[nativestudies-l] UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Alyssa Mt. Pleasant]

 From the Init-tho list-serve:

*13 September 2007*

	

*General Assembly*

*GA/10612 *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Department of Public Information . News and Media Division . New York*

Sixty-first General Assembly

Plenary

107^th & 108^th Meetings (AM & PM)

 

*_GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS DECLARATION ON RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES;_*

 

*_'MAJOR STEP FORWARD' TOWARDS HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, SAYS PRESIDENT_*

 

*_Vote:  143 -- 4 ( Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) --- 11;_*

*_Also Adopts Texts on South Atlantic Zone of Peace, Preventing Armed 
Conflict_*

 

The General Assembly today overwhelmingly backed protections for the 
human rights of indigenous peoples, adopting a landmark declaration that 
brought to an end nearly 25 years of contentious negotiations over the 
rights of native people to protect their lands and resources, and to 
maintain their unique cultures and traditions.

 

By a vote of 143 in favour to 4 against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand 
and the United States), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the 
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which 
sets out the individual and collective rights of the world's 370 million 
native peoples, calls for the maintenance and strengthening of their 
cultural identities, and emphasizes their right to pursue development in 
keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

 

A non-binding text, the Declaration states that native peoples have the 
right "to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties" 
concluded with States or their successors.  It also prohibits 
discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and 
effective participation in all matters that concern them.

 

The Human Rights Council adopted the Declaration in June 2006, over the 
objections of some Member States with sizeable indigenous populations.  
The Assembly deferred consideration of the text late last year at the 
behest of African countries, which raised objections about language on 
self-determination and the definition of "indigenous" people.

 

"The importance of this document for indigenous peoples and, more 
broadly, for the human rights agenda, cannot be underestimated," said 
General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa in a statement 
delivered by Assembly Vice-President, Aminu Bashir Wali of Nigeria.

 

She warned that, even with the progress achieved by events such as the 
1995 first United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous 
Peoples and the beginning of the Second International Decade last year, 
native peoples still faced marginalisation, extreme poverty and other 
human rights violations.  They were often dragged into conflicts and 
land disputes that threatened their way of life and very survival; and, 
suffered from a lack of access to health care and education.

 

"I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of over two 
decades of negotiations," she said, and stressed that, by adopting the 
Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward 
towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms for all.  It was also actively demonstrating the General 
Assembly's important role in setting international standards.

 

Countries voting against the Declaration said they could not support it 
because of concerns over provisions on self-determination, land and 
resources rights and, among others, language giving indigenous peoples a 
right of veto over national legislation and State management of resources.

 

Speaking in explanation of vote before the text was adopted, Canada's 
representative said that, unfortunately, the provisions in the 
Declaration on lands, territories and resources were overly broad, 
unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting 
the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting 
into question matters that have been settled by treaty.

 

The representative of the United States said that it was disappointing 
that the Human Rights Council had not responded to his country's calls, 
in partnership with Council members, for States to undertake further 
work to generate a consensus text.  The Declaration had been adopted by 
the Council in a splintered vote "...and risked endless conflicting 
interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced 
by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States at its 
adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States could not 
lend its support to such a text".

 

Australia's representative said his Government had long expressed its 
dissatisfaction with the references to self-determination in the text.  
Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the 
break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population 
groups.  It also applied where a particular group with a defined 
territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights.  
Australia supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous 
peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a 
concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, 
even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a 
system of democratic representative Government.

 

In an informal meeting following adoption of the text, Victoria 
Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous 
Issues, said:  "This day will forever be etched in our memories as a 
significant gain in our peoples' long struggle for our rights as 
distinct peoples and cultures."  While she respected the interpretive 
statements made by Member States, indigenous people believed the 
significance and implications of the Declaration should not be minimized 
in any way.  That would amount to discrimination.  "For us, the correct 
way to interpret the Declaration is to read it in its entirety or in a 
holistic manner and to relate it with existing international law," she said.

 

She said that effective implementation of the Declaration would test the 
commitment of States and the whole international community to protect, 
respect and fulfil indigenous peoples' collective and individual human 
rights.  "I call on Governments, the UN system, indigenous peoples and 
civil society at large to rise to the historic task before us and make 
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples a living document 
for the common future of humanity," she concluded.

 

Les Malezer, Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Caucus, said that, 
with the adoption of the Declaration, the United Nations and indigenous 
people had found common ground.  The text did not represent the sole 
viewpoint of the United Nations, nor did it represent the viewpoint of 
all the world's indigenous people.  It was based on mutual respect.  It 
contained no new provisions of human rights.  It was based on rights 
that had been approved by the United Nations system but which had 
somehow, over the years, been denied to indigenous peoples.  It was a 
framework for States to protect and promote the rights of indigenous 
people without exclusion or discrimination.

 

In other business today, the Assembly adopted without a vote, a 
resolution on the zone of peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic.

 

It also adopted a text by which it would include an item on the agenda 
of its upcoming sixty-second session on "the prevention of armed 
conflict".  It also decided to defer consideration of the first annual 
report of the Pecebuilding Commission and include it on the draft agenda 
of the sixty-second session.  In a related decision, the Assembly, 
acting on the recommendations of the Secretary-General, deferred to its 
sixty-second session consideration of the report of the Peacebuilding Fund.

 

The Assembly also approved a draft decision contained in paragraph 14 of 
the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Assistance and Support to 
Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (document A/61/1044).  By that 
action, the Assembly decided to defer the convening of a substantive 
session of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to its sixty-second 
session.  It also requested the Working Group to meet from 3 to 
7 December to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at the 
sixty-second session.

 

The Assembly began its work today on a sombre note, holding a moment of 
silence in tribute to the memory of Angie Elisabeth Brooks, President of 
the Assembly's twenty-fourth session, and Gaston Thorn, President of the 
Assembly's thirteenth session, both recently deceased.

 

Assembly President Sheika Haya said that Ms. Brooks-Randolph had been 
the first Associate Justice of Liberia and had a distinguished career in 
Government administration, legal education and the promotion of gender 
equality.  In 1969, she became the first African woman to be elected 
President of the Assembly.

 

She said that Mr. Gaston had a long and prominent career as a politician 
and businessman of Luxembourg and had also served as Chairman of the 
European Commission from 1981 to 1985.  "Ms. Brooks-Randolph and Mr. 
Thorn played an outstanding role in this Organization and made a major 
contribution towards the achievement of the objectives of the Charter of 
the United Nations," she said.

 

Paying tribute were the representatives of Zimbabwe (on behalf of the 
African Group), Philippines (on behalf of the Asian States Group), 
Montenegro (on behalf of the Eastern European States Group), Paraguay 
(on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), 
Switzerland (on behalf of the Western European and Other States Group), 
Liberia and Luxembourg.

 

The representatives of Peru introduced the Declaration on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples.

 

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote were the representatives 
of New Zealand, Russian Federation, Benin and Colombia.

 

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote were the 
representatives of Argentina, Japan, Chile, Norway, Bangladesh, Jordan, 
Mexico, Liechtenstein, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Brazil, 
Guyana, Suriname, Iran, India, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Indonesia, 
Pakistan, Paraguay, Slovakia, Turkey, Philippines, Nigeria, Cuba, 
Montenegro and Egypt.

 

Making a general statement after the vote was the Foreign Minster of 
Bolivia.

 

The representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), 
Guatemala, Finland, Ecuador, Costa Rica and France also spoke.

 

The representative of Angola introduced the resolution on the zone of 
peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic.

 

The representative of the United States spoke in explanation of vote 
before action on that text, and the representative of the United Kingdom 
spoke after the vote. 

 

The Assembly will meet again at a time to be announced.

 

_Background_

 

The General Assembly met this morning to pay tribute to the memory of 
Angie Elisabeth Brooks, President of the Assembly's twenty-fourth 
session, and Gaston Thorn, President of the Assembly's thirteenth 
session, both recently deceased.

 

The Assembly was also expected to take action on draft resolutions 
concerning the prevention of armed conflict (document A/61/L.68), zone 
of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic (document A/61/L.66), and 
the report of the Human Rights Council, which included a draft 
resolution on a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 
(document A/61/L.67).

 

Also before the Assembly for action were the first report of the United 
Nations Peacebuilding Commission (document A/61/1035), the report of the 
Ad Hoc Working Group on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual 
Exploitation and Abuse (document A/61/1044), and the report of the 
Secretary-General on the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (document 
A/61/1042).

 

_Introduction and Action on Draft Resolutions _

 

The Assembly adopted without a vote, the resolution on the _prevention 
of armed conflict_ (document A/61/L.68).

 

Following that action, ISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS (_Angola_), chair of the 
permanent committee on the zone, introduced the draft resolution on 
_zone of peace and cooperation of the South Atlantic_ (document 
A/61/L.66), saying more than 20 years ago, the United Nations had 
declared the South Atlantic a zone of peace and cooperation among its 
members.  Today, the zone was an effective interregional mechanism for 
cooperation in the areas of development, peace and security among its 24 
member States.  Among others, in the area of crime prevention and 
combating drug trafficking and the illicit trade in small arms, 
including piracy, the members of the zone were committed to cooperate, 
among others, for the full implementation of the relevant United Nations 
programmes of action and ensuring the exchange of information, 
experiences and lessons learned related to the reinforcement of boarder 
security, arms control policies and systems.

 

Before action was taken ROBERT HAGEN ( _United States_) said that 
Angola's efforts in sponsoring the resolution were to be commended. 
 Nevertheless, the United States would disassociate itself from the 
text, or abstain from a vote if there was a vote, because of the belief 
that internationally recognized zones of peace should be created through 
multilateral regional forums, rather than by United Nations 
resolutions.  It also had concerns about the texts' reference to marine 
genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction.  Further, the 
United States did not give legally binding non-use assurances to States 
within a zone unless its ships and aircraft may pass through the zone 
without having to declare whether or not they were carrying nuclear 
weapons. 

 

The Assembly adopted the text without vote.

 

After action, KAREN PIERCE ( _United Kingdom_) said that her delegation 
welcomed continuing cooperation between States in the zone of peace and 
cooperation of the South Atlantic.  However, with reference to the 
Luanda Declaration issued by those States, the United Kingdom would 
reiterate its position on the issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland 
Islands.  The United Kingdom's position was well known and had last been 
set out by British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry in a letter to the 
Secretary-General on 15 January.  The United Kingdom had no doubts about 
its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.  There could be no 
negotiations on the sovereignty of those Islands unless and until the 
Islanders so wished. 

 

Next, acting on the recommendation of the Acting Chair of the United 
Nations Peacebuilding Commission, the Assembly decided to defer 
consideration of the year-old body's annual report, issued as document 
A/62/1035, and include it on the draft agenda of the Assembly's upcoming 
sixty-second session.

 

Following that decision, the Assembly approved a draft decision 
contained in paragraph 14 of the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on 
Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse 
(document A/61/1044).

 

By that action, the Assembly decided to defer the convening of a 
substantive session of the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group to its 
sixty-second session.  It also requested the Working Group to meet from 
3 to 7 December to submit a report on its work to the Assembly at the 
sixty-second session.

 

Acting on the recommendations of the Secretary-General, the Assembly 
then decided to defer to its sixty-second session consideration of the 
report of the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund (document A/62/137).

 

Introducing the text on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous 
Peoples (A/61/L.67), LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ BASAGOITIA ( _Peru_), noting 
that indigenous peoples were among the most vulnerable, noted that the 
process had begun in 1982.  Thirteen years later, a preliminary text had 
been submitted to the former Human Rights Commission.  In 1995, the 
draft had been put to a group of the Commission.  For the first time, 
representatives of indigenous peoples had taken part in work on the 
text, giving legitimacy to the text.  During recent months, many efforts 
had been made to meet the concerns expressed by various Member States on 
the draft, which had been approved by the Human Rights Council.  As a 
result of such efforts, a revised version produced several changes to 
the text.  Those changes had been duly communicated to Member States and 
representatives of indigenous peoples.  The changes had not undermined 
the protection of indigenous peoples and should ensure the Declaration's 
adoption. 

 

With the conclusion of a 25-year process, he thanked the President for 
her efforts in bringing the parties together.  The text would set the 
foundations for a new and sound relationship among indigenous peoples, 
States and societies, where and with whom they shared their lives.

 

ROBERT HILL ( _Australia_), speaking in explanation of vote before the 
vote, said Australia had actively worked to ensure the adoption of a 
meaningful declaration.  Australia had worked hard to ensure that any 
declaration could become a tangible and ongoing standard of achievement 
that would be universally accepted, observed and upheld.  The text of 
the Declaration failed to reach that high standard and Australia 
continued to have many concerns with the text.  Australia had repeatedly 
called for a chance to participate in negotiations on the current text 
and was deeply disappointed that none had been convened. 

 

Regarding the nature of the Declaration, he said it was the clear 
intention of all States that it be an aspirational Declaration with 
political and moral force, but not legal force.  The text contained 
recommendations regarding how States could promote the welfare of 
indigenous peoples, but was not in itself legally binding nor reflective 
of international law.  As the Declaration did not describe current State 
practice or actions that States considered themselves obliged to take as 
a matter of law, it could not be cited as evidence of the evolution of 
customary international law.  The Declaration did not provide a proper 
basis for legal actions complaints, or other claims in any 
international, domestic or other proceedings. 

 

The Australian Government had long expressed its dissatisfaction with 
the references to self-determination in the Declaration, he said.  
Self-determination applied to situations of decolonization and the 
break-up of States into smaller states with clearly defined population 
groups.  It also applied where a particular group with a defined 
territory was disenfranchised and was denied political or civil rights.  
The Government supported and encouraged the full engagement of 
indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did 
not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that 
would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a 
State with a system of democratic representative Government.

 

On lands and resources, he said the Declaration's provisions could be 
read to require recognition of indigenous rights to lands without regard 
to other legal rights existing in land, both indigenous and 
non-indigenous.  Any right to traditional lands must be subject to 
national laws, or the provisions would be both arbitrary and impossible 
to implement, with no recognition being given to the fact that ownership 
of land might lawfully vest in others.  Australia would read the lands 
and resources provisions in line with its existing domestic laws, 
including the Native Title Act.

 

Australia had concerns that the Declaration expanded any right to free, 
prior and informed consent too far, as the scope of that proposed right 
was too broad.  It could mean that States were obliged to consult with 
indigenous peoples about every aspect of law that might affect them.  
That would not only be unworkable, but would apply a standard for 
indigenous peoples that did not apply to others in the population.  
Australia could not accept a right that allowed a particular sub-group 
of the population to be able to veto legitimate decisions of a 
democratic and representative Government.  Australia also did not 
support the inclusion of intellectual property rights for indigenous 
peoples. 

 

On third party rights, he noted that, in seeking to give indigenous 
people exclusive rights over property, both intellectual, real and 
cultural, the Declaration did not acknowledge the rights of third 
parties, in particular the rights of third parties to access indigenous 
land, heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national 
law.  The Declaration also failed to consider the different types of 
ownership and use that could be accorded to indigenous people and failed 
to consider the rights of third parties to property.  Australia was also 
concerned that the Declaration placed indigenous customary law in a 
superior position to national law.  Customary law was not "law" in the 
sense that modern democracies used the term, but was based on culture 
and tradition.  Australia would read the whole of the Declaration in 
accordance with domestic laws, as well as international human rights 
standards.

 

Wile the Declaration would not be binding on Australia and other States 
as a matter of international law, he was aware that its aspirational 
contents would be relied on in setting standards by which States would 
be judged in their relations with indigenous peoples.  Accordingly, the 
Australian Government had been concerned throughout the negotiations to 
ensure that the Declaration was meaningful, was capable of 
implementation and enjoyed wide support in the international community.  
The Declaration failed in all those respects and Australia could not 
support it.

 

JOHN MCNEE ( _Canada_) said that his country had long-demonstrated its 
commitment to protecting and promoting indigenous rights at home and 
around the world.  It had strongly supported the work of the Permanent 
Forum on Indigenous Issues and the relevant United Nations special 
rapporteurs.   Canada also had a constructive and far-reaching 
international development programme targeted specifically at improving 
the situation of indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, and it 
also continued to make further progress at home within its 
constitutional guarantees for aboriginal and treaty rights, and with its 
negotiated self-government and land claims agreements with several 
Canadian aboriginal groups.

 

Canada had been an active participant in the development of the 
Declaration over the past 20 years, he continued.  And while it had long 
been a proponent of a strong and effective text promoting indigenous 
peoples' fundamental freedoms without discrimination, and a text that 
promoted harmonious agreements between indigenous peoples and the States 
in which they lived, the text presented to the Human Rights Council last 
year did not met those expectations.  Canada's position had remained 
consistent and principled and the country had stated publicly that it 
had significant concerns with the wording of the current text, including 
provisions on lands and resources; free, prior and informed consent when 
used as a veto; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to 
achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations on 
indigenous peoples, Member States and third parties.

 

For example, the recognition of indigenous rights to lands, territories 
and resources was important to Canada.  He said that Canada was proud 
that land and treaty rights had been given strong recognition and 
protection in its Constitution.   Canada was equally proud of the 
processes that had been put in place to deal with aboriginal claims 
respecting those rights and was working actively to improve those 
processes to address claims more effectively.  Unfortunately, the 
provisions in the Declaration on lands and territories were overly 
broad, unclear and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, 
discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and 
possibly putting into question matters that had been settled by treaty.

 

Similarly, some of the provisions dealing with the concept of free, 
prior and informed consent were unduly restrictive, he said.  Provisions 
in the Declaration said that States could not act on any legislative or 
administrative matter that might affect indigenous peoples without 
obtaining their consent.  While Canada had a strong consultative 
process, reinforced by the Courts as a matter of law, the establishment 
of complete veto power over legislative action for a particular group 
would be fundamentally incompatible with Canada's parliamentary system. 

 

Overall, it was unfortunate that Canada, and a number of other States 
with large indigenous populations, could not support the adoption of the 
text as a "meaningful and effective" United Nations Declaration on the 
Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Regardless, Canada would continue to take 
effective action, at home and abroad, to promote the rights of 
indigenous people based on its existing human rights obligations and 
commitments.  By voting against the text, Canada put on record its 
disappointment with both the substance and the process.  The Government 
understood that the Declarations was not legally binding and had no 
legal effect in Canada.

 

ROSEMARY BANKS (_New Zealand_), speaking in explanation of vote, noted 
that New Zealand was one of the few countries that from the start had 
supported the elaboration of a declaration that promoted and protected 
the rights of indigenous peoples.  In New Zealand, indigenous rights 
were of profound importance, and were integral to its identity as a 
nation State and as a people.  New Zealand was unique:  a treaty 
concluded at Waitangi between the Crown and New Zealand's indigenous 
peoples in 1840 was a founding document of the country.  Today, New 
Zealand had one of the largest and most dynamic indigenous minorities in 
the world, and the Treaty of Waitangi had acquired great significance in 
the country's constitutional arrangements, law and Government activity.

 

The place of Maori in society, their grievances and disparities 
affecting them were central and enduring features of domestic debate and 
Government action, she said.  New Zealand also had an unparalleled 
system for redress, accepted by both indigenous and non-indigenous 
citizens alike.  Nearly 40 per cent of the New Zealand fishing quota was 
owned by Maori, as a result.  Claims to over half of New Zealand's land 
area had been settled.  For that reason, New Zealand fully supported the 
principles and aspirations of the Declaration on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples.  The country had been implementing most of the 
standards in the Declaration for many years.  She shared the view that 
the Declaration was long overdue, and the concern that indigenous 
peoples in many parts of the world continued to be deprived of basic 
human rights.

 

New Zealand was proud of its role in improving the text over the past 
three years, turning the draft into one that States would be able to 
uphold and promote, she said.  It was, therefore, a matter of deep 
regret that it was unable to support the text before the Assembly 
today.  Unfortunately, New Zealand had difficulties with a number of 
provisions of the text.  In particular, four provisions in the 
Declaration were fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand's 
constitutional and legal arrangements, the Treaty of Waitangi, and the 
principle of governing for the good of all its citizens, namely article 
26 on lands and resources, article 28 on redress, articles 19 and 32 on 
a right of veto over the State.

 

The provision on lands and resources could not be implemented in New 
Zealand, she said.  Article 26 stated that indigenous peoples had a 
right to own, use, develop or control lands and territories that they 
had traditionally owned, occupied or used.  For New Zealand, the entire 
country was potentially caught within the scope of the article, which 
appeared to require recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by 
other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous, and did not take 
into account the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the 
indigenous peoples concerned.  The article, furthermore, implied that 
indigenous peoples had rights that others did not have.  The entire 
country would also appear to fall within the scope of article 28 on 
redress and compensation.  The text generally took no account of the 
fact that land might now be occupied or owned legitimately by others, or 
subject to numerous different or overlapping indigenous claims. 

 

Finally, the Declaration implied that indigenous peoples had a right of 
veto over a democratic legislature and national resource management, she 
said.  She strongly supported the full and active engagement of 
indigenous peoples in democratic decision-making processes.  New Zealand 
also had some of the most extensive consultation mechanisms in the 
world.  But the articles in the Declaration implied different classes of 
citizenship, where indigenous had a right to veto that other groups or 
individuals did not have.

 

While New Zealand took international human rights and its international 
human rights obligations seriously, it was unable to support a text that 
included provisions that were so fundamentally incompatible with its 
democratic processes, legislation and constitutional arrangements.  The 
text was clearly unable to be implemented by many States, including most 
of those voting in favour.  The Declaration was explained by its 
supporters as being an aspirational document, intended to inspire rather 
than to have legal effect.  New Zealand did not, however, accept that a 
State could responsibly take such a stance towards a document that 
purported to declare on the contents of the rights of indigenous 
people.  The history of the negotiations on the Declaration and the 
divided manner in which it had been adopted demonstrated that the text 
did not state propositions that were reflected in State practice, or 
which would be recognized as general principles of law. 

 

ROBERT HAGEN ( _United States_) said the United States had to vote 
against the Declaration's adoption.  While the United States had worked 
for 11 years in Geneva for a consensus declaration, the document before 
the Assembly had been prepared and submitted after the negotiations had 
concluded.  States had been given no opportunity to discuss it 
collectively.  It was disappointing that the Human Rights Council had 
not responded to his country's calls, in partnership with Council 
members, for States to undertake further work to generate a consensus 
text.  The Declaration had been adopted by the Council in a splintered 
vote.  The process had been unfortunate and extraordinary for any 
multilateral negotiating exercise and set a poor precedent with respect 
to United Nations practice.

 

The Declaration, if it were to encourage harmonious and constructive 
relations, should have been written in terms that were transparent and 
capable of implementation, he said.  Unfortunately, the text that had 
emerged from that failed process was confusing, and risked endless 
conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already 
evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by 
States at is adoption at the Human Rights Council, and the United States 
could not lend its support to such a text. 

 

He said the United States views with respect to the text's core 
provisions could be found in a separate document, which would be 
circulated as an official United Nations document.  The document 
discussed the core provisions of the Declaration, including but not 
limited to self-determination, lands and resources, redress and the 
Declaration's nature.  Because the flaws in the text ran through its 
most significant provisions, the text as a whole was rendered 
unacceptable. 

 

While the United States was voting against the Declaration, his 
Government would continue its efforts to promote indigenous rights 
domestically, he said.  Under United States domestic law, the Government 
recognized Indian tribes as political entities with inherent powers of 
self-government as first peoples.  In its legal system, the federal 
Government had a government-to-government relationship with Indian 
tribes.  In that domestic context, that meant promoting tribal 
self-government over a broad range of internal and local affairs, 
including determination of membership, culture, language, religion, 
education, information, social welfare, economic activities, and land 
and resources management.  At the same time, the United States would 
continue its work to promote indigenous rights internationally.  In its 
diplomatic efforts, it would continue its opposition to racial 
discrimination against indigenous individuals and communities and 
continued to press for full indigenous participation in democratic 
electoral processes throughout the world. 

 

He said his delegation was deeply disappointed that, in seeking to make 
a practical difference in the lives of indigenous people around the 
globe, the international community had not been presented with a text 
that was clear, transparent or capable of implementation.  Those 
fundamental shortcomings meant that the document could not enjoy 
universal support and become a true standard of achievement.

 

ILYA ROGACHEV ( _Russian Federation_) said that his delegation had 
supported the rights of indigenous people and the development of 
international standards in that regard.  Such an all-encompassing 
document should be balanced and its elements carefully weighed. 
 Unfortunately, the text being considered was not such a document.  It 
was not a truly balanced document, in particular regarding land and 
natural resources or the procedures for compensation and redress.

 

Further, the Declaration did not enjoy consensus support and had not 
been duly approved by all interested parties, he continued.  In 
addition, a non-transparent forum had been chosen to negotiate the text, 
which meant that, at a decisive stage in the process, some States with 
large numbers of indigenous people had been excluded from the talks.  
His Government hoped that the way in which the Declaration was being 
adopted would not create a negative precedent at the United Nations. 
 The Russian Federation could not support the Declaration and would 
abstain in the vote.  Nevertheless, as ever, the Russian Federation 
would foster cooperation in order to protect and promote the rights of 
indigenous peoples.

 

JEAN-MARIE EHOUZOU ( _Benin_) said his country was in favour of the 
text.  During the procedure, countries had raised legitimate concerns, 
and his delegation supported the African position to allow the Assembly 
to take into account the misgivings expressed by the continent.  Benin 
would vote in favour of the text, despite the flaws, which had been 
highlighted by some delegations.  He hoped the Declaration would fall on 
fertile ground.  While the text contained imperfections, it would be 
desirable if the text could be implemented for the time being and 
improvements introduced, in order for the text to receive approval by 
all delegations.

 

JAIRO MONTOYA ( _Colombia_) said his country had incorporated a wide 
range of rights within its national system.  Under the framework of the 
1991 Constitution, Colombia stood out as one of the most advanced with 
regard to recognizing the collective rights of indigenous peoples.  For 
the State, the recognition of traditional territories for the different 
communities was fundamental.  Colombia had some 710 reservations 
occupying about 32 million hectares.  By the end of 2007, the area 
should reach 29 per cent of the national territory.  Those properties 
could not be seized or transferred.  Reservations participated in the 
central government budget transfer system.  All members of the various 
communities were covered by health services that were subsidized by the 
State. 

 

Colombia had also been a leader internationally, he said, noting that 
dialogue with indigenous people was a priority for the State.  In the 
long-term, the State was developing policy for indigenous communities, 
including in terms of human rights and self-government.  His delegation 
had supported the initiative to postpone a decision, as it was important 
to find agreement that would allow for the adoption of a Declaration 
acceptable to all States.  In spite of the fact that the Declaration was 
not legally binding for the State, some aspects of the Declaration were 
in direct contradiction with Colombia's internal legal system, including 
provisions of articles 30, 19 and 32, forcing Colombia to abstain on the 
text. 

 

Colombia remained committed to the protection of the rights of 
indigenous people, he said.  The decision to abstain from voting on the 
text, given its legal incompatibilities, did not affect Colombia's 
commitment to carry out the constitutional provisions and internal norms 
and assumed obligations aimed at preserving Colombia's multiethnic 
nature and diversity.

 

Before action on the text, the representative of _Guatemala_ asked what 
delegation had asked for the vote.

 

The General Assembly President noted that Australia, New Zealand and the 
United States had requested a vote on the text.

 

The Assembly then adopted the Declaration by a recorded vote of 143 in 
favour to 4 against ( Australia, United States, New Zealand and Canada) 
with 11 abstentions.

 

Speaking after action on the text, Mr. ARGUELLO (_Argentina_) noted 
that, at the time of the draft's adoption by the Human Rights Council, 
Argentina had regretted that it had had to abstain, despite its clear 
political will in support of the recognition of the rights of indigenous 
peoples.  Argentina had also expressed its disappointment at not having 
more time to work on making the references to self-determination 
compatible with the principle of territorial integrity, with national 
unity and the other organizational structure of each State.  
Fortunately, the efforts undertaken to resolve the question without 
affecting the rights contained in the Declaration had been successful.  
Thanks to those efforts, Argentina was pleased to join the voting in 
favour of the Declaration.

 

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( _Japan_) said that his delegation had voted in favour 
of the Declaration.  The revised version of article 46 correctly 
clarified that the right of self-determination did not give indigenous 
peoples the right to be separate and independent from their countries of 
residence, and that that right should not be invoked for the purpose of 
impairing the sovereignty of a State, its national and political unity, 
or territorial integrity.  The Japanese Government shared the 
understanding on the right and welcomed the revision.

 

Japan believed that the rights contained in the Declaration should not 
harm the human rights of others.  It was also aware that, regarding 
property rights, the contents of the rights of ownership or others 
relating to land and territory were firmly stipulated in the civil law 
and other laws of each State.  Therefore, Japan thought that the rights 
relating to land and territory in the Declaration, as well as the way 
those rights were exercised, were limited by due reason, in light of 
harmonization with the protection of the third party interests and other 
public interests.

 

ARMIN ANDEREYA ( _Chile_) said that his delegation had also voted in 
favour of the Declaration, supporting the important role indigenous 
peoples played in the development of all societies.  The Declaration was 
a significant step.   Chile reaffirmed its internal legal system, which 
aimed to develop, promote and protect the rights of indigenous peoples, 
and supported their efforts to build their own communities.  The 
Declaration would serve to strengthen such national efforts.

 

KAREN PIERCE ( _United Kingdom )_ welcomed the Declaration as an 
important tool in helping to enhance the promotion and protection of the 
rights of indigenous peoples.  The United Kingdom regretted that it had 
not been possible to reach wider consensus on the important text, and 
that some States with large indigenous populations had felt that they 
had no recourse but to call a vote on it.  Nevertheless, the United 
Kingdom recognized the efforts that had been made to reflect many 
concerns raised in negotiations.  The United Kingdom was pleased to be 
able to support its adoption.

 

The United Kingdom fully supported the provisions in the Declaration 
which recognized that indigenous individuals were entitled to the full 
protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms in 
international law, on an equal basis to all other individuals.  Human 
rights were universal and equal to all.  The United Kingdom did not 
accept that some groups in society should benefit from human rights that 
were not available to others.  With the exception of the right to 
self-determination, the United Kingdom did not accept the concept of 
collective human rights in international law.  That was without 
prejudice to the United Kingdom's recognition of the fact that the 
Governments of many States with indigenous populations had granted them 
various collective rights in their constitutions, national laws and 
agreements.

 

In that regard, the United Kingdom strongly endorsed preambular 
paragraph 22 in the Declaration, which it understood to distinguish 
between individual human rights in international law and other 
collective rights bestowed at the national level by governments to 
indigenous peoples.  Her delegation read all the provisions in the 
Declaration in the light of the understanding of human rights and 
collective rights.  The United Kingdom understood article 3 of the 
Declaration as promoting the development of a new and distinct right of 
self-determination, specific to indigenous peoples.  She understood the 
"right" set out in article 3 of the Declaration to be separate and 
different from the existing right of all peoples to self-determination 
in international law.  Subsequent articles of the Declaration sought to 
set out the content of that new "right" which was to be exercised, where 
it applied, within the territory of a State and was not intended to 
impact in any way on the political unity or territorial integrity of 
existing States. 

 

Continuing, she said the United Kingdom understood the commitments of 
articles 12 and 13 on redress and repatriation as applying only in 
respect of such property or of such ceremonial objects and human remains 
that were in the ownership or possession of the State.  She emphasized 
that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have 
any retroactive application on historical episodes.  National minority 
groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United 
Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of 
the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied.  The United 
Kingdom had, however, long provided political and financial support to 
the socio-economic and political development of indigenous peoples 
around the world.

 

PATRICK RITTER ( _Liechtenstein_) said his country had been a 
long-standing supporter of innovative approaches to the right of peoples 
to self-determination, in order to fully explore the potential of the 
concept for the promotion and protection of human rights.  He was 
pleased, therefore, that the Declaration contained a number of 
provisions that marked an important new step in the way the United 
Nations was dealing with the concept of self-determination.  The 
introduction to the right to autonomy or self-government in matters 
relating to internal and local affairs, including their financial 
aspect, offered a promising new approach which would help to genuinely 
address the aspirations and needs of many peoples to create an enabling 
environment for the full protection and promotion of human rights, 
without resorting to violence and strife.

 

It was his understanding, he added, that the reference to "political 
unity" in article 46 did not preclude a gradual granting of increasing 
levels of self-government to such peoples, which was based on a 
democratic process and the promotion and protection of minority rights.  
It also did not exclude any democratic decision on the State structure. 

 

HEE-KWON PARK ( _Republic of Korea_) said the Republic of Korea had 
voted in favour of the Declaration given its belief that it would become 
an important milestone for the promotion, protection, and further 
enhancement of indigenous people's rights.  Adopting the Declaration, 
which was the outcome of more than 20 years of work, constituted a 
solemn pledge and sent a clear message for the survival and well-being 
of indigenous peoples, especially in support of their dwindling culture, 
language and their rights to pursue their vision of economic, social and 
cultural development.  His Government hoped that Declaration's adoption 
would contribute to further strengthening the international human rights 
system as a whole, by achieving equality and non-discrimination for all.

 

JOHAN L. LOVALD ( _Norway_) said that the Declaration set the standard 
of achievement to be pursued in a spirit of cooperation.  Norway would 
work with the Sami people, recognized as indigenous by the Government. 
 Several articles in the Declaration dealt with the exercise of 
self-determination and stipulated that such rights should be exercised 
in the framework of international law.  The Norwegian Government had 
signed agreements with the Sami parliament setting out cooperation and 
legislative matters.  The question of land was a crucial issue to 
cultural identity and, in that regard, Norway referred to the relevant 
language of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169.

 

ISHRAT JAHAN AHMED ( _Bangladesh_) said that her delegation supported 
the rights of any group that was disadvantaged.   Bangladesh adhered to 
all major international human rights instruments and supported the 
rights of indigenous peoples.  However, the Declaration, in its present 
form, contained some ambiguities, particularly that "indigenous people" 
had not been identified or explicitly defined in any way.  Further, the 
text did not enjoy consensus among Member States.  Under such 
circumstances, Bangladesh had abstained in the vote.

 

SAMAR AL-ZIBDEH (_Jordan_) said that her delegation had voted in favour 
of the text, but would stress that the right of self-determination 
referred to therein should be exercised within the framework of the 
United Nations Charter and did not interfere with the territorial 
integrity and sovereignty of States.

 

Ms. ROVIROSA ( _Mexico_) welcomed the adoption of the Declaration and 
reaffirmed her Government's pride in its multiethnic population.  With 
the anniversary of its independence, Mexico had enjoyed the recognition 
of its indigenous peoples, who supported the country's national 
identity.  She also welcomed the provisions of the Declaration in 
accordance with the provisions of Mexico's Constitution.  Article 2 of 
the Constitution recognized the rights of indigenous peoples to 
self-determination, granting them autonomy to determine their internal 
form and system of norms for conflict resolution.  She understood, 
however, that the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, 
autonomy and self-government shared be exercised in accordance with 
Mexico's Constitution, so as to guarantee its national unity and 
territorial integrity. 

 

ULLA STROM ( _Sweden_) said that her Government was pleased that the 
Assembly had finally adopted the Declaration.   Sweden had supported the 
Declaration throughout the negotiation process, had voted in favour of 
the text and hoped that its implementation improved the situation of 
indigenous peoples.  At the same time, the Declaration included several 
references to collective rights.  While the Swedish Government had no 
difficulty in recognizing such rights outside the framework of 
international law, it was of the firm opinion that individual human 
rights prevailed over the collective rights mentioned in the Declaration.

 

She went on to say that the Sami people were recognized as indigenous by 
the Swedish Parliament, and the Government had based its relations with 
the Sami on dialogue, partnership and self-determination, with respect 
and responsibility for cultural identity.  To that end, Sweden looked 
forward to discussing the implementation of the Declaration with Sami 
representatives.  She stressed that the political discussion on 
self-determination could not be separated from the question of land 
rights.  The Sami's relationship to the land was at the heart of the 
matter and the Swedish Government must maintain a balance between 
competing interests of different groups living in the same areas of the 
north of the country.

 

She said that some clarification of her country's interpretation of the 
Declaration was necessary.  For instance, the text's reference to 
self-determination should not be construed as authorizing or encouraging 
any action which would impair the territorial integrity or political 
unity of sovereign and independent States.  She noted that a large part 
of the realization of the right to self-determination could be ensured 
through article 19 of the Declaration, which dealt with the duty of 
States to consult and cooperate with indigenous peoples.  In fact, that 
article could be implemented in different ways, including through a 
consultative process between institutions representing indigenous 
peoples and Governments, and through participation in democratic 
systems, such as the current Swedish system.  It did not entail a 
collective right of veto, she added.

 

Among other examples, she said that her Government interpreted 
references in the Declaration to ownership and control of land to apply 
to the traditional rights of the Sami people.  In Sweden, those rights 
were called reindeer herding rights and included the right to land and 
water for the maintenance of reindeer herds by Sami herding communities, 
as well as the right to build fences and slaughterhouses for the 
reindeer and the right to hunt and fish in reindeer herd areas.  Article 
28 did not give Sami people the right to redress for regular forestry by 
the forest owner.

 

Mr. PUNKRASIN ( _Thailand_) said that his delegation had voted in favour 
of the text and was in agreement with its intent, despite the fact that 
a number of paragraphs raised some concerns.  The draft just adopted was 
an improvement over the text that had been put before the Third 
Committee last year.   Thailand understood that the articles on 
self-determination would be interpreted within the framework of the 
principle set out in the Vienna Declaration.   Thailand also understood 
that the Declaration did not create any new rights and that any benefits 
that flowed from the Declaration would be based on the laws and 
Constitution of Thailand.

 

PIRAGIBE DOS SANTOS TARRAGO ( _Brazil_) said that his delegation had 
voted in favour of the text.   Brazil had believed that the text adopted 
by the Human Rights Council, the body most able to deal with such 
issues, should not have been reopened.  Nevertheless, Brazil welcomed 
the text and appreciated the flexibility of delegations that had brought 
the Declaration before the Assembly today.  He said that his country's 
indigenous peoples were crucial to the development of society at every 
level, including the development of spiritual and cultural life for all. 
  Brazil would underscore that the exercise of the rights of indigenous 
peoples was consistent with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of 
the States in which they resided.  At the same time, States should 
always bear in mind their duty to protect the rights and identity of 
their indigenous peoples, he added.

 

GEORGE WILFRED TALBOT ( _Guyana_) said he had voted in favour of the 
text.  In supporting the Declaration's adoption, his delegation was 
motivated by the commitment to preserving the dignity and well being of 
all peoples and to safeguarding the rights of all individuals, including 
Guyana's original inhabitants.  It was further motivated by the 
consideration that the Declaration represented a good-faith effort to 
address the genuine concerns and special needs of indigenous people 
everywhere.  Today's adoption marked a historical milestone in 
recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples.  It also took note of 
the fact that the Declaration was political in character as opposed to 
being a legally binding document, though not without potential legal 
implications. 

 

Some of its provisions could give rise to expectations that could be out 
of consonance with its fundamental intent, he said.  He hoped that the 
Declaration would not become an instrument of division within States or 
societies.  At the national level, all citizens without distinction 
enjoyed equal status before the law.  It was a pity that the Declaration 
had become the object of division.  It was his hope that the 
international community would, in the future, be able to arrive at 
consensus and ensure respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.

 

Mr. MACDONALD ( _Suriname_) placed great importance on the promotion and 
protection of all human rights, including those of indigenous peoples.  
Suriname had voted in favour of the text.  The amendments had addressed 
some concerns in the original text.  Indigenous people comprised a 
significant part of Suriname's population and the Government had a 
responsibility to all its constituents to prevent discrimination and 
marginalisation of any group in society.  Granting special rights to one 
party might run contrary to the concept of equal treatment.  The 
Declaration could not be understood to initiate any activity that would 
jeopardize a State's territorial integrity and political unity.

 

He said his Government accepted the fact that the State's should seek 
prior consultation to prevent a disregard for human rights.  The level 
of such consultations depended on the specific circumstances.  
Consultation should not be viewed as an end in itself, but should serve 
the purpose of respecting the interest of those who used the land.  The 
nation had the inalienable right to take complete possession of its 
national resources to the country's benefit.  He hoped all groups would 
be inspired by the Declaration and that the Declaration would be placed 
in its politically correct context. 

 

BAGHAEI-HAMANEH ( _Iran_) said his delegation had voted in favour of the 
resolution.  The protection of the rights of indigenous people around 
the world was a matter of principle for Iran, although Iran did not have 
any indigenous peoples, as such.  He hoped that the Declaration's 
adoption by an overwhelming majority would further contribute to the 
protection of indigenous peoples' rights, who had long been subjected to 
discrimination due to colonization.  The rights of indigenous peoples 
should be protected and enhanced within the context of national and 
international law, including the purposes of the Charter, namely respect 
for territorial integrity and political sovereignty. 

 

AJAI MALHOTRA ( _India_) said his country had consistently favoured the 
promotion and protection of indigenous peoples' rights.  The fact that 
the working group had been unable to reach consensus was only reflective 
of the extreme complexity of the issues involved.  While the Declaration 
did not define what constituted indigenous peoples, the issue of 
indigenous rights pertained to peoples in independent countries who were 
regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations 
which inhabited the country, or a geographical region which the country 
belonged, at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment 
of present State boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, 
retained some or all of their socio-economic, cultural and political 
institutions.

 

Regarding references to the right to self-determination, it was his 
understanding that the right to self-determination applied only to 
peoples under foreign domination and that the concept did not apply to 
sovereign independent States or to a section of people or a nation, 
which was the essence of national integrity.  The Declaration clarified 
that the right to self-determination would be exercised by indigenous 
peoples in terms of their right to autonomy or self-government in 
matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as means 
and ways for financing their autonomous functions.  In addition, article 
46 stated clearly that nothing in the Declaration might be interpreted 
as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage 
in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter.  It was 
on that basis that India had voted in favour of the adoption of the 
Declaration.

 

AYE THIDAR MYO ( _Myanmar_) said that her Government was pleased to see 
that the Declaration included reference to self-determination and 
understood that such rights referred to activities which did not impair 
the territorial integrity or political unity of States.  Her delegation 
had voted in favour of the Declaration and would seek to implement it 
with flexibility.

 

KAIRE MBUENDE ( _Namibia_) said that his delegation had made clear from 
the outset of the negotiations that Namibia was not opposed to the idea 
of a Declaration on indigenous rights.  "We, as historical victims of 
deprivation of rights could not do anything that would be construed to 
deny other people human rights," he said, adding that having experienced 
first-hand the pain of being treated as second class citizens in their 
own land, Namibians had traditionally been friends of human rights 
instruments.

 

Namibia understood that nothing in the Declaration could be interpreted 
in any way to mean that measures adopted by States for securing equal 
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples 
and individuals created, as a consequence, any new, separate rights.  He 
said that Namibia also understood that the word "law" in article 46 (2) 
of the Declaration referred to the national laws of States. 
 Accordingly, Namibia understood that the exercise of the rights set out 
in the Declaration was subject to the constitutional frameworks and 
other national laws of States.

 

MADHU RAMAN ACHARYA ( _Nepal_) said that his delegation had voted in 
favour of the long-negotiated text, as its Government had always 
protected and promoted the rights of indigenous people.  Indeed, the 
country's interim-Constitution reflected the new Government's commitment 
to supporting Nepal's indigenous peoples.   Nepal understood that the 
Declaration represented the good intentions of the international 
community to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples, and 
did not create any new rights.

 

MUHAMMAD ANSHOR ( _Indonesia_) noted that several aspects of the 
Declaration remained unresolved, in particular what constituted 
indigenous peoples.  The absence of that definition prevented a clear 
understanding of the peoples to whom the Declaration applied.  In that 
context, the Declaration used the definition contained in the 
International Labour Organization Convention, according to which 
indigenous people were distinct from tribal people.  Given the fact that 
Indonesia's entire population at the time of colonization remained 
unchanged, the rights in the Declaration accorded exclusively to 
indigenous people and did not apply in the context of Indonesia.  
Indonesia would continue to promote the collective rights of indigenous 
peoples. 

 

BILAL HAYEE ( _Pakistan_) said his country had voted in favour of the 
Declaration both in the Human Rights Council and in the Assembly.  
Although the Declaration did not define indigenous peoples, he hoped 
that its adoption would fulfil the aims of the International Decade for 
the rights of indigenous peoples and enable them to maintain their 
cultural identity, with full respect for their values and traditions.

 

JUAN ALFREDO BUFFA ( _Paragua_y) said that his delegation had 
participated in the negotiations in a constructive spirit and had voted 
in favour of the text.   Paraguay understood that the Declaration's 
reference to self-determination referred to acts and rights that would 
not interfere with the sovereignty or political unity of States.

 

DUSAN MATULAY ( _Slovakia_) said that his delegation welcomed in 
principle the Declaration as a tool to protect and promote the rights of 
indigenous peoples at the national and international levels.  At the 
same time, Slovakia did not support the Declaration's distinction 
between collective and individual human rights.

 

SERHAT ASKEN ( _Turkey_) said that his delegation was pleased to see 
that the amendments in the text had been instrumental in achieving 
broader support.  With that in mind, Turkey had voted in favour of the 
text.  It was non-legally binding, but could serve as an important 
tool.  Turkey did not have any people in its territory that could be 
interpreted as indigenous peoples in the Declaration and believed that 
the Declaration referred to the exercise of self-determination in line 
with the Charter obligations regarding non-interference in the 
sovereignty, integrity and political unity of States.

 

Mr. INSIGNE ( _Philippines_) said his delegation had consistently upheld 
the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples' rights.  In 1997, 
the Philippine Congress had passed the indigenous peoples rights act, 
which promoted the rights of indigenous cultural communities in the 
country.  His delegation's expression of support was premised on the 
understanding that the right to self-determination shall not be 
construed as encouraging any action that would dismember or impair the 
territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign or independent 
State.  It was also based on the understanding that land ownership and 
natural resources was vested in the State.

 

Mr. AKINDELE ( _Nigeria_) welcomed the broad areas of the Declaration, 
which were in tandem to Nigeria's Constitution and which were replete 
with provisions strengthening some of those areas.  A number of concerns 
that were critical to his country's interests, however, had not been 
satisfactorily addressed, including the issue of self determination and 
the control of lands, territories and resources.  His country's national 
institutions and laws all ensured national integration.  Nigeria would 
continue to promote the issue of indigenous people's rights, culture and 
dignity.  Those rights affected the rights of all Nigerians with its 
more than 300 ethnic groups speaking more than 300 languages.  His 
delegation had abstained in the voting.

 

CLAUDIA PEREZ-ALVAREZ ( _Cuba_) noted that ending the isolation and 
discrimination suffered by the peoples for more than five centuries had 
been the driving motive of many stakeholders around the world.  Noting 
important milestones in the process, she said the working group had been 
the first instance to address the question, opening the door for the 
ancestral claims of indigenous peoples.  During the first decade, 
significant results had been made in the quest for solutions to the 
problems faced by indigenous communities, including the contributions 
from the special rapporteur on the situation of indigenous peoples and 
the establishment of the Permanent Forum on indigenous questions.

 

The Declaration and its future impact on the work of the United Nations 
would serve as a guide for future claims of the indigenous community.  
The Human Rights Council and its subordinate bodies should follow up for 
the full implementation of all indigenous people's human rights.  The 
acts of the United Nations in the second decade should not be limited to 
defining indigenous people's rights.  Cuba would continue to support the 
just claims of indigenous peoples.

 

NEBOJSA KALUDJEROVIC ( _Montenegro_) said that, due to some technical 
problems, his delegation's vote had not been recorded.  His delegation 
had voted in favour of the adoption of the Declaration.

 

SOHA GENDI ( _Egypt_) said that her delegation had voted in favour of 
the text.  Despite the fact that it was not perfect, Egypt understood 
that nothing in the Declaration as adopted changed the interpretation of 
the rights to self-determination, or the sovereignty and territorial 
integrity of States, as set out in the Charter.

 

DAVID CHOQUEHUAUCA, Minster of Foreign Affairs of _Bolivia_, said that 
the world's indigenous peoples, with their characteristic patience, had 
waited 25 years for the adoption of the historic Declaration.  While the 
text was being negotiated and re-negotiated at many levels, Mother Earth 
had gone through innumerable changes, politically, socially and 
environmentally.  Now, at the day of the adoption of the Declaration, 
the Planet was clearly wounded.  Indigenous peoples had been and would 
continue to raise their voices to ensure the protection and preservation 
of Mother Earth.  The Declaration was a step forward.  It did not solve 
the problems of the Planet, nor ease the tensions between people.  But, 
it was a step forward in allowing indigenous people to participate in 
global processes for the betterment of all societies, including their 
own traditional communities.  By the Declaration, they were not trying 
to live better than anyone else.  They were merely trying to "live like" 
everyone else.  Indigenous people were trying to exercise the same 
rights --- in the same manner --- as all the people of the world.

 

JOAO SALGUEIRO ( _Portugal_), speaking on behalf of the European Union 
and associated States, said the Union had supported the Human Rights 
Council resolution adopting the text of the Declaration in June 2006.  
The amended text before the Assembly today aimed at ensuring the widest 
possible support to the Declaration.  The Union supported the new 
compromise text and was encouraged to see that it had the support of a 
broad range of indigenous representatives who had played a role during 
the process leading to the Declaration's adoption.  Today's adoption 
would advance their rights and ensure the continued development of 
indigenous peoples around the world.

 

JOSE ALBERTO BRIZ GUTIERREZ ( _Guatemala_) said the 20-year struggle had 
ended today with the adoption of a text -- acceptable to the majority of 
Member States --- that would strengthen the dignity of people around the 
world.  The Declaration was a balanced, useful instrument that would 
serve as a genuine guide for improving the living conditions of 
indigenous peoples.  Great care had been taken to ensure that the 
Declaration was consistent with the principles of international law.  
While he had been sure that the text would have been adopted by 
consensus, that hope had proven idealistic.  The reality had been 
different, with the text undergoing various changes before its adoption 
today.  While he would rather have not seen it amended, he was satisfied 
that Member States' concerns had been considered. 

 

The Declaration, he continued, did not create new rights, but reaffirmed 
the rights of indigenous peoples, recognizing the collective right to 
live in freedom, peace and security.  Guatemala reaffirmed its 
conviction that the full realization of human rights was a prerequisite 
for attaining peaceful and harmonious existence.  While it could not 
make up for the past, it could prevent discrimination and intolerance.  
The Declaration was the expression of the international community's 
political will to respect the rights of indigenous people.  As the first 
instrument for the promotion and protection of indigenous people's human 
rights, the Declaration would open the door for a better future for 
indigenous peoples worldwide.

 

Ms. NUORGAM ( _Finland_) said the first International Decade had had two 
major goals, namely the finalization of a United Nations Declaration on 
the rights of indigenous peoples and the establishment of permanent 
forum for indigenous issues.  While she regretted the delays in 
approving the Declaration, she was pleased that after years of intense 
negotiations, the Declaration had been finalized.  Today's action 
honoured the work of hundreds of representatives of Governments and 
indigenous peoples from around the world by bringing the process, which 
started over two decades ago, to a meaningful end.

 

The issue of indigenous peoples' rights affected the lives not only of 
indigenous peoples, but also populations as a whole, she said.  The 
Declaration was an important tool in underscoring the full participation 
of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes.  Its adoption would 
strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide and serve as a 
comprehensive framework for cooperation in implementing new minimal 
international standards for indigenous people's rights.

 

RODRIGO RIOFRIO ( _Ecuador_) said that his country was known for its 
ethnic and cultural diversity and the Government strongly supported the 
adoption of the Declaration as a tool that would protect and promote the 
rights of indigenous people worldwide.  He thanked all delegations that 
had steered the negotiations and the various indigenous civil society 
groups that devoted so much time and energy to the issue as the day had 
drawn near.  Flexibility in the negotiations had lead to a consensus 
among a majority of States that the Declaration would improve the 
situation of indigenous people worldwide.  He congratulated the Assembly 
for adopting the text and hoped that it would fulfil the wish of the 
world's indigenous people, who had hoped for years that their respective 
Governments would give due attention to their legitimate rights.

 

RANDALL GONZALEZ ( _Costa Rica_) said that today marked the end of a 
long process towards the recognition of the fundamental rights of 
indigenous people.  Still, it was only the beginning of efforts to 
remedy so many years of injustice.  The debt to indigenous brothers and 
sisters must be settled, not only through implementation of the 
Declaration, but with assistance in such areas as poverty alleviation, 
improved education and wider access to decision-making processes.

 

FABIEN FIESCHI ( _France_) believed that the Declaration was an 
essential step forward in the promotion and protection of human rights 
for all.   France had supported all multinational initiatives for 
indigenous peoples.   France believed that the Declaration referred to 
many of the rights that had been elaborated in the French Constitution.

 

Assembly Vice-President, AMINU BASHIR WALI (Nigeria), making a statement 
on behalf of General Assembly President Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, 
said the Assembly had come a long way on the issue, having first opened 
its doors to indigenous peoples at a ceremony to launch the 
International Year of the World's Indigenous Peoples in December 1992.  
In 1995, the United Nations marked the first International Decade of the 
World's Indigenous Peoples and, last year, the beginning of the Second 
International Decade.  That partnership and cooperation demonstrated the 
Assembly's continuing commitment to the world's indigenous peoples. 

 

Even with that progress, however, indigenous peoples still faced 
marginalization, extreme poverty and other human rights violations, she 
said.  They were often dragged into conflicts and land disputes that 
threatened their way of life and very survival.  They also suffered from 
a lack of access to health care and education.  Indigenous peoples 
should not be cast as victims, however, but as critical assets to the 
diversity of global humanity.  By adopting the Declaration, the Assembly 
was marking further progress to improve the situation of indigenous 
peoples around the world.

 

The Assembly had also realized another important mandate that Heads of 
State and Government had agreed at the 2005 World Summit, she 
continued.  "I am acutely aware that the Declaration is the product of 
over two decades of negotiations," she said, noting that the document's 
importance for indigenous peoples and, more broadly, for the human 
rights agenda, could not be underestimated.  By adopting the 
Declaration, the Assembly was also taking another major step forward 
towards the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms for all.  It was also actively demonstrating the General 
Assembly's important role in setting international standards.

 

_ANNEX_

 

_Vote on Indigenous Rights Declaration_

 

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (document A/61/L.67) 
was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 4 against, with 11 
abstentions, as follows:

 

_In favour_:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua 
and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, 
Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, 
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, 
Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, 
Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, 
Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, 
Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, 
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, 
Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, 
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia 
(Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, 
Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, 
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic 
of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, 
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, 
Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United 
Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, 
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

 

_Against_:  Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States.

 

_Abstain_:  Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, 
Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa, Ukraine.

 

_Absent_:  Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, 
Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Palau, Papua 
New Guinea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and 
Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, 
Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

 

** *** **

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*For information media . not an official record*

 

 


 

-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related