And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 19:43:05 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: NetWarriors/WarriorNET Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IITC response to USDEL
INTERSESSIONAL WORKING GROUP ON THE DRAFT DECLARATION
DECEMBER 1, 1998
DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES
STATEMENT BY THE INTERNATIONAL INDIAN TREATY COUNCIL IN RESPONSE TO THE
INTERVENTION ON 11/30 BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Thank you Mr. President.
In the spirit of open and frank dialogue which the President has encouraged
all of us to undertake during this session, I must express the profound
disappointment of my delegation and, and in fact our considerable surprise
at the content of the statement by the delegation of the United States of
America which was presented yesterday.
In this statement, the United .States expressed its direct opposition to
the firm positions taken by Indigenous Peoples' delegations at every
session of this Working Group, positions which have been also voiced
unanimously by the Indian, Alaskan and Hawaiian Indigenous Peoples'
representatives participating in the 'consultations' with US State
Department officials over the last few years.
In fact, the U.S. statement openly opposed those very core principles
contained in the Draft Declaration which Indigenous Peoples have
unanimously identified as the most essential and non-negotiable. By
doing so, the U.S. has presented itself as a major obstacle in the path of
any significant progress towards the adoption of the Declaration during
this session of the Working Group.
In its statement, the United States challenged the fundamental principle in
the Draft Declaration of collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, implying
that they are in potential conflict with the protection of individual human
rights. But as human beings, we know that our individual rights are
already addressed by the full range of existing international human rights
standards, declarations and conventions, and are also upheld in the current
text of the Draft Declaration.
It has been the clear intent of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples since the beginning of its development over 15 years ago
to recognize and protect fundamental rights of Indigenous Peoples such as
land rights, treaty rights, cultural rights and self-determination, which
are collective rights and upon which our survival as Peoples depends. For
the U.S. to challenge this basic principle which runs through the entire
Draft Declaration at this point in the process is certainly not conducive
to the spirit of progress and good faith relations which we bring to this
table.
Another very disconcerting element in the U.S. statement was its refusal to
use the term Indigenous 'Peoples,' using instead terms such as populations,
groups , people, ethnic group, communities, etc.
As our brother representing the Aboriginal Peoples' delegation from
Australia commented in his statement right after the U.S delegation spoke,
there is already considerable international precedent for the use of the
term 'Indigenous Peoples ' . Even at the UN General Assembly last year
when my organization and a representative of the Indigenous Peoples'
Alliance of the Tropical Rainforest formally addressed the UN General
Assembly's Special Session 'Earth Summit + 5', we were listed in the
official General Assembly agenda as representing the major group
'Indigenous Peoples '.
What makes this omission all the more surprising is that we had been
informed by representatives of the State Department that it is now their
policy to use the term 'Indigenous Peoples', although with an unacceptable
qualification attached to it. But at least the US finally agreed, after
all these years, to use the word 'Peoples', which we considered to be a
hopeful sign of progress, of their willingness to show a degree of respect
for the positions expressed by Indigenous Peoples in this regard, and a
significant step in the right direction . In fact, when U.S Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright addressed the State Department's Consultation with
American Indians and Alaska Natives in Washington DC in July of this year,
she herself used the term 'Indigenous Peoples' in her speech.
I would like to ask the U.S. delegation, what is the reason and purpose for
the apparent reversal at this time of their previously stated position,
which to us represents a significant step backward at a time when we are
critical need of progress? With all respect, Mr. President, for the
agenda and the program of work you have outlined for this session, I would
request that you provide time for the U.S. delegation to respond directly
to this question.
Mr. President, I would furthermore like to request that the U.S :
government delegation clarify its reasons and intent for the insertion on
two separate occasions in their statement of 'minority rights' in the
context of this discussion on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The issue
of minority rights is a completely distinct and separate consideration
under international law, and is irrelevant to the topic of Indigenous
rights currently under discussion by this body. In fact, Indigenous
Peoples' rights was separated from the issue of minority rights by the
Subcommission for the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of
Minorities as far back as 1983.
The insertion of this issue into our current dialogue by the U.S. only
serves to muddy the waters, confuse, and undermine the clarity we are
seeking to achieve at this critical time in the process. .
In this regard, Mr. President, I would like to specifically ask the U.S.
delegation for a clarification as to why they to referred in their
statement to Article 27 of the ICCPR addressing the rights of 'persons
belonging to minorities' but omitted any mention of Article 1 of this same
Covenant, which the US has ratified, and which is directly relevant to the
issues under discussion by this Working Group, affirming that 'All Peoples
have the right to self-determination' and 'by virtue of this right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development.'
The positions put forth in the U.S. statement call into question the
effectiveness of the time, funds and good faith which Indigenous Nations,
tribes and organizations have devoted to participating in the
'consultation' process, which we thought included a commitment by the U.S.
to listen to us and take our views into consideration as they formulated
positions that directly affect our lives and survival. That was clearly
not done in this case.
Thank you for this time and for your consideration of my words , Mr.
President. In closing, I would once again request that the U.S.
delegation be provided the time to respond directly to my statement and to
the questions it contains. Thank you.
Dedication to Solidarity >< Calling for World Action
>>>>>>>>>>> NetWarriors <<<<<<<<<<<
http://hookele.com/netwarriors
Peace without Truth is Genocide
Una Paz sin la Verdad es Genocidio
La paix sans la verite est Genocide
>>>>>><<<<<<<
Subscribe to WarriorNET
A discussion listserve dedicated to
Indigenous Solidarity
SUBSCRIBE? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
no subject in the header and in the body write:
subscribe warriornet your email addresss
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment
...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
`"` `"` `"` `"` `"` `"`
