James Craven Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663 (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5 *My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected Opinion* -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:42 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: UN Newspeak and Double-think:Indigenous Peoples Importance: High Dear Indigenous Friends: I had the opportunity to read this late last night at home and wanted to respond first thing in the morning because of the time difference. This position taken by the UN is truly Orwellian newspeak and double-think: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength We all love Big Brother And Reagan was President in 1984 In order to promote "transparency" the United Nations will sponsor secret meetings among the Nation States where they can better plot how to rob Indigenous Peoples of your rights recognized by both customary and conventional international law that have been enshrined in the Draft Declaration. Let me tell you a few things about the United Nations, especially there at Geneva. During the summer of 1993, I was the Lawyer for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and also its Ambassador to the World Court. In those capacities i attended the Owen-Stoltenberg Negotiations in Geneva convened on invitation of the United Nations and the European Union and held at UN Headquarters, the Palais des Nations, where you are now located. The entire purpose of those negotiations as designed by the United Nations was to carve-up the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina--a UN Member State--in three little pieces, destroy Bosnia's Statehood, rob Bosnia's UN Membership, and subject 1.5 to 2 million more Bosnians to ethnic cleansing, which I had already convinced the World Court was a form of genocide. And all this took place at UN Headquarters in Geneva under the direct supervision and invitation of the United Nations--robbing a UN Member State of its UN Membership. While at UN Headquarters in Geneva I was also threatened by the United Nations Lawyer working for Owen-Stoltenberg. Of course I refused to cave in to their illegal and gross threats. And i personally disrupted and stopped the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan for genocide against the Bosnians and their Republic. But the point of the story is this: If the United Nations was prepared to do this to a UN Member State, what do you think they are going to do to the Indigenous Peoples of the World? Do you think they will treat you any better? After the UN Member States have mistreated you for hundreds of years? Francis A. Boyle Professor of International Law -----Original Message----- From: John Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 7:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hello all. Here is a summary of the first day's events at the Draft Declaration Working Group, with more to follow soon. The issues outlined in this summary continue to stymie the process. We will be sending out statements at the request of particpants as they are given out later in the week. Cheers, John Stevens Academic Council of the UN System NETWARRIORS REPORT: Commission on Human Rights Intersessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples DAY 1 - 18/10/99 (Please note that this is not a professional or comprehensive transcript, but rather a summary of main points and event of the day in official sessions. Any questions, comments, or corrections should be directed to John Stevens of Academic Council of the United Nations System/Netwarriors) MORNING SESSION: The first morning session was very brief. The meeting was opened by Mr. Bertie Ramcharan, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, who admonished the participants several times to "speed up the process" of adopting the Draft Declaration. Mr. Ramcharan characterized the history of indigenous peoples at the UN as one of increasing participation, and sees this as one of the "most important" developments in the promotion and protection of human rights. He hoped that the spirit of CHR Resolution 1995/32 would stimulate the participants into working towards the swift passing of the Draft Declaration. Mr. Ramcharan then gave the floor to GUATEMALA, and on behalf of the Latin American countries the representative of Guatemala nominated Mr. Luis Chavez of Peru to be the Chair of the Working Group, citing his extensive education and experience as a diplomat. Mr. Chavez was rapidly elected by acclamation and he took the podium to make a brief statement. He began by assuring Mr. Ramcharan that the Working Group would indeed "push ahead with this process" and that he as chair was committed to that necessity. He then outlined his feelings about the Working Group. He assured the Working Group that he would continue in Mr. Jose Urrutia's tradition of "transparency and dialogue" and that he would utilize the substantial "capital in working method and confidence" that was Mr. Urrutia's legacy. To that end, he stated that he would create a workplan for the session after consultations with the government representatives, taking into account the proposal given to him on Sunday by the Indigenous Caucus for elements that should be included in the workplan. With that, the meeting was adjourned until 4:30PM, when Mr. Chavez would present his workplan to the indigenous peoples and consult with them on the work of the session. AFTERNOON SESSION: The meeting was convened shortly after 4:30 PM with the Chair of the Working Group and indigenous representatives. Mr. Chavez presented to them his workplan and then outlined its progress broadly. The workplan had set aside two days for general debate, then the Working Group would begin on Articles 15-18. In the second week attention would ostensibly be focused on Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 44, and 45, with the last two days of the Working Group reserved for writing and approving the report. The general debate would include not just general statements, but also a discussion of self-determination and land rights & natural resources, which has been requested by the Indigenous Caucus. Mr. Chavez envisioned a discussion that was "more concrete than we have had up until now" with a view towards getting some or all of Articles 15-18 approved. The Articles could be addressed in any order, depending on the will of the participants. There was, however, one additional element that elicited intense opposition from the indigenous representatives. Built into the workplan was a daily session for "informal consultation" where the Chair of the Working Group would meet with states in a session which would be summarized later for presentation to the entire Working Group. The rationale for this was that in such a session state representatives could freely express their views and work towards overcoming differences. Mr. Chavez believed that such a procedure would increase the possibility of progress on getting articles passed at this session. He stated that other possibilities had been explored, but that most state representatives did not have the time or resources to meet outside of the session. He hoped that the indigenous delegates would support this workplan. The indigenous delegates immediately engaged Mr. Chavez on this issue and a number of them declared that they did not support this proposal. There was a wide range of responses, but the consensus was that the plan was unacceptable, primarily because of the presence of these "informal consultations" in the workplan. Several delegates pointed out that such sessions were generally little more than drafting sessions to change the wording of articles, and that similar sorts of meetings last year had resulted in an annex to the report of the Working Group that contained proposals from governments on concrete changes to the wording of the Declaration. Representatives from the International Indian Treaty Council also voiced opposition to allotting work time from the session to a consultation that would only include states and not all participants. Several other delegates agreed that indigenous peoples had worked too hard on getting access and a voice in the proceedings to allow this to be done. The IITC representative stated that indigenous peoples should be present at all meetings of the session, whether formal or informal. A Kuna representative stated that it seemed that governments were trying to institutionalize informal meetings as a way to avoid having their views appear on the record. He called for open and bilateral meetings for the session and urged the rewriting of the workplan accordingly. A few indigenous representatives who had not been present over the weekend also called for a reorientation of the general debate, but Mr. Chavez reminded those present that the Indigenous Caucus ha asked for such a debate. He went to try to combat the charges laid against the idea of informal consultations. He felt that by incorporating these consultations into the structure of the meeting, indigenous peoples could be made aware of the proceedings and thus be better informed about the perspectives of state representatives. He claimed that this was not the first time governments had been encouraged to meet amongst themselves, and that he believed that some government representatives still had difficulty expressing themselves freely in plenary. He felt that these consultations could stimulate dialogue between states and help overcome differences between the governments. He said that this would not be a drafting process, but an alternate and complementary process. He then darkly hinted that states could certainly meet outside the session without telling indigenous peoples anything, and that it would be better to keep their deliberations inside the process. The representative of the Saami Council pointed out in response that this workplan would allot 1.5 days of work time solely to these consultations, and that indigenous peoples want to witness these debates, not hear about them, so that they could obtain a stronger impression of government perspectives and ideas. States certainly had the right to meet anywhere and anytime they pleased, but such meetings should not be incorporated into the session itself. As Kenneth Deer, the co-chair of the Indigenous Caucus, put it: "It's our time, too." He felt that giving the states this much time was unfair to the indigenous representatives. Mr. Chavez responded that he would make every effort to give the indigenous delegates the resources and space to conduct their own meetings if fairness was a concern. But he continued to insist that as Chair it was his "duty" to try new methods of obtaining "consensus" and that he felt this method would yield fruitful results. He felt that it was only a small portion of the work time and that it could be very useful in allowing states to share ideas. He felt that the indigenous peoples should not start from an assumption of bad faith, but rather trust that the Chair was working in the best interests as well. Several indigenous delegates from Latin America re-emphasized their opposition to the informal meetings, especially those linked to the general debate. Why, one delegate asked, do governments need such a consultation during the general debate? Others questioned just how transparent the reports to the Working Group would be, and urged the Chair to allow indigenous peoples to observe the proceedings at the very least. They emphasized that they wanted to make sure that the general debate not rehash old issues, but break new ground. They also hoped that states would give their actual positions on issues and talk concretely about their ideas. It was felt that if indigenous peoples could observe their informal deliberations it would help the indigenous delegates to understand their positions. The Chair closed the debate by reiterating his main points: that he felt his idea was the best way to promote transparency and dialogue, and that this method of work might yield genuine progress. He felt that the indigenous representatives should give this process a chance and see how it worked. There was still some distance to go to achieve real consensus rather than a large majority, he stated, and felt that states should be given a chance to reconcile their viewpoints. This method, he reiterated strongly, would yield positive progress on the work. Kenneth Deer ended the session by informing the Chair of another indigenous proposal to hold consultations between indigenous and state representatives during lunch or in the early morning, focussed on self-determination as the key concept that needed to be discussed. Given what had just transpired, Mr. Deer informed Mr. Chavez that the Caucus would meet and get back to him about the workplan in the morning. The meeting rose shortly after 6PM. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
