New York - September 13, 2007 - At long last, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a reality. It was adopted today by the United Nations General Assembly by a vote of 143 to 4 with 11 abstentions.
The declaration spells out the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples including their right to their traditional lands and resources; their right to give their free, prior, and informed consent before governments take actions that negatively affect them; their right to be free from genocide and forced relocation; and their rights to their languages, cultures and spiritual beliefs. At long last the world's native peoples have a valuable tool for regaining some of the cultural and physical ground they have lost over the past 500 years.
"Today, by adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we are making further progress to improve the situation of indigenous peoples around the world," stated General Assembly President Haya Al Khalifa. "We are also taking another major step forward towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warmly welcomed the adoption, calling it "a triumph for indigenous peoples around the world." He further noted that "this marks a historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples reconciled with their painful histories and resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all."
Today's happy moment did not come easily. The declaration underwent a longer period of debate and negotiation--25 years all told--than any other international agreement in United Nations history. During those years, hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples were routed from their homes, massacred in their villages, had their sacred sites defiled, and their lands and resources appropriated. Even with the declaration now adopted, many of these problems will continue unless nations live up to the principals in the document.
Unfortunately, the United States stands to be one of these problem states. It was one of the four countries (along with Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) that voted against the declaration. Its vote sends a message to Native Americans and to the world that once again the United States is not prepared to take action to support human rights, even when those rights benefit American citizens.
The four "no" votes did not dampen the enthusiasm of Indigenous Peoples for today's outcome. As Indigenous Peoples Caucus president and Cultural Survival Program Council member Les Malezer stated in his statement following the vote, "The Declaration gives [Indigenous Peoples] the platform for addressing the continuing abuses of human rights against Indigenous Peoples and for shaping a future where it can be realized that all peoples are truly equal."
Source: http://www.culturalsurvival.org
4 comments:
Which 4 countries voted against the Declaration? Canada, Australia, NZ and the US. John Howard says indigenous Australians' "future lies in being part of the mainstream of this country . . . We do not support the notion that you should have [indigenous] customary law taking priority over the general law of the country. . . it is wrong to support something that argues the case of separate development inside one country."
It begs the question as to what equality means. John Rawls understands it as affording similar treatment to people who are the similar, and different treatment to people who are different.
Today, the govt announced $100 million more for the intervention.
But to quote someone who actually knows what she's talking about: the Declaration is "a triumph for justice and human dignity." (Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and a Canadian!)
Do you know anything about why those four countries opted to vote no. I read over the Declaration and wondered if it might be article 11 point 2 about 'restitution' for things taken without consent eg. land!
Canada had a change of govt 18 months ago and is now hard-line conservative. One might assume they would be less sympathetic to the Declaration than their predecessors, though there is also evidence to suggest that John Howard actively lobbied his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, to secure his opposition to the Declaration: http://blog.rightsbase.org/2006/12/01/appalling-abusers-stymie-indigenous-rights-declaration/
It's pig-headed of the 'CANZUS' 4, since they must have guessed the Declaration would be adopted by an overwhelming majority. Maybe they want to send a message that they feel no obligation to uphold the Declaration.
As to what it is in the text that most offends them (the Bush, Harper, Howard & Clark governments), my previous quote from Howard is a clue. He seems to think of indigenous sovereignty and self-determination as a threat, or at least an affront to his view of Australia.
You could well be right about restitution too. Some theorise that Howard's refusal to apologise is because to admit responsibility would open the way to compensation claims.
Of course, recognition of indigenous sovereignty, rather than being a threat, could give the Australian State the legitimacy it currently lacks. There is no moral, historical, logical or necessary legal basis to there being only one recognised sovereignty in Australia. (See Henry Reynolds' "Aboriginal Sovereignty", 1996.)
The underlying assumption there is that you see all people in Australi as being equal in the first place and I genuinely believe that Howard feels Indigneous people are inferior to him. My view of course but I have never seen any action by him to contradict this view. To give them sovereignty would to be to acknowledge their equality.
Post a Comment