Wikileaks - CCCXXVII

64681 5/19/2006 10:33 06PARIS3368 Embassy Paris CONFIDENTIAL 06STATE78740 VZCZCXYZ0000 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).

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