World Conference Controversy Continues at UN Permanent Forum
The question of who the indigenous representatives to the WCIP will be is still up in the air. Some NAIPC members seemed to accept the two names that were suggested; others opposed them.
“Of course, we’re closely watching the developments for the planning of the plenary meeting – which is not a World Conference on Indigenous Peoples,” said NAIPC Co-Chair Debra Harry, referring obliquely to the WCIP’s short duration – three hours – as opposed to the nine-to-10 day sessions that usually comprise world conferences. “One of the things we’ll be watching for is whether the Permanent Forum complies with the request of the PGA to identify two indigenous people to serve as advisers to him in the development of the high level plenary meeting and the problem with that is that it violates Indigenous Peoples right to decide upon their own representatives and to speak for themselves and if the Permanent Forum does play that role, basically, it would be a U.N. agency deciding on behalf of Indigenous Peoples who the advisers should be. So it would usurp our right to determine our representative.”
The mechanism for decision-making is in the seven regional bodies that have formed around the permanent forum, Harry said. But It seems there are mixed opinions in the various regions, she said. “I think that no region seems to have a complete consensus around how they’re going to move forward. And I think we’ll continue to see that debate taking place at the permanent forum.”
Although the special two-day interactive meeting will not take place, a three-hour discussion of the WCIP will take place on May 19, according to the Permanent Forum agenda.
You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page