New Indigenous rights body considered

Page 6

By the first week of May, there could be a dramatic new development in the history of the fight for international recognition of Indigenous rights.

Edmonton lawyer Willie Littlechild heads up a non-governmental organization that is recognized as a legitimate voice for Indigenous peoples at the United Nations. He returned from Geneva in late February after having participated in talks aimed at creating a permanent international forum for discussions of Indigenous rights issues at the UN.

Littlechild said there were seven or eight agenda items debated over the eight days but - because of the tensions between nation-states and Indigenous groups - the discussions regarding even something as seemingly simple as the name of the proposed body quickly led to a dead end.

The Indigenous caucus wants to call the new body the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples. The nation-state representatives proposed another name: the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

A compromise involving the words "Indigenous peoples forum" was proposed but, said Littlechild, "that didn't fly very far because the debate then became where do you put the apostrophe. It's just so ridiculous. The intention behind all that is to deny us the recognition that we're peoples and consequently peoples with a right to self determination."

The final report to the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights dealing with the Geneva discussions will say that no consensus on the name was reached. Littlechild said that means either name could be used.

Littlechild told Windspeaker the nation-states (especially Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand) fight the word "peoples" but they don't explain why they're opposed to the word. Native activists at the international level say the nation-states don't explain their actions because they aren't willing to openly admit they're still aggressively promoting the colonial agenda and attempting to avoid the cost and difficulty of undoing the damage suffered by Indigenous peoples during the colonial era. A similar process unfolded during discussions at another international body that is attempting to deal with Indigenous peoples issues, the Organization of American States, Littlechild said.

"I think it's because we're winning," the Native lawyer said. "We're winning the argument and it's a last attempt to go back to the way things were before."

While representatives of colonizing governments attempt to preserve the status quo, Indigenous leaders continue to lobby state leaders in an effort to convince them that Indigenous nations have a right to self determination which must be addressed.

Littlechild said he was excited by a meeting tribal leader Tex Hall had in early March with President Clinton.

"It's a very important development because, as you know, in the bureaucracy of both governments - Canada and the United States - there are certain instructional lines that they follow," he said. "For example, Foreign Affairs and the Canadian mission in Geneva say they take their instructions from the Privy Council Office in Ottawa. In order to try and influence a government to change its position, you pretty well have to go to the top."

Until recently Native American leaders have had little success in gaining the ear of the president. Littlechild hopes that Hall had a chance to explain his point of view to Clinton.

"From what Tex told me, [Clinton] apparently said, 'I'll do all I can' or something like that. It was a very important and significant step. We won't know the impact of it until he has a chance to respond and if he agrees and instructs the U.S. State Department to change their position, it will have been a very, very major step forward," he said.

The impact of that step will be felt in Canada, Littlechild said, because Canadian officials still look to the United States for guidance.

"In a nutshell, they do follow, unfortunately," he said. "At some point Canada has to learn to stand on its owntwo feet."

Native observers say there's no doubt there's a plan by the nation-states to crush Indigenous self determination because it would require a recognition that Indigenous sovereignty is equal to their own.

"Yeah, that's true and the unfortunate thing is that the next step for the establishment of a permanent forum is that it goes to the commission on human rights where there'll be a resolution presented by Denmark and there's no Indigenous voice at that level," Littlechild said.

Non-government organizations will be allowed to speak to the human rights commission, however. Littlechild will get his chance on April 13.

"Depending on the number of speakers, you might get five minutes," he said. "In the meantime, the governments will be sitting there for six weeks. You get one shot and that's it."

Despite the fact that politics could derail the process, especially if the United States pressures nations to vote against supporting Indigenous groups, Littlechild is still optimistic that a permanent forum with a certain degree of usefulness for Indigenous peoples will be created.

The former special rapporteur for Indigenous peoples, Cuban international law professor Dr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez, warned Native leaders the nation-states may offer a permanent forum in order to get rid of the Indigenous peoples working group at the UN. Littlechild said he's working to ensure that doesn't happen by implementing a five-year review clause for the forum.

"They can co-exist," he said, anticipating that nation-states will complain that it costs too much to have both bodies in operation. "So what? There's a lot of precedents for that. For example, the women's movement, they've got about seven bodies that are all going at the same time. They didn't have to give up one for the other. They were just able to keep adding on. We use this as an example, not to belittle women's rights. We're just saying, 'Look, you did this already in one instance with the women's issues. You din't raise these kinds of arguments. You went ahead and did it. In this case for Indigenous peoples, you can do the same things. You don't have to terminate the working group.'"