News
Bob Scott
For many years Indigenous representatives dreamed of having their own official place within the United Nations (UN) system, a place where governments would respect their aspirations and discuss solutions to problems on equal terms. The dream moved another step towards reality when the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights proposed consideration of a "permanent forum" within the UN for consideration of Indigenous matters.
The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has finally come to pass. In May 2002 the first meeting took place at the UN headquarters in New York. It consists of 16 people, half nominated by Indigenous people and the others, some of them also from Indigenous communities, by governments. But the joy of Indigenous representatives at its establishment has been tempered by frustrations at the lack of clarity on how to carry out its mandate and the scarce resources for its work.
Now there is a crisis. Bishop Eugenio Poma, coordinator of the World Council of Churches (WCC) Indigenous Peoples' programme, says, "I think we have reached a critical point for how seriously Indigenous matters are viewed within the United Nations. Some governments, pointing to the UN's cash crisis, have insisted the Permanent Forum should replace the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), the other forum within the UN where Indigenous voices have been heard for well over 20 years," he said.
The WGIP meets annually, both to review developments in Indigenous communities and to propose new standards, or regulations to improve the situation for Indigenous Peoples, for governments to adopt. The most important 'standards-setting' exercise by far has been the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the draft of which has been debated and reviewed for over 15 years and is still not adopted. So far only two of the 45 clauses have been agreed by consensus and there is a long way to go. Indigenous representatives believe the text represents the 'minimum standards' for their survival as Indigenous People so there should be no more amendments. But governments continue with their arguments over words and phrases. One major sticking point is the understanding of 'self-determination', mentioned in two of the clauses.
Now governments are pointing to the WGIP as a body that does not fulfil its standards-setting mandate. They see no need for it now that there is a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Affairs.
Here lies the dispute. The WGIP progress might have been slow but at least standards-setting is in its mandate. The Permanent Forum is expected to provide only advice and recommendations on Indigenous issues and to "raise awareness and promote the integration and coordination of activities relating to the Indigenous issues within the UN system".
The WGIP also reviews "developments pertaining to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for Indigenous Peoples". It has become a place in which the history and struggles of Indigenous Peoples are recounted. Each year literally hundreds of statements are made - harrowing accounts of murder, statements on dispossession of traditional lands, suppression of language and culture, and on genocide. The Permanent Forum is required merely to "prepare and disseminate information on Indigenous issues".
"Recently Indigenous Peoples have recognized the value of the WGIP", says Poma. "It is needed to develop other standards, such as dealing with intellectual property issues, relationships with transnational corporations and matters of education and social development. The Permanent Forum is needed to monitor the observance of standards."
Some Indigenous observers have long warned that certain governments were laying a trap to get rid of the WGIP. If they are right, it appears the trap has now been sprung. Governments speak of 'duplication' and 'lack of resources'. Indigenous representatives speak of the complementary nature of the two bodies, precisely because they have different mandates.
Mililani Trask, an Indigenous member of the Permanent Forum from Hawai'i, says, "Critical issues for discussion by the Permanent Forum need to be formulated by the WGIP." She is most angry about the present situation. "I think there has been a deliberate effort to frustrate the process of the Permanent Forum, for geo-political reasons," she says. "Many states just do not want the draft declaration and frankly do not want to see any more standards-setting exercises."
"We are disappointed that some governments have set the WGIP against the Permanent Forum" says Kenneth Deer of the Mohawk Nation who has held leadership positions in Indigenous meetings at the UN. "It is ludicrous. Their mandates are different. The WGIP can be proactive in developing new standards; the Permanent Forum cannot," he says.
But some governments, particularly the CANZUS group (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA), remain adamant that the WGIP must go. In response, Indigenous representatives point out that they agreed on the text of the draft declaration years ago and it was governments who slowed the process with their objections and compromises. "They are the ones at fault if no new standards have been adopted. They are the ones who have frustrated the mandate of the WGIP and now, because it suits their purpose, they want to get rid of it and replace it with another body that has no chance to set standards, merely to hear reports," said Deer.
One Indigenous leader from the USA went further, "There is a movement by states to suffocate or stifle the progress we have made in the last ten years. We are now allocated less resources by governments - but not because they have less money. Since September 11 the money is being used to go to war."
Poma is clear about where the WCC stands in the current debate about the two forums. "The WCC has always felt it was important to support Indigenous initiatives. When the Permanent Forum was first proposed we made statements in support. But we also know how important it is to maintain the WGIP. The Permanent Forum is within the system; the WGIP hears the voices from the grassroots. We have to empower both sides," he said.
____________
Bob Scott is a communication officer in the WCC Public Information Team.
For the text of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples see:
www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/31dbf0b76b02b9db8025672b005df92d
For the report of the first meeting of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues see: