So near, yet so far. On 29 June 2006, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There was euphoria. The Human Rights Council vindicated its establishment. Asian Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Network (AITPN) too was cautiously optimistic.

Exactly five months later, on 28 November 2006, Namibia opposed the draft resolution (A/C.3/61/L.18/Rev.1)  sponsored by Peru for the adoption of the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. Namibia put a spanner by introducing an amendment to Peru sponsored resolution seeking to defer consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and to allow time for further consultations thereon. With Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America having already rejected adoption of the Draft Declaration by the Human Rights Council, Namibia had a cake walk - 85 votes in favour, 67 against and 25 abstentions.

Namibia's amendments also urged to conclude consideration of the Declaration before the end of the sixty first session of the UN General Assembly i.e. by 2007.

As we go to the print, the African Union in a decision on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DOC. ASSEMBLY/AU/9 (VIII) ADD.6) affirmed "to maintain a united position in the negotiations on amending the Declaration" and decided to re-draft five cardinal issues of the Draft Declaration: definition of indigenous peoples; right of self-determination; ownership of land and resources; establishment of distinct political and economic institutions; and national and territorial integrity.

The assertion of the African Union in its decision that "the vast majority of the peoples of Africa are indigenous to the African Continent" has been heard umpteen times during the drafting of the Declaration by the Working Group on the Draft Declaration of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Since the creation of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations under the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1982, Asian governments repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised the issue of definition of "indigenous peoples". They are all set to join the "spoil party" being hosted by the African Union.

Asian indigenous peoples played a critical role to dismiss the lies of their governmental representatives by digging out historical records, court judgements, national laws etc to show "who are the indigenous peoples" of Asia. But, drafting at the Third Committee level will be held without the participation of the stakeholders i.e. indigenous peoples.

The United Nations was created with lofty goals and ideals, among others, not to repeat the mistakes of the League of Nations and not to see repetition of the holocaust of the Second World War. But those who were instrumental for the creation of the UN in 1945 did not include "indigenous peoples" under the notion "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS" as given in the Charter of the United Nations.

Some historical mistakes have been repeated time and again. From Rwanda to Darfur, member States of the United Nations remained mute witness to genocides. A Declaration for those excluded from the Charter of the United Nations has been drafted and placed for proclamation by the UN General Assembly. But a resurgent Africa, which is determined to destroy UN human rights mechanisms to stop socalled interference by the Western countries with regard to indefensible situations like Darfur construed the Draft Declaration as another instrument to interfere in its internal affairs. The judgement of the High Court of Botswana of 13 December 2006 which recognised the rights of the Basarwas to live in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve would have further ensured confluence of the positions of the African Union in one hand and Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America, on the other. Many European indigenous support groups supported the rights of the Basarwas.

"Indigenous" in the context of "Draft Declaration" must neither be construed in literal sense as understood in common parlance in English nor in the context of European colonisation alone. If "indigenous" is to be construed in literal sense, Englishmen would be indigenous to England, Germans would be indigenous to Germany, Asians would be indigenous to Asia etc. If identification of "indigenous peoples" is to be construed only in European colonization context, it would be a case of "inverse racism".

During the drafting of the Declaration at the Commission on Human Rights, most African governments were absent. They must not dilute the Draft Declaration now!