Western Shoshone Defense Project
www.wsdp.org

November 2, 2006

Secretaria Tecnica
III Cumbre Continetal de Pueblos y Naciones Indigenas
Waqib'Kej Guatemala, Abya Yala c/o TONATIERRA

RE: III Continental Summit of Indigenous Pueblos and Nations of Abya Yala

Dear Secretaria Tecnica:

We have been advised of the upcoming III Continental Summit of Indigenous Pueblos and Nations of Abya Yala to be held in March 2007 in Guatemala. We request that the Western Shoshone case and the recent United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) decision against the United States be placed on the agenda for discussion at the Summit. Our case has been presented and has received success from a traditional basis challenging U.S. and corporate laws and policies which stem from the conceptual Doctrine of Discovery and deny us our original rights which are inherent to all of us as indigenous peoples. This antiquated doctrine and its attendant tools - the Papal Bulls and the Royal Charter of England - have been used for several centuries now to subjugate and oppress our peoples and to exploit and contaminate our land and resources. The CERD decision goes to the heart of this problem and has given all indigenous peoples - especially of Abya Yala - an opening which we must continue to press. We believe that the information we bring will be a pinnacle focus point for all indigenous nations to use in their own struggles as we continue to unify and gather strength for the protection of our ways and Abya Yala. We are able to provide a delegation of Western Shoshone leaders and legal staff to lead the discussion.

Please let us know if this important issue can be included in the full agenda. If so, we can then discuss potential funding for travel and accommodations. We can seek some independent funding unless it is decided to proceed under the Summit coordinating committee.

We look forward to your response.

In peace and solidarity,

Carrie Dann Executive Director

*******

November 2, 2006
Secretaria Técnica
III Cumbre Continental de Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas
Waqib'Kej
Guatemala, Abya Yala
c/o TONATIERRA

Estimada Secretaria Técnica:

Nos hemos informado de la III Cumbre Continental de Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas de Abya Yala que se llevaría acabo en Marzo de 2007 en Guatemala. Les mandamos este mensaje como propuesta que el caso nuestro, Western Shoshone vs. US, y la decisión recién en nuestro caso ante el Comité para la Eliminación de Discriminación Racial de las Naciones Unidas (CERD) sea considerada para discusión en la agenda en la III Cumbre.

La presentación de nuestro caso ha traído éxito desde un punto de vista tradicional por ser una táctica efectiva en la lucha del movimiento indígena de confrontar las leyes y políticas de los EEUU y las corporaciones, sistemas de colonización basados en el concepto de la Doctrina de Descubrimiento, negando nuestros derechos inherentes como Pueblos Indígenas.

Esta Doctrina anticuada y sus instrumentos de implementación, como son las Bulas Papales y La Carta Royal de Inglaterra ya llevan siglos como instrumentos intelectuales de subyugación y opresión de nuestros Pueblos, igual siendo causa de la explotación y contaminación de nuestros territorios y recursos naturales.

La decisión del Comité para la Eliminación de Discriminación Racial de la ONU (CERD) en nuestro caso llega a la raíz de este problema y ha dado a todos los pueblos indígenas – especialmente los de Abya Yala – una apertura estratégica que deberíamos de aprovechar. Nosotros creemos que la información relacionada con nuestro caso podría servir como punto clave parar enfocar los esfuerzos de nuestros pueblos Indígenas, mientras sigamos unificando y fortaleciéndonos para proteger nuestras culturas y la Abya Yala.

Si les parece bien esta propuesta, nosotros podríamos proveer una delegación de lideres de los Western Shoshone y un equipo legal para profundiza la discusión ante la cumbre de Guatemala.

Por favor de dejarnos saber si esta propuesta se podría ser incluida en la agenda de la cumbre. Ya entonces podríamos discutir los posibles recursos para los viáticos y hospedaje. Nosotros podríamos también buscar un financiamiento independiente, con el acuerdo del comité organizador de la cumbre.

Con anticipación de su respuesta,
En Paz y Solidaridad

Carrie Dann Director Ejecutivo

*******

4 Enero 2007 Saludos Disculpas, por la tardanza en la respuesta. La respuesta para los hermanos Western Shoshone, es que ellos con todo gusto pueden exponer su experiencia y caso en el eje temático: Sistema Jurídico Indígena y acceso a la Justicia. Informales y esperamos la respuesta lo más pronto posible. Att. Juana Mulul http://www.cumbrecontinentalindigena.org/

*******
January 4, 2007

Greetings,

Please inform them, and we anticipate a response as soon as possible.

Attentively,

Juana Mulul
http://www.cumbrecontinentalindigena.org/

www.tonatierra.org

Western Shoshone: Message to III Continental Indigenous Summit - Guatemala

VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ
CHAIRPERSON OF THE UNITED NATIONS PERMANENT FORUM
ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES

MESSAGE ON THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
10 December 2006

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/index.html

Indigenous peoples would have joyfully celebrated the International Human Rights Day this year if the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the General Assembly before the end of 2006. Unfortunately, the decision of the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on November 28th, 2006, to defer the adoption of the Declaration has weakened the meaning of this day.

At the Fifth Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues the shared expectation of indigenous peoples, of the UN system and of the Permanent Forum was for the adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly, as had also been the call of Heads of State at the World Summit in 2005. The Permanent Forum thus adopted the following recommendation at its session in May 2006:

The Permanent Forum is convinced that a declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples will be an instrument of great value through which to advance the rights and aspirations of the world's indigenous peoples. The Permanent Forum therefore recommends the adoption without amendments of the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples … by the General Assembly during its sixty-first session in 2006. This would represent a major achievement for the Second International Decade of the World's Indigenous People.

To the credit of the newly established Human Rights Council, it adopted this Declaration in June 29, 2006, at its First Session. All the regional caucuses of indigenous peoples spoke with one voice and echoed the resolution of the Human Rights Council that this be adopted by the General Assembly at its 2006 Fall Session.

Indigenous peoples were shocked and deeply disappointed at the recent decision of the Third Committee of the General Assembly to defer the adoption, following an initiative of some Members States. I am also deeply disappointed by this move to defer the adoption of the Declaration because this is illustrative of the continuing discrimination against indigenous peoples in many parts of the world. The Declaration stands out as one of the most extensively discussed and negotiated texts in the history of the UN with the full participation of the subjects of those rights-a process for which the international community should stand proud. The non-participation of some Governments in more than 20 years of drafting and negotiations on the Declaration does not justify a further delay of its adoption. This Declaration represents the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples.

I commend the Member States who voted for the adoption of the Declaration at the Human Rights Council and those who did not support the deferral of its adoption at the General Assembly Third Committee.

I urge all Governments to demonstrate that the UN stands for human rights for all, including indigenous peoples, and to adopt the Declaration without amendments. It is the responsibility of all UN Member States to address the past and continuing injustice, racism and discrimination against indigenous peoples. International Human Rights Day will be more significant for indigenous peoples once the UN adopts the Declaration and continues building genuine partnerships and solidarity with indigenous peoples.

###
Links:

Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination
http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org

Message from Chairperson Tauli-Corpuz - UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

UN's human rights record challenged by Indigenous Peoples

360 million Indigenous Peoples throughout the world continue to struggle against crippling conditions of poverty, yet the United Nations remains uncertain whether to support human rights for Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples are clearly the poorest and most oppressed societies in the world. This poverty continues because governments refuse to acknowledge indigenous title to lands and indigenous self-determination.

Last week the United Nations lost credibility when the General Assembly's 'Third Committee' used a procedural vote to prevent final adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The 'no action' motion set back twenty-three years of work to complete the human rights standard. This work involved states, human rights experts and Indigenous Peoples participating together in negotiations.

The Third Committee voted to delay the adoption because some states claimed they do not know who are the Indigenous Peoples.

These states also interpreted the Declaration as authorising secession, and enabling veto of parliaments. Such interpretations are eccentric and groundless.

The 53 African member states voted as a bloc to delay adoption of the Declaration. They risk being seen as supporters of continuing colonisation and subjugation of Indigenous Peoples.

UN member states should not be so irresponsible as to dispense such hysterical interpretations of the Declaration and international law.

They discredit the UN's reputation on human rights and cast doubt upon the integrity of the UN.

The United Nations is sending mixed messages about whether the promotion and protection of human rights is a genuine major objective of the new Millennium.

The United Nations should be held accountable through democratic and transparent procedures wherever the will of the peoples of the world is under threat.

The creation of the Human Rights Council has been a positive step. The Human Rights Council decided, by an overwhelming majority, to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, at its first session in June 2006.

In particular, Indigenous Peoples call for the immediate adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without amendment, by the UN General Assembly.

The Indigenous Peoples Caucus calls upon the United Nations to double its commitment and efforts to promote human rights as the major pillar for the global development, equally, of all peoples.

###

Indigenous Peoples Caucus
http://www.ipcaucus.net/

The Third Session of the Human Rights Council took place in Geneva between 29 November - 8 December 2006. Several governments spoke in strong support of the immediate adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have transcribed their comments, and also include brief statements to the HRC by two Indigenous representatives, Les Malezer and Willie Littlechild.[UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTION]

Human Rights Council
Third Session, 29 November to 8 December 2006 at the Palais des Nations in
Geneva, Switzerland

Oral Statements, 1 December 2006

Willie Littlechild, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development (IOIRD) and the International Indian Treaty Council -

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

The Human Rights Council demonstrated the priority it attached to the rights of Indigenous peoples by adopting in its resolution 1/2 on the 29th of June, the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and transmitting it to the General Assembly.

The Human Rights Council also, by this action, honored the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Global Indigenous Caucus together with the members of the Council who voted in favour of this historic decision.This decision signaled a very important world call for respect.

It affirmed the recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples being equal to all other peoples.

The UN Declaration presents a new framework for "partnership for action and dignity" in concert with treaties and the Second International Decade. The Secretary General stressed that human rights forms the third of three pillars of the United Nations.

The work and role of this Council is vital for defending and upholding the human rights of Indigenous peoples, and indeed all peoples within the UN system. We respectfully call upon all UN member states to support the vital role and place of this Council. Every effort must be made to promote and strengthen its role and stature.

We therefore register our profound concern with the way in which a historic new human rights decision by the First Session of this Council was undermined by the General Assembly's 3rd Committee in New York on Tuesday of this week.

The adoption of the UN Declaration was a positive, forward looking, and courageous step by this Council, a product of twenty four years of work in the UN, which was celebrated by Indigenous peoples, as well as many states around the world.

Unfortunately, the Council's stature, dignity and its future effectiveness as a robust, authoritative and independent guardian of human rights within the UN system was called into question by some states for reasons which were purely political and had nothing to do with human rights.

Their concerns with the content of the Declaration were mischaracterizations, misinterpretations, and posed as procedural matters intended to block its progress. After pledging to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights in seeking election to this Council, and as reminded by Secretary General Kofi Annan on the 19th of June, some member states voted very differently in the Human Rights Council and in New York.

Notwithstanding all this, Mr. President, our spirit is not broken. We now look forward to working together with the Human Rights Council and states on a new path within a framework of dialogue and cooperation to focus on implementation.

We respectfully recommend implementation of your decision to adopt the UN Declaration with a program of action. We urge you, with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the full, effective participation of Indigenous peoples, to begin a process of working groups or seminars on mechanisms for effective implementation.

Thank you very much Mr. President.

*******

Oral Statements, 7 December 2006 12th Plenary Meeting
Les Malezer, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action

Thank you Mr. President.

We can support the preliminary conclusions that have been provided in your document 6. In particular, we support that the main legal traditions and civilizations be represented, providing that this term does include Indigenous peoples.

Regarding the future functions, we would like to recount our own experiences as Indigenous peoples. For example, it has taken over twenty years, including a UN Decade on Indigenous Peoples, for the United Nations to understand the human rights issues that are pertaining to Indigenous peoples. The manifest abuses of the human rights of Indigenous peoples have still not been addressed as we struggle to establish standards and structures.

Despite the extensive work over an extensive period, many states still do not know who the Indigenous peoples are, do not know that self-determination is not a right to secession, do not know that free, prior, and informed consent is not a right of veto over parliaments, and have constitutions, legal systems and laws, which they admit do not address the equality of human rights of Indigenous peoples.

The key points to be made are that there's a strong link between an expert body and input by non-state parties and Indigenous peoples. The United Nations needs to promote a democratic process involving peoples and maximizing civil society representation, especially through experts, as well as through the states. There still needs to ... much to be learned by states in relation to human rights. There is still a need to counteract political interests which are retained in the Human Rights Council and other structures.

Much of the momentum and initiatives for human rights does come from the direction of experts and civil societies. We urge continued support for Indigenous expertise to be involved through the expert body and any relevant subsidiary bodies. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

*******

Closing the third session of the Council

Luis Alfonso de Alba, President of the Human Rights Council - (at 7min, 40 seconds)

... and I would therefore underscore the framework of what we're doing with the tentative timetable that has been circulated in the room. I am sure that we will need to fine-tune it, but as you can see we have a considerable work load. And I need to warn you that it will be a very busy year, a year when we will need additional efforts if we're to meet all our responsibilities.

I think to, that it is important that I place on record at this meeting the fact that I regret, and I repeat that - I deeply regret the decision adopted by the Third Committee regarding the Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. I think that this is a decision that needs to be reversed as quickly as possible by the Assembly itself, for the good of human rights and indeed, for the good of this Council, for the credibility of the Council on Human Rights.

This is a process in which this Council, and I must stress this point, has acted with the greatest responsibility.

We did not adopt any hasty decisions. And in this respect, I would recall that the Declaration should have been considered by the Human Rights Commission as of March last. So this was not dealt with in any haste. It was approached in a mature and responsible attitude. And, as President, I'd like to respond along those lines to some of the criticisms that have been addressed to the Council. I think that the Council has an obligation to follow up its decisions to ensure - seek implementation of its decisions. And it is my intention together with delegations that have already spoken and with indeed, delegations in a position to do so, to ensure that we work on matters that unite rather than divide us. I think it is very important that we seek to build bridges that will send a clear message to New York and to the General Assembly to urge the earliest possible adoption of the Declaration, and at the same time build a constructive transparent relationship that will address the concerns of any delegation regarding this instrument that was duly adopted by the Human Rights Council in its First Session.

I would thus appeal that over the next few days, we could review on a preliminary basis this, but in an inclusive spirit, one of consultations ... (10 min, 53 sec).

[Transcribed for informational purposes by First Peoples Human Rights Coalition]

UN's human rights record challenged by Indigenous Peoples

December 30, 2006
H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa of Bahrain
President, United Nations General Assembly
United Nations
New York, New York 10017

Your Excellency:

We, the undersigned Indigenous peoples, nations and organizations, are writing in regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If adopted by the General Assembly, the Declaration would constitute a key step towards eliminating the widespread and persistent human rights abuses suffered by Indigenous peoples worldwide.

Regretfully, member States in the Third Committee voted to defer adoption of the Declaration by the General Assembly “to allow time for further consultations” (Resolution A/C.3/61/L.18/R.1, adopted as corrected and amended by L.57/Rev.1, 28 November 2006, results of vote 82/67/25).  At the same time, the adopted Resolution has undermined the credibility and crucial work of the Human Rights Council and set back current U.N. reforms.

On December 20, 2006, the same Resolution was adopted without changes by the General Assembly.  Presently, in considering fair and viable means of undertaking “consultations”, the limited terms of the Resolution should be fully respected.  They should not be exceeded in any way.  In this regard, we feel it crucial that the following key factors be highlighted:

1. Further “consultations” permitted.  The Resolution authorizes “time for further consultations”. These “consultations” should not be converted into a working group or other process that opens up the Declaration to any changes.

2. Nature of “consultations”. A key purpose of “consultations” is to bridge understanding, especially for many States that chose not to participate in the standard-setting process that took place for over 20 years. “Consultations” are to obtain State and Indigenous opinions, which must be fully consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations .

3. Indigenous participation essential.  Indigenous peoples should be ensured full, direct and effective participation at all stages of consideration of the Declaration by the General Assembly. In order to ensure fairness, balance and legitimacy, any “consultations” must include such Indigenous participation. Indigenous peoples are not considered simply as non-governmental organizations. For over 20 years, U.N. practice has ensured active, democratic involvement by Indigenous peoples in matters relating to our human rights.

4. Support for Human Rights Council In engaging in “consultations”, it is important that the Human Rights Council and its essential work be supported and respected.

5. Limited time period for “consultations” .  The “consultations” should be completed in a timely manner prior to September 2007. The General Assembly decided “to conclude its consideration of the Declaration, as contained in the annex to the present resolution, before the end of its sixty-first session.” (Resolution, para. 3).

We greatly appreciate your consideration of the above matters.

Respectfully submitted,

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' CAUCUS
with representation from the following Regional Caucuses:

African Caucus
Arctic Caucus
Asian Caucus
Latin American and Caribbean Caucus
North American Caucus
North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation Caucus
Pacific Caucus

http://www.ipcaucus.net/
*******

Native Colonization and Decolonization

Saturday, December 16, 2006 @ 5pm
NAHUACALLI * 802 N.7th St. * Phoenix, AZ
Phone # (602) 254-5230
Sponsored by: TONATIERRA

• This educational lecture is to help our Indigenous People understand the tough experiences we have gone through during our history, and what we can do to make things better.
  
  
• hose who work in diverse communities or have interest in Indigenouse Peoples issues can learn about the process of colonization and decolonization and the on-going issues
  
• We will see how and why we have lost the ability to decide what is best for our People.
  
• There are reasons why our thought process has changed and why we do not speak up or stand up for ourselves.
  
•   We will look at how we can think in more positive ways.
  
• We will talk about how we can be happier, stronger People, and how to make our Nations as strong as they once were.
  
• The event is both a history lesson and a way for us to come together and begin to help one another do good things for our own selves and our own People.
  
• Together we will begin to see that we can solve our problems.  We will see that we can truly make our Nations better, stronger, and more positive.
  
•   This is a presentation for all ages.
  
• This is a presentation for all Indigenous Peoples and our supporters.
  
• A potluck meal will be served, so please follow our traditions and bring your best dish to share with your relatives!

For more information or to volunteer call Adrian Hendricks at (520) 705-8544 or e-mail to: oothham@yahoo.com

The Process of Colonization

• Indigenous people are said to have no culture, no moral values, are nothing
• Indigenous people are denied the existence of "culture"
• Natives begin to embrace the non-native culture
• Conversion to a non-Indigenous way of life begins

• Colonization physically destroys representations of Indigenous culture
• Sacred sites
• Traditional religious ceremonies and items
• Language and traditional social structures
• Indigenous may also lead such destruction

• Colonization degrades and insults any remainder of Indigenous culture
• Churches claim Indigenous culture is paganism
• Medicine people are said to be witches
• Indigenous culture becomes illegal through new laws

• Remaining Indigenous culture is superficially accepted
• Colonized thinkers show they feel sorry for the continued existence of native culture under their control
• A sign of their power over what is allowed to exist or die
• Token regard for Indigenous existence

• Remaining Indigenous culture is absorbed in the new society
• A native priest, teacher, lawyer, politician is allowed
• Indigenous terms are sparingly used
• Indigenous art becomes popular and is exploited
• A trend to support Native causes and manipulated them

The Processes of Decolonization Phase

1: Rediscovery and Recovery

• The inferiority complex of the Indigenous is the main problem
• Led to this stage by: curiosity, accident, desperation, escape, coincidence, fate
• Becoming aware that one is colonized
• History
• Stories
• Spirituality

• People lament their victimization
• Anger and frustration are common elements in this phase
• Lashing out at symbols of the colonizer
• A sense of justified violence (words or actions)
• The time people remain in the mourning phase
• Abuse of this phase is enticing, but destructive

• The most crucial phase
• Dreams, possibilities, hopes are expressed for an Indigenous world
• Re-exploring culture
• Future aspirations
• Own structures of government
• Must be allowed to run its full course
• The threat of rushing the dreaming
• No premature plans for a remedy to an issue that has not been fully thought-out
• Do the changes only represent the colonial mentality?
• Indigenous dreams, not from western minds

• A single direction in which the People want to move
• People combining their voices in a clear statement of their desired direction
• No single way or process for a People's expression of the commitment
• Formal process becomes expression of People's will
• Can be difficult to distinguish an early termination of dreaming phase and start of commitment phase
• People may try to be first to the action phase
• Quick solutions deprives people a participatory role in the formation of their own social order

• Can only occur if there is a consensus of commitment reached in previous phase
• Otherwise is not truly the People's choice
• Survival (responsive) action v. pro-active action
• Great diversity in action
• A call to reason
• A resort to arms
• All actions are sanction by international law
• New ways of action

• The reality of colonization and decolonization is not so clear
• Combinations of phases may occur, change in order
• Individuals v. nation
• Denial of colonization will always exist
• Helpful to return to a phase of decolonization
• Return to "commitment" to re-clarify "action

NAHUACALLI
Embassy of the Indigenous Peoples
802 N. 7th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85006

Quito, Ecuador
December 7, 2006

To the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador - CONAIE

Nohuanyolqueh: Bothers and sisters,

Warm greetings from the Indigenous Nations and Pueblos of Abya Yala North, upon having fulfilled 20 years of existence as an indigenous organization that is fully committed to the recognition, respect, and protection of the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of our continent.

We known that this struggle is a commitment of generations in scope, and for that reason we congratulate the CONAIE in having maintained an organizational presence in Ecuador, as well as in the international and global arenas.

The experience and the example of CONAIE is an example of the strength and principles of the indigenous movement at the continental level, which was reborn in 1990 with the First Continental Indigenous Encounter organized by CONAIE.

And now we return once more with our offering of commitment to continue to support the political positions and demands of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador from our indigenous communities and organizations in Abya Yala North.

During these days we have listened and heard of the victories and challenges that face the CONAIE, and we state: you are not alone. The prophecy of the Encounter of Eagle and the Condor embraces us in a continental community which made more real every day depending on the organizational efforts which we exchange, and by the direction of the spiritual strength which we invoke with our ceremonies.

We hope to see you again towards the end of March 2007 in the Maya territories of Guatemala, upon the installation of the next Continental Indigenous Summit. In the meanwhile please receive the best wishes on our behalf that your Pueblos and Nationalities shall continue along the path of tradition in achieving the destiny of - liberation.

Sincerely,

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)

UN General Assembly fails to
bring hope to world's indigenous peoples

More than two decades of efforts to promote international human rights standards for the safety and well-being of Indigenous Peoples appear to have failed following the adoption of a motion by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on 28th November to defer the historic adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The motion, promoted by few Western countries and put forward by the Namibian delegation on behalf of the African Group of States, was put to the vote with a majority of 82 nation states in favour, 67 against and 25 abstentions.

As a non-governmental organization devoted to promoting the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide and which has, from the very beginning, been directly involved in the discussions regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, IWGIA wishes to make known its immeasurable dismay and concern at the decision taken yesterday by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. We fear this may mean that the United Nations will never adopt a strong international human rights standard that promotes and respects the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples. 

We also believe that the General Assembly's failure in this regard is a serious setback for the integrity of the newly-established Human Rights Council. The Council, mandated by the General Assembly itself to promote universal respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, had urged the General Assembly to formally adopt the Declaration without delay.

By not adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN General Assembly has undoubtedly not only deafeningly failed to enhance the capacity of the international human rights system to address some of the most pervasive and reprehensible human rights violations in the world today but has also missed an historic opportunity to advance the rights and aspirations of the world's indigenous peoples.

The ambiguity of the resolution adopted by the Third Committee makes it very difficult to predict the future that lies ahead for the Declaration. The current text is the result of more than 22 years of arduous dialogue between indigenous peoples and governments and is now widely accepted among those who have been involved in this process. We therefore believe that yet more months of undefined government consultations will in no way improve its chances of being adopted but can rather be seen as an attempt by governments such as Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada - who have stubbornly opposed the Declaration's text as adopted by the Human Rights Council - to butcher it or to block its final adoption all together. We are sure that the current disappointment and dismay that indigenous peoples, human rights NGOs and international institutions are feeling today is also shared by those governments who are strongly committed to advocating for adoption of the Declaration. 

Given that it is difficult to envisage, at this moment in time, what the full significance and implications of the passing of Namibia's resolution will be, it is essential that all those governments who have been thus far committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples redouble their efforts and work, together with indigenous peoples, to promote the General Assembly's adoption of the text approved by the Human Rights Council in June 2006.

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA)
Classensgade 11 E    DK 2100 Copenhagen   Denmark  Phone no. (+45) 35 27 05 00
E-mail: iwgia@iwgia.org

Links:
Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determinationl

http://www.servindi.org

IPS-Inter Press Service
Inter Press Service News Agency Thursday, November 30, 2006 13:4
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=35638

RIGHTS:

U.N. Delays Vote on Native Self-Determination Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 28 (IPS) - Leaders of the world's 370 million indigenous peoples and their supporters expressed sadness and anger Tuesday as a subsidiary body of the U.N. General Assembly rejected a draft declaration calling for the international recognition of native peoples' right to selfdetermination and control over their traditional lands.

The Third Committee of the General Assembly, which deals with social, humanitarian and cultural issues, decided to put aside the matter for further discussion, as a majority of member states approved a resolution in favour of deferment.

"It is shameful," said Arthur Manuel, chief of the Secwepeme Nation, about the outcome of the vote on the declaration. "This was an historic opportunity for the U.N. to at least recognise our inalienable rights."

Les Malezer, an Australian aboriginal leader who chairs the Indigenous Caucus at the U.N., added: "This is unjustifiable. This is an attempt to derail the whole process."

Both Manuel and Malezer said they had hoped that the General Assembly would approve the declaration since it was already adopted by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council during the summer. Though African nations had supported the declaration in Geneva, this time around they changed their position, demanding that the wording on the "right to self-determination" be changed, a move that und ermined the attempt to get the declaration adopted by the Assembly during its current session.

In interviews with IPS, some indigenous leaders said they were surprised at the new stance of the African bloc, but others suggested it was the U.S. and its allies which had lobbied behind the scenes.

"It's the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand who are responsible for this," an indigenous leader told IPS after Namibia sponsored a resolution in the committee seeking amendments to the declaration on the ground that the text "contradicts" its constitution.

In a run-up to the vote, a diplomat from an African nation told IPS that some governments on the continent feared that if they recognised the principle of self-determination, then they might find themselves with unwanted rebellions by certain tribes.

"Almost all of Africa is indigenous," he said. "So the concept of self-determination does not apply over there. It could create trouble."

Still, many indigenous leaders who work closely with the U.N. said they had no doubts that the change in the African bloc's position on the declaration was the outcome of external pressure. "There are many countries in Africa which are economically vulnerable," said an indigenous representative before the vote.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand voted in support of the Namibian amendment, whereas most Latin American and European nations opposed the resolution. The U.S. abstained.

"It seems strange to ask for more time, as 24 years worth of negotiations have taken place," said a Mexican 11/30/2006. "What really has been delayed is the paying of attention to the rights of indigenous peoples."

The U.S. and its allies argue that the declaration is "inconsistent with international law". The U.S. has also repeatedly held that the indigenous land claim ignores current reality by "appearing to require the recognition to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens".

Indigenous leaders describe this argument as "racist" while a U.N. body that investigates discriminatory practices also views this line of reasoning as unacceptable.

The declaration was first put together by the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues last May, following more than 20 years of intense diplomacy involving governments, native representatives and numerous nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).

In addition to recognising the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources, the declaration states that all indigenous people must be protected from forced assimilation and the destruction of their cultures.

Even though the resolution would not be legally binding, supporters said its approval would have increased pressure on governments to observe universal principles, such as democracy, justice and nondiscrimination.

Deploring the committee's decision, the London-based human rights watchdog Amnesty International said the declaration was an attempt to "fill an important gap in the protection of indigenous peoples' rights," and warned the governments against any move to "weaken" its text. "It was the best that could be achieved," the group said in a statement. "Any revision of the draft text must be transparent and allow full and effective participation by indigenous peoples and NGOs."

The resolution in support of amendments to the draft was endorsed by 82 countries while 67 voted against it, with 25 abstentions. (FIN/2006)

Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. 11/30/2006 http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=35638

Links:
Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/
United States opposes declaration on Native rights http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org

www.tonatierra.org

U.N. Delays Vote on Native Self-Determination

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3878.doc.htm
General Assembly 28 November 2006
GA/SHC/3878
Department of Public Information
News and Media Division o New York
Sixty-first General Assembly
Third Committee
53rd Meeting (AM)

Third Committee Approves Draft Resolution On Right To Development;

Votes To Defer Action Concerning Declaration On Indigenous Peoples

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today 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.

The Committee, nearing the end of its work, also adopted a draft resolution on the right to development that would have the Assembly call upon the Human Rights Council to ensure that its agenda promotes sustainable development and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It would also remind developed countries to meet the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance and call for implementation of a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization.

Adopted on 29 June by the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which then recommended it to the Assembly, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples asserts that "indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms" as set out in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

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.

Prior to the vote, the representative of Peru -- recalling that it had taken 24 years for the Declaration to be hammered out -- said the original draft had been revised to address the concerns of many delegations, particularly regarding the principle of self-determination of peoples and respect for national sovereignty.

However, his counterpart from Namibia, explaining the proposed amendments, said that some provisions ran counter to the national constitutions of a number of African countries and that the Declaration was of such critical importance that it was only “fair and reasonable” to defer its adoption by the Assembly to allow for more consultations.

Among developed countries, Finland, on behalf of the European Union, urged a vote against deferral, saying it would amount to a groundless delay. The representatives of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, on the other hand, spoke in favour of a delay, with the latter country being among several to underline the need for indigenous peoples to be part of the process.

The representative of Mexico, echoing the views of many Latin American colleagues, said it seemed strange to seek more time for consultations on a Declaration that had already been the subject of 24 years of negotiations. The real delay, he said, would be in paying due attention to the rights of indigenous peoples themselves.

The draft resolution on the right to development, whose main sponsor was Cuba, was adopted with oral amendments by a vote of 126 in favour to 51 against, with 1 abstention (annex I). Among those voting against were the United States and Finland, again on behalf of the European Union, after their representatives voiced concern about the prospect of the right to development becoming legally binding.

Statements were also made today by representatives of Cuba, Japan, Costa Rica, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guatemala, Bolivia, Fiji, Chile, Turkey, Russian Federation, Colombia, Norway, Indonesia, Jamaica, Ukraine, Guyana, Benin, Botswana, Myanmar, Kuwait, Kenya, Cameroon, the Congo, Rwanda, Ecuador, Uruguay, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Iraq, Venezuela and Brazil.

The Committee was expected to meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 30 November.

Full text at: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3878.doc.htm

Links:
Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org

Scene of the Crime: UN Third Committee November 28th Narrative

Voice from the Fourth World : Arthur Manuel

Indigenous Organizations Collaborating with Canada Need to Seriously Reconsider Their Cooperation

It is clear that Canada was a leader in the opposing the draft Declaration to protect Indigenous Peoples. They voted against the draft Declaration in the Human Rights Council to give a strong signal that they opposed the draft Declaration to the State governments of the World. Australia, New Zealand and the United States only backed up Canada. Canada's primary reason for opposing
the draft Declaration was because the draft Declaration was inconsistent with what Canada is getting away with Canadian Indigenous Organizations under the existing Comprehensive Land Claims and Inherent Right to Self-Government Policies. Canada felt that the support for the draft Declaration would seriously undermine the existing success with the Nisga'a Final Agreement and what initiatives they are taking under the British Columbia Treaty Process.

It is time of Indigenous peoples in Canada to seriously look at what our indigenous organizations are doing and stop negotiating with Canada, when Canada's primary goal is to extinguish our Aboriginal Title and give us “Fee Simple”. We need to understand that you cannot have it both ways. If you accept the Comprehensive Land Claims policy and borrow from the Land Claims Loan Fund you also accept the fact that the ultimate goal that Canada will replace your Aboriginal title with “Fee Simple” provincial government title. That is what is happening in all the Agreement-in-Principles that are ready to be voted on by indigenous peoples in British Columbia. Extinguishment is the primary purpose behind all Canadian government policies and that is the ultimate goal behind the Lheidli T'enneh Final Agreement.

Canadian Indigenous Peoples do have a very heavy responsibility to play in shaping international standards regarding Indigenous Peoples because Canada has decided to play a big role in this area of international development and because Canada sits on the Human Rights Council. Indigenous peoples need to follow-up to this vote and indigenous peoples from Canada need to seriously look at how our collaboration with Canada's existing policies need to be reconsidered. It is clear that Canada does measure international standards with what Canada can get way with in Canada. I feel that the vote in favor of the African Stall Proposal was “Yes 82 - No 67 - Abstain 25”. We may have lost the vote but it is also shows Indigenous Peoples do have support and we need to build
on that international support and not let it drift away. In total there was 92 Votes that did not vote against Indigenous peoples and we need to build our relations between the Fourth World and the Third World.

The Fourth World was the name given by my late father to the situation in North American where Indigenous Peoples are a minority in a majority white Canada. My late father Grand Chief George Manuel used to be friends with late President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and saw the value of our relations with the African State Governments. In fact we need to educate the African States
about our objectives and that they are not against what African States want. The Fourth World and the Third World need to join together and challenge the monopoly the First World has over our economic resources at our expense. We need to understand that there is a direct link between what the “World Bank and International Monitory Fund” with “Indigenous Rights” and our sovereignty and economic prosperity of our peoples. The real bottom line on this vote is that Canadian indigenous peoples need to send a clear and distinct message to Canada that we will not continue to play ball if Canada is going to use domestic policy to undermine and derail international standards.

Arthur Manuel
Nairobi, Kenya
INET
Indigenous Network for Economies and Trade
e-mail: amanuel@telus.net

Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049

The Geography of Self Determination
http://www.tonatierra.org/nauacalli-022706.html

http://www.servindi.org

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' CAUCUS

UN affirms Indigenous Peoples are not equal to all other Peoples

The Indigenous Caucus is shocked and outraged by the actions of the United Nations, who today failed to adopt the most important international instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights for Indigenous Peoples. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which represents more than 20 years of work within the UN, constitutes the minimum standards for their survival, dignity and well-being.

The newly created UN Human Rights Council, which is the premier international body to deal with human rights, adopted the Declaration in June of this year. The Declaration was one of the substantial achievements of the Council. However, it was delivered a huge blow today by African States, most of whom had chosen not to participate throughout this standard-setting process. Africa took the lead in blocking the adoption of the Declaration, which strategy was supported and encouraged by New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United States.

It is clear that these actions are a politicization of human rights that show complete disregard for the ongoing human rights abuses suffered by Indigenous Peoples. This betrayal and injustice severely impacts 370 million Indigenous people in all regions of the world, who are among the most marginalized and vulnerable.

On May 24, 2002, Secretary General Kofi Annan, had proclaimed that the world's Indigenous Peoples “have a home at the United Nations”.

However, today's vote by opposing States clearly demonstrates that this is not the case.

Indigenous Peoples Caucus At UN Headquarters, New York

Contacts:
Les Malezer, Chairperson, Indigenous Peoples Caucus - +1 917 774 7346
Mattias Ahren, Arctic Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +47 47 379161
Grand Chief Ed John, North American Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +1 604 219 1705
Jennifer Tauli Corpuz, Asian Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +1 520 461 2042

ONU: Comunicado del Caucus de Pueblos Indígenas en la ONU.

28 de noviembre de 2006.- El caucus indígena se siente sorprendido y ultrajado por lo sucedido en las Naciones Unidas, que hoy (ayer) se han negado a adoptar el instrumento internacional más importante para la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos para los Pueblos Indígenas. La Declaración de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, que significa más de 20 años de trabajo en la ONU, constituye la norma mínima para su supervivencia, dignidad y bienestar.

El recién creado Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, que es el más importante organismo internacional sobre derechos humanos, adoptó la Declaración en junio de este año. La Declaración fue uno de los mayores logros del Consejo. Pero hoy ha recibido un duro golpe de los estados africanos, la mayoría de los cuales habían decidido no participar en el proceso de elaboración de la Declaración. África tomó la iniciativa para bloquear la adopción de la Declaración, una estrategia apoyada y animada por Nueva Zelanda, Canadá, Australia y los Estados Unidos.

Está claro que estas acciones son una politización de los derechos humanos que muestran un total desprecio por las violaciones de los derechos humanos que sufren los Pueblos Indígenas. Esta traición y esta injusticia son un duro golpe para los 370 millones de indígenas de todas las regiones del mundo, que se encuentran entre los más marginados y vulnerables.

El 24 de mayo de 2002, el Secretario General Kofi Annan proclamó que los Pueblos Indígenas del mundo “tienen un hogar en las Naciones Unidas”. Pero los votos en contra de hoy demuestran que eso no es cierto.

From the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus. 28 November 2006

Contacts:

Les Malezer, Chairperson, Indigenous Peoples Caucus - +1 917 774 7346
Mattias Ahren, Arctic Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +47 47 379161
Grand Chief Ed John, North American Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +1 604 219 1705
Jennifer Tauli Corpuz, Asian Caucus, Indigenous Peoples - +1 520 461 2042

Indigenous Peoples Caucus http://www.ipcaucus.net/

United States opposes declaration on Native rights http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096414049
International Outrage, Betrayal and Injustice: Statement by Indigenous Peoples Caucus