SUBCOMMISSION ENDS DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES; BEGINS DISCUSSION OF PROTECTION OF MINORITIES

AFTERNOON

HR/SC/99/18
17 August 1999



The Subcommission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights completed discussion this afternoon of the human rights of indigenous peoples, hearing from a series of Experts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and countries commenting on the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands and debating whether the right to self-determination, if applied to such groups, interfered with the sovereignty of States.

The Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation said the relationship between indigenous peoples and land was a sacred one -- that indigenous communities and their territories formed one identity. The Indigenous World Association said the topic should be a permanent item on the agenda of the Subcommission’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations, since the relationship of indigenous peoples to land was vitally important for their survival.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission insisted that it was essential that all parties recognize that indigenous peoples possessed distinct rights arising from their status as first peoples, their relationships with their territories and waters, and their own systems of law and governance. The principle of self-determination, this organization said, was central to the matter.

Subcommission Expert Miguel Alfonso Martinez, author of a report on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between indigenous peoples and States, said self-determination was at the heart of many issues related to indigenous peoples, but was not restricted to such peoples alone, and should not be mis-interpreted -- self-determination also did not necessarily mean a conflict with the rights of States to protect their sovereignty.

Towards the end of the meeting, the Subcommission began consideration of its agenda item on the prevention of discrimination against and the protection of minorities.

Speaking this afternoon were Subcommission Experts Fan Guoxiang, Louis Joinet, Erica-Irene A. Daes, Miguel Alfonso Martinez, and Asbjorn Eide.

Also delivering statements were representatives of Paraguay, Chile, China, Mauritius, and Mexico.

The following NGOs addressed the session: American Association of Jurists; North-South XXI; Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation; Agir Ensemble pour les Droits de l'Homme; Indian Council of South America; Indigenous World Association; Liberation; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; Latin American Human Rights Association; Transnational Radical Part; France Libertes - Foundation Danielle Mitterand; International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples; and International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism.

Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico and Chile spoke in exercise of the right of reply.

The Subcommission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 18 August, to continue its discussion of the rights of minorities.

Documentation

Under its agenda item on the prevention of discrimination against and the protection of minorities, the Subcommission had before it the report of its Working Group on Minorities on its fifth session (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/21). The document contains an introduction; a review of the promotion and practical realization of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; an examination of possible solutions to problems involving minorities, including the promotion of mutual understanding between and among minorities and Governments; recommendations covering further measures, as appropriate, for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities; a preview of the future role of the working group; and conclusions and recommendations.

Statements

VOILA ANTILEO, of American Association of Jurists, said that for the past two hundred years the Mapuches had struggled, to little avail, for justice. The Government of Chile continued to carry out repression against these people; their leaders were harassed, their houses searched and destroyed. While some successes had been achieved as a result of the International Decade, much needed to be done.

It was imperative to take into account the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in decisions which affected them. As for the Mapuche people, their understanding of and feelings for the land needed to be taken into consideration.

JOAQUIN MBOMIO BACHENG, of North-South XXI, said the right to self-determination was vital to indigenous peoples. Only the establishment of independent mechanisms would make it possible to promote the rights of these people. This was not just an abstract idea -- this was the daily terrible life of indigenous people. In 1995, the Peruvian Government began a water project to provide people in cities with water from outlying springs. This threatened regions where indigenous people lived and threatened ecosystems. The indigenous groups were left with diminished water capacity.

The right to self-determination did not necessarily mean independence. It meant that such peoples had the right to decide for themselves.

NUR AMALIA, of Netherlands Organization for International Development Cooperation, said that without land, there was no indigenous community. The relationship between indigenous people and the land was a sacred relationship. This relationship made the community and the land one identity. The Dayak Iban people in Kalimantan, Indonesia, were isolated and alienated, suffering from the indifferent attitude of the Indonesian Government. The presence of the State had wrecked the religious affinity of the indigenous people for their land. The land had become a commodity, and the indigenous community had been uprooted from the land of their ancestors. They had been sacrificed by the existing laws so that they could be expelled for the sake of development, economic growth, and various other reasons. Thus, the indigenous community was facing up to the Government for their rights -- and as a result, many cases of human-rights violations victimizing the indigenous community had been perpetrated by the State, whic
h was interested in defending corporate interests.

The Subcommission should pressure the Indonesian Government to accommodate indigenous participation in national policy-making by abolishing regulations that obstructed such participation. And it should urge Indonesia to take responsibility for all the abuses committed against indigenous communities.

MANUEL HERNANDEZ AGUILAR, of Agir Ensemble, said indigenous people in Mexico were in danger. There was a strong military presence in many communities; in some communities there were more military personnel than residents. Land was occupied even though it did not belong to the State. Indigenous people were in fear of military patrols who threatened their rights. People were arrested, sometimes under dubious pretexts. Indigenous human-rights militants had been held for more than a year without arrest warrants.

There were controls, checkpoints and raids in and near these communities; the presence of the military was a source of insecurity. A Government commander had said the land was an ecological reserve to be reforested. The Government of Mexico had signed any number of human-rights conventions and had stated that it respected the rights of indigenous peoples. Yet the treaties were far from reality.

TOMAS CONDORI, of Indian Council of South America, said there was talk about extending the working group's meeting to 10 days, but the travel costs for delegations were extremely onerous. The Indian Council of South America proposed as a main topic for next year’s session of the working group the rights of children and young indigenous people.

FAN GUOXIANG, Subcommission Expert, said all problems should be discussed. Indigenous peoples and minorities, for whom there was no clear definition, had been there before the colonialists and settlers had arrived. The question of indigenous populations was caused by the conflict between them and the countries that had been established afterwards. However, the situation was not the same across the world. This remained a main cause of indigenous problems, whether in Asia, Africa or Latin America. It was impossible to say that there were no problems in this area, because indigenous issues had given rise to other issues, such as their land, the resources, and other interests.

A major problem was whether indigenous populations had the right to self-determination. These problems should be faced squarely, and people should be encouraged to express their own views, whether traditional views or not. The discussion should continue, since raising new problems was not a negative development.

DEANNA MORROW PATTY, of Interfaith International, said that to start a dialogue with indigenous peoples, one could begin by exploring the idea of land as a holy place. The recommendations presented in the paper by Mr. Martinez were supported. The ILO Convention for the Indigenous and the Tribal Peoples Convention were also commended; the ILO's technical co-operation projects were worthwhile as well.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should have sufficient funds to help make the Decade viable; States must give funds for this. Information should be filtered down to communities, to educate the public. NGOs were challenged to share their creative programmes for the Decade with others.

RONALD BARNES, of Indigenous World Association, said that due to the increasing attendance and the important issues affecting indigenous peoples, the working group session should be extended to 10 days, or at least eight days. The land question needed to be a permanent item on the agenda of the working group, The relationship of indigenous people to their lands and territories was vitally important to their survival. The issue of title was especially important for many indigenous peoples in Alaska.

It was also necessary to evaluate the first half of the International Decade. There had been stalling and obstruction by certain Governments at the inter-sessional working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Indigenous World Association support the draft declaration in its current text. Again, it was important to remember that the declaration was a minimum standard. To reduce the content of the text would be an attempt to delete the meaning and purpose of the document. Without proper recognition and protection, indigenous peoples would continue to be subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of domestic Government policies that had resulted in the extinction of whole indigenous populations.

MAGGIE BOWDEN, of Liberation, said action needed to be taken in four cases to protect the human rights of indigenous peoples. The first case was the situation facing the Mapuche people in Chile; the second was that facing the indigenous people of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil; the third the plight of the Sindhi people of Pakistan; the fourth the situation of the Trapuri people in India.

The human rights of all these groups had been violated and were violated, and this should not continue. The Subcommission should note these concerns.

LES MALEZER, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; the National Indigenous Working Group on Native Title; and the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, said endemic racial discrimination against indigenous peoples should be eliminated. The Government of Australia had proposed a package to address the injustices done to indigenous peoples. It was essential that all parties recognize indigenous rights to self-determination. Any document which compromised this principle would probably not be accepted by indigenous peoples.

In terms of the upcoming Constitutional reform in Australia, there had been little discussion of Constitutional reform as a mechanism for reconciliation and recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A revised Constitution could create the basis for a new relationship with non-indigenous peoples founded on principles of partnership and respect.

MARGARITA GUTIERREZ, of Latin American Human Rights Association, said there had been a number of human-rights violations committed against the indigenous peoples of Mexico. It was pleasing to see that the international community was concerned with the plight of the indigenous. In Mexico, being an indigenous person meant that you were considered a guerrilla fighter or a drug smuggler. That was what was being said about them.

The new relationship with the Government, through the San Andreas statement, had not yet begun, and the people were still being deprived their land. Many indigenous communities had had their land plundered, and in some instances their ownership documents were not recognized. Some communities had managed to get judicial decisions about their rights to the land, but they were few. Land was sacred to indigenous people. How could there be a new relationship with the Government when there were 10,000 soldiers present?

LETICIA CASATI (Paraguay) said Paraguayan indigenous peoples were intermixed with the general Paraguyan population, due to constant inter-marriage during over 500 years. This had created an atmosphere of respect, and had preserved cultural elements of the indigenous population. The Government needed to provide arable land to the rural population, and had therefore started a program of agrarian reform to exploit unused land. All were equal in human rights in Paraguay, with no preferences accorded. The Government protected all the country’s inhabitants, including the indigenous population, whose rights were enshrined in the Constitution.

Indigenous peoples were incorporated in national life, while their traditions were respected, provided they did not contravene the laws of the country. For this reason, the claims of the indigenous people had to be carefully studied, so that they did not benefit any particular group at the expense of others. Recently, land had been transferred to the ownership of indigenous peoples. Paraguay was prepared to do what was required to ensure that indigenous populations could become an active part of society and enjoy their cultural rights.

ALFREDO LABBE (Chile) said Chile's historical policy towards indigenous people had been one of integration. Under the military, the situation had worsened. Land was obtained by timber companies; in 1989 more than 100,000 hectares were lost to indigenous peoples. The re-establishment of democracy was beneficial to land-rights issues for indigenous peoples. The government had obtained land for indigenous peoples, and it also had sought to ensure that indigenous land could not be transferred to non-indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, some leaders who were not representative of indigenous groups had resorted to violence, and, in some cases, action in response was taken by the Government.

Chile congratulated Mr. Martinez for his useful, interesting and well-written report. There were differences of opinion about issues in the report, but the document would enrich the debate with new ideas.

REN YISHENG (China) said that in recent years, with the active involvement and promotion of the working group, indigenous issues had drawn more and more attention from the international community. As equal members of the world family, indigenous people deserved equal rights. However, in many parts of the world today, they were in a disadvantageous position in terms of human rights. This was an issue brought about from the colonial era and its odious impact had yet to be eliminated.

China noted that the report by Mr. Martinez was a reflection of high academic standards and laid the foundation for future study on the issue of indigenous people. It was pointed out in the report that, when studying the indigenous issue, one should establish the category of indigenous people and a clear-cut distinction between indigenous people and national or ethnic minorities. The majority of the world's indigenous people came into existence out of special historical backgrounds. Their most salient characteristics were that they had lived on their land since time immemorial before the arrival of colonists or settlers from elsewhere, the new arrivals later becoming dominant through conquest, occupation, colonization or other means, and subjecting the indigenous people to disadvantaged political and economic status. Today, indigenous people still retained entirely or at least partially their distinct social, economic and political characteristics.

USHA DWARKA-CANABADY (Mauritius) said the reports prepared by Mrs. Daes and Professor Martinez highlighted a number of interesting, though difficult, issues. They tried to address very complex issues, and it was therefore natural that they should give rise to discussion.

It would be useful to share the contents of the reports with recognized regional organizations, not only to sensitize them to the issues, but to seek their views and comments as a post-contribution to the reports.

ALEJANDRO NEGRIN (Mexico) said that in Mexico, pluralism enriched the nation, but, at times, Government policies had been harmful to indigenous peoples. There had been in-depth changes in State policy recently which had resulted in a new relationship between indigenous peoples and the State. The Federal Congress was renewing initiatives to enshrine the rights of indigenous peoples through legal measures. There was also a bureau set up to help indigenous peoples with legal matters, negotiating and other skills. The goal was to help prevent community conflict and to ensure smooth relations.

Trained armed civilian groups in various areas, including Chiapas, did exist. As for charges of militarization, the army was there to protect the public. It was difficult to meet the public’s needs; among other things, the troops were helping to build infrastructure in the region. The relationship between the State and the community needed to be strengthened and clarified.

LOUIS JOINET, Subcommission Expert, said when the Subcommission started dealing with these subjects, the Cold War was going on. The rights of indigenous peoples was a subject that had various implications. Since then, the Subcommission had moved beyond this type of trap. What was striking in the two reports was that the questions could not only be dealt with from a legal point of view. There was also a cultural dimension.

ERICA-IRENE A. DAES, Subcommission Expert, said the work of the other Experts had proved most helpful in contributing to her report. The substantive, important and useful comments made by all speakers would be taken into consideration in the elaboration of her final report. The comments made and information provided by specific NGOs as to land in specific countries was also taken note of, and would prove helpful.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission Expert, said that he was satisfied with the tone and content of the comments on his report. Discussion and debate was important in order to help promote the rights of the poorest of the poor and the most disabled. The report was but a starting point, as no one had the absolute truth in an area such as this one.

At times it seemed his report was misunderstood. A clarification might be useful. With regards to Africa and Asia and the indigenous element (i.e.,
whether people there were considered to be indigenous peoples) this was not the most important part of the report; the recommendations were the most important part.

Self-determination was at the core of the problem. Self-determination did not lend itself to adjectives; you either had self-determination or you didn't. It was not the sole prerogative of indigenous peoples. Self-determination also did not mean that it was in conflict with the rights of States to protect their sovereignty.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission Expert, said many persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic groups felt they needed the protection of their group identity. Thus the Working Group on minorities came to be. It acted as a forum for dialogue and the exchange of ideas, information and experiences which could lead to proposals for constructive group accommodation and further measures to promote and protect the rights of minorities. Greater emphasis should be placed on arriving at solutions to problems involving persons belonging to minorities in order to promote their characteristics and thereby contribute to mutual tolerance, understanding, and peace.

The working group had underlined that the implementation of minority rights should serve the following purposes: ensure equality between all individuals and minorities in society; contribute to the enjoyment of all human rights for all members of society; guarantee access to resources on a basis of equality; integrate all minorities as an essential component of peaceful, democratic and pluralist societies; and ensure harmony and stability within States and between States, in particular within States.

When fanaticism replaced politics, some organizations claiming to represent minorities devoured and killed their own best members. Bridge builders were most at risk, because all conflict entrepreneurs felt threatened by them. By this statement, Mr. Eide recognized the death of Neelan Tiruchelvam, and paid tribute to his memory, whilst hoping for a fit memorial to him: lasting peace in Sri Lanka.

OLGA CECHUROVA, Transnational Radical Party said the tendency to define a multiethnic State as the property of one group caused the marginalization or colonization of non-dominant groups and resulted in inter-ethnic conflicts and wars. Macedonia was one example. Theoretically, Macedonia had a centralized government and non-dominant elements were allowed to enjoy some rights. However, the practical consequences were that the dominant group enjoyed most of the powers and privileges. Some conflicts had already taken place.

In Macedonia, Albanians constituted one-third of the population but represented only 3 per cent of people employed in public institutions. Today, there was much mistrust on all sides, and the democratic system was undermined. Macedonia was a deeply divided country with completely separate sub-societies. Groups that didn’t have access to power felt excluded and discriminated against and lost loyalty to the regime. The solution was consensual democracy. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should put in practice the equal rights of all citizens.

MELANIE LE VERGER, of France Libertes - Fondation Danielle Mitterand, said there had been an oppressive situation for the followers of the Caodaisme church in Vietnam for the last 30 years. An official document from the Communist Vietnam Party said that a certain church was condemned to disappear. That was contrary to the Vietnamese Constitution, which said religion could not be interfered with. There had been an attempt to eradicate Caodaisme.

The Kurdish people had been oppressed for decades. There had been the murder of more than 4.5 million Kurds. What was this if not a fundamental violation of human rights? In Turkey, Kurds were not allowed to use their ancient culture. It was important for Turkey to finally find a peaceful solution to its problems with the Kurds.

PAUL BEERSMANS, of International Movement for Fraternal Union among Races and Peoples, said there was ethnic cleansing taking place in the Kashmir Valley. The Hindus living there were the target of atrocities committed by Muslim fundamentalists. The situation remained far from normal, there and in other areas of Jammu and Kashmir, where foreign mercenaries continued a systematic campaign of annihilation of Hindus, moderate Muslims and political leaders. Innocent people, regardless age or sex, were killed. This religious cleansing was discrimination against minorities.

The Governments of India and Pakistan should respect their mutual commitments and start a peace process in Kashmir. The Kashmiris and other minorities had the basic human right to live in peace without being oppressed by racist or religious attacks.

Rights of reply

ISMAT JAHAN (Bangladesh), speaking in right of reply, said as a nation that was colonized by an overseas power, it shared a bond with indigenous people. It would like to see action that addressed their core concerns. It noted with interest the report on indigenous treaties. It pointed out that indigenous peoples, although they might constitute numerical minorities, were not minorities in the context of the United Nations. By the same token, national minorities should not be considered indigenous persons.

ANTONIO PEDRO (Brazil), speaking in right of reply, extended an invitation to an NGO for an in-depth discussion of the indigenous situation in Brazil. The NGO had spoken of two aspects of the situation, and Brazil wished to discuss these. What was said by the NGO should be understood in a wider context. Indigenous peoples had been treated well by the Brazilian Government, with grants of land. The Subcommission should take this into account. These clarifications were made for the attention of the Subcommission. The process of demarcation included a number of stages. There was a multi-disciplinary approach, which was slow, but was a genuine ongoing process, with a political will of the Government behind it, and this would continue. The NGO Liberation should come to Brazil and be prepared to join in dialogue, since this was an important issue.

GLEAZAR RUIZ Y AVILA (Mexico), speaking in right of reply, said that in regards to comments made by NGOs who spoke of a war in Chiapas, the Government of Mexico gad declared a cease-fire and amnesty shortly after the conflict had started. People were free to move throughout the country; there no were limits on their rights. Those who had instigated the conflict had not sought to negotiate with the Government. The governor of Chiapas had started a dialogue and a number of related parties had agreed to participate. The International Committee of the Red Cross was working in the region. Chiapas and Oxaca had been declared environmentally protected areas and the people there must agree with the requirements for such areas. There were opportunities for discussion on various viewpoints.

ALFREDO LABBE (Chile), speaking in right of reply, said it wanted to respond to NGO statements. Chile was a country that respected NGOs. It always defended their rights to participate in debate. In a debate like today's, countries would hear things they did not like. Nevertheless, today things were said that were a real surprise. NGOs spoke of armed militias in Chile. The delegation could deal with this in two different ways. The first way would be to note that this was fabrication. A second approach would be to take the strict approach, and that was to say that anyone who knew what was happening in the country would know that this was false, absolutely laughable. There was the right to ask these NGOs to check their sources, to see the situation for themselves.