VZCZCXYZ0012
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0568/01 1562307
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 052307Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6684
INFO RUEAWJB/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF INTERIOR WASHDC

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000568 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO, DRL, L, OES 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KDEM PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: EIGHTH UN PERMANENT FORUM ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The annual UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous 
Issues (UNPFII) concluded its two-week session on May 29. 
U.S. engagement as an observer delegation was warmly welcomed 
this year, although there are some issues of concern to us, 
including the adoption of language that mimics the 
authorities enjoyed by treaty bodies, particularly an option 
to call individual countries to task for non-implementation 
of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 
(DRIP).  With Australia's decision (and New Zealand's likely 
decision) to support the underlying principles of the DRIP, 
the U.S. finds itself increasingly isolated with respect to 
its decision not to support the Declaration and we may want 
to consider the utility of an interagency review of our 
domestic law and policies in this regard.  We can expect 
continued questions related to our position, including at a 
planned half-day session focused on indigenous issues in 
North America during next year's UNPFII.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) For the first time, the United States participated 
in the full two weeks of the Forum, sending a representative 
from USUN as well as experts from L/HRR and OES for parts of 
the event, including a half-day special session on the 
Arctic.  The U.S. intervention during the human rights 
segment signaled that the U.S. is attentive to the concerns 
of indigenous people and looking to collaborate on concrete 
proposals that would better their lives.  The statement 
appears to have generated considerable goodwill and laid the 
groundwork for improved cooperation with the UNPFII.  Much of 
the Forum was an opportunity for indigenous groups to be 
heard--sometimes from countries where they are not able to 
speak freely.  Although we were present this year, our 
representation was still very small when compared with that 
of Canada, which sent a 15-person observer delegation from 
multiple ministries. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Some Native American groups asked whether the U.S. 
would sign on to the DRIP, but most were more interested in 
specific issues related to their tribes.  Those who raised 
the issue of the U.S. adopting the DRIP generally agreed that 
what they want is change in U.S. domestic policy so that it 
adapts to implement provisions of the DRIP; they did not want 
the U.S. to adopt the DRIP but make no changes domestically. 
USUN experts also listened to Native American concerns 
regarding climate change in a meeting with representatives of 
the North American Indigenous Caucus. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The UNPFII, which has grown in attendance 
considerably since the 2007 adoption of the UN Declaration on 
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP), has placed the 
concerns of indigenous people on the UN radar and serves as 
an example of the convening power of the United Nations. 
However, some observer states complained that too much of the 
event was spent on the airing of grievances by indigenous 
groups rather than on true dialogue.  Canada in particular 
endured heavy criticism from some of its aboriginal groups. 
 
¶5. (SBU) This year's UNPFII agenda involved following-up on 
past recommendations.  Topics included economic and social 
development, indigenous women, the Second Decade of the 
World's Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights, a special half-day 
session on the Arctic and climate change.  In looking ahead 
to its future work, the Forum also sought to expand its role 
as the body responsible for overseeing the implementation of 
the DRIP.  The UNPFII, which is a 16-member (non-state) 
subsidiary body of ECOSOC mandated to provide expert advice 
on indigenous issues, felt emboldened by decisions by both 
Australia and Colombia to support underlying principles of 
the DRIP and by rumors that New Zealand would soon overturn 
its past objections to the DRIP, as well.  This would place 
the United States and Canada as the sole countries opposed to 
the DRIP, although ten other countries abstained on the 
original vote, including the Russian Federation. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The final outcome document with UNPFII's 
recommendations was adopted as UN document E/C.19/2009/L.10, 
the contents of which have been shared with IO, DRL, L, and 
OES.  While many of the recommendations are unobjectionable, 
we are concerned by the adoption of a "General Comment" which 
aims to expand the authority of the Forum by using Article 42 
of the DRIP as the basis for a new function.  General 
comments are typically reserved for treaty bodies, which the 
UNPFII is not.  However, paragraph 21 of the Comment claims 
the language of the DRIP "implies an authority to arrange 
dialogues with States regarding application of the 
Declaration and, thereafter, to follow up on its 
effectiveness by making conclusions relating to each State's 
behavior in the context of the Declaration..."  There was no 
opportunity for observer states to formally register their 
objections to the draft recommendations, but USUN worked with 
 
Canada, Australia, Sweden, and others to express our shared 
concerns informally to UNPFII members.  The recommendations 
adopted by the Permanent Forum will be sent to ECOSOC for 
approval this summer. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Comment: We will need to carefully consider our 
position on the General Comment during the upcoming ECOSOC 
general segment.  We will also need to consider the role we 
wish to play during a planned special session on North 
America during next year's UNPFII, working with Canada and 
the Permanent Forum leadership to ensure this is a 
constructive session. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Comment continued: The Permanent Forum is emerging 
as one of ECOSOC's liveliest bodies, and the U.S. is 
increasingly isolated in its position on the DRIP.  We may 
wish to consider devoting more attention to international 
indigenous issues including by U.S. domestic agencies, and 
having relevant domestic agencies attend future UNPFII 
meetings (at least during the first week).  We may also want 
to consider the utility of an interagency review of our 
domestic law and policies as they relate to our position on 
the DRIP. 
RICE