Day 4
Thursday AM, July 25, 2002
Morning Session 11:00 a.m.

Continuation of Agenda Item 4a

Victoria Tauli Corpuz, Tebtebba Foundation
Among the many achievements of the WGIP I think the most significant is that it provided a space for, us, IPs to tell the international community our stories. It was here where we confirmed that, in spite of the diversities we have between us, we had similar accounts about how our territories were plundered and militarized and how we have been systematically discriminated against in law and in practice by states and the dominant society. The stories we told, however, were not just about our travails and woes. We also talked about our hopes, our visions of a transformed world, and our proposals on how to get there. It was here where the idea for a PFII in the UN was conceived. For all intents and purposes, the WGIP is a PF for IPs and it should remain to be such. When we talked and worked for the creation of a PF on IPs, which later on became PF on Indigenous Issues, it was never intended to replace the WGIP.

The view of some representatives of States is that we should close down the WGIP because the PF has been established; because the UN does not have enough resources to sustain two or three bodies dealing with IP or because the WGIP has outlived its purpose. I think the WGIP cannot outlive its mandate and purpose because up to this very second HR violations against IPs continue. In fact, in many places this has even intensified because of the desire of states and corporations to grab and exploit the last remaining natural resources, many of which are still found in IPs’ territories. International and national legally binding standards to protect our rights as distinct peoples are not yet in place, except for ILO Convention 169. Even a soft instrument, like the DDRIP, can hardly pass the eye of a needle in the CHR Working Group to Elaborate on a DDRIP.

My organization fully supports the proposals set forth in the IPs’ Caucus Statement. I would like to reinforce some of the points raised in that statement. The WGIP is still the only UN body which has the mandate to set standards for IP. The PF does not have this mandate. My organization thinks that its role should be further strengthened to enable the WGIP to monitor how the rights of IPs, as defined in the DDRIP, are being promoted by States. It could facilitate the preparation of reports, whether on a regional or thematic basis, which will describe how the various rights are being promoted or violated. The various experts of the WGIP can work in partnership with the indigenous organizations in their regions to produce annual regional reports, which can be presented at the WGIP sessions and the HCHR. This can complement the work of the SR on the HR and Fundamental Freedoms of IPs.

The value added here is that it will not just be one report by the SR. There will be regional reports addressing the specificities obtained in a particular region. Another new feature is that this will not be done only by experts or the UN, but done in partnership or collaboration with IPs and NGOs. We, IPs have come a long way from just coming here to complain. We are developing our own expertise in doing research and documentation and publishing on issues closest to us. We are already active in articulating our own analysis, views and positions on various issues as seen in the position papers, statements and declarations we come up with in various processes. We have sophisticated levels of networking from the local to the global arenas, among us, with other peoples’ networks, and even with academic institutions. What I can imagine is that the WGIP will be releasing reports like the Amnesty International Reports, specific to indigenous peoples. These reports can be used to strengthen the standard setting mandate of the WGIP. On the basis of the findings and conclusions standards on most sensitive areas can be further elaborated. These reports can also facilitate the access and use by IPs of the grievance mechanisms within the UN.
To be able to come up with these reports, massive training activities will be undertaken for both IPs and governments. It will be a shame of our generation if we allow IPs rights to be blatantly violated and no decisive actions are taken both nationally and internationally. The WGIP has to continue its mandate of setting standards for IPs and this time in closer partnership with us. The HR discourse and practice has undoubtedly been enriched by the work of the WGIP. This has been a result of the partnership between the UN, IPs, support NGOs, and some governments. Let us continue to strengthen this collaboration and let us transform the WGIP to be the nexus of this partnership.

Natalie Walker, ATSIC
ATSIC acknowledges International Youth Day today. I am humbled to make this statement as an Aboriginal young person from the Kuku Yalanji people of the Daintree Rainforest in Queensland, Australia. The example I have chosen is the over-representation of Indigenous young people in the juvenile justice system. Unfortunately, these figures are similar for many IPs across the globe. There are a number of contributing factors to this over- representation; these include substance abuse, violence, unemployment, family breakdown etc. I also propose that the government’s shortsighted view to the aetiology of the over-representation of Indigenous young people is a significant contributing factor in itself.
While it is an achievement that the Australian government has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and states have incorporated the Convention on the Rights of the Child into state law, the actual practice of government bodies responsible for administering such law is incongruent with the Convention. The government is not walking the talk. This is where the WGIP’s role is of critical importance. The WGIP must monitor and review the Australian governments compliance with International law. Further, Indigenous NGO’s must have a forum or mechanism available such as the WGIP to raise such significant issues. More specifically, when it comes to issues specific to Indigenous young people, we too must have a forum to raise our concerns and visions for our future.
The WGIP is to complement the PF. It is not a case of one or the other, for without the WGIP Indigenous NGO’s and Indigenous young people will not have a forum to be heard. While significant achievements have been made, the true well-being and survival of our people is threatened by the lack of ability of the UN system to enforce such breaches of International law. IPs and the WGIP must be the continuation of the forum dedicated to Indigenous peoples; to ensure that International law, especially that of human rights and the rights of IPs, are upheld and enforced; and the vision that issues specific to Indigenous youth are given a voice.
Les Malezer, FAIRA
First, may I give praise to the Working Group and its achievements over the past twenty years. Despite growing concern from Indigenous Peoples’ delegates for greater representation and participation in the United Nations system there can be no doubt that the expert members of the Working Group have been very successful in bridging the diplomatic gulf between the nation-States and the Indigenous Peoples of the World. We cannot overestimate how important the expert members have been in articulating our issues within the UN system, and deriving positive responses in a potentially hostile environment.
For those of us who can remember the international situation twenty years ago we have no doubt that there have been many changes in many different areas. But most importantly we must note that twenty years is, or should be, a benchmark for our true integration into the UN system. We are at this period of time on the threshold of due acknowledgement of our autonomous existence as peoples, of our own forms of governance and laws, of our ownership of lands and resources, and of our right and capacity to determine our own social and economic development. This WG remains as the source of expert documents on universal Indigenous Issues, derived from and by Indigenous Peoples.
Here, we are able to identify as a common force, despite our more complex societies and wide cultural and ideological differences. Our global priorities can be identified and negotiated, and our stratagem can be formed and developed. We are able to feed ideas, information and responses into the UN HR agencies in a way that they can process them and, hopefully, reinforce them. In our view the PF will not be able to take up this responsibility. We support that a review be undertaken, as we are sure IPs still have many positive ideas to contribute to greater participation in the UN. We do not support or condone double-speak where ‘review’ is code for a ‘behind-the-scenes’ execution. We look to a future where an Indigenous forum, like theWG, provides IPs with the means to be considered as a universal entity. The PF ensures that IPs are treated as equals in the UN structures, agencies and programs. IPs are engaged as experts, SR, states’ representatives and UN leaders.

Hjalmar Dahl, ICC
I want to concentrate on the issues of the right to SD and collective rights of IPs. States have expressed their need to proscribe the scope and content of the right to SD. Some fear the DDRIP will explicitly provide for the right to secede. While right of SD of IPs is quite clear, few seek independence or full autonomy as states. Every IP who speaks says the right of SD for IPs must be recognized, as “peoples” without qualification, limitation or any other discriminatory double standard. We have argued that international law must be applied equally to all peoples and thus the right to SD must be applied universally as well. In respect to collective rights, a small minority of states oppose this concept because of the linkage to the right of “peoples” to SD, and a number of states, led by the USA want the DRRIP to guarantee only individual rights. The argument against collective rights appears to be based on the notion of equality and to supposedly safeguard individuals, in their own words, “from mob rule”. The view of IPs is that the declaration must promote both individual and collective rights of IPs. For us, collective rights are especially important in the context of the collective rights to our homelands. Now the DDRIP is in the hands of the intersessional WG established by the Commission of Human Rights. Because it is ultimately controlled by member states of the UN, the process has been contentious. Many governments are calling for a completely new document. Some IPs understandably refuse to compromise. The ICC, Tha Sami Council and some others have agreed to hear proposals so long as they strengthen rather than diminish the DD. In conclusion, the next intersessional WG session will be held in December. The issues described will be considered. Only an acceptable declaration can let us be a part of the future to come.

Mariach Lousot Emmanuel, Tomwo Development Initiatives
WGIP has been high profile for the IPs to raise their concerns. In Africa, there are not many avenues for dialogue. WG has provided an avenue of experience and support, capacity building in terms of communications skills and knowledge, as well as dialogue with government officials and academics. The African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR) has been cautious to approach Indigenous Issues, but for the first time in 2000, in Benin, they listed IPs on the agenda. Its inclusion in the official agenda is a significant step forward. IPs has since been discussed at meetings. My vision for the future shall include the WG’s strengthening the role of SR; revising the WGIP mandate; the PF facilitating dialogue among IPs, Gov. and other involved parties; and the PF observing regional meetings such as ACHPR.

Christian Munoz, Chile
Chile attaches great value to the work done in this forum. Our government participates in this area. We have actively participated in the PF. We are implementing the Durban declaration and plan of action. We commit ourselves to analyze issues of intolerance and racism. All of the bodies that have been created have a great deal of value and are dynamic. Chile should continue with its work and help them in their endeavors to ensure success.

Tony Gonzales, International Indian Treaty Council
The IITC wants to reiterate the call for an international conference on treaties to finalize the treaty study and to also make opportunities for the African IPs to help with the conclusion of the study, which they saw was lacking in terms of their regions. The other matter we are concerned about is the Food Security Issue and the process of it succeeding in consideration at the FAO meeting. The IPs need to have a more permanent unit in FAO to be the focal point of FAO people working with IPs to concentrate their efforts. We hope FAO sees the possibility of adopting an indigenous unit to address food security issues including genetic resources.

Marcial Arias, Napguana
It is important to look at achievements of the UN and how it was done so we can see how to develop the PF. We support the WG and PF. The UN must be pleased by the existence of these three bodies working for IPs. I would like to remind WG members that the SG in 1996 in his report said there was a reason to reexamine IP participation in the UN. Now the DDRIP indicates the achievements. The reason why the SR has been created is very clear in terms of functions for three-year term. These three entities were for protecting and monitoring human rights of IPs. We reaffirm, for knowing and protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of IPs. There is a lack of coordination and a need for more effective protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This WG is important, especially if we look at the studies. The study of Paratina looks at abject poverty, the issue of marginalization of IPs. In study on TNCs and their impact and we are all aware of Guisse’s work. We would like more concentration on the study of globalization, specifically the impact on IPs. There is a lack of focus of how it impacts IPs. Also, there is a lack of focus in terms of involving IPs. Also, the WG can contribute to other areas of international processes. Another issue that is important is the free, prior and informed consent. As IPs, we need this principle to be respected. We need pre-consultation so the land is preserved and rights guaranteed.

Kristina Nordling, Sami Council
The Sami Council supports the IP caucus joint statement. My organization takes floor to salute one of the most significant achievements of IPs struggle for human rights. In the PF for the first time, IPs and governments meet on a truly equal basis. IPs and government engage side by side to see how needs are adequately addressed. This new cooperation can put an end to ongoing discrimination against IPs. PF is a sign of increased acknowledgement among governments and that improvement of the situation of IPs can only be achieved through honest cooperation. It is my organization’s hope that the PF will contribute to a full recognition by UN member states of IPs as equal partners with other peoples and states. The PF is first body that takes a holistic approach towards indigenous issues. All previously existing bodies deal with limited areas within IP issues.
The lack of holistic approach is the reason many IPs remain the most marginalized peoples of the world. The Saami Council is concerned there is not yet a permanent secretariat for the PF. It is therefore prevented from carrying out the tasks for which it was established. We need your support at the ongoing ECOSOC meeting as well as third and fifth committee of the General Assembly. We encourage indigenous organizations states and UN agencies to include voluntary contribution.
The PF first session decided to undertake a number of activities during the time before the next session. (Section B of report document E/2002/43). Because of lack of funding, members of the PF have been unable to start their work. In this context, the Sami Council extends our gratitude to the Interagency Support Group. It is equally important that the PF independently elaborates its ideas and thoughts on structuring cooperation with agencies and conducting activities. Therefore it is necessary that agencies have no administrative responsibility for the PF. In addition to the PF, the appointment of a SR constitutes a major achievement.

Prof. F.J. Hampson
I should like to address the future of the WG in particular in relation to the PF. There are also developments at national level such as litigation. These developments did not come from nowhere. They are the work of WGIP members. It is not sufficient to rely on past usefulness. There is still a role for the WGIP focused on standard setting, which is not covered in the mandate of the others. It starts with conceptual analysis and studies. It might be helpful to include academics. Possible topics include: relationship between IPs and specialized agencies. I welcome the intervention of the WB and hope for a similar one made by IMF.

The continuation of WG is not in our hands. The rationalization of human rights work is being examined. The WG should ask the Subcommission to make a recommendation. I am not looking for a bland statement of support. I suggest we ask the Subcommission to propose: the continued existence of the WG on account of its standard setting responsibility. In the alternative, this WG should not be abolished unless function of standard setting given to SR or PF. AND this WGIP should not be abolished unless The Subcommission could replace the WGIP with another WG, to meet at the same time.
If all members of the Subcommission were involved in different WG subjects during the week before the Subcommission meeting, the logistics and cost could work out. A possible topic for such a WG would be: HR implications of measures adopted to respond to terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks. This proposal would enable the Subcommission to send a clear message that the WG should exist. It would also safeguard the position if ECOSOC disagrees.

Prof. Y. Yokota
The WG should continue to carry out its unique mandate as long as no other forum takes over its mandate. I identify the following five areas that WG has been or should be carrying out in the future.
1) Study and analyze various topics facing IPs such as treaties, elaboration of definition of IPs, impact of globalization and impacts of TNC on IPs, WB and impacts, comparison of national legislation and copyright.
2) Continue to engage in standard setting in a code of conduct for TNCs affecting life, health and environment of IPs.
3) To collect human development data for IPs and assist IPs to form own human development projects.
4) Engage scientific research of language, culture, religion of IPs with full consent. Also, disseminate this research.
5) Provide a place where IPs can express thoughts and problems and meaningful dialogue between IPs and governments.
This is not a complete list but a set of ideas WG should address in the future, which no other UN forum can carry out at this stage. The WG has a lot to do in the future despite the creation of the PF and SR. I am aware there are some overlapping aspects and this requires coordination of three agencies to promote efficiency. It can be realized through mutual exchange of reports, mutual representation and annual meeting of the SR and the Chair of PF and WG.

Judge E. H. Guisse
Perhaps my understanding is a little limited. The WG and the Social Forum do not have the same mission especially for conduct of state and private entities that are developing. The WG has a mission of drawing up the rules according to which we could gain respect for the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of IP. The WG has not failed but is not finished and many things remain to be done to draw up standards. This is why I think sincerely that it must be allowed to continue to do the work it is doing because its role is not exhausted. While we think of developing standards and the development of standards has always led to declarations and conventions. Thus is it not the case that to obtain a result, the WG should continue its work?
As regards to the Social Forum, I consider it to difficult for forum to develop norms. It is a place where one can express opinions and recommendations. It is different from developing and analyzing rules for conduct. The two bodies are complimentary but that is not enough. They do not overlap and this means it is essential to continue with the WG. IPs would be orphaned if the WG were not to continue. I think that would be so in Africa. The PF meets in New York where our peoples who are poor are unable to participate in its deliberations. The IPs of Africa will be cut off from the UN institutions if the WG disappears. I think this is important itself. We in Africa are intervening so it will continue because it is a channel for communication as well as complimentary to research. There are university researchers interested in the issue being discussed today. They can through WG progress in their own work but also provide support for IPs of all people. In terms of norms, IPs would be left. Every time important issues were raised in the UN system, certain states have attempted to have it eliminated. The Subcommission is an important example of that and the WG is also part of that struggle.

Chair Miguel Alfonso Martinez
I thank Guisse for his ideas.

Lazaro Parry
What will be the future of the WGIP? I have deep concerns because our organisation has participated on an ongoing basis and was involved in drafting the DD from its inception. The WGIP was created in 1982 with a mandate to examine events related to the promotion and protection of rights and pay attention to evolution of standards. This is the only forum freely open to IPs, independent of ECOSOC recognition. In your study you said it is the only democratically open body for all organizations. Clearly the great merit of the WGIP is drafting the declaration. Now the time has come to decide on the DD. It is now stagnated in the diplomatic plateau, and it has come to an impasse because of states. Under these circumstances, the attempt to eliminate this small doorway means depriving IPs access to the UN. This body must continue because:
1. There are too many violations of IP’s rights
2. We do not know what the result of the PF will be, but here at least here we can present our complaints.
Given the changes taking place in the world, there is a need to reform the mandate of the WGIP and broaden the scope and perhaps increase the membership. The World Conference of Vienna recommended reviewing the mandate once the DD was completed. In area of standards the WGIP could begin to develop a framework for protection of indigenous genetic resources and traditional knowledge, draft a code of conduct for TNCs and make a study on the impact of globalization, self determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources.

Chair Miguel Alfonso Martinez
I am convinced of the need to maintain this body, the only one to grapple with the IP question within the UN. I believe the struggle for the continuation will be victorious. I say this because of the arguments that have been generated here. However, there have been efforts to link the existence of the PF with the work of the WGIP, to liquidate the WGIP. We have seen a need arise for the WGIP to justify its existence. The idea to make the WGIP to justify its existence was always in mind in those who wanted to create another body. After assigning my faith behind the idea there are so many reasons to maintain the WGIP, I would like to look at some of the reasons put forward for its disappearance.

It is said the members of the group are defending our continuity as if there is some pleasure to be derived from it. We need to clarify it is not just the members of the WG that are defending its existence. We can see this from the declarations of IPs. Anyone who thinks it is the self-interest of the members of the WG to want to maintain their position is laughable. If we are not members of the WG, its not as if we will have nothing else to do. It is said the WG costs too much and the UN needs the money for other things. Not long ago we heard about the UN financial problems. The people who were complaining about money created two new bodies, despite some countries not meeting their obligations to dues. Why the insistence on finances? We all know it was already very difficult to cover expenses, but with this tiny bit of money we have to cover even more UN bodies. The problem arises that the proliferation of bodies this was going to lead to a precariousness for the WGIP. Now we are going to create new obligations with budgets that are not growing. This was used to criticize the WGIP. The argument that the WGIP is not a permanent body but an hoc body is legally false. What is the body in the UN that is temporary that has no concrete goal?
There were two tasks given to the WG and neither has been completed. The bodies are temporary because once the job is completed, the body dies. But the tasks of these bodies were to review developments on yearly basis and set standards in those areas affecting IP situation. Can anyone say that one of these two tasks has been accomplished? The argument that this was a temporary body is unfounded, a farce and an aberration. Then there is the argument that the WG has not been focused on completing its tasks in last ten years. Imagine that the work it has been involved in many years has been stuck in the upper body for years. What incentive is there to launch new projects when the first one is at an impasse? On the one hand the WG makes a great contribution in standard setting. On the other hand there is no response on the other side, no comprehension. A further argument is the WGIP has set no agenda for itself in keeping the mandate.
If you look at the reports, particularly since we finished the DD, we have been analyzing one of the aspects affecting IPs every year. There is also criticism about the possibility of new studies. The group has not conducted any new studies since the right to land by Mrs Daes. But it does not work in a vacuum. What is this circumstance? The proposals go the sub commission then to the commission, and there is a notorious hypersensitivity in the Commission to accept the proposals of the sub commission. We are being accused of being weak in proposing new mandates. On the other hand there is enormous reticence on the part of the commission when we put forward study proposals. The mandate does not allow the WG to become a mechanism to look at human rights of IPs on a country basis. Now we have a SR so it is possible to look at it on country basis. With the states party to these instruments they could work to remedy these.
It is also said the WG duplicates the work of the SR. I think the statements made are ample to cover this. Listening to criticism of the WGIP it is as if Madam Daes was the only member of the WG who ever did anything. Despite her great work, this is not fair. These are some of the arguments I’ve heard to refute the WGIP, but I think we need to meet the challenge positively. The WGIP needs to begin to work from a different point of view. We do not need to focus exclusively on standard setting, there is also an educational aspect. We all learn a great deal on the 5 days we spend here about IPs and the dynamic between governments experts and IPs. We need to respond to the challenge in a self-critical and broad way. I thank the governments for their contribution for them having gone into the work in so much depth.

Agenda Item 6 - Standard setting activities

Saganesh Diom Romeo, Grand Council of Cree
In our view, this WG is a most appropriate forum for discussing standard-setting in the Indigenous context. Since its inception in 1982, this WG has opened the doors of the UN to IPs so as to welcome and encourage our direct input. As a result, IPs worldwide currently have substantially increased access to the UN. We wish to commend you for your precedent-setting contributions and continuing efforts to ensure democratic participation by IPs in international matters. The question of standard setting raises a number of substantive and procedural matters. We will briefly highlight a few of them there.
Broad Standard-Setting Mandate: First, it is important to underline that the standard-setting mandate of the WGIP is forward-looking and inspirational. In 1982, the ESC explicitly the Sub-Commission to establish the Sub-Commission to establish annually a WG to meet in order to:
give special attention to the evolution of standards concerning the rights of IPs, taking account of both the similarities and the differences in the situations and aspirations of IPs throughout the world.
In other words, the WG mandate is not restricted to standards and terminology that already exist under various international instruments. Further, in regard to the SS work of this WG, the CHR has confirmed that:
International standards must be developed on the basis of the diverse realities of IPs in all parts of the world.
Therefore, govts participating in the WG are not justified in seeking limitative changes to the UN Declaration on the Rights of IPs, so as to ensure conformance with existing instruments. The overall text of the draft Declaration must effectively address the diverse and urgent HR concerns of IPs. It must reflect the right of IPs to be different and not be assimilative in nature or intent.
Second, in terms of applying international criteria in the HR context, all peoples – whether indigenous or non- indigenous- must be treated on an equal footing. This also means that the international community cannot determine that IPs will have only a portion of “indivisible” HR recognised regardless of future circumstances, as affirmed in the 1993 VD. Yet some governments in the SS process continue to seek to create discriminatory double standards. This is especially evident in regard to the rights of IPs to self-determination. We will not accept that the draft Declaration diminish in any way this inalienable human rights, which is already affirmed for “all peoples” in the international HR Covenants: All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Rights to SD and to development are interdependent: In considering the right to self-determination and the right to development, the indivisible, interdependent and interrelated nature of HR are further illustrated. For IPs, both these basic rights relate to development and both have essential economic, social, cultural, spiritual, political and environmental dimensions. With regard to both theses rights, participating govt. must not seek to undermine IPs thought the SS process. The HR to development also implies the full realisation of the right of peoples to self- determination, which includes subject to relevant provisions of both ICHR, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources.
There is little sense in recognizing self-determination as superior and inviolable principle if one does not recognize at the same time a “right to development” for the peoples that have achieved SD. This right to development can only be an “inherent” and “built-in” right forming an inseparable part of the right to SD. The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. Development projects by state govt. and other third parties have too often given rise to widespread and far-ranging abuses of IPs human rights. Therefore, it is critical that our right to development be fully affirmed in the draft Declaration. This is especially important in the contemporary context of globalisation. The experience of IPs and development clearly demonstrated that HR and development are inseparable, for the abuse of the rights of IPs is principally a development issue. Forced development has deprived them of their HR, in particular the right to life and right to their own means of subsistence, two of the most fundamental of all rights. IPs have been, in fact, victims of development policies which deprive them of their economic base – land and resources… Recognition of the right to development and HR in the national legal system is not sufficient in itself. States must also ensure the means for the exercise and enjoyment of these rights on a basis of equal opportunity.
Purposes and Principles of UN must be respected: In light of the continuing attempts by States to invoke self- serving, double standards in the SS process, we respectfully request this WG to remind participating govt. that the UN and its Member States have a duty to respect the Purpose and Principles of the UN.
The Purposes of the UN are:
* To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and SD of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
* To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for HR and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. (Art.1)
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles…
* All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. (Art. 2)
With a view to creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and SD to peoples the UN shall promote: universal respect for, and observance of HR and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. (Art. 55)
The UN and its organs have no competence to undermine the HR of IPs. Govt. positions that would serve to do so must not receive any serious consideration, especially in this WG or other SS forum.
Approval of draft Declaration and Principle of Indigenous consent: In regard to the approval of the specific provisions and overall text of theDDRIP, we as IPs presently find ourselves in a perilous and inequitable position. Those Member States that have carried out – or continue to carry out – serious misdeeds and crimes against IPs worldwide have the responsibility to determine what norms are suitable for approval by the UN. As the historical contemporary record makes clear, virtually all of the States who have had dealings with IPs and our territories, lands and resources – have engaged in acts of colonialism, land and resource dispossession, genocide, cultural genocide, or other grave violations of HR. Therefore, it would be most unfair for the UN to allow these same States to determine the international standards that would apply in relation to IPs. In other situations involving gross violations of HR or crimes against, humanity, states that were complicit in these acts were not entrusted with establishing HR norms for their victims.
The present situation of IPs in the SS process is a unique one that requires exceptional and distinct consideration. Should procedural safeguards not be implemented, the status and rights of over 300 million IPs may be adversely affected. This would defeat the central purpose of theDDRIP. As a minimum, Member States should only approve the DDRIP and its specific provisions if representatives of IPs do not oppose the proposed texts. Clearly, the principle of Indigenous consent must be fully respected. Furthermore, in no case should texts be approved if they are inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the UN. In order to satisfactorily address this crucial procedural question, we would propose that the WG recommend full and timely study of this grave problem within the UN.
Examination of this matter should take place solely in conjunction with the IPs concerned.

Geoff Nettleton, Philippines Indigenous Peoples Link
There are areas where MNC, states betray IPs. There is also abuse where standard setting measures are used for own propaganda services by the MNCs. There is need to throw some light on this area. The term “participatory stakeholder” gives license to people to take action where people are opposed. No process or sham effort should be allowed to subvert SD for any people. We recommend the UN WG continue. The World Bank and UNEP held joint activities with MSSD and accepted its mistakes. It was it widely viewed as a discredited process. Such involvement by industry is not acceptable by the indigenous community. What IPs lack is a fair and neutral forum as well as resources to engage in the dialogue. If WB and UNEP give favor to corporate initiatives then it will flounder. Abuses from mining company continue this week. In this process, we must all trust in the processes and procedures.

Chair Miguel Alfonso Martinez
The Social Forum was to start today in Geneva was postponed due to lack of a decision on a mandate from ECOSOC.

Prof. F.J. Hampson
It is worth emphasizing what has happened is result of deliberate action to withhold a vote at ECOSOC. This can also make one wonder how secure the PF is if the authorized work of the Social Forum can be frustrated in this way.