Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Seventh Session

10^th Meeting (AM)

PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES DISCUSSES WAYS TO MORE EFFECTIVELY PROMOTE

COUNTRIES’ IMPLEMENTATION OF DECLARATION ON RIGHTS

 

Delegates Underscore Need for National Governments to Protect People over Profits

Hearing from delegates on the multiple ways in which their respective countries had failed to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite having supported its adoption, members of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues discussed today how the body could be more effective in encouraging implementation.

On the final day of its dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, Mexico’s representative said that, with the adoption of the Declaration, countries had the responsibility to implement it, stressing that implementation should be more than merely a catalogue of laws.  Instead it required a creative response across all levels of Government in the defence of the rights of indigenous peoples.  In light of that, Mexico urged the Forum to organize a special meeting where countries could exchange information on how they were promoting those rights.

Expanding on that theme, Guatemala’s delegate called for a linking of ideas to create a new social fabric that would take indigenous issues into account.  Prompted by the Guatemalan Government’s stronger embrace of its indigenous populations, a new spirit was fostering a more participative democracy in the country.  Addressing the rights of indigenous peoples should not be separate from a State’s broader goals, and the new attitude was helping to strengthen “ethnic self-esteem” at minimal social and economic cost.

But a Forum member from Bolivia cautioned that, while States seemed to acknowledge indigenous peoples’ rights by enacting various laws in support of them, reports from the grass roots suggested the laws were hardly ever implemented.  In fact, several delegates pointed out that the goals of respecting the lands and waters of indigenous peoples and promoting national economic growth and rising prosperity were often diametrically opposed and, when choosing between the two, countries too often favoured profit over people.

Describing how his country’s policies favoured transnational corporations and a small number of national enterprises, a representative of Communidad Campesina de Tauria Arequipa Peru said those companies had left the indigenous people with only the pollution of their lands and lakes.  The State had been spreading the “good news” that Peru had enjoyed its largest growth rate compared to gross domestic product, while State policies had led to the pillaging of the nation’s forests.

A speaker for the Asociacion de Mujeres Andinas said the search for energy sources paid no heed to the lives of indigenous peoples as mining operations changed the landscape and disturbed indigenous production methods and economic organization.  The Forum should recommend that mining and oil exploration in indigenous territories respect international standards guaranteeing the right to life and health.  When engaged in exploration and production, mining and oil companies should apply the same standards they would in their own countries.

Noting that infrastructure projects financed by European Union member countries continued to force indigenous peoples from their homelands, while European mining companies devastated the environment, the Chair of the European Parliament called on the European Union to develop a normative framework for dealing with such issues in a way that respected human rights.  It should also develop the capacity to mediate between indigenous communities and State authorities that were in conflict.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, acknowledged the difficulties of holding countries accountable, but stressed that the Forum provided a critical way to encourage implementation.  In the closing statement, and his final address to the Forum before stepping down from his post, he said that, although the Forum and the Office of the Special Rapporteur were not legal mechanisms, they were among the places where complaints, accusations and statements about the situation of indigenous peoples could be presented.  Without that opportunity, the international community would have no way to find out what was really going on.  The Forum therefore afforded crucial opportunities for dialogue, and the intense activity brought to its dialogue would bear fruit for the world’s indigenous peoples.

Other members discussed various changes that could further improve the Forum’s effectiveness, recalling the study presented yesterday on United Nations structures, procedures and mechanisms to address the human rights of indigenous peoples.  A speaker from Spain said an expert mechanism proposed in the study would be different from the one currently being established and deserved further discussion.  The study also called for a mechanism to channel the demands and proposals of indigenous parties, which should be considered in more detail.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Colombia and Viet Nam.

The representative of Iran spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

A representative from the Observer Mission of the Holy See and a member of the Customary Senate of New Caledonia also spoke.

Others speaking during the dialogue were representatives of the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade; Indigenous Environmental Network; AIDESEP, an umbrella organization in Peru; NASAI (Peru); Retrieve Foundation; Haudenosaunee peoples; Grandmothers of Mother Earth; Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (on behalf of the Montagnard Foundation); Friends of the Earth International (on behalf of the Mooka and Kalara United Families within the Wiradjuri Nation of Australia); Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea Foundation; Dewan Adat Papua; Boro People’s Forum for Peace and Rights; Autonomia Eraiki; World Hmong People’s Congress; Ainu Resource Centre; Mainyoito Pastoralists Integrated Development Organization; Conseil national authochtone; Arctic Caucus; Middle East Caucus; Ethiopian World Federation (on behalf of the International Indigenous Historical Society, the Longhouse 1, Taitu Betul International University, Sankofa International Academy, Deborah Light of Israel, Survival for Life, Makeda’s Remnant, Negus Inter Café and Learning Centre and Taad-Yinga); International Native Tradition Exchange; and the Ahwazi Human Rights Organization.

Wilton Littlechild, Special Rapporteur, offered a prayer in support of a young indigenous woman believed to have died recently in suspicious circumstances.

The Forum will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, 30 April, to take up issues on indigenous children and youth, the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, urban indigenous peoples and migration, and customary laws pertaining to traditional indigenous knowledge.

Background

As the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues met to conclude its dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples and other special rapporteurs, some speakers took the floor to address a previous agenda item, implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Statements

CONNIE TARACENA ( Guatemala) said it was a day to “link ideas” and create a new social fabric that would take indigenous issues into account.  The people of Guatemala, comprising four different indigenous communities, had reconciled themselves with the multicultural and multilingual nature of their country and the new Government had vowed to commit itself to being culturally sensitive with regard to indigenous groups.  It had a multicultural flag in acknowledgement of the four nations living within one country. 

She said the new spirit had prompted State institutions to optimize their resources with regard to rural communities.  A more participative democracy was taking shape in full acknowledgement of Guatemala’s linguistic and ethnic make-up.  The new attitude was helping to strengthen “ethnic self-esteem” at minimal social and economic cost, and it attributed value to the country’s various national languages.  The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a source of great pride and the Government looked forward to the incorporation of its spirit into the General Assembly resolutions to be tabled at its sixty-second session. 

ARTHUR MANUEL, Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade, speaking also on behalf of the Algonquin Elders of Barrier Lake, Canada, and the Women, Elders and Youth of Grassy Narrows, Ontario, said Canada did not recognize those peoples’ right to self-determination.  It was essential that the Forum develop a mechanism to listen to such groups.  The Network endorsed President Evo Morales’ clear statement of support for the Declaration on indigenous rights, and urged countries around the world to look to him as an example.  It also asked indigenous communities to lend him their support.  It was time to abandon the colonial doctrine of discovery.  The Forum provided a place for those at the community level to express their frustrations.  Governments such as Canada’s must be held accountable for unjust, unilateral policies and abandon them in favour of a mutually agreed solution.

KANDI MOSSETT, Indigenous Environmental Network, underscored how fossil fuel extraction threatened indigenous cultures and environmental systems and contributed to climate change in the lands where indigenous peoples had lived for centuries.  Today the outer continental shelf of Alaska was being targeted by petroleum companies with support from the United States Government.  Meanwhile, Alaska was touted in national climate change discussions as the “canary in the mine”.  Fossil fuel exploration continued in the United States under the guise of homeland security, but it was proceeding at the expense of indigenous peoples.  In Canada, the Cree nation had requested a moratorium on development of tar sands, but the Canadian Government was not listening and had no regard for the rights of its indigenous peoples who had the most to lose.  In light of that, the Forum should call on the United Nations to convene an emergency meeting to investigate the role of the petroleum industry in climate change, and address issues relating to the right to food, security, as well as indigenous human rights.

GABRIELA GARDUZA ESTRADA ( Mexico) stressed that, with the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, countries had the responsibility to implement it.  Yet, there were as many and diverse ways to do so as there were countries.  Implementing the Declaration went beyond a catalogue of laws and required a creative response across all levels of Government in the defence of those rights.  In Mexico, a programme was under way to disseminate information about the rights enshrined in the Declaration.  Much of that public education effort targeted the indigenous populations themselves in the languages most familiar to them.  So far, broadcasts had gone out to more than 60 indigenous groups.  Mexico hoped there could be an exchange of information about the different ways in which other countries were promoting the rights of their indigenous peoples.  The Forum should organize a special meeting to foster such a dialogue and eventually produce a guide that Governments could use in implementing the Declaration.

HELENE FLAUTRE, Chair, European Parliament, said indigenous communities participating in the Permanent Forum were an example of global cooperation against discrimination, environmental degradation and other rights violations.  Bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations should learn how to fully listen to the Forum.  The European Parliament was aware of the value to all humanity of the linguistic and cultural heritage of indigenous peoples, their traditional knowledge and the harmonious relationship they had nurtured with the environment for more than 1,000 years. 

She said the European Parliament wished to be a promoter and protector of human rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples to their languages and cultures, self-management of their land and of their well-being.  European parliamentarians were promoting recommendations put forward by indigenous peoples and the Chair of the Permanent Forum was invited to present them to the regional legislature, but the European Union must do much more.  Infrastructure projects, financed by members of the European Union, continued to force indigenous peoples from their homelands, and European companies mining in indigenous territories were devastating the environment.

The European Union must develop a normative framework for dealing with such issues in a way that respected human rights, she said.  It should also develop the capacity to mediate between indigenous communities and State authorities that were in conflict.  The European Union had an active policy to protect those defending human rights; as such, European ambassadors serving in countries where indigenous populations were found were obliged to protect and listen to the grievances of indigenous peoples, if need be.  As the world grappled with an impending food crisis, among other crises, it needed new solidarity and new approaches.  It was important that the voice of indigenous peoples in the construction of those new approaches be fully heard.

VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Chair of the Permanent Forum, noted that the European Union had been among the first groups of countries to condemn the extrajudicial killings taking place in her own country, the Philippines, a large percentage of the 850 people killed had been indigenous people.

SAUL PUERTO PENA, speaking for AIDESEP, an umbrella group in Peru, said an absence of clear policies to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples was a major problem in his country.  The Government did not recognize the existence of indigenous nations, mentioning only the presence of “communities”.  Despite having ratified International Labour Convention 169 and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it persisted in excluding them from policymaking and economic process.  Indigenous peoples believed in economic growth, but not growth at the expense of human rights. 

Noting that 80 per cent of Amazonian Peru had been divided into lots, many of them protected areas or indigenous lands, he said the raiding of the Amazon’s resource “larder” had led to forced migration.  Peru was currently discussing draft laws that would enable large parts of the Amazon to be auctioned off because leaving those tracts of land in indigenous hands was considered unproductive.  The Special Rapporteur and Permanent Forum should know that the Government was doling out extraction licenses without the prior informed consent of the rightful owners of the lands.  AIDESEP demanded that the Peruvian Government invite the Special Rapporteur to visit the area, and that the Forum make an effort to expand coverage of the Declaration on indigenous rights.

ROSA DAUGUA, speaking for NASAI ( Peru), said she had come to speak for a disappearing population, asking the Forum to send representatives to witness the challenges faced by her people.  She also recommended the cancellation of oil contracts in Peruvian territories so as to protect her indigenous brothers, and asked the Forum to investigate the Moore Foundation and Texas University, which did not have the right to work in her people’s lands nor speak in their name.  Fighting against the usurpation of their identity, the indigenous people had conflicts with numerous oil companies and non-governmental organizations and NASAI was the only organization legally elected to represent them.

MARGARET CONNOLLY, speaking for the Retrieve Foundation, said that, so far in Ireland, there was no dialogue about the rights of indigenous peoples.  Instead, the desecration of indigenous lands and sacred areas continued, namely the Hill of Tara and surrounding areas.  There had been no prior consultation with the indigenous community about Shell Oil’s exploration of those lands.  In the absence of indigenous spiritual guidance, conferred by traditional rites-of-passage ceremonies, indigenous youth were experiencing high levels of depression, addiction and suicide.  The Irish Government must inform its indigenous peoples of its commitment to the Declaration. 

OREN LYONS, speaking on behalf of the Haudenosaunee peoples, referred to the “doctrine of discovery”, upon which the laws of nations were based and which formed the root of imperialism.  United States and Canadian laws worked against Native American peoples, and there was “something fundamentally wrong” with the context in which they struggled.  If human rights were universal, as international law proclaimed, it did not follow that indigenous peoples could be excluded from the rights necessary to their dignity and survival.  Indeed, why were they forced to acquire their own declaration on rights?  The reason lay in the West’s nineteenth century doctrine of discovery, which had played a determining role in United States federal law and that of many other settler States, as well as the law of Christendom, which had prevailed during the discovery periods of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, with its philosophy of the divine right of kings and popes. 

Papal bulls of 1493-1494, coupled with the First Letters Patent, issued by King Henry VIII to John Cabot and Sons in 1496, had established the process of colonization in the Western Hemisphere, he said.  The introduction of the Christian doctrine of discovery into United States federal caselaw had opened American Indian lands for exploitation, which had quickly been seized by Christian settler States.  Unravelling those events, which had set in motion the jurisprudential doctrines that sought to legitimize great injustices with regard to indigenous property, needed further investigation.  The Forum should initiate a study of the content and effects of the doctrine of discovery on the lands of indigenous peoples.

MAURITA HALPIN, speaking for Grandmothers of Mother Earth, said the organization was an international grass-roots entity dedicated to affirming and giving voice to the time honoured wisdom of indigenous grandmothers.  They understood the power of healing, correcting that which did not service mankind by voicing what needed to be corrected for seven generations to come.  On behalf of the Grandmothers of Swaziland, she said terrible exploitation by food donors was actually turning the land into a dumping ground for inferior foods.  The practice of the World Bank and the United Nations of supplying genetically modified food should be stopped immediately.  For the Grandmothers of Tibet, the Forum should investigate the “genocidal” practices of removing indigenous people from their lands.  For the Grandmothers of America, the Forum should investigate federal legislation that continued to deny indigenous peoples their legal identity.  The Grandmothers of Europe were reconnecting with their indigenous sacred ways and requested that the European Union inform each member country of the legal, moral and spiritual obligation of their Governments towards their indigenous peoples.

ROMY THACH, speaking for the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation and the Montagnard Foundation, said the district of Svay Tong in the province of Mouat Chrouk had recently been the scene of acts of terror targeting indigenous peoples.  Even as the target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals approached, the rights of Viet Nam’s indigenous peoples were being neglected.  Viet Nam must realize that the implementation of the Declaration was imperative if the Goals were to be achieved.  The Permanent Forum should lead a collaborative initiative that would include exact deadlines to foster Viet Nam’s recognition of indigenous peoples such as the Khmer Krom and the Montagnards.  The Forum should insist that Viet Nam, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, cooperate more fully with United Nations human rights mechanisms.  It should also address inquiries by the United Nations special rapporteurs on issues of religious intolerance, torture, indigenous peoples and arbitrary detention.

WILLIAM NEVILLE, Friends of the Earth International, speaking also on behalf of the Mooka and Kalara United Families within the Wiradjuri Nation of Australia, said one of the biggest human rights violations in that country involved the denial of spirituality and religious freedom to native aborigines, who had some of the world’s worst social indicators.  And while it was true that access to culturally-appropriate health services, education and housing were important, they would not on their own address core issues unless indigenous peoples were given the right to self-determination and religious freedom.  That meant giving aborigines the right to defend and protect their sacred lands and waters.

He said aboriginal people had had no power to protect their property and mineral wealth within the colonial legal system, since there was no recognized aboriginal land sovereignty over natural resources.  In the case of Lake Cowal in Wiradjuri territory, the community had been instructed by the National Native Title Tribunal that, if it claimed the minerals in the Earth as part of its inheritance, its native title claim would not pass the registration test.  But the community was continuing to assert, in federal courts, that Wiradjuri sovereignty had never been ceded in the first place.  The Forum should request the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate instances in which the Australian Government was operating in breach of its ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.  The Forum should also evaluate the assertion by indigenous peoples that their right to religious freedom had been denied, and report on the restriction that only the office of the Attorney-General could take a genocide case, with no right of appeal in instances where it refused such cases.

KURIAKOSE BHARANIKULANGARA, Observer Mission of the Holy See, affirmed its support for the Declaration on indigenous rights.  As for references to the Vatican Observatory in Mount Graham, Arizona, the Vatican had maintained respect for the religious practices of indigenous peoples living in surrounding areas, namely the San Carlos Apache tribe, in building it.  Efforts had been made to meet with leaders of surrounding tribes prior to and after construction, and the Holy See was prepared to discuss religious concerns that might relate to specific locations on Mount Graham.

MUBEYYIN BATU ALTAN, speaking on behalf of the Research and Support of Indigenous Peoples of Crimea Foundation, said there were ongoing violations of the human rights of the Crimean Tatars, who had been deported from their ancestral homeland en masse 64 years ago, and were still unable to resettle in the Ukraine’s Crimean region.  Since the Foundation’s last appearance in the Forum, the violations had increased significantly.  Not only had Tatars been attacked and beaten by Russian paramilitary groups and militias, but their cemeteries had also been vandalized and desecrated.  The Foundation appealed to United Nations organizations and the world’s public for support in the Tatars’ peaceful struggle for their rights, and asked the Forum to join the appeal for the immediate recognition of Tatar lands, language and rights, including the right to resettle in Crimea and recognition of its sacred places.  Crimea should not become Russia’s Tibet.

YOAB SYATFLE, speaking on behalf of Dewan Adat Papua, said the territory of West Papuan indigenous peoples was currently occupied by Indonesia, which had illegally and forcibly taken their land.  Indonesia continued to destroy West Papua’s forests and strip its natural resources.  It had also implemented systematic transmigration and immigration programmes.  Indigenous West Papuans had rejected the Government’s version of “special autonomy”, which had failed to address the issues of concern to indigenous peoples.  That law had not ended human rights abuses, and military operations continued.  International media and non-governmental organizations were still banned from West Papua.  Indonesia and Russia planned to launch a global satellite facility on the West Papuan island of Biak without consulting the indigenous population.  The General Assembly should review the 1969 Act of Free Choice in West Papua, and ask Indonesia to reject Russia’s plan for the global satellite facility.  It should make clear to Indonesia that the “special autonomy” process had failed.  West Papua should not be divided into separate provinces or districts.  Instead, an international dialogue on West Papuan independence should take place.

Senator KAWA, Customary Senate of New Caledonia, urged the Forum to study the situation of that French-governed Territory’s indigenous Kanak population and called on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to allow Kanaks to make full use of the United Nations human rights machinery.  Some 180 years of colonization and immigration had made the Kanaks a minority in their own land, and placed their traditional knowledge, language and very survival under threat.  Listed as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, New Caledonia had gained a measure of autonomy and decentralization in 1988, upon the signing of the Matignon Accord, but ironically, the Kanaks had found themselves facing a kind of recolonization, with their land being given to non-indigenous owners. 

To date no United Nations agency had intervened to meet the needs of the Kanaks, he said, urging the Forum to recommend that the High Commissioner for Human Rights make it easy for the Kanaks to use the Organization’s human rights machinery to protect their rights.  New Caledonia’s decolonization process had opened the country to foreign mining companies and encouraged more immigration, which had turned the Kanak community into an even smaller minority.  The Government of New Caledonia should remove obstacles to the application of the 1998 Noumea Accord [which promises to grant political power to the Kanaks] to the Customary Senate.

BHRAMON BAGLANI, Boro Peoples Forum for Peace and Rights, said the Boro people of Assam, India, had historically been an independent nation until 1854, when the British had annexed their kingdom.  Based on that background, the Boro had been engaged in a continuous struggle for the peaceful settlement of the self-determination question, but their democratic movement had been crushed by the Government of India, leading to the loss of 10,000 lives.  The conflict continued despite two accords signed between the Boro and the Government, in 1993 and 2003.  The Government had not treated the political conflict seriously, appearing to take it as a mere law-and-order situation.  The Boro had entered into a ceasefire with the Government in 2005, but that had not led to a substantial change in circumstances.  The Forum should extend support to the ongoing peace talks and support a visit by the Special Rapporteur.

XAN MARGUIRAULT, speaking on behalf of Autonomia Eraiki, said the indigenous peoples living in the Basque country administered by France had decided to resist the French State’s policies because of its refusal to grant official institutional recognition of them, including any recognition of their indigenous language.  The violent response to the Basque people’s legitimate claims had led them to New York to ask that the Forum witness the State’s actions.  France should respect the rights enshrined in the Declaration, which it had supported, including the right to self-determination.  The Basques of France wished to use institutional instruments that would allow them the right to establish natural links with their brothers and sisters in Spain’s Basque country, where a “theatre of violence” surrounded the claims of the indigenous people.  France’s Basque people could not remain silent in the face of violence against their brothers and sisters in Spain, and called on the Forum to name an independent expert for Western Europe, preferably a Basque.

MIGUEL IBANEZ, speaking for Communidad Campesina de Tauria Arequipa Peru, said the country’s policies favoured transnational companies and a small number of national companies that had profited at the expense of indigenous peoples.  Those companies had left the indigenous peoples with only the pollution of their lands and lakes.  Today, extreme poverty affected nearly three quarters of the population, yet the State had been spreading the “good news” that Peru had the largest growth rate compared to gross domestic product (GDP).  Meanwhile, State policies had lead to the pillaging of Peru’s forests.  Just 2 per cent of the Amazon’s lands were recognized as indigenous lands.  In response to the just indigenous claims to the land, the State had sent military forces for a “peace dialogue”.  When a police officer had been killed, the military forces had been permitted to enter indigenous lands and allowed illegally to imprison indigenous peoples without cause.  The incoming Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples should include Peru in his regular visits.

BARTOLOME CLAVERO, a Forum member from Spain, recalled the study presented yesterday by Ida Nicolaisen and Wilton Littlechild on United Nations structures, procedures and mechanisms to address the human rights of indigenous peoples.  It had presented interesting solutions that merited further reflection.  For example, it proposed the establishment of an expert mechanism on indigenous rights in Geneva that would be different from the one currently being set up.  That suggestion should be studied more closely.  Another proposal deserving further attention concerned a mechanism that would channel the demands and proposals of indigenous parties.  The study also proposed the creation of a “chamber” on indigenous rights comprising Forum members.  Even though it was possible that the proposed chamber would duplicate agency efforts, it would be useful in circulating reports to the Forum by civil society groups.

He went on to cite the example of eight associations in Peru which had embarked on a study of local indigenous affairs, and their report was a valuable counterweight to official Government reports.  It contained information on laws overturned by the Government that would have guaranteed stronger rights for indigenous peoples.  Such analyses were pertinent to the work of the Human Rights Council at its universal periodic review of Peru.  The best way to channel alternative viewpoints, which could complement the dialogue in New York and Geneva, would be for the Forum to consider such reports in the proposed chamber.  The chamber could, in turn, transmit such reports to Geneva’s expert mechanism, which could then put them forward to the universal periodic review mechanism.  Under the present structure, it was difficult to get such a report studied and circulated at the Human Rights Council.  In addition, the chamber could be in direct contact with the Special Rapporteur.

ROSA CONDE, Asociacion de Mujeres Andinas, said indigenous peoples had often been subjected to invasion, which had led to various forms of injustice.  The search for energy sources paid no heed to the lives of indigenous peoples.  Mining operations changed the landscape and disturbed indigenous production methods and economic organization.  Basic rights, such as the right to life and health, and respect for psychological well-being, were often shunted aside.  The Forum should recommend that mining and oil exploration in indigenous territories respect international standards guaranteeing the right to life and health.  When engaged in exploration and production, mining and oil companies should apply the same standards used in their own countries.  Indigenous people living in territories being mined or harvested for minerals and oil should receive some of the revenues derived from such activity.

TONYA GONELLA FRICHNER, a Forum member from the United States, voiced appreciation for the work being done in Guatemala regarding indigenous languages, which had been the focus of an expert meeting in January 2008.  Also interesting were efforts undertaken to invest in indigenous communities.  She acknowledged the Government’s contribution to the adoption of the Declaration on indigenous rights, the support it had shown the Forum and to both the outgoing and incoming Special Rapporteurs.  She also expressed appreciation to the Government of Mexico for comments relating to the Declaration and the expert mechanism.  The European Parliament statement on the effects of climate change on indigenous peoples was also welcome, and the Holy See’s statement on efforts to meet with the native nations of Arizona, United States, was noted.

HUBERT YANG, World Hmong People’s Congress, describing himself a survivor of a genocide that had occurred in Laos between 1975 and 1980, said the Hmong dated back more than 5,000 years to the birth of what was now China.  Today, more than 4,000 indigenous Hmong children never attended schools as a result of the Lao-Viet Nam Friendship Treaty signed in 1977.  Thousands of Hmong refugees had flooded into Thailand and all over the world in the last three decades.  Hmong people were still being killed by violence and starvation in the jungles by Lao troops and Vietnamese mercenaries.  An estimated 23,000 people had been killed in the last five years; if that was not genocide, what was?  If that was not the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council, what was?

YUUKI HASEGAWA, Ainu Resource Centre, welcomed Japan’s vote in favour of the Declaration, but expressed concern about its reservations concerning some collective and property rights of the Ainu people.  In addition, the Government remained reluctant to define the Ainu as “indigenous”.  While the adoption of the Declaration was a real step towards recognizing the rights of the Ainu, the Government had failed to take real steps to implement it.  Local Ainu organizations had therefore petitioned local governments to implement the Declaration, and similar appeals had been made to the Prime Minister’s office for the establishment of comprehensive measures for the Ainu people.

Turning to the Forum’s work, she welcomed the report by Ida Nicolaisen and Wilton Littechild, and asked the Forum to petition all United Nations agencies to encourage and assist Member States in implementing the Declaration.  The Forum should also help indigenous communities obtain financial assistance so they could do their part in implementing the Declaration.

GUNN BRITT RETTER, Arctic Caucus, thanked those Governments that had responded to questions she had posed earlier in the session, even if she did not necessarily agree with their positions.  The most important task of the Special Rapporteur was to further the rights of indigenous peoples while using the Declaration as a guide.  Country-specific reports should focus on progress being made in implementing the provisions of that human rights instrument.

She said the alternative expert mechanism proposed by former Forum members Nicolaisen and Littlechild was superior to the current one, but she nevertheless looked forward to working with the current mechanism, while urging the Special Rapporteur to avoid duplicating the work of those experts.  There were not enough clear ideas on how to cooperate with the Human Rights Council on monitoring implementation of the Declaration, so the time was not ripe for the Forum to take a decision on cooperation with that body.  A Permanent Forum committee on the Declaration was not the most effective mechanism.  Rather, the Forum should convene a small number of experts to examine how the mechanism and the Special Rapporteur could work together to advance the Declaration before coming to a decision at its next session.

ALANOOD FERIAL ABU-NADI, Middle East Caucus, said the Bedouins of the Negev, in Israel, had had their lands usurped and whoever dared to face up to the Israeli authorities was arrested.  The authorities were known to beat elderly women and children.  Some Bedouin villages had neither electricity nor running water and received little by way of health services or education.  The Forum should urge Israel to halt the destruction of Bedouin homes and the issuance of racial threats.  Indigenous peoples should be involved in decisions over use of the Negev Desert.

MICHAEL TIAMPATI, Mainyoito Pastoralists Integrated Development Organization, said the Maasai indigenous peoples in Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania faced a “cocktail” of abuses of their social, cultural, economic and ecological rights.  Their plight was further compounded by institutional marginalization and social exclusion from basic social services.  The recent violence that had erupted in Kenya following the dispute over presidential election results was multidimensional, but it certainly stemmed in part from widespread inequality and poverty.

He said indigenous peoples had suffered a number of complex effects because of the conflict.  Due to the resettlement of internally displaced persons on Maasai territory, indigenous communities now felt threats of domination by immigrants and feared a take-over of their lands and resources.  That was a recipe for future conflict and the United Nations should stop the resettlement of internally displaced persons in Maasai lands.  In addition, the Forum and the International Labour Organization should support a meeting in Kenya to bring together all indigenous peoples and United Nations agencies to address the emerging threats, and to support Maasai engagement with current reform processes.

THIHMANA HMEGEZIE, Conseil national authochtone, said the Kanak people of New Caledonia were tired of carrying the burden of French colonialism and of multinational corporations, which had negotiated the purchase of mines and lands with the French State without the consent of the Kanak people.  Recognizing their right to their lands and resources, the Kanaks fiercely protested the development of a waste pipe that would contribute to climate change in the Pacific Ocean.  The pipe would threaten the coral reefs in the Kanaky lands and seas and the marine ecosystem would be destroyed as the animals and plants disappeared.

Stressing that French colonization was at the heart of the violation of the Kanaks’ human rights, he said social inequalities continued to grow:  there were no Kanak doctors, engineers, lawyers or judges.  In fact, out of the 4,500 civil servants in the Territory, only 40 were Kanak.  In light of that, the Conseil national autochtone proposed to hold a seminar on decolonization in 2010 and requested that James Anaya visit Kanaky.

EULENE INISS, speaking on behalf of Ethiopian World Federation, International Indigenous Historical Society, the Longhouse 1, Taitu Betul International University, Sankofa International Academy, Deborah Light of Israel, Survival for Life, Makeda’s Remnant, Negus Inter Café and Learning Centre and Taad-Yinga, said statistical records in the United States exposed the effects of colonialism on the “Afro-indigenous”.  Half the number of Afro-indigenous students did not graduate high school; of non-graduates, 60 per cent would remain jobless; and half of the high school graduates were not prepared for college.  Some 65 per cent of prison inmates never graduated from high school and more than 40 per cent of those were Afro-indigenous.  The average Afro-indigenous student, at the end of high school, had eighth-grade academic skills.

Noting that politics and education could not be separated, she said teachers were dismissed for holding views incompatible with community politics and those contained in State education materials, which were being distributed through large corporations.  Educators must practice politics based on liberation, instead of educating within the oppressive State-mandated system, as was now the case in schools.  An intervention was necessary in order to correct the abusive learning process.  School curricula inherited from the old colonial Powers were common to both rich and poor nations, from the United States to Zambia.

JORGE QUILAQUE, International Native Tradition Exchange, describing himself as a medicine man of the Mapuche nation, said multinational corporations were contaminating the lands and waters traditionally used by the Mapuche, exhausting the water supply by diverting water for hydroelectric dams and covering sacred burial grounds with concrete.  The Mapuche asked that the Human Rights Council intervene so that the Government would respect their autonomy, with their ancient parliaments and treaties.  The Mapuche nation asked not to be labelled “terrorists” for acting in their own defence.  They were survivors of genocide at the hands of Spain and Chile, and could not allow themselves to be denied their rights.  The Mapuche requested a visit from the Special Rapporteur.

CARLOS SUAREZ ( Colombia) said his country was one of the signatories to the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries treaty, having adopted it in 1991.  It was an important framework for legal and judicial actions taken to promote and ensure respect for indigenous peoples in Colombia, whose Constitution assigned specific rights to indigenous communities in addition to the regular rights afforded to all citizens.  Thirty per cent of Colombia’s territory had been recognized as indigenous lands and the special authority of the indigenous peoples over those lands was recognized.  In addition, indigenous peoples were exempt from national military service.

Noting the destruction and violence committed by armed groups in his country, he said there had been a reduction in all crime and violence indices in Colombia due to social and policing policies.  That positive progress had been acknowledged by the national and international community.  As it undertook those efforts to reduce crime, the State had also sought to strengthen the human rights of all its citizens.  Yet the struggle against impunity remained a challenge in all areas.  As a result, the Federal Government was working in concert with civil society to institute a human rights plan.  As it had explained in the past, Colombia faced several legal incompatibilities that prevented it from supporting the Declaration.  But that did not reduce its commitment to preserve its own ethnic diversity.

PHAM HAI ANH ( Viet Nam) said his delegation respected the work of the Permanent Forum and had participated actively in its work by providing all relevant information about its efforts to achieve equality of life for every citizen.  However, the Forum’s work should be based on accurate and credible information.  Unfortunately, it had not always been provided with that type of information.  Viet Nam strongly rejected the participation of the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation and the Montagnard Foundation, both of which operated outside Viet Nam and pursued a separatist agenda.  Their participation wasted precious time that could be better spent helping indigenous peoples around the world.  Viet Nam also strongly supported implementation of the Millennium Development Goals in the Montagnard districts and the United Nations had recognized its work in doing so.

In response, the Chairperson stressed the reality that some indigenous peoples were in exile from their countries, and suggested that the Special Rapporteur investigate that situation as the Permanent Forum lacked the capacity to do so at present.  The Chair welcomed, however, the rights of individual countries to appear before the Forum to raise issues about the veracity of any statement or report.  That was, of course, part of the important dialogue on the situation of indigenous peoples, which was the role and entire point of the Forum.

ELISA CANQUI MOLLO, a Forum member from Bolivia, said that, while States seemed to acknowledge indigenous peoples’ rights by enacting various laws in their support, they were hardly ever implemented, according to reports from the grass roots.  A number of indigenous organizations spoke of consultation processes being carried out by States and international collaborators, yet the end result still showed a high number of violations.  Quite often, States approached specific individuals, which was not the proper way to carry out a consultative process.  Some consultations were mixed with propaganda efforts and it was important that the Special Rapporteur realize that such things happened.

ABDIAN KARIM ABED HAMIDI, Ahwazi Human Rights Organization, said five million indigenous Ahwazi Arabs living in south-western Iran constituted an indigenous, ethnic, national and linguistic minority in that country.  They had long been subjected to marginalization and discrimination by successive Iranian Governments.  Iran did not acknowledge the existence of indigenous peoples, let alone protect them.  Some 90 per cent of the country’s oil revenues came from oilfields on indigenous lands, and none were allocated to indigenous peoples, who were kept backward and poor, amid high illiteracy and unemployment rates.

He said a bill had been introduced in the Iranian Parliament proposing the allocation of 1.5 per cent of oil revenues to indigenous peoples, but it had repeatedly been rejected.  The Persian language had been imposed on Ahwazi people, just as with the Kurds.  Some 80 per cent of children suffered from malnutrition.  Just recently, a news report had revealed that 500,000 hectares of Ahwazi lands had been confiscated and given to Persian settlers or oil companies.  Three days ago, it had been reported that permission had been granted to China for the exploration of the Azadegan oilfield, also in indigenous territory.  The Forum should demand that the Special Rapporteur investigate such land confiscations and as well as killings -- 21 Ahwazi activists had been publicly hanged in the past year.

WILTON LITTLECHILD, Special Rapporteur, announced that Beverly Jacobs, Indigenous Women’s Caucus, had left the session to attend to the suspicious death of Tashina Cheyenne General, a young woman in her community.  As President of the women’s group in her community, Ms. Jacobs was known for speaking loudly and passionately on behalf of indigenous women and girls.  All delegates were asked to devote a moment of reflection for Tashina’s benefit.

He then offered a prayer in his native language.

Right of Reply

The representative of Iran, speaking in exercise of the right of reply, said his delegation had participated actively in the debate leading to the adoption of the Declaration, and joined the consensus vote in favour of its adoption.  Iran supported indigenous rights around the world.  The representative of the Ahwazi Human Rights Organization, located in London, had been responsible for a number of bombings in Iran.  All Iranian people of different linguistic and ethnic backgrounds enjoyed their rights, as recognized in international human rights conventions.

Closing Statement

RODOLFO STAVENHAGEN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, expressed solidarity with and best wishes for success to his successor, James Anaya, noting that the intense activity brought to the Forum’s dialogue would bear fruit for the indigenous peoples of the world.  The mechanisms of United Nations agencies, including the Forum, the office of the Special Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council, would be more effectively used to promote the rights of indigenous communities. 

One of the most important mechanisms that could be employed to that end would be the presentation of complaints, accusations and statements about the situation of indigenous peoples, he said.  Without that opportunity, the international community had no way of really finding out what was going on.  There were too many filters that did not allow such information to circulate.  Both in the Forum and in the Human Rights Council, when some Government delegations were directly confronted with an accusation, they completely rejected the groups making the accusations.  Nonetheless, the Forum was a place where those types of groups could meet together.

He said that, over the years, he had sent out more than 200 communiqués to different Governments on the basis of documents, complaints and statements.  Unfortunately, some Governments had not responded, while others had simply stated that they had received the information.  Very few investigated each situation and complaint, much less dealt with them.  While the Forum and the Office of the Special Rapporteur were not legal mechanisms, they provided opportunities for dialogue.  It was to be hoped that the Forum would continue to be a place to meet and discuss the issues of indigenous populations, perhaps becoming a joint quest for a solution to the problems raised.

Concluding today’s dialogue, the Chair thanked Mr. Stavenhagen for his service as Special Rapporteur and offered best wishes to his successor, Mr. Anaya, while also thanking Mr. Littlechild and Ms. Nicolaisen for their active involvement in preparing the documents for the current session.  Mr. Littlechild presented a token of appreciation to Mr. Stavenhagen in the form of a traditional vest from the Cree Nation.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record