>from Elsbeth Vocat via warriornet
>Subject: WG99: Statement of the Navajo Nation
>Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:43:09 +0200
>From: "Condori" <tcondori@puebloindio.org>
>
>
>
>October 20, 1999
>Fifth Intersessional Working Group
>
>Statement of the Navajo Nation
>
>Mr. Chairman, my delegation congratulates you on your election
as
>chairman of the Working Group and for the accomplishments
made
>yesterday.
>
>I am here today as a delegate from the government of the Navajo
Nation.
>As a government, I hope we can dialogue on a government to
government
>basis.
>
>The Navajo Nation entered into a treaty with the United States
in 1868
>which was ratified by the US Senate. The language in the treaty
refers
>to our people as a "Nation". By this action, the
US chose to relate to
>my people as a Nation on a equal footing with the US government.
>Inherent in the treaty of 1868 is the concept of self-determination.
>
>The Navajo Nation supports and finds essential to the Draft
Declaration
>on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples the concept of self-determination.
>In our view, self-determination is the linch-pin or foundation
upon
>which all other rights rests. Without self-determination Indigenous
>peoples cannot exercise, in a meaningfull manner, their rights
to
>practice their religion, their rights to live in harmony in
their lands
>and territories and the right to develop and control their
natural
>resources, among other rights.
>
>Without self-determination the exercise of these other rights
will be
>difficult at best and to our people meaningless. The position
of the US
>as express here with respect to sef-determination actually
makes a step
>backward from its official position taken within its borders.
The Navajo
>
>Nation does exercise self-determinatin in accordance with
>international and United States laws. The Navajo Nation has
its own
>police force, its own courts and legal system, a three branch
government
>
>including a legislature which enacts laws for the general
benefit of
>the Navajo people.
>
>The continued resistence by the US and other countries to
the concept of
>
>self-determination is an effort designed to erect an artificial
barrier
>between domestic and international law. The past assertion
that US
>domestic law would preclude ratification by the US Senate
is false. This
>
>is specially significant in light of the Indian Self-Determination
Act
>adopted by the US Congres which affirms the right of Indian
people to
>self-determination. More recently, the Native American Housing
>Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 reaffirmed the
US
>congressional policy of Indian self-determination.
>
>Domestic law should not limit the development of international
laws. Our
>
>examination of US laws does not reveal any law that would
specifically
>bar the adoption of the Draft Declaration. In our view, the
US decision
>to adopt the Draft Declaration in its current form should
be guided by
>policy considerations rather than misguided and illusionary
legal basis.
>
>This view is consistent with the recognized government to
government
>relationship existing between the US and Indian nations.
>
>The concern that self-determination includes the right of
secession is
>understandable but should not hinder further discussions.
As we
>previously stated, secession is likely not a viable option
for most
>Indignous peoples. It is the Navjo Nation's interest to have
the US
>honor its treaties to to the fullest extent. We must remember
that we
>are trying to obtain concensus on a draft declaration that
would
>recognize these rights. The recognition of this right and
other
>associated rights will mark a big step in the way Indigenous
Peoples are
>
>treated and probably lessen any efforts to secede. The alternative
is
>frightening. Denial of the right of self-determination and
other rights
>may only lead to the extinction of Indigenous Peoples.
>
>Mr. Chairman, the Navajo Nation challenges the states and
particularly,
>the US, why they fear recognizing the inherent right of
>self-determination that Indigenous peoples posses in concrete
terms so
>that we may respond.
>
>However, before I end, I want to take this opportunity to
comment on a
>statement made by the United States, in particular, the continued
>reference to Indian nations as member of "particular
groups within an
>existing state". We interpret this statement as reflecting
the position
>that Indian Nations are minorities or private associations.
This
>position was rejected by the United States Supreme Court where
it held
>that Indian nations were more than mere minorities or private
>associations and that the relationship between the United
States and
>Indian nations was a political relationship on a government
to
>government basis.
>
>Finally, the US Congres recently suspendet any further
>self-determination contracts which prevents Indian Nations
from assuming
>
>federal responsibilities towards Indian peoples. Therefore,
it is not
>entirely accurate in the US statement to assert that it manages
its
>"governmental programs in ways that promote tribal self-determination".
>
>Thank you, Mr. Chaiman.
>
>Reprinted under the Fair Use
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international
copyright law.
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
> Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
> Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
> http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
>