|
COAIM BLOG
(latest news,
updates, opinions,
etc.)
COAIM HOME
CO AIM
principles
councils
history
photos
in the media
LATEST NEWS
community
upcoming events
urgent issues
MEDIA
alternative
indigenous
mainstream
RESOURCES
educational
legal
perspectives
links
STRUGGLES
native struggles
| |
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
Working Group on Indigenous Peoples
11th Session
Item 4: Provisional Agenda
STATEMENT OF GLENN T. MORRIS, AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT OF COLORADO
21 July, 1993
Congratulations, Madame Chair, on your re-election as Chair of the Working
Group. I bring you the greetings of the membership of the American Indian
Movement of Colorado, and of our executive director, Russell Means.
Yesterday's interventions seemed to distill for us the essence of various
understandings of, and expectations for, the Draft Declaration - this is
particularly true on the issue of self-determination, and consequently of all of
the rights of indigenous peoples as acknowledged through the Draft.
As you know, Madame Chair, the differing and often contentious positions
expressed on the question of indigenous peoples' right to self-determination are
neither new nor surprising, but what makes them important in this moment is
their potential impact on this Draft, on the recognition of indigenous peoples'
rights into the foreseeable future, and of the actual, concrete impact of our
work on the lives of indigenous peoples in our territories and in our
communities.
In that vein, I would like to offer a few general comments on the Draft, and
then a specific recommendation for the Working Group's reasoned consideration.
Yesterday, in apparent opposition to the application of conventional
constructions of the right to self-determination to indigenous peoples, an
observer government cited the recent report of the Secretary General suggesting
that expanded notions of self-determination would cause global fragmentation,
and would threaten global peace, security, and economic stability.
Unfortunately, it appears, at least from one indigenous perspective, that both
the Secretary General and the observer government have it backwards.
Global conflict and tension between peoples and states do not erupt because
peoples are free to exercise their right to self-determination; rather, it is
the absence of freedom, and the denial of the right of peoples to determine
their destinies that provoke mistrust, tension and conflict. Conflict occurs
when peoples are forced to exist in societies that are neither their own, nor
within their control, when they are forced to remain in political, social and
economic relationships that they neither created nor consented to join. Conflict
between indigenous peoples and states are the consequence of the forced
integration and incorporation of unwilling peoples into an occupying or settler
state, and it is the result of genuine, legitimate and ongoing fears by
indigenous peoples of their destruction by the state.
Although it is not constructive to mire ourselves in the past, states must
recognize that if they had serious and consistently respected the right of
indigenous self-determination at any point to the present, there would be little
need for this Working Group now.
As we meet, most states appear rigidly committed to archaic ideas of
sovereign state authority, at the expense of indigenous peoples. These states
refuse to consider the prospect of any meaningful definition of
self-determination applying to indigenous peoples. This refusal is part of a
larger international trend that would deny the right to all peoples who have not
yet been recognized under international law as possessing it.
It is part of a trend that views indigenous peoples as something other than
what we are. As my dear friend and colleague Sharon Venne from the Treaty Six
area stated, we are not minorities, populations, or ethnic groups. Ethnic groups
run restaurants. Indigenous peoples are peoples and nations, we have
territories, and our own governments - we have the right to self-determination.
States that subscribe to this current trend to limit self-determination act
as though they are members of an elite club. Once they enter through the
self-determination club's doors, they slam the doors closed and change the
entrance rules, denying the rights that they possess to those peoples who remain
locked out in the cold.
We appear to be at the 11th hour in the consideration of this draft. Let us
be candid with one another. At most, states will recognize a right to
self-determination for indigenous peoples only if it is a limited right,
qualified and construed as internal self-determination.
Indigenous peoples conversely, while not generally aspiring towards external
self-determination, desire to reserve that option for themselves, to exercise if
conditions warrant. Regardless of one's position, however, self-determination is
the heart of the Draft.
The resolution of this impasse appears to be found, as it always could have
been found, in the language of self-determination in the International Human
Rights Covenants and in G.A. Res. 1514. States claim that the integration of
this language into the Draft will unleash a flood of secessionism and state
dismemberment - although such claims are rooted neither in fact nor reality.
They also claim that such language will doom the Declaration to defeat - if
not in this body then at the Commission on Human Rights or in the General
Assembly. This claim is intended to scare indigenous delegates into accepting
language that we know is not in the long-term interests of our peoples and
nations. But if indigenous peoples should be fearful of the Declaration being
defeated, states also should possess a healthy fear of their own because the
pendulum swings both ways. If states believe that they can enter the 21st
century by denying indigenous peoples self-determination without ramifications
they are blinking reality.
Just as Ethiopia was blind and deaf to Eritrean aspirations and just as the
Soviet Union was blind and deaf to the aspirations of the Baltics, state
blindness and deafness to indigenous aspirations can either be resolved
conflictually with pain and hardship by all, or civilly and under the rule of
law.
We are here because we are committed to the peaceful and lawful resolution of
issues through diplomacy and law. By accepting the language of the Covenants as
recommended this morning by Mr. Moana Jackson on behalf of the informal
indigenous delegates' meeting, this body sets an example of following time
honored legal principles and mechanism for the expansion of freedom to all
peoples. This Working Group finds itself at a crucial crossroads where it can
choose the path of greater freedom and self-determination, or the path of less
freedom and more conflict. My recommendation is for the Working Group to accept
the indigenous delegations' proposal. I fear that if this dilemma is not
resolved with justice for indigenous peoples' claims for self-determination then
indigenous peoples and states will be sentenced to a future of interminable
political, legal, social and even armed conflict.
|
