Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (SOCHUM)

the government or foreign companies.
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
(QARMA)
1. How can governments protect indigenous
peoples from the harms of trade liberalization
without hindering overall economic growth
and development?
2. How can the international community protect
indigenous land rights in the face of significant
resource extraction and infrastructural
development projects?
3. What measures can governments take
to ensure indigenous participation in the
development discussion?
4. How can we guarantee access for indigenous
peoples to employment, housing, and other
social services without a fear of discrimination?
5. Should the first MDG, and possibly the entire
MDG program, be altered to reflect the needs
of indigenous peoples? if so, how?
Key Actors and Positions
Perhaps the most important actors for this topic are
the indigenous peoples themselves. Unfortunately,
given the structure of the United Nations, non-state
groups have no direct input into the proceedings
of the committee. That said, however, it is essential
that all states consider the severity of the problem
of indigenous impoverishment and the effect
that any policy proposal may have on indigenous
populations. Given their traditional livelihood and
cultures, developmental initiatives will affect them
differently than they would members of the majority
ethnic population, and it is necessary to keep this in
mind. One of the purposes of the united Nations is to
give support to those that are normally not heard on
the international stage, and the world’s indigenous
peoples definitely qualify as such a marginalized
group.
In 2007, four nations voted against the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: the
united States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
These countries all have indigenous populations that
have been almost completely eliminated by European
settlers over the past four centuries, and the
governments of these countries have confined the
indigenous groups that remain to either territories
that are a fraction of the land that they traditionally
controlled or territories in completely new areas.
Though they have since announced their support
for the initiative, these four countries originally
opposed the declaration on the Rights of indigenous
Peoples for a number of reasons. One concern was
that it would give tribal law precedence over national
law. 203 Another was that it put indigenous peoples
at an unfair advantage against the non-indigenous
population and essentially granted indigenous
peoples the right to full self-determination. 204 Finally,
the provision in the declaration that gave indigenous
peoples the right to all of their traditionally-held lands
would mean that the entire territory of these four
countries would have to be returned to indigenous
control at the expense of modern, legal ownership. 205
In general, these four countries have been resistant
to significant steps to improve the economic situation
of impoverished peoples. Additionally, companies
from these four nations are primarily responsible
for the negative effects that trade liberalization has
had on indigenous groups in developing countries.
Many of these developing countries, primarily in
Africa and Asia, would be hesitant to oppose to the
united States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand on
issues concerning indigenous rights since they rely so
heavily on investment and aid from these countries
for economic growth.
The nations that have been most supportive of
indigenous rights on the international level are those
from Europe and Latin America. Most European
47
Melbourne Host Directorate PTY LTD | Office of Media and Design