DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES:

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000093 SIPDIS SIPDIS PLEASE PASS TO EVELYN ASWAD AT STATE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PREL SUBJECT: DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: NEGOTIATIONS SLOWLY COMING TO LIFE ¶1. (U) Representatives of the Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. Missions met February 1st to discuss the way forward on the looming consultations on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ("DRIP"). Though the co-sponsors and the African group have begun meeting to discuss the DRIP, little is clear as to how negotiations will proceed. While next steps remain unclear, what is certain is that whatever the process is going to be, it is about to begin. Delegations will likely hear by mid-February how the PGA intends to move forward. Much about the process will depend upon the PGA,s leadership. ¶2. (U) To date the African group has rejected proposed "one-on-one" negotiations with the co-sponsors that would exclude other interested Member States. They have expressed a desire for open negotiations, and though this is likely more in response to growing feelings of isolation rather than a desire for transparency, it is in line with the CANZUS position. The African group has additionally suggested a facilitator assist with the process, possibly from a Caribbean or Asian member nation - an idea the PGA is believed to be considering. The co-sponsors do not want to reopen the substantive language of the declaration, and have suggested to the Africans negotiations outside the framework of the document, such as attaching an "interpretive statement" to the text - an idea the African's do not view as a viable means of addressing their concerns. The African group is believed to have six, perhaps seven substantive problems with the current text. ¶3. (U) Addressing the likely mood within the context of these negotiations, New Zealand noted that they (New Zealand) are already widely viewed as "spoilers," while the U.S. is considered "obstructionist" and to be harboring the end goal of scuttling the declaration entirely. As such, proposals generated by CANZUS will likely be viewed warily, and with a good deal of skepticism. It was suggested that members of CANZUS, to the extent possible, prioritize their objections and establish a limited hierarchy of goals for the negotiations. Anything more than a handful of issues will serve only to confirm conspiratorial suspicions. ¶4. (SBU) Despite little likelihood of success in reforming this badly flawed text, there are inroads that can be made with the African group. From a U.S. perspective, the Africans, share a number of U.S. concerns, and may be useful advocating U.S. positions of importance. CANZUS believes a continued effort should be made to "educate" delegations on the many flaws of the current document. This could be accomplished through technical experts, lawyers, and more involvement of the Sixth Committee. Finally, CANZUS should ally with the Africans, call for open and transparent negotiations. In the end, if negotiations do little to salvage the text before the scheduled conclusion of negotiations in August, possible options would be to extend the deadline, or perhaps "taking note of" the declaration as an alternative to what is sure to be a divisive battle over its, adoption. USUN would welcome other suggestions. WOLFF