Collings, Neva --- "An Indigenous Lawyer's International Experience" [1997] IndigLawB 70; (1997) 4(4) Indigenous Law Bulletin 8

An Indigenous Lawyer's International Experience

By Neva Collings

Last October, I left Australia to attend conferences in Germany and Geneva as an indigenous representative of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission where I work as a policy officer. What began as a three week trip grew to three months when I was offered a short term position working in the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Geneva. Nothing could have prepared me for the experiences I would have!

The first stop was Konigswinter in Germany where I attended the Friedrich Naumann Human Rights and Minorities Conference. Before arriving, I was concerned that language barriers would be a problem as English is the only language I speak. However, within the confines of the conference room, translators piped information to each of us and, although outside the conference room, communication was a little more difficult, it was nothing that the international language of finger pointing and exaggerated facial expression couldn't fix!

The convenor of the meeting--Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, a conservative political organisation--sought to examine the collective rights of indigenous peoples and minorities in the context of liberalism, an ideology grounded in the rights of the individual. As a fledgling lawyer, this was not a question I had resolved in my own mind, let alone asked!

Moreover, I was soon to be confronted personally with an aspect of this issue of collective and individual rights when my own identity was questioned by a number of participants. During introductions, it became apparent that some people expected a dark skinned ´Jacky Jacky' to appear on behalf of Australian indigenous peoples. In fact, one person walked away shaking his head in disbelief saying `You can't be, I don't believe you'. Later, a Native American ally reminded me of the tendency for people to `pigeon-hole'. Clearly, I did not fit the stereotype.

In my address to the forum, I responded to the identity question by reminding participants that, in racialised conceptions of the world, there are many people who are neither black enough nor white enough to meet stereotypical views and asked ´where do we lie on the racial spectrum?' However, with only ten minutes to speak, I quickly moved on to discuss some of the problems we are dealing with as a people in Australia--the change to a Liberal-National government, for example.

It was most alarming during informal discussions that a number of people shared the view that all is well `down under'. Even the Director of the Institute for Human Rights in Oslo said that when he visited Australia in 1983, the scenario seemed far from bleak. Whilst it may appear that we are relatively well-off when compared to some indigenous peoples, this is certainly not the case in relation to international minimum standards agreed upon by a majority of countries. Including Australia!

After three days of presentations, debate, and workshops, we all shook hands and I left with more questions than answers about individual and collective rights, and a head which was full of stories and faces. The diversity of experience amongst indigenous participants was fascinating yet disturbing: diversity of culture alongside diversity of sacrifice and loss, and the occasional victory. The problems that anger and disappoint me here at home in Australia were amplified ten-fold.

It was on that melancholic note that I caught the train from Bonn down to Geneva to assist Mick Dodson, Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, at the Fifth Session of the Commission of Human Rights Working Group (´the CHR Working Group') on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (´the draft declaration'). All melancholic thoughts quickly subsided--they had no place in this highly charged environment!

During the first morning of the CHR Working Group discussions, tension mounted over the intention of governments to alter the text of the draft declaration, which, in its current form, already only expresses minimum human rights standards (see ´The United Nations and the Making of a Declaration on Indigenous Rights' by Sarah Pritchard in Vol 3, 89 Aboriginal Law Bulletin 4). When government representatives proceeded to alter the text to diminish its effect, the entire indigenous non-member representation walked out of the meeting, refusing to endorse the process. The unity and strength of this movement was inspiring. How could a meeting purporting to discuss the rights of indigenous peoples proceed without their representatives?

A separate indigenous caucus convened often until late into the night in what was a frustratingly slow process. Facilities for simultaneous translation were not always available and, in a very short time, we needed to reach consensus on unpredictable questions and issues amongst a diverse group of peoples. I quickly learned the importance of a skilled `Chair'. Outside the formal process of meetings and translation, where so much is achieved over coffee, in hallways or in the foyer, language barriers proved even more problematic . Goodwill requires eye to eye dialogue. Diplomacy by finger pointing and facial expression just doesn't cut it!

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, despite these drawbacks, and despite some fragmentation amongst indigenous representatives, decisions were unified and strong. Such was the sense of unity that it permitted the extension of the rules of participation to include indigenous non-member representatives in the fifth session of the CWorking Group. Quite a precedent!

At the conclusion of the meeting, I remained in Geneva to fill a short term position with the Indigenous Project Team at the United Nations Centre for Human Rights (´the Centre'). This ´pilot' team was created after recent restructuring of the Centre dismantled the Secretariat for the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. It is currently staffed by four people of whom three are required to work in other areas. The `pilot' status remains today.

During the two months at the Centre, I was involved with administration of the Indigenous Fellowship Programme and the Voluntary Fund of the International Decade of the Worlds' Indigenous Peoples. Amidst the frenzy of each day, many people of diverse backgrounds would drop by for coffee: a man from a remote tribe on a mountain in South America, people from various Church organisations promoting their causes, the Chairman of the Working Group wanting to discuss the report of the meeting, an intellectual property lawyer talking about gene and cell patenting, and various government mission delegates.

Overall, the experience was frustrating, enriching and enlightening. The United Nations is extremely bureaucratic and, with the recent restructuring, staff morale is low. One day, I ran from office to office looking for someone to answer a question. I have never heard `No', `I don't know', `It's not me' or `Who are you?' so many times in one day. The client-based corporate restructuring approach has not solved the bureaucratic dilemma. Human rights are neither products nor services.

On Christmas Day, I returned home with my head full of memories, and a big fat suitcase crammed with presents. I also returned with a greater awareness of the stance of indigenous peoples in the global context, where my previous focus had been primarily domestic. While I always knew other indigenous peoples were `out there', it all had seemed far removed.

I will never forget the shared visions, experiences and inspirations of so many people sharing the struggle.