Despite making strong statements supporting tribal sovereignty, none of the presidential candidates in their campaigns or senatorial statements have promised to lead the U.S. government to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007.
The Democratic Party candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, have named Native leaders as integral parts of their respective campaigns. GOP favorite Sen. John McCain has a long and respected history of supportive senatorial legislative, serving as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Nevertheless, none of the three front-running presidential candidates have stated they will work to ensure that the United States will change the nation’s negative vote against the declaration and join the international community to support and implement its provisions.
The United States should show international leadership by supporting and implementing the affirmation of human rights to indigenous peoples as agreed by the General Assembly. The next president should make a clear statement within party and presidential campaign platforms in full support and adoption of the philosophy and policy guidelines expressed in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In June 2006, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the declaration over the objections of some nation-states with sizable indigenous populations. In the fall of 2006, the declaration was presented to the entire assembly for consideration. Negotiations on the language and issues of the declaration were discussed for more than 25 years. There were many points of discussion, and in many instances the United States opposed the language of the declaration, arguing that many aspects, especially treaty and land issues, would be difficult to implement. Several African states asked to defer the decision in the assembly to clarify language on self-determination and the definition of ”indigenous” peoples.
Meanwhile, indigenous delegates from around the world, including many longtime international participants from the United States, lobbied the U.N. delegations from many countries. Some say a critical event was the winning over of the People’s Republic of China, which also encouraged some African states to propose language changes and adopt the declaration.
Among diplomatic circles, there was talk that if the declaration did not pass in the 2007 session of the General Assembly, the declaration should be tabled. After more than 25 years of debate and discussion, the declaration would be set aside in the absence of international support and consensus about the rights of indigenous peoples. The declaration was in danger of indefinite tabling. But it was presented to the 2007 General Assembly (61st General Assembly Plenary, 107th and 108th meetings) by the delegation from Peru, a main sponsor, and passed with a vote of 143 nations in favor, four opposed and 11 abstaining. Even many indigenous representatives, working many years in the international arena, were surprised at the strong show of international support.
The dissenting nations included Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Their major objections to the declaration were over provisions providing for indigenous self-determination, supporting indigenous rights to land and resources, and encouraging veto power by indigenous peoples over land and resource decisions in their traditional territories. The United States, in particular, was discouraged because the approval of the HRC was carried without a consensus text with all nations in agreement. Without full consensus, implementation and further discussion of the declaration would be splintered and difficult. The United States said it could not lend support to the splintered agreement of both the HRC and the General Assembly. The Russian Federation and some allies abstained from the vote, also suggested that previous objections to the declaration in the HRC were not fully addressed.
The passage of the declaration gained international media attention. However, few if any major media outlets in the United States reported on the passage of the declaration or explained its implications for the indigenous peoples of the world, or its broadening of the human rights program of the United Nations and the international civil society. Since passage, the government of Australia changed its negative vote on the declaration and now will support its provisions. The recently elected labor party in Australia made a public apology for a history of mistreatment of Australian indigenous peoples and promised new policies and initiatives in support of indigenous peoples. The Russian Federation, although abstaining, has in its constitution a provision that it will uphold international standards in relations and treatment of indigenous peoples. By constitutional law, the Russian Federation will honor the provisions of the declaration.
The General Assembly made a major step forward in recognizing indigenous collective and individual rights. The declaration is a non-binding text. The General Assembly has advisory powers only, but the provisions of the declaration create new moral ground and greater specificity of human rights and standards around the world. The declaration states that indigenous peoples have the right to observe treaty agreements made with nation-states and have basic human rights against discrimination, and encourages nation-states to enable indigenous peoples with full and effective participation in decisions that affect their self-determination, land, communities and cultures.
The U.S. government and its next president should be leaders in the universal human rights and indigenous rights movement. Creating greater consensus and agreement over human rights in the international arena is a pathway toward helping establish greater peace and mutual understanding. The United States and all presidential candidates should join in with the international community and agree to uphold indigenous and human rights and work to implement the policies and philosophies embodied in the declaration in the nation’s Indian policy. We invite the presidential candidates to revise their party and campaign platforms to include and provide implementation of the recent international affirmation of indigenous rights as stated in the declaration.
