By an
overwhelming margin, the U.N. General Assembly's voted to adopt the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The 45 articles that follow elaborate, setting forth explicit rights to, for example: self-determination, financial and technical assistance, land use, conservation and environmental protection, and enforcement of treaties.
In favor were 143 states, with 4 in opposition and 11 abstaining. Against the nonbinding instrument?
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, each of which has significant indigenous populations. According to a U.N. release, here're their
reasons for opposition:
Australia: Asserting that self-determination ought to apply only in narrow, often colonialist situations, it "supported and encouraged the full engagement of indigenous peoples in the democratic decision-making process, but did not support a concept that could be construed as encouraging action that would impair, even in part, the territorial and political integrity of a State with a system of democratic representative Government."
Canada: "[P]rovisions in the Declaration on lands, territories and resources were overly broad, unclear, and capable of a wide variety of interpretations, discounting the need to recognize a range of rights over land and possibly putting into question matters that have been settled by treaty."
United States: Stating that in mid-2006 the Declaration had passed by a "splintered vote" of the
Human Rights Council [the vote was 30 votes to 2, with 12 abstentions --
ed.], expressed concern regarding the risk of "'endless conflicting interpretations and debate about its application, as already evidenced by the numerous complex interpretive statements issued by States...'"
A day after the General Assembly vote,
New Zealand said it had opposed the Declaration on the ground that it "disadvantages non-indigenous people and conflicts with the country's laws."
In a twist, the
Taipei Times, a newspaper in the capital city of non-U.N.-member
Taiwan, praised the Declaration as
giving to "[l]ocal Aboriginal activists ... new, concrete benchmarks against which they can judge and, as is often necessary, embarrass the government." The paper concluded, "The scene is set, then, for a test of how committed Taiwanese officials, politicians and members of the public really are to a subset of UN principles that are genuinely honorable."
The same might be said for officials elsewhere in the world.