A JOINT PUBLICATION OF CULTURAL SURVIVAL AND ......1923 – Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh travels to...

Promoting the rights, voices, and visions of indigenous peoples

V o i c e sMarch 2007 Volume 5, Issue 2

A Brief History SpotlightIndigenous VoicesUN Declaration

on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples

Views of the Declaration

This issue ofCultural SurvivalVoices focuses onthe UN Declarationon the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.

Thar desert Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, India.

ll countries are ready to recognize thatindividual indigenous persons haverights. Those rights are the same asthe rights of all human beings, andare now well secured by international

human rights law and by the laws of many coun-tries. The problems arise when indigenous peo-ples claim rights as “peoples.” As indigenous ad-vocates frequently point out, the whole debate isover the letter “s.”

WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS THAT INDIGENOUSPEOPLES SEEK?

First, they want to be recognized for who theyare: distinct groups with their own unique cul-tures. Indigenous peoples want to enjoy and passon to their children their histories, languages, tra-ditions, modes of internal governance, spiritualpractices, and all else that makes them who theyare. They want to be able to pray on their ances-tral lands without finding that those lands havebeen dug up to construct a gold mine, fenced offto create a safari park, or watered with sewage ef-fluent pumped from a nearby city.

Second, they want the governments of thecountries in which they live to respect their abil-ity to determine for themselves their own des-tinies. For indigenous peoples, “self-determina-tion” has a different meaning than it did forcolonial-dominated nations in the mid-20th cen-tury. Self-determination relates to autonomy, notthe right to secede from the state. It means theright to freely determine their political status andfreely pursue their economic, social, and culturaldevelopment inside the country in which theylive. They want to govern themselves in mattersrelating to their internal and local affairs, and toretain their distinct political, legal, economic, so-cial, and cultural institutions. They want to edu-cate their children in their own languages, andabout their own traditions; to worship in their

own ways; to establish media in their languages;to retain their traditional modes of resolving in-ternal disputes; and to fully participate in anyoutside decision-making that could have an im-pact on their lives. At the same time, recognizingtheir interdependence with the country in whichthey live, they want to be able to participate inthe political and economic life of that country, ifthey so choose.

Third, indigenous peoples want to enjoy thesame rights as all other people without discrimi-nation of any kind. They want to be regarded byeveryone as full and equal human beings. Theywant to be protected from genocide, arbitrary ex-ecution, torture, forced relocation, or assimila-tion, and they want to enjoy their rights to free-dom of expression, association, and religion.They want to be treated equally with respect toopportunities for education, health care, work,and other basic needs.

But because they are different, indigenous peo-ples want to be part of the decision-makingprocess when it comes to the forms of their edu-cation, health care, economic development, andother services. They often talk about this in termsof the right to give their “free, prior, and in-formed consent” to state policies or practices thataffect them, to ensure that those policies arecompatible with their cultures and are not im-posed upon them.

Fourth, indigenous peoples want to enjoy theirrights to the lands, territories, and resources thatthey have traditionally owned, occupied, or oth-erwise used. Where such rights conflict with theneeds of the state or other peoples, they want toparticipate as equals in an impartial and trans-parent process for resolving the conflict in a fairand respectful way. If the resolution is that in-digenous peoples must move, they want equi-table reparation, preferably in the form of lands

RECOGNIZING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTSBy Ellen L. Lutz

A

The world’s indigenous peoples have a serious humanrights problem: The nations of the world refuse torecognize that indigenous peoples have human rights.

continued on page 3

A JOINT PUBLICATION OF CULTURAL SURVIVAL AND THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ CAUCUS

DIV

YE

SH

C. S

EJP

AL W

WW

.FLICK

R.C

OM

/PH

OTO

S/D

CS

EJP

AL

Voices Declaration.qxd 3/12/2007 4:39 PM Page 1

Cultural Survival

Cultural Survival promotes therights, voices, and visions ofindigenous peoples. CulturalSurvival has two main goals:

(1) To increase global understandingof indigenous peoples’ rights,cultures, and concerns;

(2) To empower indigenous peoplesto be better self-advocates, andto partner with them toadvocate for their human rights.

Cultural survival partners withindigenous peoples to enable themto:

- secure their rights in internationaland national law; - promote respect for their right toself-determination; - ensure their right to full andeffective participation in thepolitical, economic, and social life ofthe country in which they live; and - enjoy their rights to their lands,resources, languages, and cultures.

Cultural Survival215 Prospect Street Cambridge, MA 02139 USATEL: (617) 441-5400 Fax: (617) 441-5417 Email: [email protected]

The Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus

The Indigenous Peoples Caucus ismade up of delegations fromindigenous peoples from all sevenregions of the world. They representindigenous interests in the UnitedNations General Assembly and theywere key participants in the WorkingGroup on the Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples.

www.ipcaucus.net

March 2007 · www.cs.org

THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES02

1923 – Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh travels to the Leagueof Nations to defend the rights of his people to live undertheir own laws, on their own land and under their own faith.He was not allowed to speak, but his vision nourishes thegenerations that follow.

1982 – The United Nations Economic and Social Council’sSub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of HumanRights establishes a Working Group on IndigenousPopulations to report on the human rights and fundamentalfreedoms of indigenous peoples.

1985–1993 – As part of their work, members of the WorkingGroup, with the full participation of indigenous peoples,draft a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

1993 – The Working Group adopts the Declaration and sendsit to the Sub-Commission, which in turn approves it andsends it to the Commission on Human Rights.

March 3, 1995 – The General Assembly declares theInternational Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1993-2004). Soon after the Commission on Human Rightsestablishes its own Working Group to elaborate the draftDeclaration.

1995––2004 – The new Working Group, with the regular inputof indigenous peoples and NGOs, meets annually, but fails toreach consensus by the end of the Decade.

April 20, 2005 - The Commission on Human Rights adoptsresolutions to continue the work of both the Working Groupon Indigenous Populations (WGIP) and the Working Groupon the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous.

February 2006 – Luis-Enrique Chavez of Peru, Chairman ofthe Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, writes compromise wording for thehandful of articles still under debate and submits his text ofthe Declaration to the Human Rights Commission.

June 29, 2006 – At its inaugural session, the Human RightsCouncil (which replaced the Commission on Human Rights)adopts the Declaration, by a vote of 30 in favor, 2 against,and 12 abstentions.

November 28, 2006 – The Declaration goes to the ThirdCommittee of the General Assembly, but Namibia putsforward a proposal on behalf of the Group of African States todelay the vote. The committee adopts that proposal by a voteof 82 in favor, 67 against, and 25 abstentions. Action on theDeclaration is deferred until the end of the GeneralAssembly’s session in September 2007.

December 2006 – The UN General Assembly adopts the ThirdCommittee’s proposal to postpone a vote on the Declaration.

A Brief History of theDeclaration

Solola, Guatemala

AG

NE

S P

OR

TALE

WS

KA


March 2007 ·www.ipcaucus.net

Spotlight 03Cultural Survival Voices

RECOGNIZING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS C O N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 1

of equal quality and value.Fifth, indigenous peoples want to be left alone. They want the armed conflicts that

embroil the states in which they live to take place somewhere other than on theirlands. All too frequently, indigenous lands become favored battle zones becausefighting forces see them as “vacant” or regard the resources they contain as being upfor grabs. In such circumstances, indigenous leaders become military targets. Com-batants hope that, with their leaders gone, indigenous residents will flee and leavethem the territorial spoils.

Similarly, indigenous peoples want the loggers, miners, environmentalists, and de-velopment policy planners to acknowledge that they own or have rights to theirlands and resources, and that they have the right to make free and informed deci-sions about what happens to their lands.

Indigenous peoples recognize that any act of conferring rights necessarily impos-es obligations on the rights-holders. In addition to recognizing that they are part ofthe sovereign states in which they live, they also recognize that the full body of in-ternational human rights standards applies to them. Just as states must yield a de-gree of sovereignty in order to live under a global system that requires respect forhuman rights, so too must indigenous peoples. What they seek is to be officially rec-ognized within that global regime, and to have their rights explicitly stated.

In identifying themselves as indigenous peoples, they do not mean to undermine

the rights of anyone else, nor do they mean to undermine the global state system.In Africa, governments say “we are all indigenous,” by which they mean “we wereall here before European colonists invaded.” The fact that all Africans are “indige-nous” to Africa does not alter the fact that throughout the continent there are ahandful of small ethnic groups with distinctive worldviews, socio-economic prac-tices, and political marginality, who desire to retain their traditional ways as global-ization washes over the continent. Similarly, throughout Asia there are many groupsthat are small in number, live in remote places, tend not to have access to educa-tional resources, are marginal to the national economy, and have a long history ofbeing politically marginalized.

These groups share with their indigenous brethren in the Americas, Australia, theArctic, and the Pacific the experience of being marginalized, manipulated, andabused by colonial powers and their successors. As they always have, they look in-wards to maintain their identities and their dignity. But for the past quarter centu-ry, they have looked outward as well. They have turned to one another—includingto neighboring groups with whom they have had historic enmity—for support asthey endeavor to persuade the countries of the world to recognize that they haverights. Through the United Nations they also have turned to states, appealing to

them to formally issue a declaration that encompasses their rights.A declaration is a simple, nonbinding description of rights, with no formal en-

forcement mechanism attached. But 26 years into the process, a United Nations De-claration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is still in limbo. No other group ofhuman beings—women, children, refugees, workers, disabled peoples, victims of dis-appearance, or any other category—has waited so long.

Indigenous peoples will tell you that they are used to being patient. “After all,” saythose in the Americas, “we’ve been waiting 500 years. We can wait a little longer.”That may be true, but it is nontheless in states’ own interest not to keep them wait-ing any longer. Indigenous peoples are increasingly organized, well-educated, em-powered, and united. It is incumbent on all states to ensure that their considerableenergies are harnessed for the good of their peoples, and for humanity. No good cancome from states’ continued refusal to recognize that they—like all people on thisplanet—possess human rights.

WHERE DO THINGS NOW STAND AT THE UNITED NATIONS WITH RESPECT TOTHE DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES?

After being adopted by the UN Human Rights Council at its historic first sessionin June 2006, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was forwarded tothe UN General Assembly, where it was taken up by that body’s Third Committee,which considers social, humanitarian, and cultural matters. On a motion fromNamibia, backed by the entire bloc of African states, the Third Committee recom-mended that the General Assembly withhold action until the end of its current ses-sion (September 2007) to give delegations more time to consult with their govern-ments before voting. This recommendation was adopted by the General AssemblyPlenary in December. Meanwhile, at the January 2007 session of the Organization ofAfrican Unity, African states decided to continue to act by consensus and as a blocwith respect to this document. Thus, if any states in Africa continue to have diffi-culty with the text, all the African states will oppose it.

African states’ concerns relate to the definition of “indigenous peoples,” the con-cept of self-determination, ownership of land and resources, establishment of dis-tinct political and economic institutions, and national and territorial integrity.

Aboriginal man on Circular Quay,Sydney, Australia.

MATT

HIN

CK

LEY

All too frequently, indigenous landsbecome favored battle zones

because fighting forces see them as“vacant,” or they regard the land’sresources as being up for grabs.


March 2007 · www.cs.org04 Cultural Survival Voices

Their concerns about the establishment of distinct political and economic insti-tutions undoubtedly arise because African countries are made up of many differentethnic groups that regularly compete for power. In some countries, such as Rwan-da, ethnic identity has been manipulated by power-mongers to horrific ends. It isnot surprising that those governments would want to exercise extreme care beforerecognizing distinct ethnically based political or economic institutions. But as Cul-tural Survival pointed out in a previous issue of this magazine, Rwanda’s only in-digenous group, the Batwa, represents a tiny minority of the population who havenever held any form of political power. They were victimized by both sides duringthe genocide and continue to live under the most unimaginably impoverished andmarginal circumstances. To allow them to form a civil-society organization to pro-tect their rights threatens no one but those who would seek to impose power blind-ly rather than through transparent democratic processes.

DEFINING INDIGENOUS PEOPLESThe biggest stumbling blocks for African nations involve the questions of the

definition of indigenous peoples, and ownership of land and resources.No definition of “indigenous peoples” appears in the Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples, just as no definition appears in the mandate for the Perma-nent Forum on Indigenous Issues or any of the other Unit-ed Nations bodies or specialprocedures that relate to in-digenous peoples. This is de-liberate. It has proved impossi-ble to achieve a precisedefinition that takes in all thevarious types of peoples who self-identify as indigenous and are accepted by otherindigenous peoples. All the wordings put forward to date have been either over-in-clusive or under-inclusive. Neither is helpful. Among indigenous peoples, inter-governmental organizations, and most states, consensus has emerged that it is bet-ter not to define “indigenous peoples” and to focus instead on defining andprotecting their rights.

As Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation on HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, wrote in his 2001 UN re-port,

There is no internationally agreed upon definition of indigenous peoples. Differentstates adopt different definitions in terms of their particular contexts andcircumstances. The term “indigenous” is frequently used interchangeably withother terms, such as “aboriginal,” “native,” “original,” “first nations,” or else“tribal” or some similar concepts. In some states, local terms might be commonlyused that are not easily translatable. In other countries, no formal designation existseven though there might be general agreement that such populations do in factinhabit certain areas of the country. And in still other countries, the existence theirdefinition becomes even more problematic, yet the absence of an internationaldefinition should not prevent constructive action in the promotion and protectionof the human rights of indigenous peoples.

In international law, deciding to forego a definition is not new. Past experiencehas taught that definitions can sometimes undermine effective action to protecthuman rights in our diverse and rapidly changing world. In the late 1970s andearly 1980s there was much debate about whether the horrific suffering that wastaking place in Cambodia constituted genocide, since the victims did not seem tofit within any of the categories in the Convention on the Prevention and Punish-ment of Genocide. The definition of “refugee” in the Convention and Protocol Re-lating to the Status of Refugees has created similar problems for meeting the needsof displaced people who have fled from violence or persecution but have notcrossed an international border.

When the United Nations adopted the Convention Against Torture and OtherCruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, it did so with a precisedefinition of torture, but no definition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatmentor punishment (CID). But both types of acts are clearly prohibited. The problemwas that consensus on the definition of torture could be reached, whereas statesand human rights advocates felt it was better to leave it to regional or national are-nas to negotiate the precise scope of CID. An act that constituted CID in WesternEurope might be acceptable in a country with legal system based on Shar’ia law, orin the United States, where the constitution already had a more restrictive notionof “cruel and unusual punishment”—one that the government was not preparedto expand.

Both definitional over-inclusiveness and under-conclusiveness pose risks for aworkable Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Too narrow a definitioncould leave vulnerable indigenous groups—particularly in those regions of theworld where fair and efficient legal systems are still emerging from the havoc ofcolonialism—without even the most modest international recourse. Too wide adefinition could flood international indigenous rights machinery with claims bylarge minority groups who have resources and political clout that indigenous peo-ples lack.

Despite the lack of a definition, there is consensus around the general indicatorsof who is indigenous. The International Labor Organization, the World Bank, andvarious intergovernmental bodies have offered functional definitions that describethe characteristics of these peoples. They all include such features as self-identifi-

cation as a distinct ethnicgroup; experience of or vulner-ability to severe disruption,dislocation, or exploitation;long connection with a partic-ular territory; and the wish toretain a distinct cultural iden-tity.

But the precise combinationof factors will necessarily vary from country to country and from group to group.In some cases, whether or not a group is indigenous will have to be negotiated, oreven adjudicated. What factors are relevant also may depend on what rights al-legedly are being violated. What is critical, and still missing, is official internation-al acknowledgement that all indigenous peoples are entitled to all of the humanrights established under international law, and that small, marginalized groupswho suffer abuses directed at their group as a whole have rights that correspond totheir status as a group and not merely as individuals.

Given these definitional circumstances, and Africa’s longstanding insistence thatall Africans are “indigenous,” some African states might choose to define “indige-

A young mother and her child from the hill tribes of Thailand.PHOTO BY STEVE EVANS - WWW.BABASTEVE.COM

RECOGNIZING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS

Spotlight

It is better not to define “indigenous peoples”and to focus instead on defining and protecting

indigenous rights.


March 2007 · www.ipcaucus.net

05Cultural Survival Voices

nous peoples” in a way that excludes small minority eth-nic groups with radically different cultures—the very peo-ples we would identify as indigenous. Doing so wouldhave a snowball affect, with some Asian countries similar-ly wanting to define away their duty to respect the rightsof their distinct, small-numbered vulnerable populationsin the same way. Not only would this divide the globeinto regions with and without indigenous peoples, itwould instantly divide the indigenous peoples’ move-ment, which is made up of indigenous peoples from allparts of the world.

INDIGENOUS LANDS AND RESOURCESThe other stumbling block, indigenous lands and re-

sources, is one that all regions of the world face equally. Itis hard for states to accept the notion that small popula-tions that do not fit easily into the national body politicand are culturally and linguistically hard to communicatewith might have the right to control territories or re-sources that states could use to address the needs of themajority of their citizens. In many countries the problemhits a sore nerve, since indigenous peoples possess thoselands or resources because of past forced relocation orother abuses.

The easiest and most common solution is for states touse their legal powers to quash indigenous peoples’ rightsto their lands and resources. Without question, the Dec-laration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would makethis more difficult to do. Even if indigenous peoples’rights were annulled at the national level, they would stillhave recourse to the court of international public opinionand perhaps even to international juridical bodies.

Fortunately, the Declaration provides states with ameans to balance multiple interests without violating in-digenous peoples’ rights. It insists that states consult with indigenous peoples to ob-tain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affectingtheir lands or resources. And it requires that states provide effective mechanisms forredress should indigenous peoples suffer adverse impact from such projects.

This can be to the state’s own benefit. When states negotiate in good faith withindigenous communities they may discover that the community itself can identifysolutions that could lead to positive outcomes for all. For example, many indige-nous groups use some locations within their territories only occasionally for cere-monial purposes. If a state were willing to guarantee that these would remain undis-turbed, the community might agree to yield access to other lands or resources forthe common good. In the case of large-scale economic development projects ormines, it might be the case that a local indigenous community cares more about ac-cess to jobs than it does about maintaining all of its territory for traditional uses.Thus, in exchange for a guarantee of jobs, the community might be willing to yieldterritory. In other cases, an indigenous group might believe that its true territorylies somewhere other than where it now lives, and would be willing to exchangeone territory for another.

But the state will never know this if it does not make the effort to approach theindigenous group in the same way that it would approach any other owner of landor resources it desires: respectfully, mindful of the prevailing rights of the partybeing approached, and with the willingness to negotiate to achieve a fair result.

MAKING THE DECLARATION A REALITYThe challenges facing the world’s indigenous peoples to achieve General Assem-

bly adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples this year aredaunting. Indigenous peoples have participated in a decades-long process toachieve consensus on an acceptable text, and now the General Assembly now holdsall the cards. There are no regular procedures for indigenous peoples to participatein this final round, and the General Assembly has the full power to rewrite the text

and adopt the new version without indigenous peoples’ participation or consent.Doing so would be the ultimate affront to indigenous peoples who have worked

long and hard and engaged in much compromise to achieve the current text. Solu-tions that split the world into indigenous and non-indigenous geographic divi-sions, or that water down the text to satisfy the interests of a handful of states areunacceptable. For indigenous peoples, it would be better to have no declaration atall than one that, after such a long labor, is born in this way.

So now it falls to the states, through the UN General Assembly, to do what is longoverdue and what is right: adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo-ples as presented by the Human Rights Council at this General Assembly session.

Ellen L. Lutz is the executive director of Cultural Survival.

Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea

SpotlightE

RIC

LAFFO

RG

UE

WW

W.M

YTR

IPS

MY

PIC

S.C

OM

RECOGNIZING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS cO N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 4



Indigenous Voices06 Cultural Survival Voices

Among the states of the United Nations,the ones that have concerns about theDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples tend to focus on three elements:the lack of a definition of “indigenous,”land rights, and the concept of self-determination. For those states, theseelements seem to threaten economic andpolitical chaos on several fronts. But thatis largely because states do not entirelyunderstand what it is indigenous peoplesare seeking. To help dispel fears andmisapprehensions, we asked fourindigenous leaders to talk about theirunderstanding of the terms of thedeclaration and to reflect on what thepractical implications would be if theDeclaration is adopted by the UnitedNations and implemented around theworld.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn ddooeess nnoott hhaavveeaa ddeeffiinniittiioonn ooff wwhhoo iiss iinnddiiggeennoouuss.. HHooww ccaann aassttaattee kknnooww ttoo wwhhoomm tthhee rriigghhttss iinn tthhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonnsshhoouulldd aappppllyy??

NNaaoommii KKiippuurrii:: I think sensitive governments shouldnot talk of definitions; I think they should talk of theactual situation of indigenous peoples in theircountries. You don’t have to define an elephant toknow what it is. And in fact, that is what ourexperience as members of the African Commission onHuman and Peoples Rights Working Group of Expertson Indigenous Populations/Communities has been.Sensitive governments have asked the right questionsand have gotten the right answers. They then havedealt with the problems in their own areas. When theWorking Group conducted a sensitization seminar inSeptember 2006 in Cameroon, there was resistance inthe beginning, but Cameroon is now one of thesupporters of the Declaration. And it didn’t take toolong or too much effort; it just took thinking andlistening and hearing. So I think we should enlightenresistant states with information, facts, and the realitywithin their own countries. Tell them not everythingcan be defined. Just listen to the issues that thesepeoples are talking about. These are the issues that gobeyond a definition.

Take my case. I am Maasai. Our situation—whetherpolitical, social, or cultural—is similar to that ofindigenous peoples all over the world. We have lostour lands and our resources; we’re not quiterecognized within our state which is always trying to

transform us into farmers or whatever else. We’re notincluded in policy discussions. There is constantly alack of consultation, even on matters touching on ourown livelihoods. We’re marginalized in almosteverything. We don’t have health services; we havevery few educational resources; we have none of theinfrastructure to which all people should be entitled.In a lot of ways, we’re dependent on natural resourcesthat are being expropriated. These are the things thatneed to change in order for us to enjoy the rights inthe Declaration.

SStteellllaa TTaammaanngg:: In the case of Nepal, indigenouspeoples would be those peoples who were living in aspecific territory with their own control before theregion was conquered by outsiders. We know whoowned the land before the present Nepal was created.

LLeess MMaalleezzeerr:: In Australia there is a clear demarcationbetween who was here before 1788 and who was hereafter. What we’ve always maintained in Australia isthat indigenous peoples are the original tenants of thecountry who are tied spiritually and legally to theircountry. That is, we identify ourselves by our countryand our relationship with that country. Thatdefinition doesn’t always work elsewhere around theworld.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: LLeett’’ss ttuurrnn nnooww ttoo llaanndd rriigghhttss..HHooww ddoo yyoouu sseeee yyoouurr ccoommmmuunniittyy’’ss llaanndd,, aanndd

wwhhyy iiss llaanndd ssoo iimmppoorrttaanntt ttoo yyoouu??

SStteellllaa TTaammaanngg:: Not all indigenous groups havegeographical territory—some have cultural territory.But suppose we are talking about indigenous peopleswith historic, cultural, and linguistic connections totheir land. They have an intimate connection to theland; the rationale for talking about who they are istied to the land. They have clear symbols in theirlanguage that connect them to places on their land.For example, in Nepal we have groups that only canachieve their spiritual place on the planet by going toa certain location.

RRaammoonnaa PPeetteerrss:: I’d like to think that we can still drawstrength from the land, regardless of who lives there,although a lot of my people don’t feel that way. Theysee other people’s houses in our territory and they seethat land as dead or corrupted. I disagree with that.But the relationship between land and identity is stillvery strong, to the point where overdevelopmentdevastates us emotionally. Eight-two percent of ouradult men are diagnosed as being depressed. We grewup in a fishing, hunting, and planting society that hasbeen transformed into a lost group of people. Now wehave health issues that we did not have 25 years ago.Not being in control of the land, or not being able toprotect it or have access to the natural foods andmedicines that grow on it, gives us a really shakyfuture.

OUR LAND, OUR IDENTITY, OUR FREEDOMA ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION

Stella Tamang was chair of the International Women’s Caucus at the third session of thePermanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and is the chair of the South Asia IndigenousWomen Forum and an advisor of Nepal Tamang Women Ghedung. She founded BikalpaGyan Kendra in Nepal to provide an education and contribute to students’ livelihood bycombining book learning with practical skills. She also is a member of Cultural Survival’sProgram Council.

Les Malezer, native Australian of the Gabi Gabi community, is the general manager for theFoundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action in Woolloongabba, Australia. He alsois the chairperson for the international Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus. He has been the primelobbyist at the United Nations for the declaration and is a member of Cultural Survival’sProgram Council.

Naomi Kipuri is an anthropologist and the director of the Arid Lands Institute, which grewout of the Arid Lands and Resource Management Network, a regional project on pastoralismin Eastern Africa. She is a member of the Working Group on IndigenousPeoples/Communities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. She alsois on the advisory board of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and theTechnical Advisory Council on Land Policy.

Ramona Peters (Nosapocket of the Bear Clan) is a Mashpee Wampanoag from Cape Cod,Massachusetts. She is a nationally known artist who has revived her tribe’s traditionalpottery-making techniques. She is a teacher, spokesperson, curator, interpreter, consultant,and indigenous rights activist. She also is a member of Cultural Survival’s Program Council.

continued on page 11


07

Affirming that indigenous peoplesare equal to all other peoples,while recognizing the right of allpeoples to be different, to considerthemselves different, and to berespected as such,

Affirming also that all peoplescontribute to the diversity andrichness of civilizations andcultures, which constitute thecommon heritage of humankind,

Affirming further that alldoctrines, policies and practicesbased on or advocating superiorityof peoples or individuals on thebasis of national origin, racial,religious, ethnic or culturaldifferences are racist, scientificallyfalse, legally invalid, morallycondemnable and socially unjust,

Reaffirming also that indigenouspeoples, in the exercise of theirrights, should be free fromdiscrimination of any kind,

Concerned that indigenouspeoples have suffered fromhistoric injustices as a result of,inter alia, their colonization anddispossession of their lands,territories and resources, thuspreventing them from exercising,in particular, their right todevelopment in accordance withtheir own needs and interests,

Recognizing the urgent need torespect and promote the inherentrights of indigenous peopleswhich derive from their political,economic and social structuresand from their cultures, spiritualtraditions, histories andphilosophies, especially theirrights to their lands, territoriesand resources,

Further recognizing the urgentneed to respect and promote therights of indigenous peoplesaffirmed in treaties, agreementsand other constructivearrangements with States,Welcoming the fact thatindigenous peoples are organizingthemselves for political,economic, social and culturalenhancement and in order to

bring an end to all forms ofdiscrimination and oppressionwherever they occur,

Convinced that control byindigenous peoples overdevelopments affecting them andtheir lands, territories andresources will enable them tomaintain and strengthen theirinstitutions, cultures andtraditions, and to promote theirdevelopment in accordance withtheir aspirations and needs,

Recognizing also that respect forindigenous knowledge, culturesand traditional practicescontributes to sustainable andequitable development and propermanagement of the environment,

Emphasizing the contribution ofthe demilitarization of the landsand territories of indigenouspeoples to peace, economic andsocial progress and development,understanding and friendlyrelations among nations andpeoples of the world,

Recognizing in particular the rightof indigenous families andcommunities to retain sharedresponsibility for the upbringing,training, education and well-beingof their children, consistent withthe rights of the child,

Recognizing also that indigenouspeoples have the right freely todetermine their relationships withStates in a spirit of coexistence,mutual benefit and full respect,

Considering that the rightsaffirmed in treaties, agreementsand constructive arrangementsbetween States and indigenouspeoples are, in some situations,matters of international concern,interest, responsibility andcharacter,Also considering that treaties,agreements and other constructivearrangements, and therelationship they represent, arethe basis for a strengthenedpartnership between indigenouspeoples and States,Acknowledging that the Charter

of the United Nations, theInternational Covenant onEconomic, Social and CulturalRights and the InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights affirm the fundamentalimportance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, byvirtue of which they freelydetermine their political statusand freely pursue their economic,social and cultural development,

Bearing in mind that nothing inthis Declaration may be used todeny any peoples their right ofself-determination, exercised inconformity with internationallaw,

Convinced that the recognition ofthe rights of indigenous peoples inthis Declaration will enhanceharmonious and cooperativerelations between the State andindigenous peoples, based onprinciples of justice, democracy,respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith,

Encouraging States to complywith and effectively implement alltheir obligations as they apply toindigenous peoples underinternational instruments, inparticular those related to humanrights, in consultation andcooperation with the peoplesconcerned,

Emphasizing that the UnitedNations has an important andcontinuing role to play inpromoting and protecting therights of indigenous peoples,

Believing that this Declaration is afurther important step forward forthe recognition, promotion andprotection of the rights andfreedoms of indigenous peoplesand in the development ofrelevant activities of the UnitedNations system in this field,

Recognizing and reaffirming thatindigenous individuals areentitled without discrimination toall human rights recognized ininternational law, and thatindigenous peoples possess

collective rights which areindispensable for their existence,well-being and integraldevelopment as peoples,

Solemnly proclaims the followingUnited Nations Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples as astandard of achievement to bepursued in a spirit of partnershipand mutual respect,

AArrttiiccllee 11Indigenous peoples have the rightto the full enjoyment, as acollective or as individuals, of allhuman rights and fundamentalfreedoms as recognized in theCharter of the United Nations, theUniversal Declaration of HumanRights and international humanrights law.

AArrttiiccllee 22Indigenous peoples andindividuals are free and equal toall other peoples and individualsand have the right to be free fromany kind of discrimination, in theexercise of their rights, inparticular that based on theirindigenous origin or identity.

AArrttiiccllee 33Indigenous peoples have the rightof self determination. By virtue ofthat right they freely determinetheir political status and freelypursue their economic, social andcultural development.

AArrttiiccllee 44Indigenous peoples, in exercisingtheir right to self-determination,have the right to autonomy orself-government in mattersrelating to their internal and localaffairs, as well as ways and meansfor financing their autonomousfunctions.

AArrttiiccllee 55Indigenous peoples have the rightto maintain and strengthen theirdistinct political, legal, economic,social and cultural institutions,while retaining their rights toparticipate fully, if they so choose,in the political, economic, socialand cultural life of the State.

The following text was adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council in resolution 2006/2 on the 29th of June 2006.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ONTHE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES


AArrttiiccllee 66Every indigenous individual hasthe right to a nationality.

AArrttiiccllee 771. Indigenous individuals have therights to life, physical and mentalintegrity, liberty and security ofperson.

2. Indigenous peoples have thecollective right to live in freedom,peace and security as distinctpeoples and shall not be subjectedto any act of genocide or anyother act of violence, includingforcibly removing children of thegroup to another group.

AArrttiiccllee 881. Indigenous peoples andindividuals have the right not tobe subjected to forced assimilationor destruction of their culture.

2. States shall provide effectivemechanisms for prevention of,and redress for:

(a) Any action which has theaim or effect of depriving themof their integrity as distinctpeoples, or of their culturalvalues or ethnic identities;(b) Any action which has theaim or effect of dispossessingthem of their lands, territories orresources;(c) Any form of forcedpopulation transfer which hasthe aim or effect of violating orundermining any of their rights;(d) Any form of forcedassimilation or integration byother cultures or ways of lifeimposed on them by legislative,administrative or othermeasures;(e) Any form of propagandadesigned to promote or inciteracial or ethnic discriminationdirected against them.

AArrttiiccllee 99Indigenous peoples andindividuals have the right tobelong to an indigenouscommunity or nation, inaccordance with the traditionsand customs of the community ornation concerned. No discriminationof any kind may arise from theexercise of such a right.

AArrttiiccllee 1100Indigenous peoples shall not beforcibly removed from their landsor territories. No relocation shalltake place without the free, priorand informed consent of theindigenous peoples concernedand after agreement on just andfair compensation and, wherepossible, with the option ofreturn.

AArrttiiccllee 11111. Indigenous peoples have theright to practice and revitalizetheir cultural traditions andcustoms. This includes the rightto maintain, protect and developthe past, present and futuremanifestations of their cultures,such as archaeological andhistorical sites, artefacts, designs,ceremonies, technologies andvisual and performing arts andliterature.

2. States shall provide redressthrough effective mechanisms,which may include restitution,developed in conjunction withindigenous peoples, with respectto their cultural, intellectual,religious and spiritual propertytaken without their free, prior andinformed consent or in violationof their laws, traditions andcustoms.

AArrttiiccllee 11221. Indigenous peoples have theright to manifest, practice,develop and teach their spiritualand religious traditions, customsand ceremonies; the right tomaintain, protect, and have accessin privacy to their religious andcultural sites; the right to the useand control of their ceremonialobjects; and the right to therepatriation of their humanremains.

2. States shall seek to enable theaccess and/or repatriation ofceremonial objects and humanremains in their possessionthrough fair, transparent andeffective mechanisms developedin conjunction with indigenouspeoples concerned.

AArrttiiccllee 11331. Indigenous peoples have theright to revitalize, use, developand transmit to future generationstheir histories, languages, oraltraditions, philosophies, writingsystems and literatures, and todesignate and retain their ownnames for communities, placesand persons.

2. States shall take effectivemeasures to ensure this right isprotected and also to ensure thatindigenous peoples canunderstand and be understood inpolitical, legal and administrativeproceedings, where necessarythrough the provision ofinterpretation or by otherappropriate means.

AArrttiiccllee 11441. Indigenous peoples have theright to establish and control theireducational systems andinstitutions providing educationin their own languages, in amanner appropriate to theircultural methods of teaching andlearning.

2. Indigenous individuals,particularly children, have theright to all levels and forms ofeducation of the State withoutdiscrimination.

3. States shall, in conjunctionwith indigenous peoples, takeeffective measures, in order forindigenous individuals,particularly children, includingthose living outside theircommunities, to have access,when possible, to an education intheir own culture and provided intheir own language.

AArrttiiccllee 11551.Indigenous peoples have theright to the dignity and diversityof their cultures, traditions,histories and aspirations whichshall be appropriately reflected ineducation and public information.

2. States shall take effectivemeasures, in consultation andcooperation with the indigenouspeoples concerned, to combatprejudice and eliminate

discrimination and to promotetolerance, understanding andgood relations among indigenouspeoples and all other segments ofsociety.

AArrttiiccllee 11661. Indigenous peoples have theright to establish their own mediain their own languages and tohave access to all forms of non-indigenous media withoutdiscrimination.

2. States shall take effectivemeasures to ensure that State-owned media duly reflectindigenous cultural diversity.States, without prejudice toensuring full freedom ofexpression, should encourageprivately-owned media toadequately reflect indigenouscultural diversity.

AArrttiiccllee 11771. Indigenous individuals andpeoples have the right to enjoyfully all rights established underapplicable international anddomestic labour law.

2. States shall in consultation andcooperation with indigenouspeoples take specific measures toprotect indigenous children fromeconomic exploitation and fromperforming any work that is likelyto be hazardous or to interferewith the child's education, or to beharmful to the child's health orphysical, mental, spiritual, moralor social development, taking intoaccount their special vulnerabilityand the importance of educationfor their empowerment.

3. Indigenous individuals have theright not to be subjected to anydiscriminatory conditions oflabour and, inter alia,employment or salary.

AArrttiiccllee 1188Indigenous peoples have the rightto participate in decision-makingin matters which would affecttheir rights, throughrepresentatives chosen bythemselves in accordance withtheir own procedures, as well as tomaintain and develop their own



indigenous decision-making institutions.

AArrttiiccllee 1199States shall consult andcooperate in good faithwith the indigenouspeoples concernedthrough their ownrepresentative institutionsin order to obtain theirfree, prior and informedconsent before adoptingand implementinglegislative oradministrative measuresthat may affect them.

AArrttiiccllee 22001. Indigenous peoples havethe right to maintain anddevelop their political,economic and socialsystems or institutions, tobe secure in the enjoymentof their own means ofsubsistence anddevelopment, and toengage freely in all theirtraditional and othereconomic activities.

2. Indigenous peoplesdeprived of their means ofsubsistence anddevelopment are entitledto just and fair redress.

AArrttiiccllee 22111. Indigenous peoples havethe right, withoutdiscrimination, to theimprovement of theireconomic and socialconditions, including,inter alia, in the areas ofeducation, employment,vocational training andretraining, housing,sanitation, health andsocial security.

2. States shall takeeffective measures and,where appropriate, specialmeasures to ensurecontinuing improvementof their economic andsocial conditions.Particular attention shallbe paid to the rights andspecial needs of

indigenous elders, women,youth, children andpersons with disabilities.

AArrttiiccllee 22221. Particular attention shallbe paid to the rights andspecial needs ofindigenous elders, women,youth, children andpersons with disabilities inthe implementation of thisDeclaration.

2. States shall takemeasures, in conjunctionwith indigenous peoples,to ensure that indigenouswomen and children enjoythe full protection andguarantees against allforms of violence anddiscrimination.

AArrttiiccllee 2233Indigenous peoples havethe right to determine anddevelop priorities andstrategies for exercisingtheir right todevelopment. Inparticular, indigenouspeoples have the right tobe actively involved indeveloping anddetermining health,housing and othereconomic and socialprogrammes affectingthem and, as far aspossible, to administersuch programmes throughtheir own institutions.

AArrttiiccllee 22441. Indigenous peoples havethe right to theirtraditional medicines andto maintain their healthpractices, including theconservation of their vitalmedicinal plants, animalsand minerals. Indigenousindividuals also have theright to access, withoutany discrimination, to allsocial and health services.

2. Indigenous individualshave an equal right to theenjoyment of the highestattainable standard of

physical and mentalhealth. States shall takethe necessary steps with aview to achievingprogressively the fullrealization of this right.AArrttiiccllee 2255 Indigenouspeoples have the right tomaintain and strengthentheir distinctive spiritualrelationship with theirtraditionally owned orotherwise occupied andused lands, territories,waters and coastal seas andother resources and to upholdtheir responsibilities tofuture generations in thisregard.

AArrttiiccllee 22661. Indigenous peoples havethe right to the lands,territories and resourceswhich they have traditionallyowned, occupied orotherwise used oracquired.

2. Indigenous peoples havethe right to own, use,develop and control thelands, territories andresources that they possessby reason of traditionalownership or othertraditional occupation oruse, as well as those whichthey have otherwiseacquired.

3. States shall give legalrecognition and protectionto these lands, territoriesand resources. Suchrecognition shall beconducted with due respectto the customs, traditionsand land tenure systems ofthe indigenous peoplesconcerned.

AArrttiiccllee 2277States shall establish andimplement, in conjunctionwith indigenous peoplesconcerned, a fair,independent, impartial,open and transparentprocess, giving duerecognition to indigenouspeoples' laws, traditions,

customs and land tenuresystems, to recognize andadjudicate the rights ofindigenous peoplespertaining to their lands,territories and resources,including those whichwere traditionally ownedor otherwise occupied orused. Indigenous peoplesshall have the right toparticipate in this process.

AArrttiiccllee 22881. Indigenous peoples havethe right to redress, bymeans that can includerestitution or, when this isnot possible, of a just, fairand equitablecompensation, for thelands, territories andresources which they havetraditionally owned orotherwise occupied orused, and which have beenconfiscated, taken,occupied, used or damagedwithout their free, priorand informed consent.

2. Unless otherwise freelyagreed upon by thepeoples concerned,compensation shall takethe form of lands,territories and resourcesequal in quality, size andlegal status or of monetarycompensation or otherappropriate redress.

AArrttiiccllee 22991. Indigenous peoples havethe right to theconservation andprotection of theenvironment and theproductive capacity oftheir lands or territoriesand resources. States shallestablish and implementassistance programmes forindigenous peoples forsuch conservation andprotection, withoutdiscrimination.

2. States shall take effectivemeasures to ensure that nostorage or disposal ofhazardous materials shall

take place in the lands orterritories of indigenouspeoples without their free,prior and informedconsent.

3. States shall also takeeffective measures toensure, as needed, thatprogrammes formonitoring, maintainingand restoring the health ofindigenous peoples, asdeveloped andimplemented by thepeoples affected by suchmaterials, are dulyimplemented.

AArrttiiccllee 33001. Military activities shallnot take place in the landsor territories of indigenouspeoples, unless justified bya significant threat torelevant public interest orotherwise freely agreedwith or requested by theindigenous peoplesconcerned.

2. States shall undertakeeffective consultationswith the indigenouspeoples concerned,through appropriateprocedures and inparticular through theirrepresentative institutions,prior to using their landsor territories for militaryactivities.

AArrttiiccllee 33111. Indigenous peoples havethe right to maintain,control, protect anddevelop their culturalheritage, traditionalknowledge and traditionalcultural expressions, aswell as the manifestationsof their sciences,technologies and cultures,including human andgenetic resources, seeds,medicines, knowledge ofthe properties of fauna andflora, oral traditions,literatures, designs, sportsand traditional games andvisual and performing arts.



They also have the right tomaintain, control, protectand develop theirintellectual property oversuch cultural heritage,traditional knowledge, andtraditional culturalexpressions.

2. In conjunction withindigenous peoples, Statesshall take effectivemeasures to recognize andprotect the exercise ofthese rights.

AArrttiiccllee 33221. Indigenous peoples havethe right to determine anddevelop priorities andstrategies for thedevelopment or use oftheir lands or territoriesand other resources.

2. States shall consult andcooperate in good faithwith the indigenouspeoples concernedthrough their ownrepresentative institutionsin order to obtain theirfree and informed consentprior to the approval ofany project affecting theirlands or territories andother resources,particularly in connectionwith the development,utilization or exploitationof their mineral, water orother resources.

3. States shall provideeffective mechanisms forjust and fair redress for anysuch activities, andappropriate measures shallbe taken to mitigateadverse environmental,economic, social, culturalor spiritual impact.

AArrttiiccllee 33331. Indigenous peoples havethe right to determinetheir own identity ormembership in accordancewith their customs andtraditions. This does notimpair the right ofindigenous individuals to

obtain citizenship of theStates in which they live.

2. Indigenous peoples havethe right to determine thestructures and to select themembership of theirinstitutions in accordancewith their own procedures.

AArrttiiccllee 3344Indigenous peoples havethe right to promote,develop and maintain theirinstitutional structures andtheir distinctive customs,spirituality, traditions,procedures, practices and,in the cases where theyexist, juridical systems orcustoms, in accordancewith international humanrights standards.

AArrttiiccllee 3355Indigenous peoples havethe right to determine theresponsibilities of individualsto their communities.

AArrttiiccllee 33661. Indigenous peoples, inparticular those divided byinternational borders,have the right to maintainand develop contacts,relations and cooperation,including activities forspiritual, cultural, political,economic and socialpurposes, with their ownmembers as well as otherpeoples across borders.

2. States, in consultationand cooperation withindigenous peoples, shalltake effective measures tofacilitate the exercise andensure the implementation ofthis right.

AArrttiiccllee 33771. Indigenous peoples havethe right to the recognition,observance and enforcementof Treaties, Agreementsand Other ConstructiveArrangements concludedwith States or theirsuccessors and to have

States honour and respectsuch Treaties, Agreementsand other ConstructiveArrangements.

2. Nothing in thisDeclaration may beinterpreted as to diminishor eliminate the rights ofIndigenous Peoples containedin Treaties, Agreements andConstructive Arrangements.

AArrttiiccllee 3388States in consultation andcooperation with indigenouspeoples, shall take theappropriate measures,including legislative measures,to achieve the ends of thisDeclaration.

AArrttiiccllee 3399Indigenous peoples havethe right to have access tofinancial and technicalassistance from States andthrough internationalcooperation, for theenjoyment of the rightscontained in thisDeclaration.

AArrttiiccllee 4400Indigenous peoples havethe right to have access toand prompt decisionthrough just and fairprocedures for theresolution of conflicts anddisputes with States orother parties, as well as toeffective remedies for allinfringements of theirindividual and collectiverights. Such a decision shallgive due consideration tothe customs, traditions,rules and legal systems ofthe indigenous peoplesconcerned and internationalhuman rights.

AArrttiiccllee 4411The organs and specializedagencies of the UnitedNations system and otheri n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a lorganizations shallcontribute to the fullrealization of the

provisions of thisDeclaration through themobilization, inter alia, offinancial cooperation andtechnical assistance. Waysand means of ensuringparticipation ofindigenous peoples onissues affecting them shallbe established.

AArrttiiccllee 4422The United Nations, itsbodies, including thePermanent Forum onIndigenous Issues, andspecialized agencies,including at the countrylevel, and States, shallpromote respect for andfull application of theprovisions of thisDeclaration and follow upthe effectiveness of thisDeclaration.

AArrttiiccllee 4433The rights recognizedherein constitute theminimum standards forthe survival, dignity andwell-being of theindigenous peoples of theworld.

AArrttiiccllee 4444All the rights and freedomsrecognized herein areequally guaranteed to maleand female indigenousindividuals.

AArrttiiccllee 4455Nothing in thisDeclaration may beconstrued as diminishingor extinguishing the rightsindigenous peoples havenow or may acquire in thefuture.

AArrttiiccllee 44661. Nothing in thisDeclaration may beinterpreted as implying forany State, people, group orperson any right to engagein any activity or toperform any act contraryto the Charter of theUnited Nations.

2. In the exercise of therights enunciated in thepresent Declaration,human rights andfundamental freedoms ofall shall be respected. Theexercise of the rights setforth in this Declarationshall be subject only tosuch limitations as aredetermined by law, inaccordance withinternational humanrights obligations. Anysuch limitations shall benon-discriminatory andstrictly necessary solely forthe purpose of securingdue recognition andrespect for the rights andfreedoms of others and formeeting the just and mostcompelling requirementsof a democratic society.

3. The provisions set forthin this Declaration shall beinterpreted in accordancewith the principles ofjustice, democracy, respectfor human rights, equality,non-discrimination, goodgovernance and goodfaith.


10 Voices Declaration.qxd 3/12/2007 4:39 PM Page 10


Indigenous Voices 11Cultural Survival Voices

SStteellllaa TTaammaanngg:: Our lands are the places where we getour medicines, where we might know about somespecial plant.

RRaammoonnaa PPeetteerrss:: For us, it’s access to natural resources—foraging, access to waterways and fishing grounds.People try to block us with private-property signs or bytelling us that the clams are their pets. They call thepolice any time natives are

in the area. One of the few reasons that I would be anadvocate for federal recognition is the partnership itwould provide to protect the land from pollution andrandom dumping. That dumping is now sometimesstate sanctioned or town sanctioned: dredging up onearea to make a marina and dumping material on whatmight seem like a vacant lot. But that lot is not vacant.There are things that live there, things that we use andthat others don’t.

SStteellllaa TTaammaanngg:: Free prior and informed consent, whichthe Declaration requires states to get from indigenouspeoples before taking action affecting them, isessential. Consider the Sherpa on Mt. Everest.Mountaineering is something that should be governedby Sherpa people. They receive no benefit from thenumber of people who come to climb, nor do theycontrol the criteria. Sherpa feel that people die therebecause they are failing to respect the mountain. It isimmoral for people to climb the mountain to“conquer” it because the mountain should berespected. The Sherpa should get the benefit as well asthe decision-making authority to decide who climbsthe mountain.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: WWhhaatt sshhoouulldd bbee tthhee bbaassiiss ffoorrddeetteerrmmiinniinngg wwhhiicchh llaannddss aarree ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo tthhee rriigghhttssiinn tthhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn??

NNaaoommii KKiippuurrii:: Indigenous peoples know their territory,all the way back to the pre-colonial period. Butdeciding on the cut-off point to determine ownershipis the question which would have to be agreed uponbetween the indigenous peoples and the government.In fact, in Kenya, according to the new land policy thatis currently being drawn up, 1885 has been proposed asthe cut-off date. Different people have given differentdates, but it is possible to propose a date and to agreeupon it. It is not so difficult.

RRaammoonnaa PPeetteerrss:: In the United States there are alreadylaws on the books that define Indian territories. Thatdefinition is based on ancestral homelands.Wampanoag people had a nation that was once 69tribes, and there are only 3 tribes left: Aquinnah,Herring Pond, and Mashpee. We three tribes canprobably claim all the Wampanoag homelands,straight into Rhode Island. We could legitimately claimthe city of New Bedford, but we’re not doing that. Youend up with “tribal lands,” which are basically thelands you’re living on. So the Aquinnah Wampanoagmay have claimed all of the homelands (several

counties), but they end up with a little village, a tribalfootprint, at the far end of Martha’s Vineyard.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: WWhhaatt aabboouutt aa ssiittuuaattiioonn wwhheerreettrraaddiittiioonnaall llaannddss aarree nnooww ooccccuuppiieedd bbyy nnoonn--iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeooppllee?? WWhhaatt sshhoouulldd hhaappppeenn ttoo tthhoosseeppeeooppllee aanndd tthhaatt llaanndd??

LLeess MMaalleezzeerr:: That’s in Article 46 of the Declaration.There are clear statements that all other rights arerecognized. So if other people now occupy those landsand have interests in those lands, their rights must berespected; they also have a right to the very sameproperty.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: WWhhaatt ddooeess ““sseellff--ddeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonn””mmeeaann ttoo yyoouu??

SStteellllaa TTaammaanngg:: To some people in Nepal today, self-determination appears to be a threatening topic. Theythink that self-determination means that indigenouspeoples will have their own land and autonomy. Butthat isn’t true. I once talked with a Maoist lady inNepal who was claiming a “special” right to self-determination. I explained to her that self-determination is not a special right. It is something

that indigenous peoples already have, at the individuallevel, the community level, and the national level.In Nepal, as part of our constitutional process, we aretalking about regional autonomy. We do not want todivide Nepal up into lots of little pieces. Nepal is asmall, land-locked country. Geographic reality makesour existence as small, separate indigenous nationsimpossible. Instead, self-determination requiresregional autonomy under a single, federal system. Weneed a national government that deals with monetary,defense, and foreign-policy matters. But there needs tobe power sharing among different groups of people, asystem that includes the peoples who traditionallyhave been excluded. Everyone should have equalrights, but for some groups there should be specialprovisions to address special needs. The key is powersharing and developing a coalition culture at thenational level. In indigenous areas indigenous peoplescould decide their own educational structures, and ifthe government wanted something from an indigenousregion for a national purpose, then the rule of free,prior, and informed consent would apply. Regionswould police themselves in the ways that make mostsense at the regional level. The Swiss cantonal system iswhat would work best for us.

OUR LAND, OUR IDENTITY, OUR FREEDOM continued from page 6

A Maori warrior comforts his son following the ferocious haka, a tribal war dance used to strike fear into enemies, which was performedto welcome the Te Waka (canoes) Melbourne, Australia.

PHOTO BY CLAYTON SCOTT

continued on page 12



Indigenous Voices12 Cultural Survival VoicesOUR LAND, OUR IDENTITY, OUR FREEDOMCCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: EEvveenn tthhoouugghh sseellff--ddeetteerrmmiinnaattiioonn ddooeess nnoott iinncclluuddee tthhee rriigghhtt ttoosseecceeddee ffrroomm tthhee ssttaattee,, hhooww ccaann tthhee ssttaattee bbee ssuurreetthhaatt ggrraannttiinngg tthhee rriigghhtt wwoonn’’tt lleeaadd ttoo lloossss oofftteerrrriittoorryy oorr iinnssppiirree rreebbeell ggrroouuppss,, ffoorr eexxaammppllee,, ttooppuusshh ffoorr iinnddeeppeennddeennccee??

NNaaoommii KKiippuurrii:: Rebel groups tend to result fromcertain communities being excluded from the affairsof the state. They are actually struggling to be“legitimized” with the simplest form of self-determination: the recognition that they exist.Indigenous peoples are often not even allowed to saywho they are because they’ve been subsumed by themajority population and their languages and theircultures are denied. In North Africa, indigenouspeoples are not even allowed to give their childrentheir own names; they have to give names that thestate proposes. It is the failure of the state to listen tothese basic needs—like being able to impart theircultures and languages to their children—that leadsto rebel groups taking up arms and pushing for adifferent social order. There was no more rebellion inCasamans province in Senegal, for instance, aftertalks with the government were initiated. Andrebellion in Mali has been replaced with ongoingtalks with the Mali government. I think Africa shouldbe pleased by these examples. The Declaration wouldstop such conflicts rather than allow more of them.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: WWhhaatt aabboouutt tthheerreessppoonnssiibbiilliittiieess tthhaatt aaccccoommppaannyy rriigghhttss?? SShhoouullddiinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess bbee ssuubbjjeecctt ttoo ttaaxxeess?? CCoouullddtthheeiirr mmeemmbbeerrss bbee ddrraafftteedd iinnttoo tthhee mmiilliittaarryy??

NNaaoommii KKiippuurrii:: I would say that if the right to self-determination were granted, indigenouscommunities would be like all other communities.They would be happy, they would be wealthy; theywould be proud to be citizens of their own respectivecountries. And they would also be proud to beprovided the services that members of majoritycommunities get. I would not worry about themrefusing to be drafted to the military; they would beproud to serve the nation in any way possible. I alsothink they would be glad to pay taxes. They wouldfinally have the means to pay their taxes. At themoment, they’re taxed and they don’t have themeans to pay their taxes, so they’re getting poorer bythe day.

All this will be possible because once passed, theDeclaration will allow them to have a measure ofcontrol over the resources in their areas—resourceswhich, at present, are often expropriated by thecentral government for other development purposes.

LLeess MMaalleezzeerr:: In terms of the Declaration, self-determination is a legal concept. It is a rightguaranteed to all peoples. It’s also guaranteed in theUN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the

Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.Article 3 of the Declaration, which says indigenouspeoples have the right to self-determination, is simplya re-statement of the rights in the two covenants andin Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. It’s exactlythe same wording: “All peoples have the right to self-determination.” And that language was deliberatelyset when the documents were made becausecolonization was a big part of the history in the Indiansubcontinent and African regions. Self-determinationwas not a right of peoples in many places. And to dealwith that issue, the UN established a de-colonizationprocess that is still under way. But unfortunately, theprocess is not ensuring self-determination forindigenous peoples.

The United States is very strongly advocating that self-determination should be a right subject to state law. Ina domestic situation, that would create adiscriminatory provision in which all peoples of theworld except indigenous peoples would have the rightto self-determination. The whole intention is that allpeoples should have the same rights.

CCuullttuurraall SSuurrvviivvaall:: WWee kknnooww tthhaatt tthhee tteexxtt ooff tthheeDDeeccllaarraattiioonn iiss aa ccoommpprroommiissee,, bbuutt iitt iiss oonnee tthhaattiinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess aarree ssuuppppoorrttiinngg.. WWhhyy iiss tthheeDDeeccllaarraattiioonn,, aass iitt iiss nnooww wwrriitttteenn,, ssoo iimmppoorrttaanntt ttooiinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess??

LLeess MMaalleezzeerr:: The whole theme of the Declaration ispartnership between states and indigenous peoples toreach new arrangements. As you say, there was neveragreement between states and indigenous peoples inrelation to what the wording should be. The finalproposed wording was a compromise, representingwhat the chairman believed would be most acceptableto the overwhelming majority of states andindigenous peoples. And it’s on that basis that therehas been support for the Declaration from indigenouspeoples and from the Human Rights Council.Indigenous peoples would prefer less ambiguity. NewZealand, along with Australia, USA, and Canada, is theculprit in continually proposing ambiguity. The textthose countries want is one that justifies their currentviews on using resources, which are discriminatory, asdetermined by the UN General Assembly’s ThirdCommittee and by the UN Committee on Eliminationof Racial Discrimination.

RRaammoonnaa PPeetteerrss:: At this point there is hardly anydialogue between Western thinking and Indianthinking. The Declaration would open the dialogue soboth can communicate about rights and consult aboutthe uses of resources. Who’s to say that a state doesn’twant to protect a certain area? And you have theindigenous community right there saying “Let’sprotect it. We’ll help you. In fact, we’ll help you knowwhich species is missing, because without that one,the rest of the species located there are doomed.” Ifthis Declaration succeeds in anything, it needs tosucceed in consultation, because once people starttalking with one another, they’ll find mutual good.Karo tribesman in the Omo Valley, Southern Ethiopia.

PHOTO BY ERIC ELLIOTT



Views of the Declaration 13Cultural Survival Voices

The Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples was adopted by theHuman Rights Council during its first

session in June 2006. The Declaration is the result ofmany years of discussion and negotiation among thestates members of the Human Rights Commission,with the active participation of representatives of theworld's indigenous peoples.

It is now incumbent upon the HumanRights Council to reaffirm its commitment inpromoting and protecting the dignity, survival, andwell-being of the millions of indigenous peoplearound the world whose rights have long beenignored and neglected, when not actually breachedin practice.

Indigenous people expect the HumanRights Council as well as the Office of the HighCommissioner for Human Rights and other UNagencies to continue promoting the provisions of the

Declaration for the protection of the human rights oftheir members and communities. Much can be doneover the next few years, and in the currentrestructuring of the Council's mechanisms a spacemust be found to ensure the continuing participationof indigenous representatives in debates concerningthe application of international human rightsstandards to the particular circumstances ofindigenous peoples.

The Special Rapporteur hopes that theGeneral Assembly may reconsider its position andadopt the Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples at the earliest possible moment.”

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, UN Special Rapporteur on theRights of Indigenous People.

“

At its Fifth Session in May 2006, thePermanent Forum on Indigenous Issuesadopted the following recom-

mendation:

The Permanent Forum is convinced that aDeclaration on the rights of indigenouspeoples will be an instrument of great valuethrough which to advance the rights andaspirations of the world's indigenous peoples.The Permanent Forum therefore recommendsthe adoption without amendments of the draftDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples . . . by the General Assembly during its61st session in 2006. This would represent amajor achievement for the SecondInternational Decade of the World'sIndigenous People.

To the credit of the newly established HumanRights Council, it adopted this Declaration onJune 29, 2006, at its first session. All the regionalcaucuses of indigenous peoples spoke with onevoice and echoed the resolution of the HumanRights Council that this be adopted by theGeneral Assembly at its 2006 fall session.

Indigenous peoples were shocked anddeeply disappointed at the decision of the ThirdCommittee of the General Assembly onNovember 28th, 2006, to defer the adoption ofthe Declaration, following an initiative of somemembers states. I am also deeply disappointedby this move to defer the adoption of theDeclaration because this is illustrative of the

continuing discrimination against indigenouspeoples in many parts of the world.

The Declaration stands out as one ofthe most extensively discussed and negotiatedtexts in the history of the UN, with the fullparticipation of the subjects of those rights-aprocess for which the international communityshould stand proud. The non-participation ofsome governments in more than 20 years ofdrafting and negotiations on the Declarationdoes not justify a further delay of its adoption. This Declaration represents the minimumstandards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of indigenous peoples.

I urge all governments to demonstratethat the UN stands for human rights for all,including indigenous peoples, and to adopt theDeclaration without amendments. It is theresponsibility of all UN member states to addressthe past and continuing injustice, racism, anddiscrimination against indigenous peoples.”

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson of the TheUnited Nations Permanent Forum on IndigenousIssues.

The UN Special Rapporteur on theRights of Indigenous People: December 4, 2006

The Chairperson of the UN PermanentForum on Indigenous Issues: December 10, 2006

“

From left: Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen; Cultural Survival boardmember Victoria Tauli-Corpuz; and anthropologist James Anaya at theconference, Bridging the Gap between Law and Reality for IndigenousPeoples in the Americas, in Arizona.

WESTYEGMONT

In the process ofsubmitting theDeclaration on theRights of IndigenousPeoples to the HumanRights Council and theGeneral Assembly'sThird Committee, anumber of states, UNofficials, and othersgave statementsendorsing theDeclaration. Excerptsfrom some of thosestatements arecollected here.



Views of the Declaration14 Cultural Survival Voices

The Declaration fills an important gap. Itaddresses Indigenous Peoples' protectionagainst discrimination and genocide. It

reaffirms their right to maintain their uniquecultural traditions and recognizes their right ofself-determination, including secure access tolands and resources essential for their survivaland welfare.

Adoption of the Declaration by the UNGeneral Assembly is long overdue. UN treatybodies have repeatedly affirmed stateobligations to protect indigenous peoples, butthe grave human rights violations they haveexperienced have continued unabated in everyregion of the world. Indigenous peoples areamong the most marginalized and the mostvulnerable.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples is the product of uniquecollaboration between states and indigenouspeoples themselves. The result is a text that isgrounded in existing rights protections but thatalso provides states with the necessary guidanceon ensuring indigenous people's effective meansto enjoy their rights, recognizing their distinctaspirations and their unique ways of life.

The Declaration provides a goodframework for addressing the wrongs of the pastand a vision of future collaboration andpartnership between states and indigenouspeoples on the basis of justice and respect for therights of all. The General Assembly must seizethis historic opportunity to adopt this text withthe strongest possible support.”

Amnesty International: November 1, 2006

Dega woman and children, Vietnam. Photo copyright White Russian Media & Design.

We believe that the Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples is a majorachievement . . . Maybe the text

proposed is not the ideal. It is necessarily theresult of an effort by all to accommodate on onehand the rights of indigenous peoples and onthe other hand the preoccupations expressed bystates. In essence, the Declaration as proposedrevitalizes the core principle ofnondiscrimination, which inspires the wholesystem of human rights in the United Nationsand asserts the importance of the indigenouspeoples in our societies. It also acknowledgesdiversity as a richness of countries andunderlines the past and present contribution ofindigenous peoples to the material and spiritualdevelopment of all states.

Brazil, as a multiethnic andmulticultural country, is convinced that the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopleswill be of the utmost importance not only tofight discrimination against indigenous peoplesand distortions created by centuries ofexclusion, but also to promote harmony in therelationship between indigenous peoples andthe other segments of society where they live.

At the same time, it is ourunderstanding that the exercise of the rights ofindigenous peoples the Declarationacknowledges is consistent with the respect forthe political unity and territorial integrity of thesovereign and independent states that theyinhabit. Political unity, territorial integrity andindigenous rights are mutually reinforcingperspectives and serve the cause of aharmonious relationship within our societies.possible support.”

The delegation from Brazil: June 27, 2006

The negotiation process of the WorkingGroup on the Draft Declaration wasunique in UN standard-setting practice

by involving representatives of indigenouspeoples on an equal footing with states. Thismade the negotiations challenging given thebreadth of interests represented; butimportantly, it also made the process asinclusive as possible. The European Unionregrets that it was not possible to reach

agreement on all articles of the draftDeclaration, and particularly that some stateswith indigenous peoples do not feel able tojoin consensus on the text. Indeed, no party tothe negotiations can claim that the result isperfect. However, the EU is of the opinion thatthe final compromise text offers the bestachievable outcome to the working-groupprocess. The EU therefore . . . supportsadoption of the text.”

European Union: June 27, 2006

“

“

“


1. TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn iiss bbaasseedd oonn ccoorree iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaallpprriinncciipplleess aanndd vvaalluueess. The Declaration is based on coreinternational principles and values that embracetolerance, peace, and respect for the dignity of allcultures and peoples. In particular, the Declaration isdescribed as a "standard of achievement to be pursuedin a spirit of partnership and mutual respect."

2. TThhee hhuummaann rriigghhttss ooff aallll mmuusstt bbee rreessppeecctteedd. Humanrights are generally relative in nature and not absolute.Consistent with the U.N. Charter, the Declarationspecifically requires that the "human rights andfreedoms of all shall be respected."

3. PPrroovviissiioonnss mmuusstt bbee rreeaadd iinn oovveerraallll ccoonntteexxtt.. Eachprovision of the Declaration cannot be read inisolation, but rather interpreted in the context of theinstrument as a whole. To do otherwise would lead toextremist and absolute interpretations that could notbe justified under the Declaration or internationalhuman rights law as a whole. Regretfully, the CANZUSgroup - Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UnitedStates - continues to interpret the Declaration in thisfragmented and erroneous manner.

4. NNoo nneeww rriigghhttss ccrreeaatteedd.. The Declaration does notcreate new rights. It elaborates upon existinginternational human rights standards as they apply toindigenous peoples.

5. TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn rreessppeeccttss tthhee rruullee ooff llaaww aanndd ootthheerrccoorree iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall pprriinncciipplleess.. Every provision of theDeclaration must be "interpreted in accordance withthe principles of justice, democracy, respect for humanrights, equality, nondiscrimination, good governanceand good faith." This allows for both flexibility andbalance. The reference to "good governance" ensuresthat the rule of law within states is fully considered inevery instance without exception. As an aspirationalinstrument, the Declaration does not upend the rule oflaw domestically or internationally.

6. BBrrooaaddeerr aaggrreeeemmeenntt iiss nnoott ppoossssiibbllee. As the chair ofthe intersessional Working Group on the Declarationhas concluded, along with many States, additionaltime will not lead to any broader agreement. This is inlarge part because of the obstructionist role repeatedlyplayed by United States, Australia, and New Zealandduring the Working Group.

7. RRee--ooppeenniinngg nneeggoottiiaattiioonnss iiss lliikkeellyy ttoo kkiillll tthheeDDeeccllaarraattiioonn. Re-opening negotiations on theDeclaration is certain to create serious new divisionsand prevent its adoption by the General Assembly.Such an extreme step would be unconscionable.

8. TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn eennccoouurraaggeess hhaarrmmoonniioouuss rreellaattiioonnss..The Declaration explicitly encourages "harmoniousand cooperative relations" between states andindigenous peoples. Nine preambular paragraphs andfifteen operative articles specify consultations,cooperation, or partnership between indigenouspeoples and states.

9. OOvveerr 2200 yyeeaarrss ooff ddiissccuussssiioonn. There have already beenmore than 20 years of discussions on the Declarationamong states and indigenous peoples in UN WorkingGroups. This makes the Declaration one of the most

discussed and studied declarations in UN history. Allrevisions by the chair were based on prior discussions.

10. AAnnyy ""pprroocceedduurraall"" rreessoolluuttiioonn ffoorr ddeellaayy wwoouulldd bbeehhiigghhllyy ddeettrriimmeennttaall.. Any amendment or resolution tore-open negotiations on the Declaration is notprocedural since it could destroy the Declaration.

11. DDeellaayyiinngg ssttrraatteeggyy aallrreeaaddyy aatttteemmpptteedd aatt HHuummaannRRiigghhttss CCoouunncciill.. Last June, Canada tried and failed witha similar strategy at the first meeting of the Council. Inits statement on June 27, 2006, Canada quoted itsMinister of Indian Affairs as saying issues could beresolved by all parties "in a few more months." Thisclaim was knowingly false. Just the day before,Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated inwriting the need for a "two-year negotiation mandate."

12. TThhee CCAANNZZUUSS ggrroouupp ooff ssttaatteess iiss ppoolliittiicciizziinngg rriigghhttss iinntthhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn. Based on their own domestic agendas,a few Western states are actively encouraging otherstates to delay the adoption of the Declaration underthe guise of seeking "improvements." In so doing, theCANZUS group is continuing to politicize Indigenouspeoples' human rights. Such actions severelyundermine the Council and current UN reforms.

13. DDeellaayyiinngg ffoorr ccoonnssuullttaattiioonn iiss ddiissiinnggeennuuoouuss. TheCANZUS group already had the past eight months toconsult with indigenous peoples within their ownrespective countries on any state concerns with theDeclaration. Yet none of these states engaged in anyconsultations with Indigenous peoples. None of thesestates are genuinely seek to "improve" the Declaration.

14. CCaannaaddaa iiss vviioollaattiinngg iittss ccoonnssttiittuuttiioonnaall aannddiinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall oobblliiggaattiioonnss.. Despite its constitutionalobligations to consult indigenous peoples, Canada hasopted to vigorously and unilaterally oppose theDeclaration through procedural and other strategiesduring the past eight months. As a Human RightsCouncil member, Canada is failing to "uphold thehighest standards in the promotion and protection ofhuman rights . . . [and] fully cooperate with theCouncil," as required by the General Assembly.

15. TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn iiss eesssseennttiiaall ffoorr tthhee ssuurrvviivvaall,,ddiiggnniittyy aanndd wweellll--bbeeiinngg ooff IInnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeoopplleess.. TheDeclaration promotes equality and nondiscriminationfor all. The Declaration is essential for the survival,dignity, and well-being of the indigenous peoples ofthe world.

16. TThhee DDeeccllaarraattiioonn ssttrreennggtthheennss tthhee iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaallhhuummaann rriigghhttss ssyysstteemm.. Adoption of the Declaration bythe General Assembly supports the vital work of theHuman Rights Council and strengthens theinternational human rights system as a whole.


Views of the Declaration 15Cultural Survival VoicesReasons Why the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as Adopted by theHuman Rights Council, Should be Adopted by the General Assembly

Indigenous delegations representing all regions of the world during this session of the UN General Assembly

IPC

AU

CU

S.N

ET

Les Malezer, Chairperson, Indigenous People's CaucusNovember 12, 2006


General Assembly action on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was delayed thisfall by the Third Committee, which requested more time for states to consider the text.

We respectfully submit that the time for further study has passed. If anyone needs internationalprotection for their human rights, it is indigenous peoples, who are among the poorest and mostmarginalized on earth. The text presented to the General Assembly by the new Human RightsCouncil was 24 years in the making. After such a long process, General Assembly approval ought tobe pro forma.

The world's indigenous peoples are united behind the Human Rights Council's text. Any attempt toreopen the text now would deal a blow

Date post:	13-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

A JOINT PUBLICATION OF CULTURAL SURVIVAL AND ......1923 – Haudenosaunee Chief Deskaheh travels to...

Documents