CONSEJO INTERNACIONAL DE TRATADOS INDIOS

United Nations Commission on Human Rights 7th Ad Hoc Intersessional Working

Group on the Draft Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, January 28 –

February 8, 2002

Methodology of the Working Group:   Joint Statement by the International Indian Treaty Council, Movimiento de la Juventud Kuna, Asociacion Napguana, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, Enlace Continental de Mujeres Indigenas, and the Mashentucket Piquot Tribal Nation

Thank you Mr. Chairman.  The International Indian Treaty Council and its affiliated organizations participating in this session, Movimiento de la Juventud Kuna and Asociacion Napguana of Panama, Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations of Canada, Enlace Continental de Mujeres Indigenas based in Mexico, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council of Alaska, and the Mashentucket Piquot Tribal Nation in the United States express our respectful greetings to the state and Indigenous delegations present.  

We welcome the statements presented by other Indigenous delegations and states in this and past sessions of the Working Group calling for full implementation of the fundamental principle of equal participation by Indigenous Peoples in this process, which is so vital to the lives and survival of our Peoples around the world.  This full equality of participation is essential for the legitimacy of the Declaration which will eventually be approved by this process.

We also express our sincere appreciation for the intervention of the delegation of Mexico, supported by Denmark, on the first morning of this session supporting the adoption of the current text, and also expressing serious concerns about one aspect of the current methodology of this Working Group.  

We also share this grave concern, which we expressed in the previous session as well, about both the implications and results of the separate private sessions which have been organized by some states in order to draft alternative text.  These sessions have been carried out  without the participation of Indigenous Peoples' representatives,  and even without our prior knowledge in the case of the October 2001 meeting organized by the government of Canada which produced the so- called "non paper" with heavily bracketed revisions of articles 6 - 11. 

Mr. Chairman and state delegations, we strongly believe that this process undermines the trust and sprit of transparency which is a fundamental requirement for achieving true consensus on the Declaration.  It also violates the stated objective of strengthening of new relationships and new partnerships between states and Indigenous Peoples called for by the General Assembly Declaration for the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, as well as the intention of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 which calls for the participation of Indigenous Peoples in this process.

Our delegations strongly believe that the methodology which we have seen gathering momentum over the past two years, in which states are being encouraged to enter into closed sessions without the participation of Indigenous Peoples to draft new text, is contradictory and prohibitive to the spirit of partnership and consensus we have all professed.   In fact, it takes us further away from the possibility of a consensus which includes both state and Indigenous delegations.

The statement of the government delegation of Mexico on Monday demonstrated that Indigenous delegations are not alone in our opposition to this methodology and its serious implications regarding Indigenous Peoples' participation in this process.

The composite texts we have seen included in the annexes of the last two years' reports in spite of our opposition have been generated by states outside of the transparency and productive interchange of open general debates.   They are presented in the sessions and then inserted into the final reports without listing which specific states participated in these redrafting sessions, which contributed to different parts of the bracketed texts, and which are included in those who can accept the current text.   Indigenous delegates are thereby denied an opportunity to understand the specific objections or difficulties certain states have with the current text, or why they have proposed alternative language.  

We, as indigenous delegations are therefore denied the opportunity to engage in informed open discussions about these problems or concerns with states that have them, to respond with specific clarifications or explanations which might resolve these problems, or to build consensus for the adoption of the original articles.   Rather than focusing on discussions and debates which might help us in building consensus for approval of articles contained in the Subcommission text, which Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/32 stipulated as the focus of our deliberations in this Working Group, this methodology is moving us further and further away from this possibility.  Perhaps this is the intention of the states that are promoting and coordinating these exclusionary methods. 

The view of our delegation along with many of the other Indigenous Peoples' delegations in this regard was clearly expressed in paragraph 119 of the final report from the previous 6^th session of this Working Group, which met in November 2000:

" The Indigenous representatives reiterated their strong opposition to focusing discussion of specific articles on anything other than the original text of the Declaration, as approved by the Subcommission.  Indigenous representatives emphasized that the accepted procedure for this Working Group since its inception under Commission on Human Rights Resolution 95/32 has been to consider the original text as the basis for all work and discussions addressing the Declaration's underlying principles as well as the specific content of the articles… "       

Our objection was clearly stated and duly noted in this final report.   However, this process has not only continued, but it has reached a new level of activity with the October 2001 meeting.

This method, in which some states have met to redraft articles in private, without our input or any opportunity for transparent dialogue, is the opposite of consensus building.  It serves to marginalize the Indigenous delegations and apparently, some state delegations as well, in this process.  It violates the principles of transparency, open dialogue and full participation upon which the ultimate success of this process will necessarily be based.  

If dialogue in smaller groups is deemed desirable by this body, we suggest that regional discussion groups or discussion groups focussing on a certain article or groups of articles might be fruitful, if they include both state and Indigenous delegations as full participants.  

Mr. Chairman, we once again request your consideration for the implementation of methods of work such as these, which will keep state and Indigenous delegations together, encourage dialogue and transparency, and move us towards, rather than away from consensus. 

In closing, the IITC and our affiliates listed above wish to voice our support for the procedural proposal presented by Mexico regarding the election of five Vice Chairpersons for the Working Group representing the 5 UN regions to assist the Chairman and facilitate a process with greater transparency.  If the formation of a Bureau would also contribute to bringing about a new methodology for this working group that is transparent and non exclusionary, we would be inclined to support that proposal by Mexico as well.   Thank you.