Newly released Australian ministerial records show Canada led efforts to undermine the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations and secretly worked with Australia to develop watered-down alternatives in the early 2000s. It became clear.
Developing a nation-friendly alternative was the idea of Chretien’s Liberal government, but Australia is also on record as supporting it as a pressure tactic against indigenous leaders who would not change the 1993 draft.
“Australia aims to negotiate a strong and complete alternative instrument with Canada to challenge the status of the existing draft and to prevent it from acquiring the status of customary international law.” wrote two Australian ministers. be Cabinet submission of May 2003 now available.
Canada saw Australia as its “most promising partner” in drafting the new document and was prepared to devote “significant resources” to it. Australian Department Memo 2002 says the cabinet.
Additionally, “Canada and Australia are likely to be criticized by hardline Indigenous groups, including some Australian Indigenous advocates, for developing alternative instruments and doing so in an opaque bilateral manner.” It has said.
Today, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is considered a non-legally binding human rights instrument. The original draft was eventually revised and adopted by the United Nations in 2007.
revelation comes Via National Archives of Australiawhich will make cabinet records public for the first time in 20 years, was first reported as The is a guardian. Similar Canadian records would become legally accessible 20 years later, but in this case they have not been made public.
Records show that both Commonwealth governments, aware of their sensitivity to behind-the-scenes operations, kept quiet for at least a year on talks that began in June 2002 through official UN working groups.
“The fact that we are discussing alternative documents with Canada has not yet been made public,” the Australian minister continued in 2003.
“Our approach has been to discuss alternative documents only with key states that we believe share our views and concerns.”
Kenneth Dear, a Kanien Kehaka (Mohican) from Kahnawake, just south of Montreal, who worked on the declaration from 1987 to 2007, was not surprised by the file.
“Canada tried to put on a good face on the outside, but behind the scenes they kept stabbing us in the back,” Dear said.
“I’m not surprised. I was disappointed, but not surprised.”
The right to self-determination is controversial
Records show that Australia was increasingly isolated at the time, opposed to Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and fearing that this would involve secession. They called for the term to be deleted and replaced with “self-management.”
Canada accepted the term self-determination, provided it was expressed through negotiation and an “agreement with the government.”
The two governments jointly proposed removing references to demilitarization, land restitution, armed conflict, and cultural genocide, while adding language affirming the territorial and political integrity of sovereign states. The final results were mixed.
For example, a line was eventually added affirming the state’s political and territorial integrity.
However, the Australian government wanted to change the provision prohibiting forced removal from Aboriginal land because, in its view, there are “circumstances in which removal may be lawful (such as for child welfare purposes)”. Not changed.
At the time, Deer said the Indigenous Caucus had an absolute “unchanged” position. Records show Australia hoped the replacement would force “moderate” factions to break ranks with “hardline” leaders.
Australia looked forward to Canada’s 1999 proposal to develop “state-only” texts for certain “easier” articles.
“In the Indigenous Caucus, divisions are starting to emerge between the original hardliners. [declaration] and representatives of indigenous peoples who are prepared to consider negotiated compromises,” the 2002 memo said.
“Exit strategy” to destroy negotiations
Still, Australia was also considering an “exit strategy” that included the possibility of trying to terminate negotiations.
“If hardline Indigenous groups refuse to discuss an alternative document developed by Australia and Canada, a strategy to disband the working group may need to be invoked,” the memo said.
They finally released the document in September 2003, but Canada’s Indigenous leaders reacted with disgust.
Amid this pressure, Deer said, some indigenous leaders actually began proposing amendments, opening the door to negotiations. Since 2003, the original has been overhauled
