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