argument analysis of the anÁlisis de argumentaciÓn …
TRANSCRIPT
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
ARGUMENT ANALYSIS OF THE POSITION OF COLOMBIA REGARDING
THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES*
ANÁLISIS DE ARGUMENTACIÓN SOBRE LA POSICIÓN DE COLOMBIA FRENTE A LA
DECLARACIÓN DE NACIONES UNIDAS SOBRE LOS DERECHOS DE LOS PUEBLOS INDÍGENAS
José Fernando Gómez-roJas**
Reception date: 10 de febrero de 2010Acceptance date: 12 de marzo de 2010
To ciTe This arTicle / Para ciTar esTe arTículoJosé Fernando Gómez-Rojas, Argument Analysis of the Position of Colombia regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 16 Inter-national Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 143-176 (2010).
ISSN:1692-8156
* This article is and adjusted version of a paper elaborated for the Discourse Analysis: Principles and Methods course, led by Professor Des Gasper, during my Masters Degree in Development Studies at the Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, the Netherlands, 2008-09. I would like to thank Professor Gasper for his careful feedback on the structure of this paper.
** Bachelor of Laws, LLB, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (2004). Specialist in Analysis and Resolution of Armed Conflicts, Universidad de los Andes (2007). Masters Degree in Development Studies, Specialization in Human Rights, Development, and Social Justice, Minor in Civic Action and Social Movements, Institute of Social Studies, ISS (2009). Cur-rently, consultant lawyer in human rights, development, and international law.
Contact: [email protected].
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
144 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
absTracT
This is the final result of an investigation. This article seeks to analyse the discourse elaborated by the Colombian Government concerning the adoption of the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the General Assembly, on September 13th, 2007. In doing so, Stephen Edelson Toulmin and Michael Scriven's methods of argument analysis will be proposed, basically stressing on the clarification of some meanings, the (un)stated conclusions, the (un)stated assumptions, and an overall evaluation of the discourse. The main purpose of this docu-ment is to analyse the relationship between texts, co-texts, and contexts, and their influence within politics and international law. The analysis of these interactions would help policy-makers and academics gain more room for manoeuvre in regard to problem and priority-setting scenarios.
Key words author: Indigenous peoples, United Nations, Declaration, discourse, text, context.
Key words plus: Indians of South America, Civil Rights, Discourse Analy-sis, Indian's Rights.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
145The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Resumen
Éste es el resultado final de una investigación. El presente artículo pretende analizar el discurso elaborado por el Gobierno colombiano en relación con la adopción del texto de Declaración de Naciones Unidas sobre los Dere-chos de los Pueblos Indígenas en el marco de la Asamblea General, el 13 de septiembre de 2007. Para ello, se proponen los métodos de Stephen Edelson Toulmin y Michael Scriven sobre análisis argumentativo, para aclarar el significado de algunas frases, identificar las conclusiones y supuestos directos e indirectos, así como una evaluación general del discurso estudiado. El pro-pósito principal de este artículo es intentar analizar la relación entre textos, co-textos y contextos, y la influencia de estos conceptos frente a la política y el derecho internacional. El análisis de estas interacciones puede ayudar a quienes diseñan políticas públicas o a la academia, con el fin de lograr un mayor margen de maniobra en relación con escenarios de identificación de problemas y prioridades.
Palabras clave autor: Pueblos indígenas, Naciones Unidas, Declaración, discurso, texto, contexto.
Palabras clave descriptor: Indígenas de Suramérica, derechos civiles, análisis del discurso, derechos de los indígenas.
summary
inTroducTion.- i. colombia and The un declaraTion.- A. Quick context.- B. Difficulties of the text: text and co-text.- C. Text structure.- D. Overall evaluation of the discourse.- II. a new PoliTical PosiTion? A. Unilateral declaration of support to the UN Declaration.- B. Text analysis.- C. Overall evaluation of the discourse.- conclusions.- biblioGraPhy.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
146 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
inTroducTion
The study of development policy is normally not connected with policy discourse and methods of analysis.1 Effective discourse analysis requires systematic attention to both text and context.2 Furthermore, when talking about policy practice, it is crucial to mention framing, which means “what and who is actually included, and what and who is ignored and excluded”.3 Accord-ing to Gasper,4 “this framing cannot be settled by instrumental rationality, precisely because it frames that”.
In that sense, this article is an attempt to study the formal dis-course of the Colombian Government vis-à-vis the international community with respect to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (herein after the UN Declaration). The article consists of two main parts. In Part I, a brief context of the Declaration will be mentioned. Secondly, I will pose the difficulties found when analysing this discourse. Thirdly, the text of the vote explanation of the Colombian Government re-garding its abstention from voting (whether against or in favour of) the UN Declaration will be presented. Thereafter, I will structure the text in distinct parts in order to provide the meanings of key words, the main conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and the overall evaluation of the text. In Part II, a similar analysis will be presented regarding a recent unilateral declaration of the Colombian Government before the UN General Secretary concern-ing the support of this Government to the principles and values of the UN Declaration. Finally, some conclusions will be made.
1 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
2 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
3 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 6 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
4 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe and Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
147The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
i. colombia and The un declaraTion
A. Quick context
Texts often depend on contexts.5 The Declaration process was not pacific due to long-term difficulties in terms of opposing interests between (nation) states and indigenous communities, as it can be described as follows:
• With an overwhelming majority of 143 votes in favour, only 4 negative votes cast (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States) and 11 abstentions, the United Nations General As-sembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on September 13th, 2007. The Declaration has been negotiated through more than 20 years between nation-states and Indigenous Peoples.6
• Since its establishment in 1995, the Working Group on the Draft Declaration has met annually but although the adapta-tion of the draft Declaration was recommended in the First International Decade's programme of activities, this did not happen. In 2005 the mandate of the Working Group was renewed but the continued lack of progress in adopting the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a cause of great concern.7
• Finally, September 13th, 2007 is the date when a final text was adopted by the UN General Assembly through the Resolu-tion 61/295.
5 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings − A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).
6 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (consulted on February 25th, 2009).
7 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp (consulted on February 25th, 2009).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
148 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
B. Difficulties of the text: text and co-text
Given that the text under analysis consists of more than 1400 words, it is not easy to choose which part deserves more consid-eration than another, especially due to an apparently cohesive structure in the argumentation of the Colombian government. Therefore, it is not easy to separate a text from a co-text which could be often inter-related. I chose as the text the main reasons why, from the Government's point of view, the UN Declaration would contradict the interests/values of the Colombian state. Consequently, the co-text consists of the previous consider-ations (“grounds” in terms of Stephen Edelson Toulmin)8 that provided the justifications for the abstention of the Colombian Government.
C. Text structure
I found that I needed —wanted— to concentrate on a sub-section of the text. It depended on what I considered forms a sufficiently self-contained section, as it involves all the components of an argument analysis. Having recognised the difficulties encoun-tered when attempting to choose between text and a co-text, I decided to separate the eighteen (18) paragraphs of the discourse as follows:a. Particularities of the Colombian Indigenous Peoples and their
national legal protection (paragraphs 1 to 5). b. The position of the Colombian State in the international arena
regarding indigenous issues (paragraph 6). c. Cooperation with the Colombian Indigenous Peoples and
policy-making (paragraphs 7 to 8). d. The arguments (grounds) for the abstention of Colombia
(paragraphs 9 to 17). e. Final statements (paragraph 18).
8 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings −A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
149The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Herein I reproduce the full text of the explanation of vote:9
1. “The Colombian State has incorporated into its legal system a broad range of rights aimed at recognizing, guaranteeing and implementing the rights and constitutional principles of pluralism and national ethnic and cultural diversity.
2. In the framework of its 1991 Constitution, Colombia has dis-tinguished itself as one of the most advanced countries with regard to the recognition of the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to the indigenous legislation index of the Inter-American Development Bank, Colombia is first in terms of the quality of its legislation in the sphere of cultural, economic, territorial and environmental rights, as well as in terms of the overall quality of its indigenous legislation.
3. Our diversity is reflected in the existence of 84 Indigenous Peoples. According to the 2005 census, some 3.4 per cent of Colombians identify themselves as belonging to indigenous communities. For the Colombian State, the recognition of the traditional territories of those communities is fundamental. Today there are 710 reservations occupying an area of ap-proximately 32 million hectares, corresponding to 27 per cent of the national territory. By the end of 2007, that area should extend to 29 per cent of the national territory. Those properties cannot be proscribed, seized or transferred. Indigenous peoples access to collective or individual land ownership is regulated by legal and administrative provisions guaranteeing that right, in keeping with the State's objectives and with principles such as the social and ecological functions of ownership and State ownership of the subsoil and nonrenewable natural resources.
4. In these territories, Indigenous Peoples carry out their own political, social and legal organization. By constitutional mandate, their authorities are recognized as public State authorities having a special nature. As far as the legal area
9 United Nations General Assembly, 61st session, September 13th, 2007, resolution A/61/PV.107.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
150 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
is concerned, a special indigenous jurisdiction is recognized, which is significant progress compared with that made by other countries in the region.
5. Reservations participate in the central Government's budgetary transfer system. It should also be noted that all members of these communities are covered by the State-subsidized health service. In addition, the law establishes that Indigenous Peoples are exempt from compulsory military service —an essential provision aimed at preserving their cultural identity. And there are special electoral districts for Indigenous Peoples in national political elections.
6. In the international context, Colombia has been a leading country in implementing the prior-consultation provisions of International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, to which our country is a party. Since 2003, 71 prior-consultation proceedings have been undertaken for natural resource pros-pecting and extraction projects and other development projects in established indigenous territories.
7. Cooperation with indigenous communities is a priority for the State. In this area, there are permanent forums such as the national coordination board, the national rights commis-sion, the Amazon regional board and the national territories board. Those forums have made it possible to jointly elaborate norms and policies concerning indigenous communities from a multiethnic and inclusive perspective.
8. In order to continue these activities over the long term, the State, with participation by indigenous experts, is currently developing a comprehensive policy for indigenous communities, crucial aspects of which are related to, inter alia, territories, human rights and self-government.
9. In the General Assembly, Colombia has reaffirmed its commit-ment to the rights of indigenous communities. My delegation nevertheless supported the initiative to postpone a decision on the Declaration, because we believed that it was important to seek an agreement enabling us to adopt a Declaration accept-able to all countries —a text that would be adopted by consen-
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
151The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
sus and would conform to general international and national normative frameworks. We even supported the establishment of a forum that would have enabled indigenous communities to participate in the discussion. Regrettably, the most recent consultative process in the Assembly was characterized by a lack of transparency, a lack of willingness to negotiate and a lack of openness, which did not permit such a consensus to be reached.
10. The Colombian constitution and body of law, as well as the international instruments ratified by our country, conform with most provisions of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, while the Declaration is not a legally binding norm for the State and in no way constitutes the establishment of conventional or customary provisions that are binding for Colombia, my delegation finds some aspects of the Declara-tion to be in direct contradiction with the Colombian internal legal system, which obliged us to abstain in the voting. I shall refer briefly to some of these.
11. For example, article 30 of the Declaration provides that effec-tive consultations must be held with indigenous communities prior to using their lands or territories for military activities. Under the mandate set out in our constitution, the State secu-rity forces must be present throughout the national territory to provide and guarantee to all inhabitants protection of and respect for their lives, honour and property, both individual and collective. Protecting the rights and integrity of indigenous communities depends to a great extent on security in their ter-ritories. In that connection, instructions have been issued to the security forces to fulfil their obligation to protect the rights of such communities. Nevertheless, this provision of the Declara-tion contradicts the principle of the necessity and effectiveness of the State security forces, preventing the fulfillment of their institutional mission. That is not acceptable to Colombia.
12. Moreover, articles 19 and 32 of the Declaration refer to con-sultations to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities before adopting measures that may
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
152 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
affect their lands or territories and other resources. In par-ticular, the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources is mentioned.
13. The right of these communities to prior consultation is defined in our constitution and in ILO Convention No. 169. In that regard, Colombia's Constitutional Court has reiterated in its jurisprudence that there must be compatibility between the exploitation of natural resources and the protection of the social, cultural and economic integrity of indigenous commu-nities. Therefore, it is necessary to guarantee their full, free and informed participation in the decisions taken to authorize such exploitation in their territories.
14. However, that Court has indicated that, while the Government is obligated to provide effective and reasonable mechanisms for participation, it is not obligatory to reach an agreement. Indig-enous peoples' right to consultation is not absolute. Both the Constitutional Court and the ILO Committee of Experts have established that prior consultation does not imply a right to veto State decisions, but that it is an ideal mechanism for enabling indigenous and tribal peoples to exercise the right to express themselves and to influence the decision-making process.
15. The Declaration's approach to prior consent is different and could amount to a possible veto on the exploitation of natural resources in indigenous territories in the absence of an agree-ment. That could interfere with processes benefiting the general interest.
16. Other articles of the Declaration state that Indigenous Peoples have the right to own, develop and control the territories that they possess by reason of traditional ownership, as well as the underlying natural resources. Other related rights, such as protection against the dispossession of such resources, are also recognized. It is important to stress that many States, including Colombia, constitutionally stipulate that the subsoil and non-renewable natural resources are the property of the State in order to protect and guarantee their public use for the benefit of the entire nation. Therefore, accepting provisions such as
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
153The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
those I have cited would run counter to the internal legal order, which is based on the national interest.
17. Moreover, the Declaration refers to archaeological and his-torical sites as well as to lands and territories, without clearly defining the concept of indigenous territories, which is relevant to achieving effective protection in terms of the rights of peoples and the obligations of the State.
18. Finally, Colombia has been and will continue to be a country committed to facts and realities in protecting the rights of In-digenous Peoples, from a realistic and participatory perspective that harmonizes national identity with the development of the State, to which all Colombians belong. The decision to abstain in the voting on this text because of the legal incompatibilities that I have identified does not change the State's firm national commitment to implementing the constitutional provisions, internal norms and assumed international obligations aimed at preserving the Colombian nation's multi-ethnic nature and protecting its ethnic and cultural diversity.”10
As it can be seen, the objective of this discourse is to provide a full explanation of the reasons of the abstention of Colombia for voting in favour —or against— the UN Declaration. Fol-lowing the Stephen Edelson Toulmin model of argumentation11 the three central elements in argumentation are the claim, the grounds and warrants. With respect to the claim, one could argue that the Colombian Government abstained from voting this international document due to “insolvable contradictions” with the national legislation —including the Political Constitu-tion, as mentioned in paragraph 10. From paragraphs 9 to 17 it provides the grounds for this claim and from paragraphs 1 to 9 it uses context as a way of implying possible warrants.
10 United Nations General Assembly, 61st session, September 13th, 2007, resolution A/61/PV.107.
11 Des Gasper, Structures and Meanings – A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
154 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
However, the present article explores the argumentation of the Colombian Government in accordance with the seven-step model for argument analysis, delivered by Michael Scriven.12 In that sense, I will clarify some meanings of specific terms, as well as identify the stated and unstated conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and an overall evaluation of the discourse. Therefore, I will proceed to propose paragraph 10 as the climax or the turning point of the discourse:
12 Michael Scriven, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning, 40-45 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
155The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Paragraph 10: Colombia recognises Indigenous Peoples' rights but:
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
The
Col
ombi
an C
onst
itu-
tion
and
bod
y of
Law
, as
w
ell
as t
he i
nter
nati
onal
in
stru
men
ts r
atifi
ed b
y ou
r co
untr
y, c
onfo
rm w
ith m
ost
prov
isio
ns o
f th
e D
ecla
ra-
tion
on th
e R
ight
s of
Ind
ig-
enou
s P
eopl
es.
How
ever
, whi
le th
e Dec
lara
-tio
n is
not
a le
gally
bin
ding
no
rm fo
r the
Sta
te a
nd in
no
way
con
stitu
tes
the
esta
b-lis
hmen
t of c
onve
ntio
nal o
r cu
stom
ary
prov
isio
ns t
hat
are
bind
ing
for
Col
ombi
a,m
y de
lega
tion
fin
ds s
ome
aspe
cts
of t
he D
ecla
rati
on
to b
e in
dir
ect c
ontr
adic
tion
with
the C
olom
bian
inte
rnal
le
gal s
yste
m, w
hich
obl
iged
us
to
abst
ain
in t
he v
otin
g.
I sh
all r
efer
bri
efly
to s
ome
of th
ese.
In th
is c
ase,
the
“how
ever
” re
pres
ents
tha
t no
t al
l the
pr
ovis
ions
of
the
Dec
la-
rati
on a
re a
ccep
tabl
e to
C
olom
bia,
thu
s so
me
ex-
plan
atio
ns a
re d
ue to
com
e.C
erta
inly
, “m
y de
lega
tion”
re
fers
to
the
Gov
ernm
ent
whi
ch t
he s
peak
er i
s re
p-re
sent
ing.
The
wor
d “o
blig
ed”
is u
n-fa
vour
able
her
e. It
sugg
ests
so
met
hing
whi
ch w
as i
n-ev
itab
le a
nd u
navo
idab
le.
It c
ould
hav
e be
en “
led”
.
Stat
ed co
nclu
sion
: The
Dec
-la
rati
on f
ollo
ws
—ge
ner-
ally
spe
akin
g— t
he s
ame
prin
cipl
es a
nd n
orm
s of t
he
Col
ombi
an in
tern
al L
aw.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: T
he
Col
ombi
an G
over
nm
ent
con
sid
ers
that
int
ern
a-tio
nal d
ecla
ratio
ns h
ave n
o le
gal
impl
icat
ions
aga
inst
a
Stat
e.
Sta
ted
conc
lusi
on:
Th
e C
olom
bian
Gov
ern
men
t w
as o
blig
ed t
o ab
stai
n to
th
e D
ecla
ratio
n be
caus
e it
coul
d ha
ve e
ndan
gere
d th
e In
tern
al L
egal
Sys
tem
.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n: T
he
Col
ombi
an G
over
nm
ent
belie
ves
that
no
inte
rna-
tiona
l con
sequ
ence
s can
be
deri
ved
from
a d
ecla
ratio
n.U
nsta
ted
assu
mpt
ions
: The
G
over
nm
ent
cont
radi
cts
itse
lf h
ere,
whe
n it
envi
s-ag
es p
ossi
ble
trou
bles
if
voti
ng. I
f dec
lara
tions
hav
e no
lega
l im
plic
atio
ns, w
hy
shou
ld a
Gov
ernm
ent
not
vote
in fa
vour
? The
re se
ems
to b
e an
impl
icit
clai
m th
at
ther
e is
no
thin
g w
ron
g in
the
Col
ombi
an L
egal
Sy
stem
, and
that
the
Gov
-er
nm
ent
pref
ers
cert
ain
prin
cipl
es i
n th
e in
tern
al
law
s ab
ove
the
prin
cipl
es
set u
p in
the
Dec
lara
tion.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
156 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
I considered this paragraph as the climax of the discourse because after having presented a series of positive measures in favour of the Indigenous Peoples and after having mentioned that the Declaration coincides generally with the Colombian internal legal system, the speaker continue with a however followed by the rest of the paragraphs, implying that the Declaration still has some possible troubles and alleged contradictions in respect to the Colombian law which are about to be explained. These possible troubles are reproduced through the grounds of the ar-gumentation. In this case, the grounds of the argumentation are the reasons that obliged the Colombian Government to abstain from voting as a way of protecting “its” national values.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
157The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Ground 1 - Paragraph 9: The lack of consensus during the negotiation13
13 A clarification needs to be made in this point, since this is not itself the reason why Co-lombia abstained.
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
In t
he G
ener
al A
ssem
bly,
C
olom
bia
has
reaf
firm
ed i
ts
com
mit
men
t to
the
rig
hts
of
indi
geno
us c
omm
uniti
es.
My
dele
gati
on n
ever
thel
ess
supp
orte
d th
e in
itia
tive
to
post
pone
a d
ecis
ion
on t
he
Dec
lara
tion
, be
caus
e w
e be
-lie
ved
that
it w
as im
port
ant t
o se
ek a
n ag
reem
ent
enab
ling
us t
o ad
opt
a D
ecla
rati
on
acce
ptab
le to
all
coun
trie
s - a
te
xt th
at w
ould
be
adop
ted
by
cons
ensu
s [1]
and
wou
ld c
on-
form
to
gene
ral i
nter
natio
nal
[2]a
nd n
atio
nal [
3]no
rmat
ive
fram
ewor
ks.
Reg
rett
ably
, th
e m
ost
rece
nt
cons
ulta
tive
proc
ess i
n th
e A
s-se
mbl
y w
as c
hara
cter
ized
by
a la
ck o
f tra
nspa
renc
y, a
lack
of
will
ingn
ess
to n
egot
iate
and
a
lack
of o
penn
ess,
whi
ch d
id n
ot
perm
it su
ch a
con
sens
us to
be
reac
hed.
Rea
ffirm
ing
com
mit-
men
t do
es n
ot n
eces
-sa
rily
mea
n th
at th
ese
righ
ts h
ave b
een
guar
-an
teed
on
the g
roun
d.A
pol
ite w
ay o
f say
ing
“acc
epta
ble
to
Co
-lo
mb
ia”.
Mor
eove
r,
are c
laus
es [2
] and
[3] a
se
cond
pol
ite ta
ctic
to
cove
r th
at C
olom
bia
does
not
wis
h to
giv
e p
rio
rity
to
gen
eral
in
tern
atio
nal
fram
e-w
orks
?H
ere
the
“lac
k o
f tr
ansp
aren
cy”
is u
n-fo
rtun
ate
as it
impl
ies
dish
ones
ty a
nd r
ests
cr
edib
ility
on
the D
ec-
lara
tion.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: Si
nce
the
text
is n
ot to
be
chan
ged,
in
rea
lity
the
sig
nat
ure
is
not
only
pos
tpon
ed.
It,
by
defa
ult,
im
plie
s th
at u
nles
s th
e cu
rren
t G
over
nm
ent
is
not c
hang
ed, t
he D
ecla
ratio
n w
ill n
ot b
e si
gned
.U
nsta
ted
conc
lusi
on: B
eari
ng
in m
ind
long
-sta
ndin
g is
sues
ab
out l
ands
and
reso
urce
s, to
se
ek f
or a
tex
t by
con
sens
us
wou
ld i
mpl
y a
text
(ac
cord
-in
g to
the g
over
nmen
t) w
hich
do
es n
ot m
entio
n th
ese p
rob-
lem
s at
all.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: I
f C
o-lo
mbi
a ab
stai
ned
it w
as n
ot
beca
use
of i
ts G
over
nmen
t w
ho w
as o
pen
to n
egot
iate
; it
was
due
to th
e in
flexi
bilit
y of
so
me
othe
r act
ors,
i.e.
, ind
ig-
enou
s re
pres
enta
tives
.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n:
The
Gov
ernm
ent
as-
sum
es th
at th
e D
ecla
-ra
tion
does
not
(wis
h-es
to
asse
rt)
conf
orm
to
int
erna
tion
al n
or-
mat
ive
fram
ewor
ks.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
158 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Ground 2 - Paragraph 11: The military responsibility of the Colombian State14
14 In a country that surmounts an armed conflict, the presence of the military could para-doxically endanger the indigenous integrity rather than protecting it.
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
(…)
Art
icle
30
of th
e Dec
lara
tion
pro-
vide
s tha
t eff
ectiv
e con
sulta
tions
mus
t be
hel
d w
ith in
dige
nous
com
mun
ities
pr
ior t
o us
ing
thei
r lan
ds o
r ter
rito
ries
fo
r m
ilita
ry a
ctiv
ities
. U
nder
the
man
date
set
out
in
our
Con
stit
utio
n, t
he S
tate
sec
urit
y fo
rces
mus
t be
pre
sent
thr
ough
out
the
natio
nal t
erri
tory
to
prov
ide
and
guar
ante
e to
all i
nhab
itant
s pro
tect
ion
of a
nd r
espe
ct fo
r th
eir
lives
, hon
our
and
prop
erty
, bo
th i
ndiv
idua
l an
d co
llect
ive.
P
rote
ctin
g th
e ri
ghts
and
inte
grity
of
indi
geno
us c
omm
uniti
es d
epen
ds to
a
grea
t ext
ent o
n se
curi
ty in
thei
r ter
ri-
tori
es. I
n th
at co
nnec
tion,
inst
ruct
ions
ha
ve b
een
issu
ed to
the
secu
rity
forc
es
to fu
lfil t
heir
obl
igat
ion
to p
rote
ct th
e ri
ghts
of s
uch
com
mun
ities
. N
ever
thel
ess,
thi
s pr
ovis
ion
of t
he
Dec
lara
tion
cont
radi
cts
the
prin
cipl
e of
the
nec
essi
ty a
nd e
ffec
tiven
ess
of
the
Sta
te s
ecur
ity f
orce
s, p
reve
ntin
g th
e fu
lfilm
ent
of t
heir
ins
titu
tion
al
mis
sion
. T
hat
is n
ot a
ccep
tabl
e to
C
olom
bia.
By
“eff
ecti
ve c
onsu
l-ta
tion
s” o
ne u
nder
-st
and
s m
ean
ingf
ul
part
icip
atio
n of
the
in
dig
eno
us
peo
ple
si
nce
a de
cisi
on (
of-
ten
slow
and
com
plex
) co
uld
affe
ct th
em.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: T
he
Dec
lara
tio
n co
uld
impl
y se
curi
ty
risk
s ag
ains
t th
e in
-d
igen
ous
com
mu
ni-
ties
and
the
ins
titu
-ti
onal
mis
sion
of
the
mil
itar
y co
uld
be a
t st
ake.
U
nsta
ted
conc
lusi
on:
The
Col
ombi
an S
tate
fe
els
its
auth
ori
ty
coul
d be
und
erm
ined
if
it a
ccep
ts th
is p
rovi
-si
on.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n:
The
pre
senc
e of
the
m
ilita
ry in
indi
geno
us
terr
itor
ies
does
not
im
ply
that
they
cou
ld
be r
egar
ded
as “
tak-
ing
part
of i
f” o
r sid
ed
with
the
mili
tary
. U
nsta
ted
assu
mpt
ion:
E
njoy
ing
righ
ts i
n-
volv
es b
eing
sec
ured
.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
159The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Ground 3 - Paragraphs 12 to 15: Prior, free and informed consent could mean a veto power
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
160 José Fernando Gómez-roJasId
entif
y co
mpo
nent
sC
lari
fy m
eani
ngs
Con
clus
ions
Ass
umpt
ions
(…)
Art
icle
s 19
and
32
of t
he D
ecla
rati
on r
efer
to
cons
ulta
tions
to
obta
in t
he f
ree,
pri
or a
nd i
nfor
med
co
nsen
t of
ind
igen
ous
com
mun
ities
bef
ore
adop
ting
m
easu
res
that
may
aff
ect
thei
r la
nds
or t
erri
tori
es
and
othe
r re
sour
ces.
In
part
icul
ar,
the
deve
lopm
ent,
ut
iliza
tion
or e
xplo
itatio
n of
min
eral
, wat
er o
r ot
her
reso
urce
s is
men
tione
d.T
he ri
ght o
f the
se c
omm
uniti
es to
pri
or c
onsu
ltatio
n is
de
fined
in o
ur C
onst
itutio
n an
d in
ILO
Con
vent
ion
169.
In
tha
t re
gard
, Col
ombi
a's
Con
stitu
tiona
l Cou
rt h
as
reite
rate
d in
its
juri
spru
denc
e th
at th
ere
mus
t be
com
-pa
tibili
ty b
etw
een
the e
xplo
itatio
n of
nat
ural
reso
urce
s an
d th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e so
cial
, cul
tura
l and
eco
nom
ic
inte
grity
of
indi
geno
us c
omm
uniti
es. T
here
fore
, it
is
nece
ssar
y to
gua
rant
ee t
heir
ful
l, fr
ee a
nd i
nfor
med
pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in th
e de
cisi
ons
take
n to
aut
hori
ze s
uch
expl
oita
tion
in th
eir
terr
itori
es.
(…)
whi
le t
he G
over
nmen
t is
obl
igat
ed t
o pr
ovid
e ef
-fe
ctiv
e an
d re
ason
able
mec
hani
sms
for
part
icip
atio
n,
it is
not
obl
igat
ory
to re
ach
an a
gree
men
t. I
ndig
enou
s pe
ople
s' ri
ght
to c
onsu
ltati
on i
s no
t ab
solu
te.
Bot
h th
e C
onst
itutio
nal C
ourt
and
the
ILO
Com
mitt
ee o
f E
xper
ts h
ave
esta
blis
hed
that
pri
or c
onsu
ltatio
n do
es
not i
mpl
y a
righ
t to
veto
Sta
te d
ecis
ions
, but
that
it is
an
idea
l mec
hani
sm fo
r ena
blin
g in
dige
nous
and
trib
al
peop
les t
o ex
erci
se th
e ri
ght t
o ex
pres
s the
mse
lves
and
to
influ
ence
the
deci
sion
-mak
ing
proc
ess.
The
Dec
lara
tion'
s app
roac
h to
pri
or co
nsen
t is d
iffer
ent
and
coul
d am
ount
to a
pos
sibl
e ve
to o
n th
e ex
ploi
tatio
n of
nat
ural
res
ourc
es i
n in
dige
nous
ter
rito
ries
in
the
abse
nce
of a
n ag
reem
ent.
Tha
t co
uld
inte
rfer
e w
ith
proc
esse
s be
nefit
ing
the
gene
ral i
nter
est.
It i
s ac
tual
ly t
he
core
of
long
-st
andi
ng d
isag
reem
ents
bet
wee
n N
atio
n-St
ates
and
thei
r ind
igen
ous
popu
latio
ns.
Th
e p
rio
r, f
ree
and
in
form
ed
cons
ent
is m
eant
to
prot
ect
them
ag
ains
t arb
itrar
y se
izur
e of t
heir
ter-
rito
ries
or
igno
ring
the
ir o
pini
ons.
T
he w
ord
“con
sent
” im
plie
s tha
t the
in
dige
nous
are
to a
gree
on
poss
ible
ut
iliza
tion
of th
eir
terr
itori
es.
Col
ombi
a ra
tifie
d th
is C
onve
ntio
n in
199
1, th
anks
to L
aw 2
1.“C
ompa
tibili
ty”
and
“Int
egri
ty”
are
quite
vag
ue te
rms.
In t
his
cas
e, “
free
and
inf
orm
ed
part
icip
atio
n” m
eans
som
eth
ing
dif
fere
nt b
ecau
se t
o pa
rtic
ipat
e im
plie
s tha
t con
sent
is n
ot n
eces
sary
to
agr
eein
g on
a g
iven
pro
ject
/pro
-gr
am. T
o pa
rtic
ipat
e co
uld
be e
ven
unde
rsto
od a
s “t
o be
par
ticip
ated
” ab
out a
pro
ject
.H
ere
the
conc
ept
of g
ener
al i
nter
-es
t is
rel
evan
t, si
nce
it ap
pear
s to
ex
clud
e Ind
igen
ous P
eopl
es o
f bei
ng
part
of i
t.T
he g
ener
al i
nter
est
prin
cipl
e is
tr
eate
d he
re i
n it
s ut
ilita
rian
per
-sp
ectiv
e: w
hat
coul
d be
bet
ter
for
the
maj
oriti
es (o
f cap
ital).
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
-si
on:
The
Dec
lara
-ti
on
go
es f
urt
her
an
d co
ntra
dict
s pre
-vi
ous
inte
rnat
iona
l st
anda
rds
set u
p by
th
e IL
O C
onve
ntio
n 16
9 ab
out p
rior
par
-ti
cipa
tion
of
indi
g-en
ous
peop
le in
the
deci
sion
-mak
ing.
S
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: T
he
Dec
lara
tio
n en
tails
dan
ger
as it
im
plie
s ve
to p
ower
fo
r th
e in
dige
nous
co
mm
uniti
es in
the
ab
senc
e of a
n ag
ree-
men
t.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
p-tio
n: t
o pr
ovid
e th
e ri
gh
t to
co
nse
nt
mea
ns
a ri
ght
to
veto
.U
nsta
ted
assu
mp-
tion
: In
dig
eno
us
peop
les w
ill o
ppos
e to
the
Gov
ernm
ent
proj
ects
. U
nsta
ted
assu
mp-
tion
: T
he
gen
eral
in
tere
st i
n C
olom
-bi
a is
dif
fere
nt th
an
that
of
the
Ind
ig-
enou
s Pe
ople
s.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
161The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Ground 4 - Paragraph 16: State ownership of the natural resources Id
entif
y co
mpo
nent
sC
lari
fy m
eani
ngs
Con
clus
ions
Ass
umpt
ions
Oth
er a
rtic
les o
f the
Dec
lara
tion
Sta
te t
hat
Indi
geno
us P
eopl
es
have
the
rig
ht t
o ow
n, d
evel
op
and
cont
rol
the
terr
itori
es t
hat
they
pos
sess
by
reas
on o
f tr
adi-
tiona
l ow
ners
hip,
as
wel
l as
the
unde
rlyi
ng n
atur
al r
esou
rces
. O
ther
rel
ated
rig
hts,
suc
h as
pr
otec
tion
agai
nst t
he d
ispo
sses
-si
on o
f su
ch r
esou
rces
, are
als
o re
cogn
ized
. It
is
impo
rtan
t to
str
ess
that
m
any
Sta
tes,
incl
udin
g C
olom
-bi
a, c
onst
itut
iona
lly s
tipu
late
th
at th
e su
bsoi
l and
non
-ren
ew-
able
nat
ural
res
ourc
es a
re t
he
prop
erty
of
the
Sta
te i
n or
der
to p
rote
ct a
nd g
uara
ntee
the
ir
publ
ic u
se fo
r th
e be
nefit
of t
he
entir
e nat
ion.
The
refo
re, a
ccep
t-in
g pr
ovis
ions
suc
h as
tho
se I
ha
ve c
ited
wou
ld r
un c
ount
er to
th
e in
tern
al le
gal o
rder
, whi
ch is
ba
sed
on th
e na
tiona
l int
eres
t.
The
Dec
lara
tion
app
roac
hes
the
core
of
the
conf
lict.
The
lo
ng-s
tand
ing
disc
ussi
on a
bout
la
nd o
wne
rshi
p.W
ith “
as w
ell a
s” t
he G
over
n-m
ent d
elib
erat
ely
avoi
ds sa
ying
“i
nclu
ding
”.M
any
stat
es (i
nclu
ding
Col
om-
bia)
hav
e ad
opte
d th
e W
este
rn
natio
n-st
ate
figur
e. I
n th
e ca
se
of C
olom
bia,
one
coul
d pu
t int
o qu
estio
n w
ho is
the o
wne
r of t
he
terr
itory
, ta
king
int
o ac
coun
t th
at t
he in
dige
nous
com
mun
i-ti
es h
ad t
radi
tiona
l and
pre
vi-
ous t
ies w
ith it
bef
ore t
he a
rriv
al
of c
ivili
zatio
nal c
omm
uniti
es.
Aga
in,
the
conc
ept
of g
ener
al
inte
rest
/nat
iona
l int
eres
t is u
sed
impl
ying
tha
t th
e m
ajor
ity
is
pref
erre
d th
an m
inor
ities
.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: A
gain
, the
Dec
lara
tion
goes
aga
inst
the
con
-ce
pt o
f N
atio
n-St
ate
and
the
way
terr
itori
es
are c
once
ived
as i
nher
-en
t par
t of i
t.
Un
sta
ted
ass
um
p-
tion
: N
atio
nal
inte
rest
eq
ual
s ge
nera
l (m
a-jo
rity
) in
tere
st.
(The
In
dig
eno
us
Peo
ple
s ar
e ju
st a
slig
ht p
er-
cent
age
of th
is g
ener
al
inte
rest
).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
162 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Ground 5 - Paragraph 17: Ambiguity in the concept of Indig-enous Territories
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
Mor
eove
r, th
e D
ecla
ratio
n re
fers
to
arch
aeol
ogic
al
and
hist
oric
al s
ites
as w
ell
as t
o la
nds
and
terr
itori
es,
with
out c
lear
ly d
efini
ng th
e co
ncep
t of
ind
igen
ous
ter-
rito
ries
, whi
ch is
rele
vant
to
achi
evin
g ef
fect
ive
prot
ec-
tion
in te
rms o
f the
righ
ts o
f pe
ople
s an
d th
e ob
ligat
ions
of
the
Sta
te.
Her
e on
e ca
n th
ink
that
th
e G
over
nmen
t fea
rs th
at
Indi
geno
us C
omm
unit
ies
will
cla
im a
ll of
Col
ombi
a as
thei
r te
rrito
ry.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: The
re
is a
mbi
guity
in th
e co
ncep
t of
ind
igen
ous
terr
itor
ies,
so
it w
ould
be
of n
o ac
cep-
tanc
e fo
r th
e C
olom
bian
G
over
nmen
t.U
nsta
ted
conc
lusi
on:
Her
e th
e Gov
ernm
ent g
ives
hig
h re
leva
nce
to a
dec
lara
tion
as a
lega
l doc
umen
t, ev
en
cont
rad
icti
ng i
tsel
f w
ith
para
grap
h 10
, whe
n it
con-
side
red
a D
ecla
rati
on a
s no
t im
plyi
ng in
tern
atio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y. I
t env
isag
es
a ri
sk if
acc
epts
this
alle
ged
ambi
guity
.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n: A
m-
bigu
ity c
ould
im
ply
nega
-tiv
e eff
ects
aga
inst
the G
ov-
ernm
ent o
r eve
n ag
ains
t the
ge
nera
l int
eres
t.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
163The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
D. Overall evaluation of the discourse
Having analyzed the vote explanation, one could say that this was the logic of argumentation of the Colombian government:
1. Positive context of the Colombian Indigenous Peoples.2. Although there is a positive context, signing the Declaration
could imply contradictions with the National Legal System.3. Several reasons are given in order to explain the abstention.4. Conclusion of the vote explanation reaffirming the Colombian
compromise in favour of the Indigenous Peoples.
One can also analyse the five big arguments of the Govern-ment explaining the reasons why it abstained from voting the UN Declaration of Indigenous Peoples. They can be synthesized as follows: • The lack of consensus during the negotiation.15
• The military responsibility of the Colombian State.• Prior, free and informed consent could imply a veto power.• State ownership of natural resources.• Ambiguity of the concept of Indigenous Territories
Apart from the military responsibility of the Colombian State, one can even go further and inter-relate the other four arguments as related to a common issue: land rights. In fact, the lack of consensus was due to different perspectives on who is the owner of land. As a consequence, if the concept of indig-enous territories is not fully defined —as it appears to happen in paragraph 17—, the Indigenous Peoples have been considered as a threat to future development projects as these communities could apply a veto power using the prior, free and informed con-sent. The Government goes deeper and implies that Indigenous
15 Again, it is important to stress that this point of the lack of consensus is only a cover for the other issues.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
164 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Peoples could be in opposition to a general interest which is not adequately explained in this discourse.
As it was mentioned below, I consider paragraphs 1 to 9 as the context of the case. Furthermore, it is worth to note that the context here is matched with the co-text. In other words, the co-text is about the context of the rights situation of the Indigenous Peoples in Colombia, from the point of view of the Government. At the same time, as it is stated, this context/co-text is also used as warrant, as all the aspects mentioned can be considered as positive measures in favour of the Indigenous Peoples. This can lead the reader to envisage two possible interpretations:• Colombia has a positive environment for its Indigenous
Peoples and it will continue supporting that through this UN Declaration, or
• Colombia has a positive environment for its Indigenous Peoples but it will pose some questions on accepting the Declaration.
If the second interpretation is taken as the Colombian Gov-ernment does, surely “certain” readers could note that it is not that bad that the Declaration was not signed since the situation for the Indigenous Peoples in Colombia is already positive. Hence, it will be of no harm for the indigenous the fact that the UN Declaration is not signed up. In fact, paragraph 18 —the last one— ends up with reaffirming the Colombian compromise.
ii. a new PoliTical PosiTion?
A. Unilateral Declaration of support to the UN Declaration and the context of its emergence
The Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia, dur-ing her intervention before the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, on April 21st, 2009, stressed that:
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
165The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
[E]n su compromiso por profundizar la relación entre las instituciones gubernamentales y los pueblos indígenas y animado por el sincero deseo de avanzar en la construcción de confianza y en la consolidación de vías que permitan un mejor entendimiento, el Gobierno nacional hará entrega en el día de hoy, de una nota dirigida al Secretario General de las Nacio-nes Unidas en la que expresa su respaldo unilateral a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, a su espíritu y a los principios que inspiraron su redacción. En este sentido, y si bien no constituye un instrumento jurídicamente vinculante, el Gobierno de Colombia desea reconocer la importancia histórica de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas y valorar las aspiraciones que la han fundamentado, así como los esfuerzos de todas aquellas personas y organizaciones que la promovieron.16
It is not a minor issue the fact that the Government of Colom-bia acknowledged its unilateral support to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, before the President of the Durban Review Confer-ence, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the representatives of the participant States. Indeed, the Durban Review Conference was meant to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of measures taken at the World Confer-ence against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, 2001.17 So as part of the Plan of Action, the Colombian Government might have considered this unilateral support as an open manifesta-tion of willingness regarding its relationship with the Indigenous Peoples.
With respect to the diplomatic note elaborated by the Min-ister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia sent to the UN General
16 So far, this information can only be obtained in its original Spanish language version at: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal/espanol/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gLUzfLUH9DYwN3d39zA-yM3i1CjkEAnLwNnI6B8pFl8aFhQmFGwi7GBv2-QqYFRmI9ZoJersZGBpxkB3X4e-bmp-gW5EeUAruoufg!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfVVZSVjJTRDMwTzA4RjBJMEc1TVNSRzI0SjY!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/WCM_PRENSA/prensa/boletines/gobierno+de+colombia+anuncia+respaldo+unilateral+a+la+declaracion+de++naciones+unidas+sobre+los+derechos+de+los+pueblos+indigenas (last accessed September 5th, 2009). The English version of this text could not be obtained by the time of the submission of this article.
17 United Nations official webpage, http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/index.shtml (last accessed September 5th, 2009).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
166 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Secretary, which was acknowledged by the Deputy Minister for Multilateral Affairs, this article analyses its text below. I decided to separate the text in seven (7) paragraphs as follows:18
1. Como Su Excelencia recordará, en su momento el Gobierno de Colombia votó en abstención la Declaración y ofreció una extensa explicación de su voto, fundada en las disposiciones de la normatividad interna que garantizan los derechos de los pueblos indígenas presentes en su territorio, así como en aquellas normas que velan por la prevalencia del interés general de todos los colombianos.
2. El Gobierno Nacional ha mantenido su espíritu de diálogo con las comunidades indígenas, que se ha visto particularmente fortalecido a partir de las sesiones de trabajo establecidas desde octubre de 2008, con ocasión de la Minga social promovida por algunas organizaciones indígenas en Colombia.
3. Por ello, en su compromiso por profundizar la relación entre las instituciones gubernamentales y los pueblos indígenas y animado por el sincero deseo de avanzar en la construcción de confianza y en la consolidación de vías que permitan un mejor entendimiento, el Gobierno Nacional se permite expresar su respaldo unilateral a la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas, a su espíritu y a los principios que inspiraron su redacción y manifestar su adhesión a los conceptos de igualdad, respeto a la diversidad y no discriminación que fundamentan el texto de la misma.
4. Colombia comparte los principios que inspiraron el contenido de la Declaración. En efecto, las referencias relacionadas con los derechos especiales y afirmativos de los pueblos indígenas, las facultades de autodeterminación de sus comunidades y el respeto por el pluralismo y la diversidad étnica y cultural han sido ampliamente respaldadas por nuestro país, tanto en escenarios e instrumentos internacionales como en la legislación interna.
18 This text could only be obtained in its original Spanish language so all the translations made throughout this section were elaborated by the author.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
167The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
5. Con la plena aplicación de la normatividad vigente en Colom-bia, el Gobierno Nacional continuará trabajando de manera denodada para garantizar la participación activa de las co-munidades indígenas en la vida democrática, por brindar las oportunidades que les permitan lograr el desarrollo pleno de sus capacidades y por ofrecerles las posibilidades de lograr los niveles de independencia económica y bienestar que permitan preservar su identidad y su cultura.
6. En este sentido, y si bien no constituye un instrumento jurídi-camente vinculante, el Gobierno de Colombia desea reconocer la importancia histórica de la Declaración (…) y valorar las aspiraciones que la han fundamentado así como los esfuerzos de todas aquellas personas y organizaciones que la promovieron. Este reconocimiento del Estado colombiano se hace con las salvedades expresadas en su oportunidad.
7. El Gobierno Nacional, en su espíritu constructivo, invita a con-tinuar fortaleciendo la relación con las comunidades indígenas y a encontrar fórmulas que garanticen la convivencia armónica entre los pueblos indígenas y el resto de la población, a conciliar intereses y a descubrir la riqueza del pluralismo preservando el medio ambiente y el patrimonio cultural de nuestros ancestros para las futuras generaciones.
B. Text analysis
The main claim of this unilateral declaration is to acknowledge official endorsement to the text of the UN Declaration. Some of the grounds of argumentation will be analyzed below. In accordance with the seven-step model for argument analysis, delivered by Scriven,19 I will clarify some meanings of specific terms, as well as identify the stated and unstated conclusions, the stated and unstated assumptions and an overall evaluation of the discourse.
19 Michael Scriven, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning, 40-45 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
168 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
Par
agra
ph 1
: (…
) en
su
mom
ento
, el
G
obie
rno
de C
olom
bia
votó
en
abst
en-
ción
la D
ecla
raci
ón y
ofr
eció
una
ext
ensa
ex
plic
ació
n de
su
voto
, fu
ndad
a en
las
di
spos
icio
nes
de la
nor
mat
ivid
ad i
nter
na
que
gara
ntiz
an lo
s der
echo
s de
los p
uebl
os
indí
gena
s pr
esen
tes
en s
u te
rrito
rio,
así
co
mo
en a
quel
las
norm
as q
ue v
elan
por
la
pre
vale
ncia
del
inte
rés g
ener
al d
e to
dos
los
colo
mbi
anos
.
The
“ge
nera
l in
tere
st”
conc
ept
is
clea
rly
a va
gue
term
, sin
ce it
cou
ld
enta
il a
quan
titat
ive
com
pone
nt o
f “m
ajor
itie
s”,
and
/or
cert
ain
eco
-no
mic
/pol
itica
l val
ues.
Uns
tate
d co
nclu
sion
: T
he U
N D
ecla
ratio
n is
not
com
patib
le w
ith
the
Col
om
bia
n n
a-ti
onal
Law
and
the
pr
inci
ple
of g
ener
al
inte
rest
.
Par
agra
ph 3
: (…
) en
su
com
prom
iso
por
prof
undi
zar
la r
elac
ión
entr
e la
s in
sti-
tuci
ones
gub
erna
men
tale
s y
los
pueb
los
indí
gena
s y
anim
ado
por
el s
ince
ro d
eseo
de
ava
nzar
en
la co
nstr
ucci
ón d
e con
fianz
a y
en la
con
solid
ació
n de
vía
s que
per
mita
n un
mej
or e
nten
dim
ient
o, e
l G
obie
rno
Nac
iona
l se
perm
ite e
xpre
sar
su re
spal
do
unila
tera
l a la
Dec
lara
ción
de l
as N
acio
nes
Uni
das s
obre
los D
erec
hos d
e lo
s Pue
blos
In
díge
nas,
a s
u es
píri
tu y
a lo
s pr
inci
pios
qu
e in
spir
aron
su
reda
cció
n y
man
ifest
ar
su a
dhes
ión
a lo
s co
ncep
tos
de ig
uald
ad,
resp
eto
a la
div
ersi
dad
y no
dis
crim
inac
ión
que
fund
amen
tan
el te
xto
de la
mis
ma.
Wh
at d
oes
“un
ilat
eral
sup
port
” m
ean?
Wha
t do
es “
adhe
re t
o so
me
prin
-ci
ples
” m
ean?
Sta
ted
assu
mpt
ion:
T
he G
over
nmen
t con
-si
ders
tha
t th
is u
ni-
late
ral
decl
arat
ion
of
supp
ort
will
im
prov
e it
s re
lati
onsh
ip w
ith
the
Indi
geno
us P
eo-
ples
, and
thei
r mut
ual
com
mun
icat
ion.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
169The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
Par
agra
ph 4
: C
olom
bia
com
part
e lo
s pr
inci
pios
que
insp
irar
on e
l con
teni
do d
e la
Dec
lara
ción
. En
efec
to, l
as r
efer
enci
as
rela
cion
adas
con
los
der
echo
s es
peci
ales
y
afirm
ativ
os d
e lo
s pue
blos
indí
gena
s, la
s fa
culta
des
de a
utod
eter
min
ació
n de
sus
co
mun
idad
es y
el re
spet
o po
r el p
lura
lism
o y
la d
iver
sida
d ét
nica
y c
ultu
ral h
an s
ido
ampl
iam
ente
resp
alda
das p
or n
uest
ro p
aís,
ta
nto
en e
scen
ario
s e
inst
rum
ento
s in
ter-
naci
onal
es c
omo
en la
legi
slac
ión
inte
rna.
Wou
ldn'
t it
be
a co
ntra
dict
ion
to
shar
e sa
id p
rinc
iple
s bu
t to
abs
tain
fr
om v
otin
g th
e te
xt i
tsel
f? T
hen,
w
hat
do
es “
shar
e” m
ean
wh
en
refe
rrin
g to
sha
ring
the
pri
ncip
les
that
in
spir
ed t
he c
onte
nt o
f th
e D
ecla
ratio
n?
Sta
ted
conc
lusi
on: C
o-lo
mbi
a su
ppor
ts t
he
reco
gniti
on o
f spe
cial
ri
ghts
and
affi
rmat
ive
actio
ns in
favo
r of t
he
Indi
geno
us P
eopl
es.
Sta
ted
conc
lusi
on: T
he
natio
nal l
egis
latio
n is
co
mpa
tibl
e w
ith
in-
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n:
The
fac
t of
ela
bora
t-in
g ad
equa
te l
egis
la-
tion
and
spec
ial m
ea-
sure
s in
fav
or o
f th
e In
dige
nous
Peo
ples
is
itsel
f a p
ositi
ve a
spec
t.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
170 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
Par
agra
ph 5
: Con
la p
lena
apl
icac
ión
de la
no
rmat
ivid
ad vi
gent
e en
Col
ombi
a, e
l Go-
bier
no N
acio
nal c
ontin
uará
trab
ajan
do d
e m
aner
a de
noda
da p
ara
gara
ntiz
ar la
par
-tic
ipac
ión
activ
a de
las c
omun
idad
es in
dí-
gena
s en
la v
ida
dem
ocrá
tica,
por
bri
ndar
la
s opo
rtun
idad
es q
ue le
s per
mita
n lo
grar
el
des
arro
llo p
leno
de
sus
capa
cida
des
y po
r of
rece
rles
las
posi
bilid
ades
de
logr
ar
los
nive
les
de in
depe
nden
cia
econ
ómic
a y
bien
esta
r que
per
mita
n pr
eser
var s
u id
en-
tidad
y s
u cu
ltura
.
Wha
t do
es “
acti
ve p
arti
cipa
tion
” m
ean
for
the
Gov
ernm
ent?
Sin
ce it
in
sist
s on
kee
ping
the
obj
ectio
ns o
f th
e vo
te e
xpla
natio
n of
200
7, w
ould
it
mea
n ac
tive
inv
olve
men
t in
the
de
cisi
on-m
akin
g an
d pr
iori
ty-s
ettin
g pr
oces
ses?
Wha
t doe
s “ec
onom
ic in
depe
nden
ce”
mea
n? O
ne m
ight
feel
on
safe
gro
und
to a
rgue
tha
t th
is c
ould
be
rela
ted
to fo
od s
over
eign
ty a
nd th
e us
e an
d co
ntro
l of
natu
ral r
esou
rces
, whi
ch
is a
cor
e is
sue
thro
ugho
ut t
he D
ec-
lara
tion
. So
, ag
ain,
wou
ldn'
t it
be
anot
her
cont
radi
ctio
n to
rec
ogni
ze
this
ind
epen
denc
e w
hile
the
Gov
-er
nmen
t in
sist
s on
mai
ntai
ning
the
ob
ject
ions
exp
ress
ed in
200
7?
Sta
ted
conc
lusi
on:
Cu
rren
tly,
the
Gov
-er
nm
ent
seek
s to
gu
aran
tee
the
“act
ive
part
icip
atio
n” o
f th
e In
dige
nous
Peo
ples
.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n:
If t
he
Gov
ern
men
t se
eks
for
cont
inui
ng
wor
king
on
bett
erin
g th
e “f
ull
deve
lopm
ent
of t
heir
cap
abili
ties
”,
and
to
fo
ster
th
eir
eco
nom
ic i
nd
epen
-de
nce
and
wel
l-bei
ng
that
mea
ns t
hat
cur-
rent
ly, t
he In
dige
nous
P
eopl
es a
re l
ack
ing
of th
at.
Uns
tate
d as
sum
ptio
n:
The
dev
elop
men
t and
co
nse
rvat
ion
of t
he
ind
igen
ous'
cult
ure
s ha
s be
en f
ram
ed b
y di
alog
ue a
nd c
onti
nu-
ous
inte
ract
ion.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
171The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
Iden
tify
com
pone
nts
Cla
rify
mea
ning
sC
oncl
usio
nsA
ssum
ptio
ns
Par
agra
ph 6
: En
este
sen
tido,
y s
i bie
n no
co
nstit
uye
un i
nstr
umen
to j
uríd
icam
ente
vi
ncul
ante
, el G
obie
rno
de C
olom
bia
dese
a re
cono
cer
la i
mpo
rtan
cia
hist
óric
a de
la
Dec
lara
ción
(…
) y
valo
rar
las
aspi
raci
o-ne
s qu
e la
han
fun
dam
enta
do a
sí c
omo
los e
sfue
rzos
de
toda
s aqu
ella
s per
sona
s y
orga
niza
cion
es q
ue la
pro
mov
iero
n. E
ste
reco
noci
mie
nto
del E
stad
o co
lom
bian
o se
ha
ce c
on la
s sa
lved
ades
exp
resa
das
en s
u op
ortu
nida
d.
Thi
s pa
ragr
aph
repr
esen
ts,
for
the
auth
or o
f thi
s art
icle
, the
clim
ax p
oint
of
the
dis
cour
se. H
ere
the
Gov
ern-
men
t re
min
ds t
he l
egal
nat
ure
of
the
Dec
lara
tion,
as
it is
not
leg
ally
bi
ndin
g. M
oreo
ver,
the G
over
nmen
t cl
earl
y af
firm
s th
at t
his
unila
tera
l de
clar
atio
n of
sup
port
com
es w
ith
the
rese
rvat
ions
and
cla
rific
atio
ns
prev
ious
ly a
ckno
wle
dged
in th
e vot
e ex
plan
atio
n of
200
7. S
o w
hat
is t
he
valu
e ad
ded
of t
his
new
dis
cour
se?
Is i
t ac
tual
ly a
“ne
w”
disc
ours
e of
th
e C
olom
bian
Gov
ernm
ent?
Wha
t is
the
val
ue
adde
d of
“re
cogn
iz-
ing
the
hist
oric
im
port
ance
” of
the
D
ecla
ratio
n, a
nd t
he “
effo
rts
of a
ll th
e pe
ople
(s)
and
orga
niza
tions
who
pr
omot
ed i
t”?
It m
ight
mea
n ju
st
rhet
oric
but
the
polit
ical
mea
ning
of
this
reco
gniti
on m
ust b
e con
side
red.
Sta
ted
conc
lusi
on: T
he
Col
ombi
an G
over
n-m
ent
stil
l ob
ject
s to
se
vera
l iss
ues
cons
id-
ered
with
in th
e te
xt o
f th
e D
ecla
ratio
n.
Stat
ed a
ssu
mpt
ion:
th
e fa
ct t
hat t
he D
ec-
lara
tion
does
not
con
-st
itute
a le
gally
bin
d-in
g do
cum
ent,
do
es
not
com
prom
ise
the
Col
ombi
an S
tate
.U
nsta
ted
assu
mpt
ion:
T
he
inte
rnat
ion
al
com
mu
nit
y an
d th
e In
dig
enou
s P
eopl
es
wou
ld p
erce
ive
this
u
nil
ater
al d
ecla
ra-
tion
of
supp
ort
as a
po
sitiv
e st
ep t
owar
ds
bett
erin
g th
e dia
logu
e b
etw
een
th
e m
ain
stak
ehol
ders
, i.e
., th
e St
ate,
the
Ind
igen
ous
Peo
ples
, N
GO
s, a
nd
the
Inte
rnat
ion
al
Com
mun
ity o
f Sta
tes.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
172 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
C. Overall evaluation of the discourse
It is noteworthy to study the “discursive move” of the Colombian Government throughout the process of the adoption of the text of the UN Declaration. Whereas in the vote explanation of the abstention the Government made it clear that there are “insolv-able contradictions” between the text of the Declaration and the National Legal System, in this occasion it praised the historic significance of this text, and even committed itself to “adhere” to its main values and principles. Once again, the Government acknowledged the massive support it has provided for the In-digenous Peoples through a significant set of policies, laws and ratified treaties aimed at respecting, protecting and fulfilling indigenous rights. Furthermore, the Government pointed out the cardinal importance of the principle of meaningful partici-pation of the Indigenous Peoples in the decisions that concern the maintenance of their identity and culture. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten the fact that the Government refers to the reservations it had posed in 2007 before the UN General As-sembly when it abstained from voting the text of the Declaration.
The value added of this unilateral declaration of support, though not representing a legally binding manifestation, is meant to be its political strength in terms of willingness to “recogniz-ing the historic importance” of the Declaration, and the “efforts of all the people(s) and organizations who promoted it”. It might mean just rhetoric but the political meaning of this recognition must be considered.
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
173The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
conclusions
According to Gasper,20 “all policy writing, considered as text and subtext, is open-able to various interpretations, some of them conflicting”. In fact, as abovementioned, there are several terms which, for their vagueness, are indeed open to discussion, i.e. “general interest”, “participation”, “development”, “economic inde-pendence”, “construction of mutual trust”, “to support the underly-ing principles of equality, respect diversity, and non discrimination”, among others; especially, the prevalence of the argument that “Colombia is a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic State”.
It is noteworthy that the Declaration was voted within the UN General Assembly on September 13th, 2007. While Colombia abstained from voting in the very session of the adoption of the final text, the unilateral declaration of 2009 does not constitute retroactive effects. In fact, since this Declaration is based on a resolution from the General Assembly, it is not legally binding as other international instruments such as treaties, covenants, among others. Therefore, the Declaration cannot be subscribed nor accessed by the states.
Although the UN Declaration constitutes a not legally binding document, these documents usually take the form of a (legally binding) treaty in the near future. One might guess that this would be the case of this instrument. In fact, this is precisely part of the socio-political struggle initiated some decades ago not only by the very Indigenous Peoples but by their political allies, namely, social movements, NGOs, and some progressive governments.
On the other hand, even though the Colombian Government was quite clear on the fact that there are several clauses of the UN Declaration which clash with the Internal Legal System of the State, the explicit and official endorsement to this instrument is a signal of its formal compromise with its contents and main
20 Des Gasper, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing Develop-ment Policy: Frames and Discourses, 1-15 (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gasper, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
174 José Fernando Gómez-roJas
goals. As with most of the international instruments that are not legally binding, the contents of these texts are entirely political. And this is not a minor issue. Koskenniemi21 states that “our inherited ideal of a World Order based on the Rule of Law thinly hides for sight the fact that social conflict must still be solved by political means and that even though there may exist a common legal rhetoric among international lawyers, the rhetoric must, for reasons internal to the ideal itself, rely on essentially contested political principles to justify outcomes to international disputes”.
21 Martii Koskenniemi, The Politics of International Law, 1 European Journal of International Law, EJIL, 1, 4-32 (1990).
Int. Law: Rev. Colomb. Derecho Int. ildi, Bogotá (Colombia) N° 16: 143-176, enero-junio de 2010
175The un declaraTion on The riGhTs oF indiGenous PeoPles
biblioGraPhy
booksScriven, Michael, Foundations of Argument Analysis, Reasoning (McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1976).
conTribuTion in collecTive booksGasper, Des, Introduction: Discourse Analysis and Policy Discourse, in Arguing
Development Policy: Frames and Discourses (Raymond Apthorpe & Des Gas-per, eds., Frank Cass, London, 1996).
JournalsKoskenniemi, Martii, The Politics of International Law, 1 European Journal of
International Law, EJIL, 1, 4-32 (1990).
workinG PaPersGasper, Des, Structures and Meanings - A Way to Introduce Argumentation Analysis
in Policy Studies Education (Institute of Social Studies, ISS, The Hague, ISS Working Paper 317, 2000).
websiTe linksUnited Nations website: www.un.org.
On the Durban Review Conference: at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/index.shtml.
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs- IWGIA official webpage: http://www.iwgia.org/sw248.asp.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia on the endorsement of the UN Dec-laration: http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/wps/portal/espanol/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gLUzfLUH9DYwN-3d39zAyM3i1CjkEAnLwNnI6B8pFl8aFhQmFGwi7GBv2-QqYFRmI-9ZoJersZGBpxkB3X4e-bmp-gW5EeUAruoufg!!/dl2/d1/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnB3LzZfVVZSVjJTRDMwTzA4RjBJMEc1TVNSRzI0SjY!/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/WCM_PRENSA/prensa/boletines/gobierno+de+colombia+anuncia+respaldo+unilateral+a+la+declaracion+de++naciones+unidas+sobre+los+derechos+de+los+pueblos+indigenas.