[atp-news] Fw: Second report on the Working Group on the Draft Declaration

Petra Bursee (Adivasi-Tee-Projekt) petra.bursee at adivasi-tee-projekt.org
Die Sep 21 16:52:37 CEST 2004

Liebe ATP-Mitglieder,

über den Verteiler der Adivasi-Koordination kam der unten stehende Bericht
zu den laufenden Diskussionen der internationalen Arbeitsgruppe zum Entwurf
der Declaration der Rechte der indigenen Völker. Seit über zehn Jahren an
dieser Deklaration gearbeitet, bisher konnte sie noch nicht vollendet und
verabschiedet werden (die ursprüngliche Hoffnung war, sie bis zum Ende der
Dekade der indigenen Völker vorzulegen).

Im Anhang schicke ich euch einen - inzwischen sicher in manchen
Formulierungen veralteten - Entwurf  der Deklaration, der aber die
wesentlichen inhaltlichen Punkte wiedergibt, eine aktuellere Komplettfassung
habe ich leider nicht.

Liebe Grüße, Petra

Adivasi-Tee-Projekt (ATP)
c/o Petra Bursee
Kopernikusstraße 41, 14482 Potsdam
Tel./Fax: 0331 - 718327

>  Second Report on the 10th Working Group of the Draft Declaration
>  Greetings,
>  Today, discussions in the WGDD continued with the so-called no-change
> articles contained within the Nordic Proposal.  Discussions moved on to
> the operative paragraphs with no changes, and these negotiations began
> with Article 2.  Mr Chavez presented a work plan for the week which
> includes a day of informal consultations on Friday that will be used to
> discuss the very 'difficult' issues of self-determination as well as a
> few other points mentioned by States.  Canada, during the course of the
> discussion also noted they would like to discuss the terminology
> 'effective' versus 'reasonable' in these discussions.  Any errors are
> entirely my own and I apologize in advance for anything that may be
> mixed up.  Please do let me know if you spot anything so that I can change
> own records and let the list know.
>  A2: Indigenous individuals and peoples are free and equal to all other
> individuals and peoples in dignity and rights, and have the right to be
> free from any kind of adverse discrimination, in particular that based
> on their indigenous origin or identity.
>  *USA proposed to delete 'and rights.'
>  *The UK supports the USA proposal and wants to change 'rights' to
> 'shall' throughout the whole document.
>  A8 : Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to
> maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics,
> including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and to be
> recognized as such.
>  *Canada withdrew last year's proposal of 'and individuals' and will
> help
> with consensus on this article as it is.
>  * The USA voiced their problems with this articles as they gave a
> speech
> about how difficult it is for States to identify who is indigenous and
> who
> isn't.  This is problematic for them because if the Declaration goes
> through, then it will be up to States to determine who will receive the
> rights granted therein the Declaration.  They went on to completely gut
> the text and included a list of qualifications that States may use to
> determine the authenticity of indigenous identity.  They also noted that
> many States that were not present in the room were of the position that
> there were no indigenous in their countries and wanted this
> clarification
> to note that.  I will send a copy of the wordy text once it is
> distributed
> tomorrow.
>  *A discussion ensued after this about consensus, as Mr. Chavez assumes
> silence means support for the original text.  Guatemala wanted to know
> how
> the voice of supporters will be recorded in his report.  France
> disagreed
> and said that silence does not necessarily mean support, and then went
> on
> to voice their problems with this article. Australia also went on to
> disagree with the Chairman's definition that silence equals consent and
> expressed their problems with indigenous peoples self-identifying.  The
> UK
> supported France and Australia's positions.
>  *IITC reminded the WGDD that new texts should not become the basis of
> discussion for the negotiations.
>  *Venezuela, Guatemala, and Mexico found the discussion disturbing as it
> was unclear how it would be monitored who holds what position.  Mexico
> proposed that the Chair find a method to monitor the various positions
> in
> a transparent manner that could be reflected in his report.  Indigenous
> people supported Mexico's proposal, but Mr. Chavez did not feel it was
> necessary.
>  OP10: Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands
> or territories.  No relocation shall take place without the free and
> informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement
> on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of
> return.
>  *Canada wanted clarification on this article, whether it was referring
> to
> permanent relocation or all relocation in general.  And if it referred
> to
> all relocations, then they could not support the article as it is
> because
> of the issue of whether a national emergency would occur that would
> require the government to move people.
>  *Russia proposed to change 'from their lands and territories' to 'the
> places of their traditional residence or economic activities.'
>  *USA has similar concerns to Canada and feels this article can't be
> discussed until land rights are explored further.  They also find the
> term
> 'compensation' problematic.  Thus the USA would like to delete the
> article.
>  *IITC, CAPAJ, RAIPON and the World Peace Council all spoke on favour of
> leaving the article as it is.
>  A14: Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and
> transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral
> traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to
> designate and retain their own names for communities, places and
> persons.
>  States shall take effective measures, whenever any right of indigenous
> peoples may be threatened, to ensure this right is protected and also to
> ensure that they can understand and be understood in political, legal
> and
> administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of
> interpretation or by other appropriate means.
>  *The UK proposed to delete 'Indigenous peoples have the right to' from
> the first paragraph and replace it with 'States shall take effective
> measures that.'
>  *France would like to change 'effective' from the second paragraph to
> 'reasonable.' They also have a few other deletions, but conceded their
> one
> concern was a new adjective for 'effective.'
>  *Russia would like this article to be split into two parts.
>  *Canada agreed with France.
>  *IITC, ICC, and other indigenous organizations noted that they would be
> willing to substitute another adjective for 'effective' but that the UK
> proposal would be totally unacceptable as this Declaration is a
> rights-based document and essentially the UK is attempting to remove
> this
> sense.
>  A19: Indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully, if they so
> choose, at all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect
> their
> rights, lives and destinies through representatives chosen by themselves
> in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and
> develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
>  *UK again would like to change this from 'have the right to' to 'can.'
> They wanted to note that they want the removal of mentions of rights
> from
> the entire text.
>  *Australia has a problem with the broad scope of this article as it
> could
> mean that indigenous peoples have the right to sit at all levels of the
> government.  As per last year's Chairman's report, they would prefer the
> language that combines 19 and 20.
>  *USA agreed with Australia about breadth of article and about language
> >from last year.
>  *Canada would like to delete 'fully,' 'at all levels of,' and would
> like
> to replace 'may' with 'directly.' They would like to delete also 'lives
> and destinies.'
>  *Guatemala would like to delete 'if they so choose' as they feel it is
> redundant and they gave a very nice intervention about what it means to
> be
> in a democratic system and how participation is simply granted.  They
> would like to know what democracy means in these nations that do not
> seem
> to encourage full participation of all peoples as is evident in these
> discussions.
>  OP40: The organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations system
> and other intergovernmental organizations shall contribute to the full
> realization of the provisions of this Declaration through the
> mobilization, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical
> assistance.  Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous
> peoples on issues affecting them shall be established.
>  *Again the USA gutted this article, saying that no declaration should
> provide financially for its implementation.  It would then read 'The
> organs and specialised agencies of the UN system and other
> intergovernmental organisations shall contribute to the realization of
> this Declaration through, inter alia, ensuring participation of
> indigenous
> peoples on issues affecting them.'
>  *Both IITC and IPACC noted that to reduce this article is to further
> reduce the participation of indigenous peoples in UN bodies.
>  OP42: The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for
> the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the
> world.
>  *USA proposed the deletion of this article as they feel if the
> Declaration holds only minimum standards then either the wording in all
> of
> the articles must be softer and actually reflect minimum standards or
> this
> article must simply be removed.  They feel that with the strong wording
> of
> much of the Declaration, it will open the door for new rights if the
> Declaration will be passed.
>  *The UK would like to delete 'The rights recognized herein' to 'The
> provisions of this Declaration' or 'This Declaration constitutes.'
>  *Chavez said 'The UK is interested in eliminating rights from this
> Declaration.' And yes, it is a direct quote, but I believe that he would
> have had the word rights in quotes, I just thought it was a funny thing
> to
> say as in all forms it is true.  The UK would like to eliminate the
> concept of rights for indigenous people.
>  OP44:  Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or
> extinguishing existing or future rights indigenous peoples may have or
> acquire.
>  *USA states that it needs to have a mention of 'indigenous
> individuals.'
> This is their concern that tribes will use collective rights to abuse
> human rights of indigenous individuals.
>  *Willie Littlechild pointed out to the USA that Article 1 covers what
> the
> USA would like, but Mr. Chavez disagreed and noted there is not explicit
> mention of 'individuals.'
>  *AILA, IITC, and Goddess Mililani Trask made references to other human
> rights treaties which already protect the rights of individuals, and
> also
> noted that there are already norms in place as to how international
> treaties are to be construed which should assuage the USA concerns with
> this article.
>  The discussion then closed for the articles that have no changes
> proposed
> within the Nordic proposal.  They began negotiations on the cluster of
> articles that almost received consensus last year, which include 14, 16,
> 33 and 45.  Discussion began with Article 16, and the rest of the day
> was
> consumed with this discussion.
>  OP16: Indigenous peoples have the right to have the dignity and
> diversity
> of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations appropriately
> reflected in all forms of education and public information.
>  States shall take effective measures, in consultation with the
> indigenous
> peoples concerned, to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to
> promote tolerance, understanding and good relations among indigenous
> peoples and all segments of society. [The Nordic proposal will delete in
> first paragraph 'Indigenous peoples have the right to,' change 'their'
> to
> 'indigenous peoples,' and add 'should be' before appropriately.  In the
> second paragraph they will delete 'eliminate' and replace it with
> 'combat'
> as well as add 'other' before segments.  For a copy of the Nordic
> proposal
> please refer to the OHCHR website if this is too confusing to follow.]
>  *Norway presented another proposal for the 2nd paragraph which would be
> to elucidate 'combat prejudice and eliminate racism' in lieu of
> 'eliminate.' This proposal had quite a bit of support.
>  *IITC, AILA, Willie Littlechild, Associacion Napguana & Mapuche of
> Chile,
> FAIRA, Cordillera Peoples Alliance, Ron Barnes, CAPAJ, oppose all
> changes
> to this article.
>  *Mililani, Guatemala, Mexico, JOHAR, Assembly of First Nations of
> Canada,
> Innu Council of Nitassinan, the Navajo Nation and IPACC feel that the
> first paragraph must maintain integrity to the sub-commission text, but
> they are quite flexible on the changes proposed in the second paragraph
> and will accept them if it means consensus can be maintained.
>  *TEBTEBBA was willing to allow the Nordic proposal to go through as is
> with the new amendment from Norway as they feel the rest of Declaration
> makes up for rights cut in the Nordic proposal.  The Saami Council also
> supported the entirety of the Nordic proposal for this article.
>  *In general, indigenous organizations did tend to find the addition of
> the word 'others' legally problematic, although they were OK for the
> most
> part with the new Norway proposal (this is of course except for the
> abovementioned who are of the no change position.)  Switzerland is very
> much in support of the addition of 'others,' but I did not understand
> their reasoning for this.
>  *Norway asked whether Mexico and Guatemala would be able to assist with
> consensus building and if they could come up with some alternate
> proposals
> they would find appropriate.  Mexico and Guatemala will present some of
> these tomorrow.
>  Consensus is a big issue and it is still unclear to most people how
> exactly the Chair is determining consensus; many feel it is not being
> called when it is present.  There is also a problem for many delegates
> that the Nordic proposal has become the basis of discussion and both
> indigenous organizations and governments felt the discussion should
> still
> be closer to the original sub-Commission text.
>  Until tomorrow,
>  Sezin
> --
> Adivasi Koordination Deutschland e.V.
> c/o Dr. Theodor Rathgeber
> Jugendheimstrasse 10
> D- 34132 Kassel
> ph.: +49-(0)561-47597800 / Fax: +49-(0)561-47597801
> NEU: GMX ProMail mit bestem Virenschutz http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
> +++ Empfehlung der Redaktion +++ Internet Professionell 10/04 +++

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit Binärdaten wurde abgetrennt...
Dateiname   : Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
Dateityp    : application/msword
Dateigröße  : 59392 bytes
Beschreibung: nicht verfügbar
URL         : http://ilpostino.jpberlin.de/pipermail/atp-news/attachments/20040921/16a9c8c6/DraftDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeople1993-0001.doc