My Perfect Response Would Have Lost the Room
On why being correct is not the same as being helpful.
Good morning team,
This week an NGO took the floor to defend the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in a resolution text.
Right instinct. And then they complicated it.
Here’s what happened:
One member state flagged a concern about the collective rights framing. The usual argument. Human rights are individual. Universal. No groups. No collectives. Three countries in the world hold this position and they hold it every session, every informal, every year. You cannot argue them out of it. It is not a position to them. It is DNA.
Seven member states raised their flags after that and came in support of Indigenous Peoples in the text. So, to me, the room had already done the work.
Then an NGO took the floor. And in that intervention they said: For future reference, texts should consider referring to “Indigenous Peoples and individuals.”
Then I was given the floor.
I already had done the math: Seven states in favor. One flagging a concern. Just the NGO intervention that needed to be addressed.
Now here is the thing. That NGO was not wrong.
Technically, they were correct. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples addresses both the collective and the individual dimensions of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you go through the Declaration carefully, both are there. So by the letter of the law, the phrasing is an accurate reference.
But accurate and helpful are not always the same thing. And in that room, on that day, with that particular member state having just flagged collective rights as a concern, introducing individuals into the conversation was like opening a door that seven member states had just quietly pushed shut.
That is the Pandora’s box problem.
Not that the word is wrong in the abstract. But that once it is in the room, you cannot control what gets built on top of it. If individuals belongs next to Indigenous Peoples, one State could askwhat about women? What about youth? What about persons with disabilities? Every category has an advocate. Every advocate has language ready. And suddenly a holistic reference becomes a laundry list. And a laundry list is not a peoples’ rights framework. It is a menu, and menus get negotiated down.
That is the consequence of technically correct at the wrong moment.
Now, after nine Human Rights Councils I’ve built a cheat sheet. A database of templates. If a member state challenges collective rights, response ready. Adds local communities to Indigenous Peoples, ready. If they push on the Declaration being aspirational, response ready. If they introduce individuals next to Indigenous Peoples, response ready. Thirty seconds version. A minute and a half version. A full dissertation if the room requires it. The preparation is real and it matters.
But preparation is not the same as deployment.
Knowing when to use it is the actual skill.
Like I said before. Seven states in favor. One flagging a concern. The room had already spoken. Me raising my hand with a complete dissertation at that moment would not have been defending Indigenous Peoples. It would have been reopening a debate the room had quietly decided to move past. Giving the one state that raised the concern more airtime than the seven states that answered it.
So the cheat sheet remained minimized on my laptop.
I came in support of the inclusion, and said that it’s not necessary to have any qualifications or clarifications around Indigenous Peoples in that operative paragraph. We are very comfortable with how the paragraph has been written and with the holistic reference to Indigenous Peoples.
That is it. Done.
No debunking. No dissertation. Finesse over force.
That is where the NGO got it wrong. Not in the substance. In the reading of the room.
There is something else worth naming here. This organization did not have ECOSOC consultative status. To participate in a Human Rights Council informal you need it. General or special ECOSOC status, but you need it. Unfortunately that is the rule and it applies to everyone.
We are working on changing that. The enhanced participation process is supposed to build a real pathway for Indigenous Peoples to participate as peoples, not just as NGOs routing through ECOSOC. That work matters enormously. Right now it is at a standstill. Not a deadlock where two sides are actively negotiating. A standstill where the process has simply stopped moving. So the ECOSOC requirement is still the reality on the ground.
When an organization without that status takes the floor, it is worth being mindful of what that signals. If that organization is representing an Indigenous Peoples, it reflects on the broader picture of how Indigenous representatives are perceived in these processes. Not the end of the world. But not nothing either. You do not hand the opposition a procedural question when you are already fighting for the substance.
The deeper thing I want to say is this.
Everyone in these rooms knows their material. That is not the thing. Every experienced representative in these rooms has the templates. The legal arguments. The international law references. The historical context. That preparation is super important. But, it is not sufficient.
What matters beyond the preparation is reading what the room actually needs in that specific moment. Not what you have ready. Not what you want to say. What the negotiation needs.
Sometimes the room needs the full response. The thirty seconds. The minute and a half. The dissertation. When one state is pushing hard and the room is uncertain, you deploy it. You go full throttle and you make the case.
And sometimes the room has already made the case for you. Seven states in favor. One flagging a concern. At that point the only thing left to do is to just show your flag. State your position. Hold the language. Put your hand down.
Indigenous Peoples is a holistic reference. It has always been enough. The Declaration was built on that precision and it does not need a companion word. Not because the individual dimension doesn’t exist. It does and the Declaration says so. But because the moment you start adding words next to Indigenous Peoples in a room where collective rights are being challenged, you are no longer defending the framework. You are negotiating it. And that is a different game entirely.
So, before your next intervention in any UN room, ask yourself one question.
What does this room actually need from me right now. Not what do I have ready.
What does the room need. Sometimes the answer is everything you have prepared. Sometimes the answer is one clean sentence and then sit back and relax.
Knowing the difference is the whole game.
Remember, a bull charges every red cloth. That is why the bull loses.
See you next week!
P.S: What you missed this week:
A member state tried to slip in two words into a disability resolution at second reading. I explained how I pushed back.
The WHO pathogen access text dropped. I showed how language proposals actually travel from my phone to the negotiating floor.
I spotted a pattern forming across mandate renewals that only becomes visible if you zoom out across rooms.
Two people recorded an informal. I explained why that is not just a personal risk.
Stop using “indigeneity” in your statements. I explained what to say instead.
And at 2am on Thursday I submitted the UN80 input. Architecture, not letters.
Monthly members get daily briefs where I break down every move.