Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 27th June 2006] - At 2:30pm, discussions resumes with session 17 and the consideration of the report of the open-ended intersessional Working Group on a draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Mr Luis-Enrique Chavez, chairperson of the Working Group, presented Council members with the report of the 11th session of the Working Group and a draft Declaration for their consideration. He stressed that negotiations had been lengthy and complex, and that no consensus had been reached within the Working Group on the draft proposed today. Annex 1 of the report, he said, makes it possible for interested individuals to understand how discussions have evolved and which questions are still pending. Points where consensus could not be reached were mainly self determination (seen as a threat to territorial integrity by some States), the question of redress, and the question of natural resources. These issues should be discussed today so that conflicts will not arise in the implementation of the Declaration. Mr Chavez, was keen to add that the fact that the proposal was not subject of a consensus should not prevent Council members to give their views on it today. It is not the result everybody was wishing for but in his view it is the best proposal one could hope for at this stage. So it is a first step that needs to be consolidated. Mr Chavez asked Council members not to neglect this opportunity. Discussion Permanent representatives of the following countries then expressed their views on the draft Declaration Mexico, Canada, Brazil, China, Russia, Austria/EU, Guatemala, South Africa, Japan, Philippines, Algeria/African Group, Cameroon, France, Finland/Nordic countries, Uruguay, Ecuador, Cuba, India, Bangladesh, Peru, Australian (for Australia, New Zealand and the US), Spain, Congo, Panama, Bolivia, Chile. Most delegations welcomed the report of the 11th session of the Working Group and while expressing their belief in the necessity for such an instrument, deplored the lack of consensus on the draft Declaration. Some delegations which expressed their support for the draft Declaration called other delegations to show a spirit of collaboration to allow the finalisation of a Declaration which has been in the process of being drafted for over a decade. Other delegations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US among others) urged the Council not to adopt the draft text as it is confusing and contradictory and would set a bad precedent for the newly established Council's practice. States need more time to reach a consensus. NGO statement followed (see order of the day) and most of them expressed disappoitment at their delegations' (and Canada's) wish to postpone adoption and prolong negotiations. They explained that the current draft was the result of lengthy and comprehensive negotiations, that States opposing its adoption were among those who were still violating the rights of indigenous people, that reopening discussions on process and substance would not lead to greater consensus but instead undermine this new human rights instrument. They urged the Council to give serious consideration to the adoption of the draft Declaration. Amnesty International then made a statement on behalf of 35 NGOs. Human rights remained unfulfilled for most of the world's indigenous populations, the AI representative said. The Council is responsible for promoting universal respect for human rights. It is therefore fitting that one of its first achievements is to presents to the GA for adoption this Draft Declaration. The text emerging from the Working Group's 11th session is the result of extensive negotiations, there is therefore no justification for further delays and AI called for the adoption of the draft text at this session of the HRC. AI and the group of NGOs appealed to States not to pursue short term political interests by trying to amend the current text. It is urgent to adopt it this year for the well-being of the world's indigenous people. Other NGOs suggested a small group of facilitators could be appointed to help reach a consensus as there is no need for yet another international human rights instrument that is ignored and/or not ratified by most governments. Chairperson's statement Luis Enrique Chavez then drew conclusions from the above statements. He highlighted that it was now clear that there was no consensus on his proposal but also a lot of support. He wondered if it made any sense to extend negotiations on the draft. The Working Group is unique in that it allows equal participation of States and indigenous people representatives. This should be used by other groups that use more traditional procedures. Mr Chavez said he believed this was as far as they could reasonably go, and that his proposals only stemmed from discussions within the working group. His proposal he said tried to reach not a consensus (as this is impossible) bu the widest possible agreement among States, NGOs and indigenous people. He concluded that the Council now needed to make a decision. Ambassador de Alba closed the session and the consideration of the reports from the Working Groups. Further information