INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT DECLARATION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 004206 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/25/2016 TAGS: PHUM KDEM AORC PREL IN SUBJECT: INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT DECLARATION ON RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES REF: A. STATE 78740 ¶B. STATE 78829 Classified By: A/PolCouns Atul Keshap for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. SUMMARY: A senior Indian official said India shared U.S. views on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, found the self-determination clauses unacceptable, and was not comfortable with the process by which the declaration had been framed, but would not be averse to an extension of the Chair's mandate in order to lower the issue's profile. India does not want to play a leading role on this. END SUMMARY. WE ARE ALL INDIGENOUS TO INDIA -------------- ¶2. (C) Acting on ref A instructions, A/PolCouns, accompanied by resident Australian and New Zealand Deputy Chiefs of Mission, delivered ref A points June 15 to Ministry of External Affairs Joint Secretary for UN Economic and Social Issues Manjeev Puri and left behind non-papers as stipulated in refs A and B. Puri claimed that all of India's people were indigenous, therefore there was no particular concern for India regarding the matters raised in the demarche. Tribals in India were listed by the Constitution as under-privileged, but were not, he insisted, indigenous in any way other than that of other Indians. There might be the odd recent immigrant who was not native to India, but the vast majority of people in India were, he firmly stated, indigenous. The entire Asian group shared that view, added Puri. It was the Europeans and Latin Americans who were pushing for the declaration, not Asia, he stressed. INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS -------------- ¶3. (C) Nonetheless, Puri promised to make contact with the Indian mission in Geneva and instruct them to work with like-minded missions to see what could be accomplished. Puri said he appreciated the message he had received, and said India would be "not at all distanced" from the US/AUS/NZ position. After eleven years of inconclusive debate, it was odd to see that a draft declaration had been "plucked" from thin air, he complained, and India did not support this way of doing things. India was not in favor of a vote, could not see itself casting an affirmative vote, and was not in favor of the declaration, Puri added. However, India also did not want to "slam" the rights of indigenous peoples, which he said was an issue that was "tough to shove off the agenda." ESPECIALLY ON TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY -------------- ¶4. (C) There were issues of definition, especially related to rights of self-determination, regarding which India expressed reservations. Such issues related to territorial integrity rose to a level "well above" this declaration, and were at best left to individual states to consider as matters of autonomy. Clauses on self-determination should leave no methodology that would allow conclusions that would be at odds with the nation-state concept that had been well-established. Such tinkering should not appear in the declaration, affirmed Puri. NEW DELHI 00004206 002 OF 002 KEEP TALKING? -------------- ¶5. (C) Another round of talks might be better, thought Puri, but if pushed, India's "fall back" position would be similar to that of the US/AUS/NZ. Puri added that Russia's position was similar to ours, but more clear-cut in opposition. The Mexican Chair was a "pro-active champion" of human rights, and it was unlikely this issue would fade away, mentioned Puri. Moreover, with the issue likely to drift into the Human Rights Council, India would find it hard to be seen to be blocking a rights issue in that venue. India felt much more "foot slogging" needed to be done in Geneva over this "extremely charged affair." India could envision extending the mandate, but worried about being outvoted by those who wanted to endorse the declaration as-is. The proponents' numbers have surged lately, he worried. HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT -------------- ¶6. (C) Puri admitted that it was too much to expect Indian leadership on the declaration. India would not contest an extension of the mandate, and would not try to make waves because it did not want people in India to pay too much attention to the issue. India, affirmed Puri, will not be pro-active, but it would lend support to the US/AUS/NZ "to the extent that we can." COMMENT: INDIA HAS A LOT AT STAKE -------------- ¶7. (C) Notwithstanding Puri's affirmations, the GOI likely worries a good deal about Dravidian sensitivities, tribal concerns, and the aspirations of any of a number of separatist movements that would likely find much in the declaration that they could wield against the Indian state. Given India's existing insurgencies, the clauses on self-determination are particularly unacceptable to Delhi, which believes regular democratic elections fulfill such aspirations already. For these reasons, India does not want to call attention domestically to deliberations in Geneva. END COMMENT. MULFORD