Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06OSLO705
2006-06-01 07:23:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Oslo
Cable title:
NORWAY WILL SUPPORT UN DRAFT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
how-toVZCZCXYZ0011 PP RUEHWEB DE RUEHNY #0705/01 1520723 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 010723Z JUN 06 FM AMEMBASSY OSLO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4079 INFO RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 1041 RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 7797 RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0123 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 3019 RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 0369 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0169 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000705
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/23/2016
TAGS: PHUM NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY WILL SUPPORT UN DRAFT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
REF: STATE 78749
Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
Summary
--------
C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000705
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/23/2016
TAGS: PHUM NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY WILL SUPPORT UN DRAFT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
REF: STATE 78749
Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
Summary
--------------
1.(C) Despite our tripartite demarche Norway will support,
albeit unenthusiastically, the Draft UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "Draft"). Norwegian MFA
officials plan to accept the Draft (and anticipate
forthcoming Norwegian governmental support),with certain
reservations. The Norwegians will request "Explanations of
Vote," clarifying areas of the Draft which may challenge
Norway's existing agreements/laws with its Sami population.
The Norwegians believe that the Draft adequately addresses
our concerns noted in reftel. End of Summary.
Reluctant Support
--------------
2.(C) On May 23 we delivered reftel points (together with
Juliet Hay, First Secretary to the New Zealand Embassy at The
Hague) to Petter Wille, Deputy Director General in the MFA's
Global Affairs Section, and Guri Hestflaat in the MFA's
Section for Human Rights and Democracy. Wille accepted our
points, acknowledging the good contact Norway had in this
process with the U.S., New Zealand and Australia. The
Norwegian Embassy in Canberra had been given the reftel
points in advance by the Australians. Stating that he knew
our tri-partite positions "quite well," Wille felt that
negotiating the Draft was a "difficult process" and, although
Norway was not "entirely happy" with the Chair's proposal,
his country would support the Draft (although formal
government support had not yet been given). He noted that
"given the time we've spent, this is the best we could get."
Norway's support would be conditioned on issuing an
"Explanation of Vote," noting Norwegian
concerns/interpretations of several areas of the Draft,
including self-determination issues and Article 26
(specifically focusing upon land rights). In addition, the
Norwegian MOD had raised concerns with the MFA concerning
Article 28 (military activities),although Wille felt that
MOD support was forthcoming.
Sami Concerns
--------------
3.(C) The basis of Norwegian concerns with the Draft rested
on issues where the government's relationship with the
indigenous Sami people could be made ambiguous or questioned.
For example, Wille noted that self-determination rights
between the government and the Sami rested squarely in the
existing agreements with the Sami Parliament and the Finnmark
Act (concerning land ownership issues). The strength of the
Sami influence in the review process of the Draft was
reinforced by Hestflaat, who noted the vocal presence of a
Sami adviser in the Norwegian delegation. In addition, she
made reference to a draft Joint Sami Statement from the Sami
Ministers in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Although she could
not release the Statement to us, she revealed that it
frequently references the Draft.
Norway's Legal Positions
--------------
4. (C) Hestflaat addressed the legal justifications noted in
reftel points. With respect to our concerns that the Draft's
Articles 2 and 3 could be misconstrued as conferring a
unilateral right of secession, the Norwegians disagree,
stating that international law does not allow any such
secession rights. Concerning veto rights (specifically under
Article 20 of the Draft),Hestflaat's interpretation is that
Article 20 mandates a good faith obligation of states to
consult in order to obtain consent. She noted that this
argument resolved prior issues between Norway and its
indigenous Sami population. Finally, she finds that the
Draft's Articles 45 and 27 (concerning the right of redress)
are adequate.
The Draft's Success?
--------------
5. (C) Hestflaat believes early signals indicate that the
Draft would pass. She understood that Mexico, the
newly-formed UN Human Rights Council Chair, is keen on
adopting the Draft soon. In addition, she informed us that
the EU has apparently coordinated member views to recommend
adoption (although Hestflaat noted that individual EU states
may, as with Norway, support the Draft with specific
Explanations of Vote). She further stated that UNHRC member
Finland has also given positive signals on adopting the
Draft. Finally, she commented that Canada appears not yet
ready to adopt the Draft.
Visit Oslo's Classified website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/oslo/index.cf m
WEBSTER
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/23/2016
TAGS: PHUM NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY WILL SUPPORT UN DRAFT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
REF: STATE 78749
Classified By: Pol/Econ Counselor Mike Hammer, reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)
Summary
--------------
1.(C) Despite our tripartite demarche Norway will support,
albeit unenthusiastically, the Draft UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "Draft"). Norwegian MFA
officials plan to accept the Draft (and anticipate
forthcoming Norwegian governmental support),with certain
reservations. The Norwegians will request "Explanations of
Vote," clarifying areas of the Draft which may challenge
Norway's existing agreements/laws with its Sami population.
The Norwegians believe that the Draft adequately addresses
our concerns noted in reftel. End of Summary.
Reluctant Support
--------------
2.(C) On May 23 we delivered reftel points (together with
Juliet Hay, First Secretary to the New Zealand Embassy at The
Hague) to Petter Wille, Deputy Director General in the MFA's
Global Affairs Section, and Guri Hestflaat in the MFA's
Section for Human Rights and Democracy. Wille accepted our
points, acknowledging the good contact Norway had in this
process with the U.S., New Zealand and Australia. The
Norwegian Embassy in Canberra had been given the reftel
points in advance by the Australians. Stating that he knew
our tri-partite positions "quite well," Wille felt that
negotiating the Draft was a "difficult process" and, although
Norway was not "entirely happy" with the Chair's proposal,
his country would support the Draft (although formal
government support had not yet been given). He noted that
"given the time we've spent, this is the best we could get."
Norway's support would be conditioned on issuing an
"Explanation of Vote," noting Norwegian
concerns/interpretations of several areas of the Draft,
including self-determination issues and Article 26
(specifically focusing upon land rights). In addition, the
Norwegian MOD had raised concerns with the MFA concerning
Article 28 (military activities),although Wille felt that
MOD support was forthcoming.
Sami Concerns
--------------
3.(C) The basis of Norwegian concerns with the Draft rested
on issues where the government's relationship with the
indigenous Sami people could be made ambiguous or questioned.
For example, Wille noted that self-determination rights
between the government and the Sami rested squarely in the
existing agreements with the Sami Parliament and the Finnmark
Act (concerning land ownership issues). The strength of the
Sami influence in the review process of the Draft was
reinforced by Hestflaat, who noted the vocal presence of a
Sami adviser in the Norwegian delegation. In addition, she
made reference to a draft Joint Sami Statement from the Sami
Ministers in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Although she could
not release the Statement to us, she revealed that it
frequently references the Draft.
Norway's Legal Positions
--------------
4. (C) Hestflaat addressed the legal justifications noted in
reftel points. With respect to our concerns that the Draft's
Articles 2 and 3 could be misconstrued as conferring a
unilateral right of secession, the Norwegians disagree,
stating that international law does not allow any such
secession rights. Concerning veto rights (specifically under
Article 20 of the Draft),Hestflaat's interpretation is that
Article 20 mandates a good faith obligation of states to
consult in order to obtain consent. She noted that this
argument resolved prior issues between Norway and its
indigenous Sami population. Finally, she finds that the
Draft's Articles 45 and 27 (concerning the right of redress)
are adequate.
The Draft's Success?
--------------
5. (C) Hestflaat believes early signals indicate that the
Draft would pass. She understood that Mexico, the
newly-formed UN Human Rights Council Chair, is keen on
adopting the Draft soon. In addition, she informed us that
the EU has apparently coordinated member views to recommend
adoption (although Hestflaat noted that individual EU states
may, as with Norway, support the Draft with specific
Explanations of Vote). She further stated that UNHRC member
Finland has also given positive signals on adopting the
Draft. Finally, she commented that Canada appears not yet
ready to adopt the Draft.
Visit Oslo's Classified website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/oslo/index.cf m
WEBSTER