U N I T E D N A T I O N S
UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
ELEVENTH SESSION
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN SKIPPER
OBSERVER DELEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GENEVA, JULY 21, 1993
Madame Chairperson,
On behalf of the U.S. delegation, I congratulate you on your re-
election as Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group. The United
States looks forward to actively participating in this year's session,
as the working Group, under your leadership, endeavors to complete its
efforts on the draft declaration.
The United States recognizes that persons belonging to indigenous
groups have been the victims of serious and sometimes widespread human
rights abuses. Accordingly, we firmly support the need for a properly
drafted declaration. The United States expects to participate actively
in future work on such a declaration.
The effort to draft a declaration is an important forward step in
protecting and promoting the human rights of persons belonging to
indigenous groups. We endorse much of what is contained in the
existing text. We respect and commend the thought and effort that has
gone into it.
At the same time, however, we believe that further reflection and
work are required to produce an instrument that can find broad
international acceptance and make a useful contribution to promoting
and protecting the rights of all persons belonging to indigenous
groups. I would like to point out briefly some of our main concerns
about the draft declaration as it is reflected in the revised working
paper E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26. These concerns will be supplemented with
more specific comments on particular provisions as we proceed in the
course of these discussions.
First, we note that there are many explicit and implicit
references to self-determination throughout the text. Because the
inclusion of a reference to self-determination has become so central
in discussions about this document, and because the principle of self-
determination is so apt to be misunderstood, we must ensure that if
the term is used in the declaration, it is clear what it means. Self-
determination is generally understood to mean the right to establish a
sovereign and independent state under international law. Self-
determination, however, can be achieved through arrangements other
than independence. The United States could not accept the inclusion of
self-determination as applying specifically to indigenous groups if it
implies or permits full independence generally recognized under
international law.
Moreover, the World Conference debate whether to speak of
"people" or "peoples," and the Conference decision not to use the term
"peoples," suggests that many governments share our concerns about the
risks and uncertainties of extending the international legal concept
of self-determination specifically to indigenous groups.
Second, the draft declaration refers in numerous instances to
collective rights about which we have serious questions. The
references generally go far beyond the limited collective rights
recognized in international law or the practice of states. We note
that many of the proposed new collective rights are extremely general
and imprecise, thus they will be unable to implement in practice. In
this respect, there also are serious problems of definition. The draft
declaration does not define "indigenous peoples." Hence, there are no
criteria for determining what groups of persons can assert the
proposed new collective rights. Moreover, we are concerned that in
some circumstances, the articulation of group rights can lead to the
submergence of the rights of individuals. For example, some paragraphs
contemplate broad autonomy for indigenous populations, but without any
requirement that such autonomy be exercised consistently with the
rights of individuals. One can envision situations in which the
exercise of such broad powers could be highly detrimental to
individual rights.
Finally, the document refers extensively to various "rights" of
indigenous peoples. Some of these are not recognized as "rights" in
existing international instruments, or in state practice. They are
neither recognized as enforceable by any national legal systems, nor
are they likely to be so. Accordingly, the pervasive use of the
language of rights is both inaccurate and misleading. It tends to
diminish the credibility of the declaration and to lesson the
likelihood of its broad acceptance.
My government has highlighted these primary concerns so that they
can be borne in mind as the discussions continue over the course of
this week. Continued open dialogue will be the key in addressing the
novel, complex, and contentious issues that the draft declaration
raises. We encourage the Working Group to precisely articulate rights
and obligations in this document as it will be difficult for
governments to subscribe to an imprecise and vaguely worded text. It
is our hope that the text will be capable of attracting broad
international support and serve as a basis for effective monitoring
and implementation.
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ John Burrows John_Burrows@freemf.eskimo.com /
/ Fido Net 1:352/333 206-786-9629 /
/ Director Center For World Indigenous Studies /
/ The Fourth World P.O. Box 2574 /
/ Documentation Project Olympia, Washington 98507-2574 /
/ Fax 206-956-1087 /
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////