Copyright © 2000 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Geneva-Day One

The meeting of the Intersessional Working Group on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples began late on Monday, as the proposed chair (Luis Chavez of Peru) held discussions with the Indigenous Caucus on the work of the body. The session convened, and Mr. Chavez was elected chair by the state representatives by acclamation. Chavez then announced that he would meet separately with state representatives to discuss the Indigenous Caucus demands. Items 3 and 31, concerning self-determination, were taken off the agenda at the request of the Indigenous Caucus.

Following several hours of discussions, Mr. Chavez met with the Indigenous representatives in mid-afternoon to propose two sessions to discuss procedure, the appointment of an indigenous co-chair, and the issues of self-determination and natural resources. There was a great deal of discussion within the Indigenous Caucus of "formal" versus "informal" proceedings and separate meetings of the Indigenous and state groups.

Following further discussions, the body convened, and Mr. Chavez announced the following work plan:

There will be two formal sessions on Tuesday, November 21, to discuss the process. Indigenous representatives will have the opportunity to air their concerns about the discussion process, and state representatives will have a chance to respond. Given that the proceedings will be "formal," all comments will be reflected in the report to the Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Chavez urged all to make brief comments, with "statements as substantive as possible," and said that an "interactive dialogue is preferred."

On Wednesday, November 22, there will be two sessions to discuss the substantive aspects of the draft declaration in Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 44, and 45 - in no particular order. The rest of the session will focus upon those articles.

The working group will finish at lunch time on November 30th, so that the following day can be dedicated to drafting the report and translating it.

Commentary: There is a buzz about proposed Canadian language to change Articles 3 and 31, relating to self-determination. A copy circulated to Indigenous delegates that "just fell off the truck," as the representative who leaked the document put it. The Canadian comments are several pages long, but in essence, while they seem to beef up the self-determination statments (changing "should" to "shall"), they would put self-determination in the context of domestic law. That is, domestic law will frame the peramters of the right. This is, of course, the U.S. position as well.

It appears that the Indigenous Caucus demands fell into the hands of the states. That is, the demands to the chair gave the states the opportunity to caucus separately, and we can assume that gave Canada the time to talk about its proposals with Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and others. On the floor, the U.S. delegation could be seen chatting with the folks from Australia.

There was a lot of confusion within the Indigenous Caucus. After the proposals drafted on Sunday and delivered early Monday morning were given to the chair and he responded favorably, there were protests about what was really wanted. There was a great deal of confusion about the difference between "formal" and "informal" discussions. Wilton Littlechild pointed out that "formal" means voting on a specific proposal where consensus had been reached, but the chair seems to see "formal" as meaning on-the-record discussions where both Indigenous and state comments are put into the final report.

The agenda shows that there is an assumption the working group will go on next year (and on, and on, and on...), and the Indigenous Caucus still needs to address how to conclude the discussion. While the chair urges that the work be done, there is no discussion of finality.

A deputy high commissioner for human rights opened the session and urged the states to be open about their positions and to discuss them with the Indigenous groups, but he have yet to see whether states will be open and forthcoming on their positions. The big question is whether the U.S. will initiate discussions, telling people what its position will be, or whether it will play a shell game and stonewall, as in the past.