Ambassador Chartier attends United Nations Meetings

July 24, 2024

The month of July was quite busy for Indigenous peoples within the United Nations. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) which in 2007 replaced the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, both of which were established by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) had it annual meeting on July 8-12, 2024. The HRC is based in Geneva, Switzerland, as is the EMRIP.

The following week, on July 18-19^th, the Human Rights Council (HRC) held the first of two intersessional meetings on the enhanced participation of Indigenous peoples within the HRC. Ambassador Clément (Clem) Chartier attended the July 18-19^th session, along with the two days prep session on the 16 - 17^th where Indigenous peoples from around the world participated.

This session was unprecedented as it was the first time in the history of HRC where Indigenous peoples participated directly in the Council's discussions without needing to have accreditation as an NGO with UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) status and had equal speaking time as States and NGOs. As well, an Indigenous representative, Dr. Binota M Dhamai was the first co-facilitator (co-chair) of a Council meeting. And of significance, the HRC session was opened with traditional prayers/invocations by Indigenous peoples.

This meeting was the first of two that the HRC is holding this year. The second one will be held on October 17-18, 2024. The objective of these sessions is to seek direct or enhanced participation by Indigenous peoples within the HRC without having to register as part of civil society or non-state actors through ECOSOC.

There were a number of sessions with specific topics for discussion and all parties, Indigenous peoples, States and NGOs, were given two (2) minutes each to speak. Ambassador Chartier spoke in four of the sessions: attached are the four interventions.

This process in the HRC began in 2017 following the lead by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) which in 2014 established a process to address the enhanced participation of Indigenous peoples is the General Assembly. This process is being undertaken by the President of the General Assembly (PGA). The General Assembly is in New York, as is the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII).

As reported in June 2024 Ambassador Chartier attended a session in New York where the two co-facilitators, Ambassador Bob Rae of Canada and Ambassador Garcia Toma of Peru held an afternoon session with Indigenous peoples and states members of the UNGA. In a virtual consultation on Monday, July 15^th a number of member States of the UN made rather negative statements about the process and questioning the participation of Indigenous peoples in what they believe should be strictly an inter-governmental process between UN State-members, which they felt would be setting a precedent for participation that other non-state actors, eg NGOs would also push for.

To keep the process going the in-person meeting on Monday, July 22^nd was divided into two sessions: the first session was with Indigenous peoples and the second one with States members. In a briefing by the two Indigenous co-advisers to the Ambassadors following the two sessions, Indigenous representatives were informed that the meeting with States-members went much better than the July 15^th virtual meeting, and that consensus was near in a proposed draft resolution which would be going to the General Assembly in September. That proposed draft resolution would basically extend the consultation period, as well as provide for an expert's workshop with participation from States and Indigenous peoples. It was proposed that the expert's workshop be held just prior to the 2025 PFII session in order to facilitate a greater participation by Indigenous peoples from the global community who would be attending the PRII itself.

---

First Intersessional Meeting on Concrete ways to Enhance the Participation of Indigenous Peoples in the work of the Human Rights Council.

Palais des Nations, Geneva
July 18-19, 2024.

SESSION ONE: GENERAL STATEMENTS

My name is Clément Chartier, Ambassador of the Manitoba Métis Federation, the National Government of the Red River Métis, also known as the Historic Métis Nation.

I am also President of the American Council of Indigenous Peoples established in Lima, Peru in 2018 with representatives of Indigenous peoples, nations, governments, and organizations from throughout the Americas. To date the work of ACIP has primarily revolved around the Organization of American States (OAS), however, many of the principles engaged there-in would apply equally to this initiative.

Over the past 50 or more years, in the Americas, Indigenous peoples' representative organizations and governments have been pursuing decolonization based on the right of self-determination as peoples.

In Canada, substantial progress has been made: for example, my government concluded a self-government agreement with Canada in 2021, and we are currently concluding a Treaty which upon ratification by the Canadian Parliament will be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.

Turning to the Americas as a whole, for the past 20 or more years, Indigenous peoples have made it clear to the OAS that we are not part of Civil Society and that we must be provided our own space as nations and peoples. The OAS is currently putting in place a Working Group

on the implementation of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples composed on Indigenous and State representatives which will pursue this initiative.

In conclusion, it is my government's position that the Human Rights Council proceed in this most important initiative based on our right of self-determination as peoples, and that our participation be based on peoplehood or nationhood, through representatives of our own choosing.

Marsi.

---

SESSION TWO: ACCREDITATION PRINCIPLES

The foremost principle upon which the accreditation as Indigenous peoples must take place is the universal right of self-determination enjoyed by all peoples, a principle well enshrined in various international instruments, including, but not limited to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The principle that this accreditation as Indigenous peoples must in fact be by and for Indigenous peoples ourselves is indispensable to us.

A companion principle is that the term "Indigenous peoples" must not be defined by non-Indigenous peoples but can be guided by previous undertakings by UN institutions.

In particular:

1. The Study by Martinez Cobo, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities undertaken between 1972 and 1986;
2. The UNESCO Internal Meeting of Experts which in November 1989 compiled a list of characteristics for establishing a working description of the term "people" for determining the rights of peoples; and
3. The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Fact Sheet titled: "Who are Indigenous Peoples", acknowledging that no UN institution has adopted an official definition of Indigenous peoples, but that nevertheless the system has developed a "modern understanding" of the term based on several criteria which they list.

In keeping with the spirit of this Permanent Forum Fact Sheet we believe there is no need to try and come up with a specific definition which could potentially exclude certain Indigenous peoples, particularly by UN member states who deny the existence of Indigenous peoples within their borders.

Finally, a basic and fundamental principle guiding the accreditation process must be based on the understanding that those for whom accreditation is aimed are the "representatives of Indigenous peoples" based on their sole right to determine who their representatives are.

Marsi.

---

SESSION THREE: ACCREDITATION CRITERIA

My government is in general agreement with some of the criteria identified by some of the States' representatives and more so with criteria put forward by many of the Indigenous peoples' representatives.

While we acknowledge that accreditation criteria should be flexible enough to accommodate all Indigenous peoples wherever they may live, such criteria must not be so broad that it becomes meaningless.

For some parts of the world, establishing accreditation criteria may appear to be simple, for example in Canada, however, even in that part of the North American Region there are issues which need to be considered. This is particularly so with respect to Indigenous identity theft or fraud at both the individual and community levels, which goes to the heart of self-identification.

While we embrace decolonization and the return of Indigenous individuals to their home communities or nations, particularly where past State actions have deprived many of our peoples' of their identity and culture through, for example the Indian Residential School genocidal practices, we must nevertheless remain vigilant about how those actions can affect us today.

The reverse of some of those past practices is the current propensity in Canada by the federal and some provincial governments to turn a blind eye to identity theft or fraud which has become the new threat to our integrity as Indigenous peoples and nations. Within the pursuit of reconciliation, which is a welcome objective, there is fertile ground for non-indigenous individuals to assume an Indigenous identity by self-identification and benefit from employment and other opportunities meant for Indigenous peoples.

More egregious, some of those governments in recent decades have embraced and supported whole communities taking on an Indigenous identity, providing them rights recognition and programs and services, again depriving legitimate Indigenous communities of badly needed programs and services.

While State recognition may be considered in accrediting applicant communities or organizations, it cannot be the sole criteria or even a heavily weighted criterion.

Marsi.

---

SESSION FOUR: ACCREDITATION MECHANISM

My government believes that a mechanism which facilitates the real and meaningful engagement of Indigenous peoples' representatives is critical.

The mechanism must be Indigenous-led and be inclusive of the seven (7) sociocultural regions within which Indigenous peoples and nations live.

Any such mechanism must be independent of State government's interference in the accreditation process, which can only be assured if States, while welcome in an advisory role, would not have any decision-making authority or veto.

The mechanism must be ensured to succeed which speaks to the need for fiscal capacity to carry out its work.

Knowing that there may be challenges in ensuring that legitimate Indigenous peoples' representatives are duly accredited, and that there may also be fake Indigenous organizations which seek accreditation and should not be accredited, there is a need for a verification or appeal process to determine the veracity of the application.

The right of appeal should be open to both applicants and Indigenous peoples' representatives who wish to challenge any application which they know or believe are not legitimate.

This could also provide for a time-period within which Indigenous peoples representative applicants could provide further documentary or oral testimony to make their case.

Finally, understanding that the establishment of a new standalone mechanism composed of Indigenous representatives from the seven (7) sociocultural regions could take some time to establish, we are prepared to entertain the utilization, as a short and interim measure, the use of an existing UN mechanism which best suits this purpose and is willing to fill that role.

Marsi.

 

---

View More