Refusals to sign UN declartion on indiginous right

[Prairyearth]

NGO: Practice what you preach
1228 FJT
Friday, September 21, 2007


Update: 12.28pm A Pacific non-government organisation claims Australia and New Zealand's refusal to sign the UN declaration on indigenous rights undermines their positions in the region, reports Radio Australia.

The Pacific Concerns Resource Centre says it appears the two nations are still uncomfortable about the injustices indigenous people in their nations have suffered as a result of colonalisation.

The centre's Ema Tagicakibau says Australia and New Zealand are seen in the Pacific as the champions of human rights.

She has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat program it is disappointing they won't sign the UN agreement, which could be used as an advocacy tool to protect indigenous rights.

''How can it come in and tell us in the Pacific how to run our lives in terms of good governance and human rights violations here in Fiji, when it can not even practice at home what it preaches in the region and the world. So that is really a let down in the region,'' Ms Tagicakibau said.

Articles in the UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples include the recognition of the right for self-determination and the right to be compensated for the expropriation of traditional lands.

While the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia voted against the non-binding mandate, 143 member nations voted for the declaration.

From: http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=70988

[Prairyearth]

Briggs: Indigenous on offense: Treaty gathering, U.N. vote coincide
© Indian Country Today September 06, 2007. All Rights Reserved
Posted: September 06, 2007
by: Kara Briggs / Today correspondent


On Sept. 13, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to vote on the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Sources privy to an intervention by Mexico, Guatemala and Peru with African states that have opposed the declaration say they have reached a set of small revisions that leave key tenants of the declaration in tact.

Speaking as recently as one month ago at a treaty gathering of indigenous nations at the Lummi Nation in Washington state, Oren Lyons, Onondaga Nation Faithkeeper, was concerned. He told those assembled, ''We have worked since 1977 on the draft declaration, and it's about to be shot down by four African nations under the direction of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

''They're going to try to change the language on self determination, on collective rights and about all the rights concerning the natural world.''

The declaration drafted by American Indians 30 years ago was intended to recognize indigenous peoples in an international setting - a setting that had effectively brought the principles of human rights to world consciousness of the cold light of 1948 shown on the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jews and others.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the ''unalienable rights'' of the individual, the nine-part draft declaration states that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determination, to hold onto their land bases, to be respected for their differences.

It's this concept of self determination - the everyday language of U.S. government relations with Native nations - that has been most controversial on a world stage.

Some opponents to the declaration said in 2006, according to a statement of a spokesman for the General Assembly, the concept ''could be misrepresented as conferring unilateral right of self-determination and possible secession, thus threatening ... the stability of member states.''

Opponents of the declaration have submitted watered down drafts before. Now with days before a vote of General Assembly, member states of the African Union have told sources that their latest revision won't be available until sometime next week, probably two or three days before the vote.

Sources close to the proceedings said on Sept. 4 that the African states had agreed to let the current text, including acknowledgement of the right to self determination, stand. There was only one area of weakening, which had to do with military use of indigenous lands.

''One can never be sure that's actually what will occur,'' said attorney Tim Coulter, the author of the original draft of the declaration and executive director of the Indian Law Resource Center. ''But it could occur, even if there are other changes offered, that they might well be voted down. The votes in the General Assembly are notoriously difficult to predict, members are sovereign.''

Coulter said that the bureaucratic processes of the United Nations allow for the declaration to come back even from a no vote in the General Assembly. But he isn't expecting the declaration to be voted down.

Still through the summer months many indigenous leaders remained worried about the effectiveness of the U.N. process.

''The United Nations has not delivered enough constructive outcomes for indigenous peoples,'' Aroha Te Pareaka Mead, representative of the Ngati Awa Iwi and the Aotearoa in New Zealand, said in late July. ''It has delivered some things, but not enough and it's taking too long.''

Especially worrisome to indigenous leaders gathered in late July in the gymnasium of the Lummi Nation School were proposed compromises that would further empower states to think that they could define who is and isn't indigenous.

A treaty of their making, a United League of Indigenous Nations Treaty of North America and the Pacific Rim, could be different, could shift the paradigm of international relations.

For three days, representatives of 40 indigenous nations from around the Pacific Rim conversed about a treaty of mutual support that they would write and sign. If historic treaty making by U.S. officials in the then foreign language English were fraught with deceit, this treaty would be done with transparency.

Using an overhead projector, organizers displayed the draft treaty on a movie screen. A young man typed proposed changes into the text while the leaders of indigenous nations weighed their options. A quick trip to Kinko's provided copies.

More than one leader had expressed sentiments of intergenerational, post-traumatic stress over treaty processes that their nation had been included in or excluded from.

''Generally speaking, our people haven't been much for treaties,'' said Mike Marchand, chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, which is located on the U.S. side of the border with Canada. ''We never sold our land to Canada. We have a lawsuit against the Queen. They say we have to make a choice: be a Canadian and get kicked around in Canada, or be an American and get kicked around in the U.S.''

Marchand said if the treaty under discussion talked of collaboration in getting land returned, then he would sign for his nation.

He and 10 other leaders of indigenous nations signed the treaty on Aug. 1 with plans for a larger signing involving more nations later this year.

While there are historic precedents for Native nations making treaty with each other, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy or the relations of the Coast Salish from the central British Columbia coast to south of Washington's Puget Sound, this treaty is a modern exercise of a long-standing right of nations.

How many Indian nations have foreign affairs departments, asked Frank Ettawageshik, chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa, of those assembled. He explained, ''The intergovernmental relations between us are on the same international level as the United Nations.''

The treaty has a more immediate potential for effecting cultural protections, land recovery and business relations among its signatories than the U.N. declaration. The declaration has the potential once entered into international law to influence national laws and court cases. The U.S. Supreme Court routinely explains that international law is one of bodies of law it consults.

What we need is both the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to effect laws outside indigenous nations, and the United League of Indigenous Nations Treaty to strengthen and protect from within an alliance that spans North America and the Pacific Rim.

As indigenous leaders prepare for 11th-hour negotiations at the United Nations in New York, it's worth remembering that the General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights didn't pass with the ease that we 60 years later would think.

But when it passed, the General Assembly called on members to ''cause the declaration to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.''

So be it with the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

To read a draft of the declaration, visit www.indianlaw.org/main/resources and select U.N., then select Human Rights Council 2006. For more information on the United League of Indigenous Nations Treaty, visit www.indig enousnationstreaty.org.

Kara Briggs, Yakama and Snohomish, is associate director of the American Indian Policy & Media Initiative at Buffalo State College. She lives at the Tulalip Reservation in Washington.

From;
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415694

[GhostChild]

Truly This Is Turtle Island: [NORTH AMERICA] Does Not Exist Lawfully: BNA ACT SECTION TWO REPEALED FOR HEIR'S AND SUCCESSOR'S.

The Treaty With The Original People Of Turtle Island Still Stands: Only To Those Whom Understand They Are Here For Peace And Friendship: For Trade And Commerce As CEO's/SUBORDINATE OFFICER'S/CROWN EMPLOYEE'S/SUBJECT'S/DEBTOR'S: Of COLONIAL BUSINESS INTEREST'S OF THE MONARCH'S OF EUROPE: Can Not Own That Which Can Not Be Given:

The Land Is Allodial: Not Feudal:Thus Not For Sale, But For Lease: To The Benefit Of The Original People Of The Great Turtle Island: For Those Whom Are And Those Whom Come From Those Whom Are: In The Best Interest's Of All Those Concerned.

Turtle Island Is The Land Mass: From The North Pole To The South Pole Of The [AMERICA'S]=(CORPORATION'S): Thus The [AMERICA'S] Can Have No Force Or Effect Over And Above Their: Creditor's/Benefactor's/Beneficairy's=The Original People Of Turtle Island And Their Blood Relations.

Soon We Will Post The Complete Scan Of The "Manifesto Directive" With Preamble Addendum, Which Is Already Posted Here On www.ghostchild.org In Text Form.

We Can Walk This Part In Beauty Or Darkness: The Rest Is Up To All Of Us.....The GhostChild.