-Caveat Lector- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Party of Citizens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [BCPOLITICS] Haida Nation
Thank you very much for your reply to my query on the Pacific Islands list, Greg. It is the most thorough reply I have received on this subject in my online campaign concerning First Nation sovereignty which has continued since 1995. In 1995 I registered POC and we put our first two token candidates up for the 2001 BC election. I have my videotape here of the All-Candidates Debate at which I say First Nations in BC are as sovereign as Nigeria or China. Premier Campbell replied with an unequivocal, NO THEY ARE NOT. But all the historical literature I can find supports what I am saying. Also the courts ruled clearly that First Nations in BC have an INHERENT right to self-government and not a DELEGATED right. When now-Premier Campbell was Official Opposition Leader he took that matter to court and lost. Now as Premier he has ignored the courts and is putting forward a BC referendum to help him decide what rights will be delegated to First Nations. Soon we will see how effective the boycott against the referendum is. BC's judges are outraged by this government for various reasons and have sent him an unprecedented letter of nonconfidence signed by all 146 provincial judges. I don't think we have seen this much political instability in BC's history and it is just beginning. In my opinion, the Campbell Government is proving to everyone why ALL British Columbians would benefit from a strong 4th. (Aboriginal) level of government. More "checks and balances" as the political analysts call it. Of course I doubt any Indian Nation here will secede from BC and Canada now or even in the near future. But it is certainly something they may do at some time and your information below will be very helpful to them. Thanks again. FWP/POC ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 04:29:46 +1000 From: Greg Rawlings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Haida Nation Dear Franklin, Am responding to your request for information on the Pacific Islands L-List. The UN Charter, the Vienna Convention (1969, 1978, 1983 and 1993) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) provide for the formation of new states/countries and mechanisms for international regulatory relationships among states and the former governing power. Prior to 1990 most new countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific that came into independent existence (as UN members) did so as a result of formal decolonization with their colonial era boundaries intact (even if they were contested eg. Nigeria & Biafra, Angola & Cabinda etc). This was done by the UN Special Committee on Decolonization for Non-Self-Governing Territories and Peoples. The exception was Bangladesh's 1973 separation from Pakistan. Now the UN Special Committee on Decolonization only has about 13 non-self-governing, mostly British and US, territories left on its list. One of the more intriguing points about this committee is that it grants the right to self determination to these territories regardless of their size, so even Pitcarin with a population of only 56 people is entitled to independence if it wants it. The dilemma is that todays colonies do not appear on this list and it is extremely difficult to get onto (eg. West Papua, French Polynesia and all the French DOM TOMs and I suppose one could argue many "fourth world" indigenous peoples such as Haida Nation). However, the 1990/1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, subsequent independence for Eriteria, East Timor and Namibia has thrown the post-World War II system of decolonization into disarray. Secession has now become a viable option for achieving independence, whereas before it was virtually impossible. It can be done by the conventions listed above, the main point being international recognition. However, I have never heard of an indigenous fourth world people successfully seceding and establishing their own country with full UN membership, because of the threat to territorial integrity. While the US recognises many of its Native American peoples as "Sovereign Nations", this does not mean that they are separate countries (which "Sovereign Nations" normally means at the UN). However, the US government's ability to avoid the internationalization of this issue has largely been achieved through grant's of massive amounts of money and federal subsidies to the Native American Nations. For instance I believe that one of the Nations, Navajo, I think was dealing directly with the government of the late Shah of Iran to establish some kind of oil project back in the 1970s. Anyway the I don't think (?) the US couldn't actually stop this, so just gave lots more money to Navajo to "persuade" them to cease dealing directly with the Iranian government as if they were a separate country. It's a very unclear area in international law. But if indigenous groups with geographically intact "tribal" territories were to effectively challenge such countries in the courts, who knows? it could effectively create an un-stoppable precedent eg. Luxembourg or Tuvalu sized countries in the middle of the continental USA or Canada no different in international law from Mexico or any other country for that matter!!! I think it would be something that the US, Canada and Australia would be too horrified to contemplate! Thus while Canada may give substantial autonomy to Nuvanut (and Denmark to Greenland/Tule) it's unlikely contemplate a Quebec style scenario at all! The Mohawk "revolt" at Oka was no doubt bad enough!! Speaking of the Iroquois, they tried to join the UN's precursor, the League of Nations in 1923. Their lawyer, George Decker produced a very convincing report entailed "The Redman's Appeal for Justice: The Position of the Six Nations That They Constitute an Independent State". Their application received support from Iran, Ireland, Estonia and Panama. Iroquois membership was blocked by Britain, and in particular a hostile Winston Churchill, with Canada then sending in the troops in about 1924. I have heard however, that Iroquois passports are recognized as international travel documents (like Knights of Malta passports apparently are), but am not sure of this and it would need to be confirmed. Anyway, these kinds of cases could possibly be used by Haida Nation as precedents for an independence. However, my guess is that any push for independence would be fiercely opposed by Canada with other countries joining in because of the precedence that this would give other fourth world groups around the world eg the supposed threat to "territorial integrity". There are however, "anomalies" in international law which Haida Nation could theoretically use to its advantage to argue a case for UN membership. These draw from various notions and definitions of sovereignty which seem to have been used by Andorra and Monaco. They have only been UN members since the early 1990s. Both claimed to have been sovereign entities since about the 12th century. However, both had "limited" forms of sovereignty eg. constraints on it. In Monaco's case, France has strong influence in the country's internal affairs and has clauses in its law to say that Monaco's Head of Government (though not of State) or Prime Minister, must be French. In Andorra's case both the French President and the Bishop of Urgel in Spain are co-Heads of State, but the country is fully independent. Both Monaco and Andorra seemed to have been able to manoeuvre around this contentious issue of sovereignty and gain UN membership. It would be interesting to see exactly what mechanisms they invoked, because both seemed to be invoking concepts of sovereignty which pre-dated the contemporary state. If Andorra is sovereign because it pre-dates both Spain and France as a political entity, then is this the same case for Haida if its sovereignty pre-dates that of Canada's (and is this recognized in Treaty form like the Iroquois?). These are interesting questions. I don't know how Haida would be received by the Pacific Community of nations. A number of Pacific countries go to great lengths to stress their own territorial integrity eg. Papua New Guinea and it's breakaway Province of Bougainville. Most Pacific Islands countries received their independence through the Special Committee on Decolonization, although the cases of Niue and the Cook Islands and their relationship to New Zealand might be worth investigating as these two countries were considered integral parts of NZ until the 1960s (I think?), but were then split off and became freely associated countries under UN supervision. You might want to contact the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre in Suva, Fiji for additional opinions on this. Franklin, all this is just from the top of my head and you would need to check the facts and figures of what I say above. I am not a lawyer so am really just brainstorming. Hope you don't mind! I do research on tax havens and Offshore Finance Centres and issues of what sovereignty actually means in many of these territories (such as the Isle of Man, Monaco, Andorra etc) have been of much concern lately. Kind regards, Greg Rawlings At 12:11 25/04/02 -0700, you wrote: >Does anyone have any opinions on how the Haida Nation would be received by >the Pacific Islands community of nations, if it were to seek status as a >Sovereign First Nation and UN member to emphasize the reality of sovereignty? > >Haida is on to-day's maps as the Queen Charlotte Islands of British >Columbia. I'm not saying that Haida IS seeking this support. Just >hypothetical for now. > >FWP > >------------------------------------ >For catalogs of online resources see: >Pacific Studies WWW Virtual Library >http://coombs.anu.edu.au/WWWVL-PacificStudies.html > Greg Rawlings, PhD Scholar Department of Anthropology DSE, RSPAS, Room 7209, Coombs Building No. 9 Fellows Road, The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, AUSTRALIA Telephone: (61) (2) 6125 3382 Fax: (61) (2) 6125 4896 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ANU CRICOS # 00120C ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/k6cvND/n97DAA/ySSFAA/XgSolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> According to <http://www.gov.bc.ca> some 3/4 of British Columbians were Internet users by 2001. In 5 years or so, the new EDD, "Electronic Direct Democracy" will be fully developed and the CITIZENS' PARLIAMENT will hold the reins of power daily over the Victoria Parliament. The 1996 Recall and Initiative Act enables CITIZENS to recall even the Premier. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
