|
Indigenous people brought their experiences, their grievances, the history of their lives and peoples to the working group. These experiences formed the basis for the proposals that eventually became the draft text.
I have said this many times, but it bears repeating: Every paragraph of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is based on an abuse of human rights that the indigenous peoples have experienced. The Declaration proposes remedies in the form of human rights standards. These are not theoretical. We knew from bitter experience what needed to be in the draft. This is the unfortunate truth. And yes, every paragraph is also a demonstration that existing human rights law is not well respected. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is essentially an instrument which attaches the indigenous peoples to the basic human rights instruments which already exist. This should not be necessary. It has become necessary because certain States Canada, one of the most insistent propose that the international recognition of the status and rights of the indigenous peoples be contingent upon the effect this recognition would have on municipal law.
In other words States such a Canada deny our status in international law in order to avoid the recognition of the rights that status would confer upon the indigenous peoples. This is in itself the most blatant form of racial discrimination, yet it is put forward as government policy without the least embarrassment.
Thus when the indigenous peoples proclaim themselves to be "peoples" who are subjects of international law, there is a chorus of objections from the States Canada, France, Brazil, India, to name a few who believe their interests would be adversely affected by the recognition of our status.
The high-minded sentiments and objectives of the
Universal Declaration and the
Charter of the United Nations, which expound the rights of peoples and nations, simply vanish. Diplomats tell us: If we recognized your rights, you would declare independence, you would want your lands back, you would prevent development, you would ask for compensation, you would want to have you own laws. Where would it end? Some States do not acknowledge this reasoning and resort instead to other strategies. Some argue that the indigenous peoples are attempting to obtain special rights in international law. We are accused of seeking privileged status.
The Government of Canada put this idea forward with considerable effect two years ago at the Commission on Human Rights. Others, like France, argue that it is against their constitution to grant separate status to a nation within a nation.
When the French Ambassador stated this position in Geneva last year, I asked him how France could recognize the right of Quebec to leave Canada, and yet not recognize that the indigenous peoples in Quebec have the same right if that is their choice to remain in Canada. He dismissed the objection, "You must understand, Quebec is a special situation. France is a unitary and indivisible State, and it would be contrary to our constitution to recognize the self-determination of the indigenous populations".
How should we respond to such reasoning when it negatively influences the setting of international standards which are in themselves intended to eliminate racial discrimination and prejudice? It seems that certain States are imbued with such pervasive belief in their own superiority and supremacy, that they fail to recognize the clearly racial basis for their international policies. They use their enormous power to shape the meaning of international law, placing what I believe is a mistaken view of their own interests above all else. ...
1,
2, 3, 4
|
