World's Governments Pressed on Native Peoples' Rights

''This is an opportunity that must not be lost,'' said Nicholas Howen, secretary-general of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

He referred to a proposed Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues drafted the document over years of intense diplomacy involving governments, indigenous peoples' representatives, and numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The General Assembly is expected to discuss the declaration in coming days. Adopted by the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council in June, the document recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and resources and to live as they wish. It states that indigenous people must be protected from forced assimilation and the destruction of their cultures.

Even if approved, the document would not be legally binding. Nevertheless, its supporters say the declaration would serve to increase pressure on governments to observe universal principles such as justice, democracy, and nondiscrimination.

''Today's indigenous peoples are still threatened with extinction,'' said Stephen Corry, director of UK-based Survival International. ''They need this declaration.''

At issue is the treatment of disparate indigenous populations that, according to U.N. estimates, add up to more than 370 million people worldwide.

Many U.N. member states appear willing to adopt the declaration in its current form. Observers note, however, that some countries are pushing for changes in wording that could weaken the document's guarantees and protections.

Indigenous leaders said efforts to water down the wording are likely to fail.

''I feel very positive about the outcome from the General Assembly,'' Tonya Frichner, founder of the New York-based American Indian Law Alliance, told OneWorld.

''We have been assured of support from many regions of the world,'' she said.

The United States, Australia, and New Zealand have consistently opposed the text's embrace of indigenous peoples' demand for ''self-determination.''

''No government can accept the notion of creating different classes of citizens,'' delegations from the three countries said in a joint statement that also described indigenous communities' demand to determine their own affairs as ''inconsistent'' with international law.

Delegates also said indigenous land claims ignore current reality ''by appearing to require the recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens.''

Similar controversy has flared over the declaration's recognition of indigenous peoples' demand that the principle that the holders or seekers of commercial patents on seeds, plants, and other forms of traditional knowledge must first obtain consent from the communities that discovered or developed the assets in the first place.

U.S. and other delegates have countered that free and informed prior consent would run counter to the current intellectual property rights regime, which favors commercial development.

To indigenous representatives and advocates, however, such opposition to the declaration is the product of colonizers who have yet to face up to centuries of abuse and exploitation.

''Their view is fundamentally flawed because they don't recognize the fundamental freedom of the indigenous people,'' said Joshua Cooper, executive director of the Hawaii Institute for Human Rights.

Adopting the declaration remains a historical necessity, said Survival International's Corry.

''The imperial era was largely based on the dispossession of most of the world's indigenous people,'' he added. ''It cannot be considered over until the world accepts these peoples' rights.''