FW: UN Newspeak and Double-think:Indigenous Peoples

["Craven, Jim" <jcraven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James Craven
Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, WA. 98663
(360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
blkfoot5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~blkfoot5
*My Employer Has No Association With My Private/Protected
Opinion*



-----Original Message-----
From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 7:42 AM
To: 'INTINDIGENOUS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: UN Newspeak and Double-think:Indigenous Peoples
Importance: High




Dear Indigenous Friends:
        I had the opportunity to read this late last night at home and
wanted to respond first thing in the morning because of the time difference.
This position taken by the UN is truly Orwellian newspeak and double-think:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
We all love Big Brother
And Reagan was President in 1984

In order to promote "transparency" the United Nations will sponsor secret
meetings among the Nation States where they can better plot how to rob
Indigenous Peoples of your rights recognized by both customary and
conventional international law that have been enshrined in the Draft
Declaration. Let me tell you a few things about the United Nations,
especially there at Geneva.
        During the summer of 1993, I was the Lawyer for the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and also its Ambassador to the World Court. In those
capacities i attended the Owen-Stoltenberg Negotiations in Geneva convened
on invitation of the United Nations and the European Union and held at UN
Headquarters, the Palais des Nations, where you are now located. The entire
purpose of those negotiations as designed by the United Nations was to
carve-up the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina--a UN Member State--in three
little pieces, destroy Bosnia's Statehood, rob Bosnia's UN Membership, and
subject 1.5 to 2 million more Bosnians to ethnic cleansing, which I had
already convinced the World Court was a form of genocide. And all this took
place at UN Headquarters in Geneva under the direct supervision and
invitation of the United Nations--robbing a UN Member State of its UN
Membership. While at UN Headquarters in Geneva I was also threatened by the
United Nations Lawyer working for Owen-Stoltenberg. Of course I refused to
cave in to their illegal and gross threats. And i personally disrupted and
stopped the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan for genocide against the Bosnians and
their Republic.
        But the point of the story is this: If the United Nations was
prepared to do this to a UN Member State, what do you think they are going
to do to the Indigenous Peoples of the World? Do you think they will treat
you any better? After the UN Member States have mistreated you for hundreds
of years?
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law



-----Original Message-----
From: John Stevens [mailto:stormrhymer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 7:13 AM
To: warriornet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:


Hello all.  Here is a summary of the first day's events at the Draft
Declaration Working Group, with more to follow soon.  The issues outlined in

this summary continue to stymie the process.

We will be sending out statements at the request of particpants as they are
given out later in the week.

Cheers,

John Stevens
Academic Council of the UN System

NETWARRIORS REPORT:
Commission on Human Rights Intersessional Working Group on the Draft
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
DAY 1 - 18/10/99
(Please note that this is not a professional or comprehensive transcript,
but rather a summary of main points and event of the day in official
sessions.  Any questions, comments, or corrections should be directed to
John Stevens of Academic Council of the United Nations System/Netwarriors)



MORNING SESSION:

The first morning session was very brief.  The meeting was opened by Mr.
Bertie Ramcharan, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, who
admonished the participants several times to "speed up the process" of
adopting the Draft Declaration.  Mr. Ramcharan characterized the history of
indigenous peoples at the UN as one of increasing participation, and sees
this as one of the "most important" developments in the promotion and
protection of human rights.  He hoped that the spirit of CHR Resolution
1995/32 would stimulate the participants into working towards the swift
passing of the Draft Declaration.

Mr. Ramcharan then gave the floor to GUATEMALA, and on behalf of the Latin
American countries the representative of Guatemala nominated Mr. Luis Chavez

of Peru to be the Chair of the Working Group, citing his extensive education

and experience as a diplomat.  Mr. Chavez was rapidly elected by acclamation

and he took the podium to make a brief statement.   He began by assuring Mr.

Ramcharan that the Working Group would indeed "push ahead with this process"

and that he as chair was committed to that necessity.  He then outlined his
feelings about the Working Group.  He assured the Working Group that he
would continue in Mr. Jose Urrutia's tradition of "transparency and
dialogue" and that he would utilize the substantial "capital in working
method and confidence" that was Mr. Urrutia's legacy.  To that end, he
stated that he would create a workplan for the session after consultations
with the government representatives, taking into account the proposal given
to him on Sunday by the Indigenous Caucus for elements that should be
included in the workplan.  With that, the meeting was adjourned until
4:30PM, when Mr. Chavez would present his workplan to the indigenous peoples

and consult with them on the work of the session.

AFTERNOON SESSION:

The meeting was convened shortly after 4:30 PM with the Chair of the Working

Group and indigenous representatives. Mr. Chavez presented to them his
workplan and then outlined its progress broadly.  The workplan had set aside

two days for general debate, then the Working Group would begin on Articles
15-18.  In the second week attention would ostensibly be focused on Articles

1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 44, and 45, with the last two days of the Working Group
reserved for writing and approving the report.  The general debate would
include not just general statements, but also a discussion of
self-determination and land rights & natural resources, which has been
requested by the Indigenous Caucus.  Mr. Chavez envisioned a discussion that

was "more concrete than we have had up until now" with a view towards
getting some or all of Articles 15-18 approved.  The Articles could be
addressed in any order, depending on the will of the participants.

There was, however, one additional element that elicited intense opposition
from the indigenous representatives.  Built into the workplan was a daily
session for "informal consultation" where the Chair of the Working Group
would meet with states in a session which would be summarized later for
presentation to the entire Working Group.  The rationale for this was that
in such a session state representatives could freely express their views and

work towards overcoming differences.  Mr. Chavez believed that such a
procedure would increase the possibility of progress on getting articles
passed at this session.  He stated that other possibilities had been
explored, but that most state representatives did not have the time or
resources to meet outside of the session.  He hoped that the indigenous
delegates would support this workplan.

The indigenous delegates immediately engaged Mr. Chavez on this issue and a
number of them declared that they did not support this proposal.  There was
a wide range of responses, but the consensus was that the plan was
unacceptable, primarily because of the presence of these "informal
consultations" in the workplan.  Several delegates pointed out that such
sessions were generally little more than drafting sessions to change the
wording of articles, and that similar sorts of meetings last year had
resulted in an annex to the report of the Working Group that contained
proposals from governments on concrete changes to the wording of the
Declaration.  Representatives from the International Indian Treaty Council
also voiced opposition to allotting work time from the session to a
consultation that would only include states and not all participants.
Several other delegates agreed that indigenous peoples had worked too hard
on getting access and a voice in the proceedings to allow this to be done.
The IITC representative stated that indigenous peoples should be present at
all meetings of the session, whether formal or informal.  A Kuna
representative stated that it seemed that governments were trying to
institutionalize informal meetings as a way to avoid having their views
appear on the record.  He called for open and bilateral meetings for the
session and urged the rewriting of the workplan accordingly.

A few indigenous representatives who had not been present over the weekend
also called for a reorientation of the general debate, but Mr. Chavez
reminded those present that the Indigenous Caucus ha asked for such a
debate.  He went to try to combat the charges laid against the idea of
informal consultations.  He felt that by incorporating these consultations
into the structure of the meeting, indigenous peoples could be made aware of

the proceedings and thus be better informed about the perspectives of state
representatives.  He claimed that this was not the first time governments
had been encouraged to meet amongst themselves, and that he believed that
some government representatives still had difficulty expressing themselves
freely in plenary.  He felt that these consultations could stimulate
dialogue between states and help overcome differences between the
governments.  He said that this would not be a drafting process, but an
alternate and complementary process.  He then darkly hinted that states
could certainly meet outside the session without telling indigenous peoples
anything, and that it would be better to keep their deliberations inside the

process.

The representative of the Saami Council pointed out in response that this
workplan would allot 1.5 days of work time solely to these consultations,
and that indigenous peoples want to witness these debates, not hear about
them, so that they could obtain a stronger impression of government
perspectives and ideas.  States certainly had the right to meet anywhere and

anytime they pleased, but such meetings should not be incorporated into the
session itself.  As Kenneth Deer, the co-chair of the Indigenous Caucus, put

it: "It's our time, too."  He felt that giving the states this much time was

unfair to the indigenous representatives.

Mr. Chavez responded that he would make every effort to give the indigenous
delegates the resources and space to conduct their own meetings if fairness
was a concern.  But he continued to insist that as Chair it was his "duty"
to try new methods of obtaining "consensus" and that he felt this method
would yield fruitful results.  He felt that it was only a small portion of
the work time and that it could be very useful in allowing states to share
ideas.  He felt that the indigenous peoples should not start from an
assumption of bad faith, but rather trust that the Chair was working in the
best interests as well.

Several indigenous delegates from Latin America re-emphasized their
opposition to the informal meetings, especially those linked to the general
debate.  Why, one delegate asked, do governments need such a consultation
during the general debate?  Others questioned just how transparent the
reports to the Working Group would be, and urged the Chair to allow
indigenous peoples to observe the proceedings at the very least.  They
emphasized that they wanted to make sure that the general debate not rehash
old issues, but break new ground.  They also hoped that states would give
their actual positions on issues and talk concretely about their ideas.  It
was felt that if indigenous peoples could observe their informal
deliberations it would help the indigenous delegates to understand their
positions.

The Chair closed the debate by reiterating his main points: that he felt his

idea was the best way to promote transparency and dialogue, and that this
method of work might yield genuine progress.  He felt that the indigenous
representatives should give this process a chance and see how it worked.
There was still some distance to go to achieve real consensus rather than a
large majority, he stated, and felt that states should be given a chance to
reconcile their viewpoints.  This method, he reiterated strongly, would
yield positive progress on the work.

Kenneth Deer ended the session by informing the Chair of another indigenous
proposal to hold consultations between indigenous and state representatives
during lunch or in the early morning, focussed on self-determination as the
key concept that needed to be discussed.  Given what had just transpired,
Mr. Deer informed Mr. Chavez that the Caucus would meet and get back to him
about the workplan in the morning.

The meeting rose shortly after 6PM.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com