendered unacceptable. We note as well that there are calls for State funding that are inconsistent with the role of elected governments to determine resources on the basis of need and not just ethnicity. And the provisions relating to the repatriation of human remains have been unacceptably contrived by some States allow them to maintain their holdings of indigenous remains and artifacts.
We have been reminded on many occasions that this declaration is an aspirational document and not legally binding in any way. That is indeed true, of course. But, we consider that indigenous peoples deserve and need a declaration that is clear, transparent, and capable of implementation and that represents a standard of achievement against which all States can be measured. This text fails all these tests.
Nor do we accept the claims some keep making that this outcome is as good as we could achieve. We were prepared to stay the distance in working further for a document that enjoyed genuine agreement, but others were not. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this declaration will not encourage constructive relationships: on the contrary, it may lead to disputes, bitterness, and unfulfilled expectations on all sides. This is not the outcome we worked hard to achieve for over eleven years. It must also cast doubts over how the United Nations can advance the rights of indigenous peoples with any credibility in the future. But the real tragedy is that it is a sorry outcome for those indigenous peoples who most need it.
Finally, our position on this declaration does not mean that we shall - in any way - resile from the continuing pursuit of the rights of indigenous peoples, internationally and domestically
Mr Chairman, I thank you on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. |
SAMPLE LETTER
Mr John Howard
Prime Minister
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra
ACT 2600
November, 2006
Dear Mr Howard
On behalf of the Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, we are writing to ask your Government to assist us in our vital objective of adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the UN General Assembly before the end of the year, as recommended by the Human Rights Council. We respectfully urge you to vote in favour of the adoption of the Declaration when it arises at the General Assembly.
An affirmative vote by your government would be consistent with the solemn commitment of the UN and member States of promoting human rights, as one of the three pillars of the international order. Furthermore, as a Member State of the UN, your Government’s recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples advances the Human Rights Council’s work to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, including the world’s indigenous peoples.
As you may know, Indigenous peoples and states have been working on the Declaration for over 20 years. The Declaration is long overdue. It is even more critical now to the survival and future well-being of Indigenous peoples, as we face increasingly urgent and adverse impacts from a wide range of human rights violations worldwide.
We now request your help and collaboration, through every means possible, to ensure that the resolution calling for adoption of the Declaration remains of a procedural nature and, therefore, fully respects the spirit and intent of the text adopted on June 29, 2006 by the Human Rights Council at its inaugural session.
The Declaration was realized with the democratic participation of States and Indigenous peoples. Presently, we kindly request that your government help to maintain this harmonious collaboration, and to lobby other states to commit to the successful adoption of the Declaration of the General Assembly this year.
We look forward to the moment that we can celebrate together our collective achievement – not only for our benefit, but also for the benefit of all of humankind. We thank you in advance for the support of your Government to promote and protect the human rights of Indigenous peoples worldwide.
Yours sincerely,
To download word version click here |
UN thumps Indigenous Peoples http://www.ipcaucus.net/
28 November 2006
Today, the Third Committee of the United Nations' General Assembly refused to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
A vote on the resolution proposed by Namibia, acting on behalf of the African governments, decided that the Declaration be shelved while the Africans decided whether to acknowledge the Indigenous Peoples living in their own countries.
Once again, the cry 'we are all indigenous' went up from the African governments as they pretended to care about human rights rather than their own political powers.
Without shame or regret the African States, well supported by the Arab States, decided that 23 years of hard work in UN expert bodies and promises by the UN General Assembly to deal with the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, was irrelevant. They wanted to decide for themselves what human rights the Indigenous Peoples can have.
These States used their numbers as a political block, coached by Australia, New Zealand and Canade, as they trashed the concept of universality of human rights and brought the UN into disrepute with the peoples of the world. |
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Adopted by the Human Rights Council on 29 June, 2006
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html
Latest updates on the Declaration at the 61st Session of the United Nations General Assembly:
The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) on 28 December 2006 adopted a draft resolution that would see the General Assembly defer consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with the aim of concluding consideration of the Declaration before the end of its current sixty-first session.
Under a revised draft resolution, whose main sponsor was Peru, with a number of European and Latin American countries listed as co-sponsors, the full text would have been adopted by the Assembly in relatively short order.
But an initiative led by Namibia, co-sponsored by a number of African countries, resulted in the draft being amended. In its new form, the draft would have the Assembly decide “to defer consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to allow time for further consultations thereon”. Furthermore, the Assembly would also decide “to conclude consideration of the Declaration before the end of its sixty-first session”.
The amendments were adopted by a vote of 82 in favour to 67 against, with 25 abstentions (annex II). The amended draft was then adopted with a vote of 83 in favour to none against, with 91 abstentions (annex III), with the latter notably including countries that had been co-sponsors of the original motions.
Below are the links to the revised resolution to adopt the Declaration and the amendment.
(A/C.3/61/L.18/Rev1)
(A/C.3/61/l.57/Rev.1)
These document can also be retrieved from the UN's ODS system.
The United Nations Declaration is contained in the Report of the Human Rights Council |
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' CAUCUS
UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly
61st Session
NEW YORK
13 November 2006
COMMUNIQUE
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus held an emergency meeting this morning due to a report that a few States will take procedural actions to derail the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This report is evidenced by the Government of Botswana's statement delivered to the Third Committee on 10 November, which contained a highly inaccurate and prejudicial interpretation of the Declaration provisions. Upon review of this written statement, we note that Botswana has adopted the words and views of the governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Their intent appears to threaten the adoption of the Declaration. In contrast, the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus acknowledges the overwhelming state support for the Declaration. Though these many allies and co-sponsors of the Peruvian resolution recommending UNGA adoption of the Declaration (A/C.3/61/L.18) have made repeated, unsuccessful efforts for dialogue with all States, Botswana seems entrenched to do major violence to the text of the Declaration or to defeat its adoption by UNGA. In response to this development, we issue this statement.
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus hereby affirms their global and unanimous support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on June 29, 2006.
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus hereby repeats its request that the UN General Assembly immediately adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which constitutes the minimum standards for the survival, well-being and dignity of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. Such action should take place before the end of 2006.
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus does not support any proposal for extensions of time, establishment of committees, working groups or any other forum for consideration of the illegitimate "concerns" of the governments of Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, under any conditions.
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus hereby demands that the proponents (Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States) of any such proposals cease their self-serving politicization of the United Nations as well as their abuse of the rules of procedures and persistence of double standards in the context of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Indigenous Peoples' Caucus supports the United Nations objective to usher in a new era for human rights within the UN system, to strengthen human rights as one of the pillars of global order, and the Human Rights Council's role to establish a non-political approach to human rights for all peoples and individuals. In light of the appalling human rights records of Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States in the context of Indigenous Peoples, it is unconscionable that they have chosen to reject one of the first HRC recommendations for the approval of a UN human rights instrument specifically addressing the unique status and rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The world community must acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples worldwide have expended over 21 years and immeasurable resources to engage in good faith, transparent, intellectually honest debate and negotiation with States in order to achieve consensus on the Declaration provisions. The result has been a fair and balanced text, which takes into account the concerns of States as well as the rights of others and is consistent with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations.
This current State opposition to one of the first recommendations of the new Human Rights Council is immoral and without legitimate or substantive cause. If successful, such action will seriously undermine and potentially deem irrelevant the whole of the UN human rights regime for not only Indigenous Peoples but for all humanity.
Finally, the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus notes the irony of State consensus and support for a legally binding Convention [for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance] while at the same time in the context of the world's most vulnerable, poverty stricken, human rights victims, that Botswana, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States cannot support a non-binding, aspirational Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
----
General Assembly
61st session
United Nations, New York
12 November 2006
U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Human Rights Response:
Why a proposal to delay adoption should not be supported
1. Declaration based on core international principles and values. The Declaration is based on core international principles and values that embrace tolerance, peace and respect for the dignity of all cultures and peoples. In particular, the Declaration is described as a "standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership and mutual respect".
2. Human rights of all must be respected. Human rights are generally relative in nature and not absolute. Consistent with the U.N. Charter, the Declaration specifically requires that the "human rights and freedoms of all shall be respected".
3. Provisions must be read in overall context. Each provision of the Declaration cannot be read in isolation, but rather interpreted in the context of the instrument as a whole. To do otherwise, would lead to extremist and absolute interpretations that could not be justified under the Declaration or international human rights law as a whole. Regretfully, the CANZUS group - Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United States - continues to interpret the Declaration in this fragmented and erroneous manner.
4. No new rights created. The Declaration does not create new rights. It elaborates upon existing international human rights standards as they apply to Indigenous peoples.
5. Rule of law and other core international principles always considered. Every provision of the Declaration must be "interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith." This allows for both flexibility and balance. The reference to "good governance" ensures that the rule of law within States is fully considered in every instance without exception. As an aspirational instrument, the Declaration does not upend the rule of law domestically or internationally.
6. Broader agreement not possible. As the Chair of the intersessional Working Group on the Declaration has concluded, along with many States, additional time will not lead to any broader agreement. This is in large part because of the obstructionist role repeatedly played by United States, Australia and New Zealand during the Working Group.
7. Re-opening negotiations likely to kill the Declaration. Re-opening negotiations on the Declaration is certain to create serious new divisions and prevent its adoption by the General Assembly. Such an extreme step would be unconscionable.
8. Harmonious and cooperative relations encouraged. The Declaration explicitly encourages "harmonious and cooperative relations" between States and Indigenous peoples. Nine preambular paragraphs and 15 operative articles specify consultations, cooperation or partnership between Indigenous peoples and States.
9. Over 20 years of discussion. There have already been more than 20 years of discussions on the Declaration among States and Indigenous peoples in U.N. Working groups. This makes the Declaration one of the most discussed and studied declarations in U.N. history. All revisions by the Chair were based on prior discussions.
10. Any "procedural" resolution for delay would be highly detrimental. It is shocking and disturbing that there could be an amendment or resolution to re-open negotiations on the Declaration. Such a proposal is not procedural since it could destroy the Declaration.
11. Misleading strategy already attempted at Human Rights Council. Last June, Canada tried and failed with a similar strategy at the first meeting of the Council. In its Statement on June 27, 2006, Canada quoted its Minister of Indian Affairs as saying issues could be resolved by all parties "in a few more months". This claim was knowingly false and misleading. Just the day before, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated in writing the need for a "two-year negotiation mandate".
12. CANZUS group of States politicizing rights in the Declaration. Based on their own domestic agendas, a few Western States are actively encouraging other States to delay the adoption of the Declaration under the guise of seeking "improvements". In so doing, the CANZUS group is continuing to politicize Indigenous peoples' human rights. Such actions severely undermine the Council and current U.N. reforms.
13. For the past 8 months CANZUS group has avoided all consultations with Indigenous peoples. The CANZUS group already had the past eight months to consult with Indigenous peoples within their own respective countries on any State concerns with the Declaration. Yet none of these States engaged in any consultations with Indigenous peoples. None of these States genuinely seek to "improve" the Declaration.
14. Canada violating its constitutional and international obligations. Despite its constitutional obligations to consult Indigenous peoples, Canada has opted to vigorously and unilaterally oppose the Declaration through procedural and other strategies during the past eight months. As a Human Rights Council member, Canada is failing to "uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights Š [and] fully cooperate with the Council", as required by the General Assembly.
15. Essential for survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples. The Declaration promotes equality and non-discrimination for all. The Declaration is essential for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world.
16. Strengthens international human rights system. Adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly supports the vital work of the Human Rights Council and strengthens the international human rights system as a whole.
Issued by the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus - November 12, 2006
|
http://www.ipcaucus.net/aust+parl.html
Australian Prime Minister lobbied for Canada to oppose Indigenous Rights
The Australian Prime Minister did lobby the newly-elected Canadian Government to switch its position and vote against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have both introduced major legislation in recent years to steal Indigenous lands and resources. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has condemned Australia and New Zealand for being in breach of the International Convention against racism.
These two governments have been successful in lobbying Canada to vote against the adoption of the Declaration. For Canada, it has been a major reversal of its policies of support for Indigenous rights. The Government of Canada is being heavily criticised by the Indigenous Peoples for betraying its role as a human rights defender on the Human Rights Council. Only Canada and the Russian Federation voted against the Declaration when the Declaration was formally adopted by the Human Rights Council in June this year.
Australia and New Zealand continue to agitate against the Declaration in an attempt to make legitimate their own discriminatory policies. They have told other member States that the Declaration can be construed as supporting secession and undermining |
|
