And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >X-Originating-IP: [192.91.247.212] >From: "John Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Permanent Forum Working Group. Day 2 >Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:08:07 PST > >Sorry for the slight lag; things are heating up and the Kurdish >situation (which was solved late yesterday) inhibited a lot of activity. >Hopeto send Day 3 out by this evening Geneva time. > >Slan, > >John Stevens > >Summary of Debate - United Nations Open-Ended, Intersessional, Ad Hoc >Working Group on the Establishment of a Permanent Forum for Indigenous >Peoples, 15/2/99 (Day 2) >(Note: this material is based on both taped transcription and real-time >notetaking, and does not perfectly or comprehensively reflect the >debates or responses. It is a basic, quick draft whose purpose is to >emphasize prevalent trends in the proceedings. Please direct any >questions, clarifications, omissions, or comments to John Stevens, >ACUNS/Native Americas magazine [for Netwarriors]. All errors are solely >mine.) > >Morning Session: > > Day 2 started late because of a large protest by Kurdish demonstrators. >They took control of Salle XVII (the very room the WGPF has been meeting >in), displacing the WGPF and forcing the meeting to relocate and start >late. Since the speakers' list and many papers were left in that room, >the continued debate was somewhat disrupted. Also, all support offices >were cordoned off, which made translation of documents and distribution >of materials nearly impossible. The Chair reopened debate on Item 4(a), >the PF's mandate; he then stated that he would like to make a summation >(which will be transmitted subsequently as CRP1), and then turn to the >participation debate. > > The Chair then gave the floor to China. China asked to make a general >statement and the Chair agreed. The Chinese representative reiterated >their "principal position" on assorted matters around the PF: >--- the forum is of great importance to indigenous rights, but its >establishment should be approached in a "prudent and responsible >manner." >---the forum should have broad mandate that covers ECOSOC concerns. At >the same time, the PF should be a subsidiary body, not an independent >body; this means it should take into account the Charter. Emphasis >should be on protection, promotion, and coordination while also knowing >who the "target groups" are of these activities. A definition of who is >"indigenous" will be conducive to the activities of the forum, but >China is ready to be "flexible" on this issue. >---PF should be an executive organ, not a standard-setting body. PF >should be established after Draft Declaration is ratified, and the >relations between PF and WGIP should be further defined. Overcoming >differences in these opinions will happen only through "sincere >cooperation." > > After this statement, debate resumed on the PF's mandate. Several >delegates discussed concrete proposals for what the mandate should >cover. There was still unanimous consent about it being "broad," but >there was further emphasis by indigenous representatives as to its >necessity for protection of indigenous rights and for creating a >political space for indigenous nations in the UN system. Comments >ranged from very specific suggestions about areas to be covered to more >general endorsements of the PF's constitution as a powerful, >comprehensive assembly where indigenous peoples could come to not only >solve problems but collaborate on solutions. > > While indigenous representatives continued to push for a strong forum >with conflict resolution, mediation, and sanctioning capabilities, >states were more hesitant both in declaring their intentions and in >endorsing any policy capacity for the PF. Some states such as Brazil >declared that they still had "an open mind" about the PF, while >simultaneously declaring that the PF should be in line with UN reforms, >with limited resources, and within UN rules and regulations, the same >regulations that are currently preventing an indigenous co-chair from >being appointed to working groups on indigenous matters. Some states >made helpful comments; Holland suggested that issues of gender and >children's issues be kept in mind, while others such as Bangladesh >continued raising the spectre of definition and warning that without >firm guidelines as to who was indigenous there would be "non-genuine" >indigenous peoples benefiting from this forum. > > The combination of rhetorical hedging and cagey insinuation by state >delegates only stimulated indigenous representatives to call them on >their claims. Maori representative Tony Sinclair declared that >supporting the PF "requires a political decision and is a political >act," while other indigenous speakers countered the question of >definition with discussions of self-determination. Chief Ted Moses of >the Grand Council of the Cree pointed out helpful UN documents that >might stimulate ideas about the format of the PF and thus what powers >and mandate it should have. > > The Chair ended the morning session by reading his summary of the >item's debate, a summary facilitated by Victoria Tauli-Corpus from the >Cordillera (Philippines) and the representative of the government of >Mexico. This summary (and the subsequent ones, which will also be >facilitated by one indigenous and one government delegate) will be >transmitted separately. (It should be noted that the Chair has >emphasized that these are Conference Room Papers and for discussion >purposes only. They will be modified by debate and may only end up as >his personal comments in an appendix to the Final Report). > >Afternoon Session: > > The afternoon began with the Chair's presentation of his summary on the >mandate debate. Several indigenous delegates questioned one aspect of >his summation immediately, that of his omission of two of the nine >ECOSOC Commissions from consideration as relevant to indigenous >concerns: the Committees on Narcotics and Criminal Justice. Several >delegates pointed out that indigenous peoples are often targeted as drug >offenders for use of plants such as peyote and coca, and that a >disproportionate number of indigenous peoples are imprisoned or the >victims of police brutality. A number of other delegates asked for >clarification or reiteration of certain elements, but major debate was >forestalled on the document until later in the week. The Chair also >informed the working group that the situation in Salle XVII had not >changed. In addition, he had obtained a temporary legal opinion from >the ONU Geneva legal office, which said that the UN rules prohibited >working groups being chaired by a non-UN member. He said that he would >inform the working group when an official opinion came from New York. > > Discussion then commenced on Item 4(b), the issue of composition of >membership and participation in the PF. The chair pointed out that he >wanted interventions to focus on the composition of membership (number >of members, format of membership, etc.), and rules of procedure for that >membership. Denmark opened with a strong proposal for a PF that >involved indigenous peoples, specialized agencies, and states as members >with parity in their level of participation; this intervention was >referred to a number of times by indigenous peoples. "Parity" became a >buzzword of the day as many delegates from all sides emphasized that >this should be an element of the PF. The exact meaning o hat, however, >varied according to the speakers. Indigenous delegates frequently >stressed that indigenous peoples should have full participation rights. >Spain suggested that the PF follow the model of the International Labour >Organization, which has a tripartite membership of workers, employers, >and government representatives. They stressed that indigenous >representatives should be freely elected, but they also wanted >participatory mechanisms to come out of the national level. Several >states referred to the Spanish model favorably throughout the >proceedings. > >Indigenous delegates continued to remind the Chair that they wanted a PF >that was situated at the highest level of the UN, so that equal >participation would have some meaning. Many suggested a membership of >10-30 "core" members (echoing Denmark), with open participation by all >indigenous peoples and interested parties as observers. Many delegates >considered that a three-year rotating membership would be appropriate, >while other thought that the possibility of serving a second term would >be useful. On the question of a secretariat (a permanent support >structure), several indigenous delegates discussed the need for >qualified indigenous peoples to comprise this secretariat. > >States often agreed with indigenous delegates on some issues, but then >altered the meaning of that agreement with qualifiers. The US delivered >a strongly negative statement, stating that indigenous peoples deserved >participation, but that it should be like their participation in WGIP. >They also stated flatly that they could not accept indigenous peoples >being on an equal level with UN member states in their voting >privileges. Some states thought that equality was fine, but that >decision-making should be on a "consensus" level, which meant that if >one state was unsatisfied, there would be no decision. Some states >also felt that having specialized agencies as voting members would not >be helpful. Still, several states that they were also keeping "an open >mind" on this issue, although they endorsed facets of other states' >proposals. > >Indigenous representatives picked up on the idea that the PF should a >unique and creative forum (which Canada also echoed) and often made >radical propositions for membership. Several participants suggested a >sort of General Assembly for indigenous peoples. Other emphasized that >the composition of the PF needed to facilitate real dialogue between >parties, and that the wider the parameters of participation were, the >better the PF could do its work by drawing on many different interest >and support groups. They continued to stress that self-identification >of indigenous peoples was a necessary prerequisite to their >participation, and that the UN rules needed to be revised to heighten >the participation of indigenous peoples without just pigeonholing or >assimilating them. For a strong, effective PF, not only a new forum but >a new way of doing business at the UN is needed to make such an entity >viable and useful to indigenous peoples. > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
