UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization founded in the aftermath of the Second World War with the aims of upholding Westphalian principles of state sovereignty and rights to non-interference from outside parties. With hopes of smoothing disputes between countries before they devolved into actual warfare and of providing a platform for direct state-to-state communication, the UN has largely been considered a successful experiment, albeit with bumps along the way.

In September of 2007 the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the UN General Council. Designed to safeguard against what is often systemic and institutionalized racism and marginalization against indigenous populations worldwide, what is truly remarkable about the Declaration is the decades-long gap between the founding of the United Nations and its adoption. In fact the Declaration itself actually took 25 years to develop, having first been suggested in the early 80s as a way of addressing the problematic and heavily one-sided relationship of state bodies and native populations.  By 2007 when the Declaration was finally readied for a vote in the General Assembly, four nations stood out as actively against its adoption: Australia, New Zealand, The United States, and Canada. Four countries with significant indigenous populations and significant histories of colonialism and active oppression of said populations. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Canada’s main objection to the Declaration was that it ran counter to our country’s Constitution, a claim that faced strong dispute almost immediately. It wouldn’t be until 2010 -three years later -that Canada would get on board with the majority of General Assembly member states and add its official endorsement.

As recently as December of 2011, Canada has faced criticism from the UN on its treatment of indigenous peoples. Spurring the comments was the recent controversy over the deplorable conditions at Attawapiskat, but this was acknowledged -as it is -as only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. Non-aboriginals in Canada are privy to increasing standards of living, and yet many aboriginal people are facing substandard infrastructure and access to education and health care, and unemployment levels that are higher than the national average. The UN criticism was met with a derisive response from Canada’s Aboriginal Affairs, who tried to brush it off as some kind of fanciful slander.

…but the claims of the UN are true, about Canada and about other countries as well. Even with our official support of the Declaration, on both the state and the social level Canada has failed its Indigenous peoples, and has done so out of equal parts malice and indifference. On a grand scale, we really don’t care about our Aboriginal people. We wave around geographically and culturally inappropriate symbols at the Olympics so we can show off how multiracial and embracing we are of our First People, but one does not have to scratch far below that shiny surface to see the stinking shameful shitpile below it.

So what, exactly, does this mean for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Nations, and Canada’s place in relation to the UN on this issue? Have we signed on to the Declaration for approval on the world stage at the same time we try vainly to sweep our mess under the rug? If that is indeed the case, the possibility of other countries doing the same no longer seems unlikely. And if endorsing the Declaration is being done by even one state in such a two-faced manner, then doesn’t that throw the vailidity of the Declaration itself into question? After all, words on paper are only that if their intent isn’t being engaged in by those who swear it’s a good idea.

Careful with the fine China, Stevie. It’s for company

20 New Agreements

Human Rights are Right!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently took a little vaycay to China, on his second official visit to the country as Prime Minister. He was there primarily to engage in trade discussions with the country’s leadership, with a helping of publicity legwork on the side. As of Thursday in Beijing, more than 20 trade deals had been agreed upon valuing an estimated $3 billion. Harper did make a point in his speech to Chinese leaders of addressing our country’s traditional image as being one to uphold human rights, an interesting tactic in an arena revolving around trade with a country that itself has a dicey human rights record.  Responding to questions that China’s new found willingness to listen to our leader congratulating himself on our approach to human rights might have anything to do with their desire for our natural resources, (not least of which being the Saskatchewan-supplied uranium) Prime Minister Harper rushed to assert that it’s simply Chinese leadership gradually changing their attitudes.

Mingst and Arreguin-Toft in their text describe three different models of decision making in terms of foreign policy: The Rational Model, The Bureaucratic Model, and the Pluralist Model. The Rational Model can be used to explain Stevie’s expedition to China as a matter of two countries hedging their bets that the other will cooperate enough so that both may benefit financially. Since this model assumes that at this stage in the game each state is acting unitarily, it would be illogical to assume any kind of dissent either from the populace or from the various levels of government. How true this will play out when one country is largely totalitarian and the other is -though doing better  than its buddies -economically shaky remains to be seen.

The Bureaucratic Model dictates that this is just another day of international talks for Canada. Being the Nice Guys on the world stage, we’re well-versed in the fine art of sucking up diplomacy to attain our goals. In this case, the assumed goal being the shifting of our allegiances from the floundering United States to the up-and-coming People’s Republic. We know a winning pony when we see one, and we know good political tactics when they’ve worked for us and other states in the past.

The Pluralist model assumes that other interested parties besides the countries’ respective governments are having an influence in trade offers and agreements, as well as any decisions made regarding. Despite, for example, the Chinese government’s insistence that our prairie-sourced uranium will be strictly for civil uses like power plants, some critics have voiced concern that military forces are interested for entirely different purposes. Not without valid question are our own motivations. The Canadian natural resource industries are largely reliant on international trade. With the U.S. looking ever more like a sinking ship, is Harper’s new coziness with Chinese trade just an attempt to quiet lumber, mineral, and water’s fears?

Chapter Two Assignment

Excerpted from the text, “Essentials of International Relations” 5th ed., p. 24 (Mingst, 2011) :

“Men freely enter into this political arrangement, agreeing to establish government to ensure natural rights for all. The crux of Locke’s argument is that political power ultimately rests with the people, rather than with a leader or monarch. The monarch derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis mine)

And now, a piece from the CBC’s website on the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s criticizing Canadian MP’s hefty pension plans.

 

 

Our Members of Parliament, having undergone something of a democratic process to attain their positions, have, according to the calculations of the CTF, sizable retirement pension plans disproportionate to those of the rest of our citizenry. Not only proportionately higher, said pension plans are funded largely with contribution-via-taxation by Canadians. The official figures claim the taxpayers add $5 to each dollar MP’s contribute to their own pension funds, but the CTF alleges that the figure is in actuality nearer to $23 to each dollar.

Throughout the provinces, wages have been held effectively stagnant in several fields for years. Here in BC, the minimum wage was only recently raised after a nearly ten year freeze, helping contribute to our province’s dubious honour of carrying Canada’s highest rate of child poverty. On the job benefit packages and pension plans have been similarly held in place and in many areas actually reduced, all with the justification of necessary budget trimming. In the same breath as they’d deny financial comfort to the very people who allowed them their positions, MP’s and MLA’s across the country have regularly been voting themselves raises, bonuses, and, of course, comfortable pensions.

So, as to the question of legitimacy? It’s said that a people get the government they deserve. Election after election, the apathy of the voting public as shown by their utter failure to bother getting up off the couch to exercise their democratic responsibility results in political figures elected by a minority rather than the majority. Political figures elected under such conditions are essentially given carte blanche for all manner of sometimes not-so-pleasant things, including legislating fat retirement funds for themselves while more and more aging Canadians are finding themselves unable to plan for a future they’re unsure will have anything worth planning for.

Chapter 2 Post

This is a post concerning the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an event that exemplified the idea of the Cold War….series of confrontations….US…Soviets….

shyadda yadda YADDA. Let’s crack on with it, and get started on our own posts, eh? If someone as technologically illiterate as I can manage to start up a blog, the whole class could.

And here’s Cronkite on Dr. King’s death

My Favourite Vacation Spot

Places. I’ve been to 2 or 6. As per Prof’s instructions, I’m adding youtube-y goodness for a practice post.