VZCZCXYZ0011
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #0705/01 1520723
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 010723Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4079
INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 1041
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 7797
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0123
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 3019
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 0369
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0169
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000705 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/23/2016 
TAGS: PHUM NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY WILL SUPPORT UN DRAFT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 
 
REF: STATE 78749 
 
Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
Summary 
-------- 
 
1.(C)  Despite our tripartite demarche Norway will support, 
albeit unenthusiastically, the Draft UN Declaration on the 
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "Draft").  Norwegian MFA 
officials plan to accept the Draft (and anticipate 
forthcoming Norwegian governmental support), with certain 
reservations.  The Norwegians will request "Explanations of 
Vote," clarifying areas of the Draft which may challenge 
Norway's existing agreements/laws with its Sami population. 
The Norwegians believe that the Draft adequately addresses 
our concerns noted in reftel.  End of Summary. 
 
Reluctant Support 
----------------- 
 
2.(C)  On May 23 we delivered reftel points (together with 
Juliet Hay, First Secretary to the New Zealand Embassy at The 
Hague) to Petter Wille, Deputy Director General in the MFA's 
Global Affairs Section, and Guri Hestflaat in the MFA's 
Section for Human Rights and Democracy.  Wille accepted our 
points, acknowledging the good contact Norway had in this 
process with the U.S., New Zealand and Australia.  The 
Norwegian Embassy in Canberra had been given the reftel 
points in advance by the Australians.  Stating that he knew 
our tri-partite positions "quite well,"  Wille felt that 
negotiating the Draft was a "difficult process" and, although 
Norway was not "entirely happy" with the Chair's proposal, 
his country would support the Draft (although formal 
government support had not yet been given). He noted that 
"given the time we've spent, this is the best we could get." 
Norway's support would be conditioned on issuing an 
"Explanation of Vote," noting Norwegian 
concerns/interpretations of several areas of the Draft, 
including self-determination issues and Article 26 
(specifically focusing upon land rights).  In addition, the 
Norwegian MOD had raised concerns with the MFA concerning 
Article 28 (military activities), although Wille felt that 
MOD support was forthcoming. 
 
Sami Concerns 
------------- 
 
3.(C)  The basis of Norwegian concerns with the Draft rested 
on issues where the government's relationship with the 
indigenous Sami people could be made ambiguous or questioned. 
 For example, Wille noted that self-determination rights 
between the government and the Sami rested squarely in the 
existing agreements with the Sami Parliament and the Finnmark 
Act (concerning land ownership issues). The strength of the 
Sami influence in the review process of the Draft was 
reinforced by Hestflaat, who noted the vocal presence of a 
Sami adviser in the Norwegian delegation.  In addition, she 
made reference to a draft Joint Sami Statement from the Sami 
Ministers in Sweden, Finland and Norway.  Although she could 
not release the Statement to us, she revealed that it 
frequently references the Draft. 
 
Norway's Legal Positions 
------------------------ 
 
¶4. (C)  Hestflaat addressed the legal justifications noted in 
reftel points. With respect to our concerns that the Draft's 
Articles 2 and 3 could be misconstrued as conferring a 
unilateral right of secession, the Norwegians disagree, 
stating that international law does not allow any such 
secession rights.  Concerning veto rights (specifically under 
Article 20 of the Draft), Hestflaat's interpretation is that 
Article 20 mandates a good faith obligation of states to 
consult in order to obtain consent.  She noted that this 
argument resolved prior issues between Norway and its 
indigenous Sami population.  Finally, she finds that the 
Draft's Articles 45 and 27 (concerning the right of redress) 
are adequate. 
 
The Draft's Success? 
-------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) Hestflaat believes early signals indicate that the 
Draft would pass.  She understood that Mexico, the 
newly-formed UN Human Rights Council Chair, is keen on 
adopting the Draft soon.  In addition, she informed us that 
the EU has apparently coordinated member views to recommend 
adoption (although Hestflaat noted that individual EU states 
may, as with Norway, support the Draft with specific 
Explanations of Vote).  She further stated that UNHRC member 
Finland has also given positive signals on adopting the 
Draft.  Finally, she commented that Canada appears not yet 
ready to adopt the Draft. 
Visit Oslo's Classified website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/oslo/index.cf m 
 
WEBSTER