HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

(Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network)

(A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC)

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India

Tel: +91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120

E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com

Home Page: http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/

THE UN PERMANENT FORUM FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

SO NEAR, YET SO FAR

The United Nations, meeting between 14 and 23 February 2000, moves one step closer to creating a Permanent Forum to hear voices seldom heard. These voices belong to the indigenous peoples of this planet. It was over 80 years ago, that Native American Indians first approached the League of Nations to ventilate the grievances of indigenous peoples. At the dawn of the 21st century, there is little doubt that the conclusions of a seminar held by the United Nations in 1989 still hold true. Indigenous peoples have been and still are victims of racism and racial discrimination. It is evident that relations between States and indigenous peoples should be based upon free and informed consent and cooperation, not merely consultation and participation. More importantly, indigenous peoples should be recognized as proper subjects of international law with their own collective rights.

This great leap forward will take place during the Second Session of the Open Ended Inter-Sessional Ad-hoc Working Group for the establishment of the Permanent Forum to be held in Geneva between the 14 and 23 February 2000. The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action (VDPA) adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 recommended that. In the framework of such a decade, the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system should be considered.

The U N General Assembly in its 1995 resolution 50/157 identified the establishment of the Permanent Forum as one of the important objectives of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. Accordingly, the UN Commission on Human Rights established the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Permanent Forum in 1998.

Many Governments are allergic to indigenous issues due to historical injustices and atrocities perpetrated on the indigenous peoples. There has been little accountability against abuses on the indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples remain on the periphery of the United Nations system. Government delegates use procedural and technical issues to deny their effective participation. This is reflected from the fact that while conflict prevention remains on the main agenda of the United Nations, there is little program on indigenous peoples and minorities across the United Nations system. even though most of the world’s zones of conflict involve minorities and indigenous peoples.

The First Session of the United Nations Working Group was held in February 1999. A senior diplomat, Mr. Richard van Rijssens of the Netherlands chaired it. It made substantial progress in identifying the mandate, membership, participation and the level of the Permanent Forum. The governmental delegations of India and the United States, for different reasons, blocked consensus proposals for the establishment of the Permanent Forum. The Chairman, Mr Richard Van Rijssens undertook further consultations with the governments and indigenous peoples delegations during the 17th Session of the United Nations Sub-Commission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1999 to overcome these obstacles. The Report on consultations held by the Chairman released on 16 December 1999 seeks to serve as the basis for negotiation during the Second Session in the United Nations to be held this week.

The First Session reflected the contentious issues. The Government of India raised serious objections to the establishment of the Permanent Forum stating that there were adequate mechanisms within the UN human rights system. New Delhi’s diplomats suggested that the UN Secretary General be requested to conduct a study on the existing mechanisms addressing indigenous issues. The UN Secretary General in his report pursuant to the General Assembly resolution 50/157 of 21 December 1995 had stated that although there is a noticeable difference in the level of activity among United Nations bodies whose mandates have a bearing on indigenous people’s concerns, there is a growing interest and concern for indigenous issues among the different organisations and departments of the United Nations system. There are now a number of indigenous-related programmes and projects being implemented and planned by United Nations agencies. However, there exists no mechanism to ensure regular exchange of information between the concerned and interested parties - Governments, the United Nations system and indigenous people - on an ongoing basis. The information provided by the United Nations agencies does not indicate that adequate procedures are already in place to accommodate the effective involvement of indigenous people in the work of the United Nations.

On the final day of the First Session, in a classic filibustering exercise, the Indian diplomats consistently raised procedural questions to kill time and block consensus.

It has been recommended that the Permanent Forum’s mandate should be modeled on Article 62 and 63 of the United Nations Charter. It is implausible that a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples (PFIP) would deal with conflict resolution issues. The representatives of indigenous peoples recommended that the Permanent Forum should consist of members serving in their individual capacity and that there be an equal number of government representatives and members selected by the indigenous caucus. The membership of the Forum should reflect the geographical and cultural diversity of the world in an equitable manner. All indigenous peoples representatives/organisations should be able to participate as observers in the Permanent Forum irrespective of whether they have Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) or not. It has been suggested that the Permanent Forum develop its own Rules of Procedure to establish its relationship with indigenous organisations subject to approval from its parent body. Consultative Status with the ECOSOC has been one of main obstacles for full and effective participation of indigenous groups.

A major recommendation is that the Permanent Forum should be a subsidiary body of the ECOSOC directly reporting to the ECOSOC. The members of the Permanent Forum should have the right to vote. Decisions should preferably be taken by consensus by the members who are elected/selected for one term of four years. Members may be eligible for reelection/reselection once in succession. It has been suggested that in the initial term half the members are elected for four years and the other half are elected for two years, ensuring an infusion of new members every two years.

Despite consensus on many contentious issues, financial constraints at the United Nations will remain a key obstacle in the establishment of the Permanent Forum and its Secretariat. Member States like the United States who do not pay their dues raise the red herring of the lack of financial resources to block the establishment of the Permanent Forum. Within the Commission on Human Rights, ad-hoc financial allocations enable the Inter-Sessional Working Group on enhancing effectiveness of the mechanisms of the Commission to hold three sessions within a year. There are separate secretariats for the UNIFEM under UNDP and the Commission on the Status of Women. Indigenous representatives recommended that the Permanent Forum be funded through the regular budget of the United Nations. Moreover, a United Nations Fund for the Permanent Forum, similar to the United Nations Human Settlement Foundation, should be established to assist the functioning and program of the Permanent Forum including the participation of the observer indigenous representatives. The Asian government delegations will certainly raise the issue of definition of indigenous peoples, despite the fact that many of them have settled the issue. In 1997, the Government of Philippines adopted The Indigenous Peoples Act of 1997. The Malaysian Government has a specific law entitled Aboriginal Peoples Act of 1967, which recognises existence of indigenous peoples. Under Article 161(A) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak are recognised as natives or indigenous. The Government of Nepal recognises indigenous peoples in the country and formed a National Committee for the International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples, 1993 and a National Committee for the United Nations Decade for Indigenous Peoples, 1994-2004. The courts in Japan have recognised the indigenous Ainu. The same was reiterated by the Japanese Parliament in a supplementary resolution to The Act for the Promotion of Ainu Culture, Spread of Knowledge relevant to Ainu Traditions and an Educational Campaign of May 1997. The Government of Bangladesh recognises indigenous peoples through various legislation like the Chittagong Hill Tracts 1900 Regulation (Act 1 of 1900), Act number 12 of 1995 and through correspondence of the Bangladesh National Board of Revenue of 10 March 1980, 9 April 1980, 17 October 1992 and 12 June 1995. The Government of Bangladesh informed the Special Rapporteur on the Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, J Martinez Cobo that members of tribal or semi-tribal populations are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which are settled in specified geographical areas of the country. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Ms Sheikh Hasina Wazed while addressing the Hague Peace Conference on 15 May 1999 stated that the problem of the Chittagong Hill Tracts boils down to the right of an indigenous people. And the constitutionally mandated Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission of India clearly stated in its report on 14 October 1961, much before United Nations started its debate on indigenous peoples, that the Scheduled Tribes are the original inhabitants and internationally they are known as indigenous peoples. As governmental double-speak rules the roost at the United Nations, indigenous peoples face formidable opposition from State delegates. A Permanent Forum for indigenous peoples like a mirage is tantalizingly near, yet so far.

-Human Rights Features

Top / About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Online Resource Centre / Publications / Home  

All contents copyright © SAHRDC,  B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110029, India