The U.S.'s Interpretation of the UN High-Level Outcome Document

Reprinted with permission from Indian Country Today Media Network

Recently, a United Nations (UN) “high level plenary meeting” occurred on September 22 and 23, at the UN headquarters in New York. A great deal of confusion has arisen because the UN high level meeting was “to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.” (WCIP) But let’s be clear. It was not a world conference. Although the meeting was given a name, “WCIP,” the nature of the meeting itself remained the same: a UN “high level plenary meeting.”

In any case, a number of conclusions can be drawn from that recent UN meeting. First, our Nations are not being recognized as Nations at and by the UN. Second, in its interventions at the UN, the United States is characterizing our Nations as “tribes” and “tribal governments” that the U.S. deems to be “domestic” to its dominating political system. Third, the US has evidently begun to interpret “indigenous peoples” to mean merely “individuals” and “communities.” This diverts attention away from our political identity as originally free and independent Nations, as Nations that began originally free and independent of the political domination of the United States.

Ambassador Keith Harper is the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council. On September 22, 2014, he was the head of the U.S. delegation attending the UN high level plenary meeting in New York. While there, he delivered the United States’ “Explanation of Position.” Even though it wasn’t exactly the same as Canada’s “Explanation of Vote,” anyone who wants to know how the United States is interpreting the high level meeting outcome document needs to closely read the U.S.’s Explanation of Position regarding the UN outcome document.

That U.S.’s Explanation of Position contains what appears to be a curious deception and resulting incoherence having to do with the letter “s” on the word “peoples.” In the international arena, the use of the letter “s” on “peoples” typically indicates a distinct and separate “Peoplehood,” i.e., Nationhood. However, the U.S.’s Explanation of Position says: “This historic conference honors the immeasurable contributions of the millions of indigenous peoples worldwide.” Read those last five words again: “millions of indigenous peoples worldwide.” See the “s” on “peoples?” As mentioned above, the ‘s’ typically indicates distinct Peoplehood and Nationhood, or in other words entire peoples, and entire nations.

It is commonly estimated that there are some 370 million indigenous people in the world who are classified as “indigenous.” The lack of an ‘s’ on “people” means that this is to be interpreted as 370 million individual humans divided into more than 4000 distinct Peoples (with an ‘s’). That being said, it would be accurate for the U.S.’s Explanation of Position to talk about the “immeasurable contributions of thousands of indigenous peoples worldwide.” I do not know anyone who has claimed, or would claim, that there are millions of Indigenous peoples in the world based on the some 370 million humans in the world being categorized as “indigenous.”

The U.S. document delivered by Ambassador Harper at the UN high level plenary demonstrates that when the United States uses the term “indigenous peoples” (with an ‘s’) it now means “indigenous individuals.” This has resulted in U.S. incoherence and ambiguity. I believe that the U.S. Explanation of Position demonstrates that the U.S. government is now interpreting “indigenous peoples” to only mean “indigenous individuals” and “communities” when used in the context of the United States. This inference is supported by a statement in the U.S.’s Explanation of Position which says that the high level meeting of the General Assembly “also underscores the need for all states to work with indigenous individuals, leaders, and communities to meet our common challenges.” Continued next week