The WCIP and Political Equality Between Nations and States

Rudolph C. Ryser

With the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) looming on the horizon when representatives of UN Member states meet at the United Nations on 22 September it is worth considering next steps. After months of discussions and negotiations involving representatives of indigenous nations and UN Member states (UNMS) a Draft WCIP Outcome Statement (UNDOS) has been completed and is being sent for consideration by the conference.

The UNDOS released on 15 September declares in Paragraph 3 that states governments affirm their commitment to the principle requiring that states may not make legislative, administrative or policy decisions without the “free, prior and informed consent” (FPIC) of indigenous nations expressed through their representative institutions. If this principle remains in-tack Fourth World nations and UN Member states will have the basis for opening dialogue and negotiations in the months and years to come—formalizing their political equality. Yes, it is true there is much to be desired for better language in the UNDOS from the perspective of Fourth World nations (see my article in Intercontinental Cry magazine), but let’s again note that this is the statement of UN Member states and not a “joint statement” of nations and states. I suggest that a new International Protocol agreed to by Nations and states. Still some states may opt out of important parts of the statement by issuing “reservations” changing Fourth World diplomatic calculations.

Fourth World nations must readily recognize that if the UNOS remains significantly unaltered by states’ representatives sitting in the UN General Assembly hall, nations will have secured major concessions from the states’ governments. Even small steps toward full political equality constitute important achievements. This is the nature of Fourth World Geopolitics that must be practiced by all nations and states. (See my discussion in “Fourth World Geopolitics and the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” in Intercontinental Cry magazine – August 23, 2014.)

There are some people who may not be familiar with the expression “political equality.” I offer the following brief discussion for readers who may wonder what is meant by this expression, as my friend Steven Newcomb wondered in his column when he wrote: “Dr. Ryser talks about ‘establishing political equality between nations and states,’ but what does that mean? We cannot possibly know what he means by that statement unless we know how he interprets the phrase ‘political equality between nations and states.’” Thank you for that Steven!

As we all know many Fourth World nations entered into treaties and agreements over the centuries—all of which were “international agreements.” Some of these were forced or coerced treaties. Some of the treaties were mutually negotiated. All of these agreements were of an international nature no matter what the topic. In my book, “Indigenous Nations and Modern States “(2012, Routledge) I wrote to remind my readers about the extensive diplomatic relationships between nations long before there were states.

In my Oneida Grandfathers’ Corandawana (1670 – 1729) and Sattellihu (1710 – 1774) days of diplomacy the Haudenosaunee intellectual tradition affirmed that nations must maintain a balance between their own needs and the capacity of nature to reproduce abundance to ensure life for the seven generations. Haudenosaunee diplomatic thinking reflects this idea. Based in the Great Law the Haudenosaunee, Abenaki, Lenape, Shawnee, Wyandot and Anishinabek among many other nations observed three basic principles of diplomacy: Gáiwoh (righteousness), Skénon (health), and Gashasdénshaa (power). These are applied in direct dialogue and negotiations.

The first principle of Gáiwoh when practiced properly requires that human beings in society and between nations be just and their relations must be balanced and just. The second principle of Skénon requires a soundness of mind and body and the establishment of peace (becoming one heart, one heart, one body and becoming one people). Finally, the third principle of Gashasdénshaa affirms the centrality of law and custom backed by such force as is found to be necessary to ensure that Gáiwoh prevails. This is the highest and most practical form of diplomacy and means to bring about political equality. I discussed this when I wrote my ITC column on August 28.

Negotiating treaties and agreements demonstrates political equality. The failure to live up to treaty terms can frequently mean application of the third principle: Gashasdénshaa—the exercise of one nation’s power over another.

The meaning of political equality is that even though the geographic, economic, demographic size and character are different between nations and nations and states they are equal authority to govern themselves and freely determine their social, economic, political, strategic and cultural affairs without external interference. This is not a perfect process, but it involves maintaining effective political relations and applying the three principles.

Political equality between many nations and states has fallen out of balance over the last three hundred years. The solution to this imbalance is for Fourth World nations to take proactive initiatives to engage the international community and directly challenge states that now claim them and their territory to come to the negotiating table to reestablish political equality through a new International Protocol. The tenuous language in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, International Labor Organization Convention 169, and other treaties nevertheless constitute openings for the development of Fourth World nation and UN Member State government-to-government dialogue and negotiations.

The UNOS may have some further hoops to jump through at the WCIP since Canada today made it known that while it will not block the UNOS from being adopted Ottawa will issue a “reservation” where it will assert that the principle of FPIC will not be applied to Canada—opting out of Paragraph 3. This may open the door to other states issuing similar reservations. I will be surprised if the United States government does not issue the same reservation as Canada. The principle was the main reason the US originally opposed the UNDRIP.

Given today’s revelations that some states will opt out of clauses there will likely be tough negotiations ahead. Finding international (Fourth World nations and UN Member states) agreement on a United Nations sponsored International Protocol will similarly require tremendous effort as the next step. Just remember, it was thought in the 1970s to be a remote idea that the UN would adopt a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now, the UN’s WCIP is about to adopt the Draft Outcome Statement that may provide further possibilities to establish political equality through an international Protocol between Fourth World nations and states.

Dr. Ryser is the Chairman of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, a former Acting Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, and a former staff member of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. He holds a doctorate in international relations, teaches Fourth World Geopolitics through the CWIS Certificate Program (www.cwis.org) and he is the author of “Indigenous Nations and Modern States” published by Routledge in 2012.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page