Issued by the Indigenous Peoples' Caucus – General Assembly
61st session United Nations, New York
12 November 2006
1. Declaration
based on core international principles and values. The Declaration is based on
core international principles and values that embrace tolerance, peace and respect
for the dignity of all cultures and peoples. In particular, the Declaration is
described as a "standard of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of partnership
and mutual respect".
2. Human rights of all must be respected. Human
rights are generally relative in nature and not absolute. Consistent with the
U.N. Charter, the Declaration specifically requires that the "human rights
and freedoms of all shall be respected".
3. Provisions must be read
in overall context. Each provision of the Declaration cannot be read in isolation,
but rather interpreted in the context of the instrument as a whole. To do otherwise,
would lead to extremist and absolute interpretations that could not be justified
under the Declaration or international human rights law as a whole. Regretfully,
the CANZUS group – Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United States –
continues to interpret the Declaration in this fragmented and erroneous manner.
4.
No new rights created. The Declaration does not create new rights. It elaborates
upon existing international human rights standards as they apply to Indigenous
peoples.
5. Rule of law and other core international principles always considered.
Every provision of the Declaration must be "interpreted in accordance with
the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination,
good governance and good faith." This allows for both flexibility and balance.
The reference to "good governance" ensures that the rule of law within
States is fully considered in every instance without exception. As an aspirational
instrument, the Declaration does not upend the rule of law domestically or internationally.
6.
Broader agreement not possible. As the Chair of the intersessional Working Group
on the Declaration has concluded, along with many States, additional time will
not lead to any broader agreement. This is in large part because of the obstructionist
role repeatedly played by United States, Australia and New Zealand during the
Working Group.
7. Re-opening negotiations likely to kill the Declaration.
Re-opening negotiations on the Declaration is certain to create serious new divisions
and prevent its adoption by the General Assembly. Such an extreme step would be
unconscionable.
8. Harmonious and cooperative relations encouraged. The
Declaration explicitly encourages "harmonious and cooperative relations"
between States and Indigenous peoples. Nine preambular paragraphs and 15 operative
articles specify consultations, cooperation or partnership between Indigenous
peoples and States.
9. Over 20 years of discussion. There have already been
more than 20 years of discussions on the Declaration among States and Indigenous
peoples in U.N. Working groups. This makes the Declaration one of the most discussed
and studied declarations in U.N. history. All revisions by the Chair were based
on prior discussions.
10. Any "procedural" resolution for delay
would be highly detrimental. It is shocking and disturbing that there could be
an amendment or resolution to re-open negotiations on the Declaration. Such a
proposal is not procedural since it could destroy the Declaration.
11. Misleading
strategy already attempted at Human Rights Council. Last June, Canada tried and
failed with a similar strategy at the first meeting of the Council. In its Statement
on June 27, 2006, Canada quoted its Minister of Indian Affairs as saying issues
could be resolved by all parties "in a few more months". This claim
was knowingly false and misleading. Just the day before, Canada's Prime Minister
Stephen Harper indicated in writing the need for a "two-year negotiation
mandate".
12. CANZUS group of States politicizing rights in the Declaration.
Based on their own domestic agendas, a few Western States are actively encouraging
other States to delay the adoption of the Declaration under the guise of seeking
"improvements". In so doing, the CANZUS group is continuing to politicize
Indigenous peoples' human rights. Such actions severely undermine the Council
and current U.N. reforms.
13. For the past 8 months CANZUS group has avoided
all consultations with Indigenous peoples. The CANZUS group already had the past
eight months to consult with Indigenous peoples within their own respective countries
on any State concerns with the Declaration. Yet none of these States engaged in
any consultations with Indigenous peoples. None of these States genuinely seek
to "improve" the Declaration.
14. Canada violating its constitutional
and international obligations. Despite its constitutional obligations to consult
Indigenous peoples, Canada has opted to vigorously and unilaterally oppose the
Declaration through procedural and other strategies during the past eight months.
As a Human Rights Council member, Canada is failing to "uphold the highest
standards in the promotion and protection of human rights … [and] fully cooperate
with the Council", as required by the General Assembly.
15. Essential
for survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples. The Declaration promotes
equality and non-discrimination for all. The Declaration is essential for the
survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world.
16.
Strengthens international human rights system. Adoption of the Declaration by
the General Assembly supports the vital work of the Human Rights Council and strengthens
the international human rights system as a whole.
