Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06PARIS3368
2006-05-19 10:33:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Paris
Cable title:
GOF INCLINED TO SUPPORT UN DECLARATION ON THE
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHFR #3368/01 1391033 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 191033Z MAY 06 FM AMEMBASSY PARIS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7583 INFO RUEHUJA/AMEMBASSY ABUJA PRIORITY 1078 RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 0755 RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN PRIORITY 0815 RUEHKB/AMEMBASSY BAKU PRIORITY 0103 RUEHBP/AMEMBASSY BAMAKO PRIORITY 0749 RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK PRIORITY 0266 RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 6054 RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN PRIORITY 1765 RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA PRIORITY 0338 RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITYSCA, 1577 RUEHBM/AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST PRIORITY 0430 RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES PRIORITY 1234 RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 0806 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 1600 RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO PRIORITY 0240 RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR PRIORITY 1235 RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA PRIORITY 0090 RUEHDJ/AMEMBASSY DJIBOUTI PRIORITY 0718 RUEHGT/AMEMBASSY GUATEMALA PRIORITY 0062 RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI PRIORITY 1183 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 0615 RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA PRIORITY 0575 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KIEV PRIORITY 0469 RUEHKL/AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR PRIORITY 0215 RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ MAY 0238 RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA PRIORITY 0460 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 6102 RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY 2340 RUEHMK/AMEMBASSY MANAMA PRIORITY 0136 RUEHML/AMEMBASSY MANILA PRIORITY 0206 RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 0392 RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO PRIORITY 0085 RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0913 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY 1381 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1925 RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS PRIORITY 0744 RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE PRIORITY 0432 RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA PRIORITY 1116 RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO PRIORITY 0449 RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT PRIORITY 0881 RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 0301 RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 7659 RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO PRIORITY 0357 RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 1298 RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY 1397 RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY 2471 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 2290 RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA PRIORITY 1562 RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW PRIORITY 0787 RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 0375 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2359 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0751
C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 003368
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR L/HRR, DRL/MLA
E.O. 12958: DECL: 5/17/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM AORC UN FR
SUBJECT: GOF INCLINED TO SUPPORT UN DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (DRIP),DESPITE RESERVATIONS
REF: STATE 78740
Classified By: Acting Political Counselor Bruce Turner, reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).
C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 003368
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR L/HRR, DRL/MLA
E.O. 12958: DECL: 5/17/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM AORC UN FR
SUBJECT: GOF INCLINED TO SUPPORT UN DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (DRIP),DESPITE RESERVATIONS
REF: STATE 78740
Classified By: Acting Political Counselor Bruce Turner, reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).
1. (C) Responding to a May 18 demarche by Australian, U.S.,
and New Zealand emboffs on the draft UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP),MFA PDAS-equivalent for
IO/UN Affairs Jean-Pierre La Croix described the GoF as
inclined towards supporting the draft text, despite
reservations on provisions concerning self-determination and
collective versus individual rights. While noting that the
GoF had not yet finalized a position, La Croix emphasized
that there was a political impulsion from the French
Presidency, which took a particular interest in the
indigenous persons issue and wanted to see the eleven-year
negotiating process come to fruition. Conceding that the
current text was not "100 percent" to GoF satisfaction, La
Croix speculated that France was likely to "go along" with
the text in the end, a viewpoint which he said was also
shared by Canada and Nordic countries.
2. (C) In the event that France supported the draft
declaration, La Croix said the GoF would likely make a
national statement to clarify its interpretation on issues
like self-determination and collective rights. For instance,
the GoF viewed DRIP provisions on self-determination as
limited by the bounds of national constitutions, and
restricted to autonomy and self-government. In the case of
collective rights, the GoF shared U.S. concerns that these
should not prevail over the rights of individuals; at the
same time, the GoF viewed DRIP Article 45 as offering
sufficient safeguards on this point and was willing to offer
some degree of "particular treatment" to indigenous persons.
3. (C) La Croix expressed appreciation for the detailed,
French-language translations of U.S/Australian/New Zealand
position papers on the DRIP (emailed by DRL/MLA to post),
which he promised to give further consideration. He noted
that during the negotiating process, the GoF had expressed
similar concerns on self-determination and collective rights.
That said, the GoF was leaning towards supporting the draft
declaration "as is," given the Presidency's interest and the
fact that the declaration itself is non-binding. Prior to
the close of the meeting, the Australian Embassy DCM gave La
Croix a GOA non-paper elaborating possible negative
implications of the current DRIP text on GoF sovereignty in
French Polynesia and French museum holdings. Both sides
closed discussion by agreeing to meet again the week of June
1, after the MFA had sufficient time to review the
U.S./Australian/New Zealand position papers.
4. (C) Comment: The French inclination to support the current
DRIP text comes as little surprise, given President Chirac's
efforts to appeal to anti-globalization and NAM audiences and
recast himself as a champion of indigenous persons and
cultural diversity (outside France, of course). For
instance, the June 2006 opening of a national museum of
indigenous art of the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania is
expected to be one of the few "great works" of Chirac's
ten-year presidency, amid a final year in office increasingly
clouded by political scandal. Despite clear negative
implications with respect to self-determination in French
overseas territories, the GoF appears likely to go along with
the seriously flawed, current DRIP text largely to burnish
Chirac's overseas image as a champion of the oppressed. End
comment.
Please visit Paris' Classified Website at:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm
Stapleton
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR L/HRR, DRL/MLA
E.O. 12958: DECL: 5/17/2016
TAGS: PREL PHUM AORC UN FR
SUBJECT: GOF INCLINED TO SUPPORT UN DECLARATION ON THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (DRIP),DESPITE RESERVATIONS
REF: STATE 78740
Classified By: Acting Political Counselor Bruce Turner, reasons 1.4 (b)
and (d).
1. (C) Responding to a May 18 demarche by Australian, U.S.,
and New Zealand emboffs on the draft UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP),MFA PDAS-equivalent for
IO/UN Affairs Jean-Pierre La Croix described the GoF as
inclined towards supporting the draft text, despite
reservations on provisions concerning self-determination and
collective versus individual rights. While noting that the
GoF had not yet finalized a position, La Croix emphasized
that there was a political impulsion from the French
Presidency, which took a particular interest in the
indigenous persons issue and wanted to see the eleven-year
negotiating process come to fruition. Conceding that the
current text was not "100 percent" to GoF satisfaction, La
Croix speculated that France was likely to "go along" with
the text in the end, a viewpoint which he said was also
shared by Canada and Nordic countries.
2. (C) In the event that France supported the draft
declaration, La Croix said the GoF would likely make a
national statement to clarify its interpretation on issues
like self-determination and collective rights. For instance,
the GoF viewed DRIP provisions on self-determination as
limited by the bounds of national constitutions, and
restricted to autonomy and self-government. In the case of
collective rights, the GoF shared U.S. concerns that these
should not prevail over the rights of individuals; at the
same time, the GoF viewed DRIP Article 45 as offering
sufficient safeguards on this point and was willing to offer
some degree of "particular treatment" to indigenous persons.
3. (C) La Croix expressed appreciation for the detailed,
French-language translations of U.S/Australian/New Zealand
position papers on the DRIP (emailed by DRL/MLA to post),
which he promised to give further consideration. He noted
that during the negotiating process, the GoF had expressed
similar concerns on self-determination and collective rights.
That said, the GoF was leaning towards supporting the draft
declaration "as is," given the Presidency's interest and the
fact that the declaration itself is non-binding. Prior to
the close of the meeting, the Australian Embassy DCM gave La
Croix a GOA non-paper elaborating possible negative
implications of the current DRIP text on GoF sovereignty in
French Polynesia and French museum holdings. Both sides
closed discussion by agreeing to meet again the week of June
1, after the MFA had sufficient time to review the
U.S./Australian/New Zealand position papers.
4. (C) Comment: The French inclination to support the current
DRIP text comes as little surprise, given President Chirac's
efforts to appeal to anti-globalization and NAM audiences and
recast himself as a champion of indigenous persons and
cultural diversity (outside France, of course). For
instance, the June 2006 opening of a national museum of
indigenous art of the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania is
expected to be one of the few "great works" of Chirac's
ten-year presidency, amid a final year in office increasingly
clouded by political scandal. Despite clear negative
implications with respect to self-determination in French
overseas territories, the GoF appears likely to go along with
the seriously flawed, current DRIP text largely to burnish
Chirac's overseas image as a champion of the oppressed. End
comment.
Please visit Paris' Classified Website at:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm
Stapleton