DOCUMENT: USOBSERV.TXT MEMORANDUM TO: Circulation FROM: Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairman, CWIS DATE: 28 July 1994 SUBJECT: U.S. Mission to the UN-Geneva Meeting with NGO, Indian Alaskan Native and Hawaiian representatives re: US Gov. Indigenous Policy position concerning "people(s)," consultation with Indian, Alaskan Native and Hawaiian leaders and coordination with the Dept. of State and the Dept of the Interior. Meeting Convened at the Palaise des Nacions, Conference Room Salle XX 6:00pm-7:30pm PARTICIPANTS: DALEE SAMBO Indian Law Resource Center, Washington, D.C. HOWARD BERMAN Prof. of Law,California Western School of Law, San Diego INGRID WASHMAWAOK Indigenous Women's Network, Lake Elmo, MN UNKNOWN PERSON REP Fort Yukon, Alaska DARLENE FAISA GUBUAN UN-NGO Committee on the Status of Women, New York MICHAEL AUSTIN Association for Endangered Peoples, MEHLANI TRASK Hawaii IAN SUBARTI Assist. to Ray Yowell, Western Shoshone National Council, NV CINDY BUHL Bank Information Center: Indigenous Peoples Project, Wash, D.C. GLENN MORRIS American Indian Movement Confederation, Denver KEKIRNI BLAISDELL Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike, Ka Lahui, Hawaii RUDOLPH C. RYSER Center for World Indigenous Studies, Olympia, WA TINA BENSHOOF Center for World Indigenous Studies, Olympia, WA NALANI MINTON Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike, Ka Lahui, Hawaii Ramon LOPEZ-BEYDIR Kanaka Maoli Tribunal Komike U.S. DELEGATION: MIRIAM SAPIRO, Human Rights Counselor Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. State Dept, Wash DC 20520 (206) 647-9328 LESLIE GERSON, US Mission, Geneva (41)(22)748-4302 (41)(22)749-4892 JOHN CROOK, Counselor for Legal Affairs U.S. Mission, Geneva (41)(22) 749-4316 (SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS - NON-VERBATIM) Dalee Sambo: Opened the meeting by explaining that the meeting was called due to events occurring in the United States over the previous ten to fifteen days. In particular, questions about the U.S. government's position regarding the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples prompted the need for immediate consultation. During a meeting to discuss the Summit of the Americas between representatives of the U.S. State Department and representatives of NCAI and the Indian Law Resource Center remarks were made by U.S. government officials regarding the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Sub- Commission meeting following which prompted immediate consultations. A meeting of NCAI/ILRC and US officials from the Justice Dept., Interior Dept., and the State Department followed. During this meeting U.S. officials were urged to undertake extensive consultations with Indian leaders as the process leading to UN General Assembly consideration of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples nears in 1995. The present meeting is the first of the consultation process. (Introductions of U.S. Officials) John Crook: Opened his remarks indicating that he is the "Indigenous Affairs Specialist" in the US Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. Indicated that the U.S. government's review of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was concerned with a positive statement of change and the U.S. government's desire to move the Declaration along toward its full consideration by the UN General Assembly. Expressed his view that the questions for this meeting: 1. How do we work together and avoid surprising each other? 2. What kind of mandate should the proposed Indigenous Peoples Permanent Forum have? What are its objectives? 3. What actions should be undertaken in consideration of the UN Indigenous Peoples' Decade? He went on to say that it is a new activity for the State Department to reach out to Indians and that it will take some time to do this. Ingrid Washmawaok: Remarked that the Permanent Forum was very unclear and would probably not become more clear until more consultations to place. Raised question about the origins of the proposal. She expressed the view that it would be appropriate that the United States State Department undertake extensive consultations with Indians, Alaskan Natives and Hawaiians. John Crook: Offered the view that the Permanent Forum proposal came up at the Nuuk meeting on Self-Government and was raised by the Danish government. Dalee Sambo: Observed that the Permanent Forum follows along the lines of positions taken by some indigenous groups since the Nuuk meeting on Self-Government, and that Denmark has raised the proposal in response to these stated positions. John Crook: Asked if there were any opinions regarding the idea that the Permanent Forum should replace the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations? Ingrid Washmawaok: Expressed the view that general opinion seems to support the continuation of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations while the Permanent Forum should be established and operate separately. John Crook: Expressed the view that the "UN is thread-bare" and in light of that financial condition perhaps the Working Group should be folded into the Forum. Glenn Morris: Expressed the view that the "Mandate of the Working Group is clear." so no changes should be made in its status. He turned to another subject which was delivered in the form of three questions: The US Mission statement before the Working Group was remarkable in its avoidance of the use of the (s) following the word "people" indicating a specific preference for the singular term, What steps or decision led to this? What internal discussions took place leading to this decision? (and another question) When the Clinton Administration began there seemed a need for a top-to-bottom review of U.S. foreign policies. Was there a review of U.S. policies concerning indigenous affairs at the Working Group and in the UN, and was this review conducted in Legal Affairs in the State Department? (and another question) What degree of cooperation and collaboration has the US undergone with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? John Crook: Expressed the view that the debate over whether the word "people" should have an "s" attached to it or not is "stupid" and an unnecessary concern when the focus should be on the substance of self- determination. He observed that it was his view that the "s" question was symbolic and not worthy of serious consideration. He repeated the view that the question of the "s" was a symbolic game that "doesn't do us credit." He expressed his view that it was more important to address the "implications of self- determination." Glenn Morris: Offered the view: "Apparently somebody in the State Department thinks it (the "s" letter) is important! John Crook: The "s" is only a game and has no importance, but raising the question distracts from the important issues. On the question of the Canadians, Australians and New Zealand: "No" there are no coordination activities on policy regarding indigenous issues in connection with the Working Group. He went on to express the view that there have been some discussions with the Australians. He further observed that "If we get into a negotiating process (in connection with UN Indigenous policies) we will want to get into" closer communications with various states. Howard Berman: Observed that last year everyone heard US Observer Delegation member Kathryn Skipper deliver the U.S. government's statement concerning self-determination and people(s) and they reacted with great dismay. He offered the view that the general feeling was that a change of administration would change the U.S. policy. He noted that in State Department Legal Affairs there was a memo issued that was "discontinuous" from Kathryn Skippers statement. He suggested that there was a "policy review" in State Department Legal Affairs and the position of the United States seems to have "hardened." John Crook: Disputed whether such a review occurred and whether a document on the issues raised by Skipper even exists. Howard Berman: "Will there be a review?" John Crook: Expressed the view that he hoped his "statement suggests we are in review." Howard Berman: Raised the question about U.S. participation in the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination Against and Protection of Minorities -- indicating that during the Cold War it was apparent the U.S. and other countries like the U.S.S.R. gave specific instructions to their "expert participants in the Commission" he (Berman) wondered if the Clinton Administration gave specific instructions to Linda Chavez (the U.S. appointed expert formally of the Reagan White House and Civil Rights Commission) and "what are her instructions?" John Crook: "She is not under instructions." * * * "She has been left as an independent expert." On the question of whether there will be a thorough policy review: "there isn't going to be a review." "Meriam and I will examine the issues, but we aren't necessarily going to review" the policy. He noted that he and the Mission are guided by the principle: "Action forcing events." On the matter of how the statement from the US Observer delegation was developed: "What we said in the past influenced what we said yesterday. (26 July statement). He then turned to questions of future actions: "The next action will be procedural" and not of an "issue" nature. The emphasis will be to press for decision to be made in the Sub-Commission, push ahead for Human Rights Commission consideration of the Declaration in February (95) and eventual UN General Assembly consideration. "Our statements in the Sub-Commission will emphasize procedure." Nalani Minton: Raised the question: If your are going to look at the issues underlying the debate about the "s" in Peoples, "Why do you see this as a game?" John Crook: He said he didn't mean to trivialize the question about the "s" . . . "Using 'peoples' is taken as an acknowledgement of the right to territorial succession." He went on to say: this is a debate about territory. The kind of games of bracketing the letter (s) is not conducive to agreement on the issues. Nalani Minton: She observed that she did not want to trivialize the interests of Indians, Hawaiians and Alaskan Natives who are suffering. . .the U.S. government's position has to do with these underlying issues and can have major affects on their rights and so "it is not a stupid game." Meriam Sapiro: Expressed the view that "we ought to get off of the discussion about the use of the "s." She further said the "s" issue won't be resolved until we solve the underlying issues. Nalani Minton: Said: "We want to talk to the issues." and expressed the view that this is what is important. She spoke to the question why the "Hawaiians" weren't listed in the U.S. Observer delegation statement dated 26 July and why they Mission hadn't given a response to Hawaiian issues as presented. John Crook: "I have on my computer a communications about the Hawaiian issues." and will be sending it to Washington, D.C. Nalani Minton: Offered an invitation to the U.S. Observer Delegation to view a film on the Hawaiian Tribunal "so you can better understanding the issues." John Crook: Wanted to know if the Tribunal had rendered a judgment. Nalani Minton: Said: "yes" it had. Mehlani Trask: Offered the view: "We are talking about two processes: The UN Process and the Consultation between the State Department and Indigenous Peoples. She noted that while there had been some discussions between the State Department, NCAI and the Indian Law Resource Center there had not been any discussions between Indian Tribes (Federally recognized and Federally Unrecognized), Hawaiians, and Alaskan Natives. She offer the view that: 1. There should be a mail-out from the State Department to all Indian nations and Hawaiians informing them about U.S. actions. 2. While the Consultations have begun (this meeting for example) some regional consultations and discussions should be organized inside the United States to allow for direct participation of Indians and Hawaiians. She then offered her view that U.S. statements at the Working Group had "been an embarrassment" and there should be steps taken to avoid this in the future. Further observed that there is a "jurisdictional overlap" between the Department of the Interior and the Department of State and suggested there ought to be closer communications between these departments. Finally observed that "we are in the Sub-Commission next week, but I am worried about the position the U.S. will take next week." John Crook: Offered: "To the extent we say anything we are going to say we want procedural movement ahead." Observed that he, Meriam Sapiro and John Shaduck need to get people from Interior and people here together. He continued with the view that meetings like these need to be conducted. "The actions forcing events will be our concern." Dalee Sambo: Suggested that the Delegation should, in its reporting back to State Department Legal Affairs, urge the regional consultation process. In terms of interdepartmental coordination, she advised that the question of international affairs had been raised with Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs. Meriam Sapiro: Offered "It seems like a promising idea (regional consultations)." Observed that she is in "Legal Affairs with Human Rights responsibilities generally" and had other responsibilities like Rwanda. Expressed concern about the shortage of personnel and resources in the State Department to organize regional consultations with Indians. "There may be (other) people who can organize meetings and invite us." She further offered that John Shaduck and Ada Deer have expressed interest in meeting with State Department people to figure out the best way to do this. John Crook: Observed that there are limited resources in the State Department and the possibility of organizing such meetings would be unlikely, but it might be possible for people to attend prearranged meetings -- though he didn't want to say even this would be possible. Fort Yukon: Commented that "Alaska says 'we have fulfilled everything in the Declaration' what do you think about that?" John Crook: Observed that what he hopes is to arrive at a common agreement on the content for the Declaration, though, he further noted, it is also probable that "we will not agree on everything." Fort Yukon: Commented that he viewed a fundamental overhaul of international law as being necessary to embrace the indigenous understanding of the idea of self- determination. John Crook: Noted that he hoped "we can embark on a process arriving at a document that contains a shared understanding of self-determination" though he again indicated that it may not be possible to agree on everything. "I am a diplomat, I make my living this way." He went on to say that it is important to set out a "bench mark" to measure the conduct of the State Department. Cindy Buhl: Asked if the Observer Delegation could supply participants with a copy of the U.S. statement submitted to the Working Group. (Copies of statement were then distributed) Nalani Minton: Returning to the question of "self-determination" she suggested that "self-determination doesn't define itself" we will have to participate in the discussions. She further observed that the United States ought to recognized that "we need actions furthering indigenous law." She offered the view that the "United States could be a leader" on advancing such law. Meriam Sapiro: Asked if Nalani could help answer the question: What the United States government should say to other sovereign governments on the right of self- determination of indigenous peoples to become independent --"do you defend the right of indigenous people to become independent?" Nalani Minton: Offered the view that the Department of the Interior wants to limit sovereignty, but suggested that they and the State Department look at what indigenous people say and "let's look historically at what the actual rights are." Glenn Morris: Observed that "self-determination" as the United States uses it in connection with Indian nations is "an internal issue." He went on to say that "self- determination has been stolen from the international context" and used internally even though it is now used to mean something different. "Is there any international dimension to the principle of self- determination" in terms of the U.S. government's usage of the term? John Crook: Offered the view that "by engaging in the international debate we clearly see the issue as having international dimensions." He further indicated that he had been reading Jim Anaya's articles and had learned a great deal about the development of arguments concerning self- determination. Nalani Minton: Suggested that the Observer Delegation may take it as a "silly request," but she nevertheless asked, in the light of Clinton's statements, if Meriam Sapiro would write a letter to the U.S. President urging him to recognize the importance of "self-determination." (Quite a lot of back-and-forth exchanges about sending a letter to the President from the State Department and how that was not the "normal channel" for diplomatic communications with the White House. Suggestion was made by the U.S. representatives that perhaps Nalani should write a letter directly to Clinton. Confusion developed about whether someone was willing to write a letter or not and how communications actually got to the White House, etc.) Meriam Sapiro: Offered that she did not want to create any unrealistic expectations and that was why she was reluctant to raise hopes. Indicated that her cables went to the National Security Council to Eileen Coughlin and also to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in the White House. Nalani Minton: Persisting, she suggested that perhaps the message should go in terms of the question of "Self- Determination." She went on to say that most of the people traveled a long distance to Geneva because they couldn't get a response from the U.S. government. She asked for their support. John Crook: Asked if there were any more questions or comments. Rudolph Ryser: Raised to further questions recapitulating earlier questions that seemed unanswered: "Noting that you (Crook) said there was not a review of indigenous policy and that you and Ms. Sapiro were conducting your own review, are your saying that there will be no formal policy review on the indigenous policy by Legal Affairs or any other part of the State Department and that only you and Meriam Sapiro will determine U.S. government policy on your own?" Further suggested that the U.S. government's policy on the principle of Self-Determination is well developed and that since others around the table had examined the policy, it should be quite easy for the State Department to examine the historical development of the policy. John Crook: Answered that he "didn't mean his earlier answers to be unresponsive," but that he did think there would be a thorough review of the policy in Legal Affairs. Rudolph Ryser: Noted that the U.S. State Department had had extensive earlier contact with the Department of the Interior over Indian Affairs questions in connections with the Inter-American Indian Congress and certainly it might be useful for the Delegation to examine the State Department and Interior Department communications over questions arising from the Federation of Micronesia and Micronesia in general. John Crook: Observed that he agreed that closer relations between the State Department and the Department of the Interior were necessary and that more deliberate steps would be taken to arrange cooperation. (The meeting was then called to an end at 7:30pm) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =- :: :: A service provided by :: :: The Center For World Indigenous Studies :: :: www.cwis.org :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Originating at the Center for World Indigenous Studies, Olympia, Washington USA www.cwis.org © 1999 Center for World Indigenous Studies (All Rights Reserved. References up to 500 words must be referenced to the Center for World Indigenous Studies and/or the Author Copyright Policy Material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive is accepted on the basis that the material is the original, unoccupied work of the author or authors. Authors agree to indemnify the Center for World Indigenous Studies, and DayKeeper Press for all damages, fines and costs associated with a finding of copyright infringement by the author or by the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation Project Archive in disseminating the author(s) material. In almost all cases material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive will attract copyright protection under the laws of the United States of America and the laws of countries which are member states of the Berne Convention, Universal Copyright Convention or have bi-lateral copyright agreements with the United States of America. Ownership of such copyright will vest by operation of law in the authors and/or The Center for World Indigenous Studies, Fourth World Journal or DayKeeper Press. The Fourth World Documentation Project Archive and its authors grant a license to those accessing the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive to render copyright materials on their computer screens and to print out a single copy for their personal non-commercial use subject to proper attribution of the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation Project Archive and/or the authors. Questions may be referred to: Director of Research Center for World Indigenous Studies PMB 214 1001 Cooper Point RD SW Suite 140 Olympia, Washington 98502-1107 USA 360-754-1990 www.cwis.org usaoffice@cwis.org OCR Software provided by Caere Corporation