tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451502301315475776.post492123055072161943..comments2023-09-11T16:40:44.211+01:00Comments on TK Community: Indigenous Boycott at WIPOJohanna Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11167747296059368251noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451502301315475776.post-68081315948030526702008-10-17T18:29:00.000+01:002008-10-17T18:29:00.000+01:00It is absolutely disrespectful to indigenous and t...It is absolutely disrespectful to indigenous and traditional communities how they have been treated at the IGC 13th Session. Despite the fact that the WIPO IGC was intended and has in the past had as one of its purposes the participatory inclusion of indigenous and traditional communities (albeit as observers), it seems that the impending embarrassment at not having any tangible accomplishments after 7 years of Sessions, has led to the conscious decision to involve as least persons as possible in the decision-making process, which over the course of this week, has been shifted to behind closed doors involving regional delegates and their advisors. <BR/><BR/>How is it that the process is expected to be inclusive and for the benefit and protection of indigenous and traditional peoples, when they are excluded? Is it that it is still thought by some that government has the right and ability to represent indigenous and traditional peoples' interests? The move smacks of misplaced paternalism, a feature of international law of a time long gone, in relation to indigenous people. And what is more surprising and now seems condescending, is that on Thursday morning the new IGC Chairman met with the Indigenous Caucus to hear in person of their views and concerns.<BR/><BR/>But, is it a matter of sacrificing principles on the altar of expediency? Even if this is so, it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable from the IGC Chair, as well as from WIPO member states. But again, this may not be surprising considering the views of some member states. For example, despite the fact that from as early as the 12th Session, indigenous and traditional communities, increasingly frustrated by the political rhetoric and manoeuvres of member states, especially of developed countries, came out publicly in support of the African Group proposal to have Inter-sessiomal expert working group meetings to accelerate the deliberations, the African Group had the gall to suggest in its Proposal that national governments should manage and control indigenous and traditional people's cultural heritage. This therefore shows, unfortunately, that paternalism, is alive and well. And as the convenors of the closed door sessions, the African group certainly could have ensured that they invited the Indigenous Caucus to participate, just as the Caucus had invited the African Group to a meeting of the Caucus on Wednesday to engender some co-operation and consensus.<BR/><BR/>So while Groups A-D hold the fate of indigenous people's expectations of this process in their attache cases, indigenous people are kept on the fringes of the process, repeatedly relegated to side sessions for seemingly light entertainment. The whole lack of mental and political progress perhaps is summed up in the response of the IGC Chair to an indigenous elder from the Tupaj Amaru people who simply expressed his frustration at the seemingly never-ending process. The Chair, without an ounce of empathy, told the Elder to wrap up in three minutes. The indigenous representatives at the WIPO 13th Session therefore have been limited in their freedom of speech in the plenary and locked out of the real boardroom.<BR/><BR/>So, as the Indigenous Caucus remains outdoors, loitering around WIPO like idlers, while member states deliberate indoors, the inevitable question is, is it all worth it???Marcus Goffehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14628783921669457144noreply@blogger.com