Dear Big Mountain Supporters,
This was written by Timo Schaefer, German Human Rights Observers.
Please publish this Open Letter and post it to your networks.
Thank you,
Marsha Monestersky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Timo Schaefer
e-mail: hyperlink mailto:Timo.Schaefer@surfinn.com
Timo.Schaefer@surfinn.com
OPEN LETTER
To
Mr. Eugene Kaye
The Hopi Tribe
Office of the Chairman
Kykotsmovi, Arizona 86039
Dear Mr. Kaye,
I am writing to you as an international human rights-observer
for FIAN
(Foodfirst Information & Action Network), a human rights organization
for the
right to feed oneself with consultative status at the United Nations.
I am
here together with other human rights observers to investigate
human rights
violations against Dineh elders in Big Mountain, as allegedly
perpetrated by
the US-government and the Hopi Tribal Council. We were invited
to come to Big
Mountain by these elders, who are facing relocation from the land
which they
have inhabited for generations and which is the center of their
economic and
spiritual life.
In my role as an international observer I have so far
- read a wide range of testimonies and articles on the Navajo-Hopi
land
dispute by Dineh and Dineh supporters;
- read a wide range of testimonies and articles on the same
subject by Hopi
people;
- talked to Dineh resistors about their attitude
towards this land dispute
and their
impending eviction.
So far I was not able to talk to Hopi people, but collegues
of mine met with
a delegation of twenty Hopi on March 2nd in order to listen to
their side of
the story, and they gave me a detailed report of that meeting.
With that background, I have arrived at this personal evaluation
of the human
rights situation on HPL which will be open to corrections in the
process of
my investigation:
The Hopi claim that this land rightfully belongs to them, that
they have
lived on this land since time immemorial, that they are descendants
of the
Anasazi people and that the Dineh only came to Big Mountain two
or three
hundred years ago.
The Dineh claim that this land rightfully belongs to them, that
they have
lived on this land since time immemorial, that they are descendants
of the
Anasazi people and that the Hopi only came to Big Mountain when
it was
already inhabited by Dineh.
Both parties are in possession of absolute truth and have bulletproof
evidence to sustain their version of history. Both parties warn
the public
not to listen to their opponents since they are only telling lies
and messing
up peoples minds.
However that may be, it seems to me that these arguments are
of no relevance
when evaluating current human rights violations against Dineh
on HPL.
So far undisputed is: Many Dineh were born on HPL. They have spent
all their
lives (in some cases more than eighty years) on that land herding
sheep and
growing small crops. . The Dineh feel spiritually related to that
land and
say that their culture and religion are identical to the land
they live on.
Thus evicting them from their land means destroying the essence
of their
life; means destroying their culture and spirituality. The appropriate
term
for that (and this is no throwing around with ominous buzz
words) is
ethnocide. And destroying peoples lifes clearly constitutes
a human rights
violation.
Now you are stating that certain Dineh elders actually have the
opportunity
to stay on their (in terms of who always lived there) land by
signing the
Accomodation Agreement. There are many reasons why that is no
acceptable
option for the Dineh on HPL. Here are some that seem particularly
important
to me:
Signers must live under the jurisdiction of a government (Hopi
Tribal
Council) which they are not allowed to participate in and which
is openly
prejudiced against, if not hostile to them. That also applies
to police and
other authorities they would have to deal with and upon whose
goodwill they
would often have to rely. Prejudices that we have already heard
articulated
against Dineh by Hopi are plenty.
The agreement allots only 2800 SYUL to be divided among all
the families
which is less than the number needed to sustain their traditional
subsistence
herding. Thus the agreement allows them to live on the land while
denying
them a means of survival if they do. This contradicts the agreements
and
Hopi Tribal Councils claim that Dineh signers and Hopi are
treated equally
on HPL: A grazing-study by the BIA conducted in 1996 concludes
that HPL can
sustain 12797 SUYL, out of which only 2800 are allotted to the
Dineh. In
fact, in Hopi Tribal Council Resolution H-026-98 there appears
a list of
priorities for issuing grazing permits on HPL. Accomodation Agreement
Signatories are the seventh lowest priority out of a number
of seven
priorities.
The agreement prevents the Dineh from burying their dead on
their ancestral
land as required by their religion. That alone is unacceptable
for
traditional Dineh and reason enough not to sign the agreement.
The agreement provides its signers with a 75-years lease for
their land
without guaranteeing the continuation of that lease after that
period. This
violates the Dinehs responsibility to be stewards of their
sacred land so
that their children can continue in their religion and way of
life.
- Last but not least not all the Dineh living on HPL are
eligible to sign
the agreement.
I believe that the arguments mentioned above demonstrate clearly
that the
Accomodation Agreement denies the Dineh basic human rights, i.e.
the right to
adequate nutrition and the right to exercise ones religion.
It would be very helpful for my ongoing investigation to know
your opinion
about these arguments as this will enable me to arrive at a thorough
and
unbiased evaluation of the human rights situation on HPL.
Sincerely Yours
(Timo Schaefer, German human rights observer)