And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From: Robert Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ANALYSIS OF DINEH CASE AND NEEDS
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>From BIGMTLIST
The following is a paper written by Gabor Rona, Senior Staff Attorney of the
Center for Constitutional Rights, following his five-day visit with the
Dine' of Black Mesa.
ANALYSIS OF DINEH CASE AND NEEDS
Submitted by: Gabor Rona
Senior Staff Attorney
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
(212) 614-6437
Date: March 1, 1999
1. Description of case/issues
In continuing pursuit of a policy whose effects, if not means, are
indistinguishable from the ethnic cleansing and genocide visited on Native
peoples throughout American history, the United States seeks to relocate
all Navajo (Dineh) people living on that portion of traditional Navajo
lands recently designated by the government to be for the exclusive use and
occupancy of the Hopi. This policy is the solution to a nonexistent but
cleverly manufactured "range war" between the Hopi and Navajo, who have, in
fact, coexisted peaceably for many generations. How and why has this
happened?
Events leading to removal of the Navajo can be traced back to the 1864
"Long Walk," or forced relocation by Kit Carson of 10,000 Navajo from their
ancestral homeland. The belief that gold was abundant in Navajo territory
enabled settlers, with the aid of the U.S. military, to easily overcome any
concerns they may have had about the Navajo�s explicit rights to live
unmolested in their ancient territory. The 7,000 survivors of the march
were concentrated at Ft. Sumner, where many more died in the barbaric
conditions of their internment. Meanwhile, hostilities between the Navajo
and the U.S. were brought to an official end in an 1868 treaty, reserving
for the Navajo, territory spanning the borders of present-day Arizona and
New Mexico. In subsequent decades, the U.S. pushed the Navajo westward by
forcing them to cede eastern portions of their treaty lands. Eventually,
the Navajo surrounded the much smaller Hopi Nation. In 1882, President
Chester Arthur issued an Executive Order establishing the territory as a
reservation for the Hopi and Navajo.
By the early 20th century, oil was discovered on Navajo lands, but with a
readily visible governing structure lacking, the already reluctant Navajo
were unable to approve oil leases required to legitimize the intrusion. In
1922, with the prodding of the Bureau of Indian Affairs� (BIA) "Indian
agent," the U.S. imposed a federally approved government on the Navajo
(including careful selection of its leaders) to facilitate the tribe�s
approval of oil leases sought by Standard Oil.
In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act. Under the guise
of support for the ideal of self-determination, tribes were encouraged and
pressured to establish electoral, "representative" governments that oil and
mining companies and the BIA could more easily control than they could
traditional leadership. In 1936, an election boycotted by the majority of
Hopi opposed to nontraditional governance, established a government
recognized by the U.S.
Unsettled boundary issues between the Hopi and Navajo remained an obstacle
to mineral leasing interests. The 1882 Executive Order establishing the
Hopi and Navajo Reservation did not establish distinct Hopi and Navajo
areas. In 1941, the BIA designated a portion of the 1882 reservation
exclusively for Hopi use, and the remainder, as "Navajo/Hopi Joint Use Area."
In the 1950s, lawyers seeking self-enrichment at the expense of the tribes,
insinuated themselves, with BIA approval, as counsel for tribal governments
formed through their efforts. John Boyden, a Salt Lake City lawyer was
retained as Hopi counsel. Boyden, a Mormon Deacon, also represented the
Peabody Coal Company and was counsel for the Mormon Church, which owned a
controlling interest in Peabody Coal. (Thus, Peabody eventually gained
subsurface rights on exclusive Hopi territory for a fraction of fees paid
elsewhere, and continues to lease mineral rights in Navajo/Hopi territory
to this day.) Attorney Norman Littell was hired by the Navajo Tribal
Council. His contract provided him with 10% of coal revenues. Both lawyers
were also motivated by statutory fees of 10% in Indian Claims Commission
(I.C.C.) cases, seeking damages for wrongful taking of native lands. Only
after accepting settlements did tribes typically learn the real purpose of
the I.C.C.: to settle land claims by paying a pittance and thereby
foreclose actions to recover lands wrongfully taken. Both lawyers were
instrumental in the creation of tribal governments willing to sign mineral
leases and to pursue I.C.C. claims. Under their lawyers� guidance, the
tribes filed a collusive lawsuit against each other in 1958 , each tribe
claiming the entire 1882 reservation. Decided in 1962, the case basically
affirms the 1941 BIA designation of a portion of the reservation as
exclusive Hopi land and the rest as Joint Use Area.
High-grade, low-sulphur, strippable coal was discovered on exclusive Hopi
land and Joint Use land in the 1960s. Hopi/Peabody leases were signed in
1966. A lawsuit was brought by traditional Hopi, challenging the authority
of their putative government and alleging contamination and depletion of
surface and ground water, destruction of 4,000 ancient Anasazi Cliff
dwellings and desecration of burial and other sacred sites. The suit was
dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party (the Hopi tribe) that
could not be joined due to sovereign immunity. By its ruling, the Court
simply avoided the claim that the recognized government was fraudulently
imposed.
Exploitation of Joint Use land continued to be problematic, given dual
tribal interests, but the lawyers had a solution. Coinciding with the
pressures of the 1970s energy crisis, and long before "Wag the Dog," the
attorneys and mining interests planted stories about a budding "range war"
between Hopi and Navajo (there is even evidence that Boyden retained a
public relations firm to promote the story) and lobbied hard for federal
legislation that was required to separate Hopi and Navajo interests. In
1974, with little opportunity for input from tribal people, Congress passed
the Navajo Hopi Settlement Act, dividing the Joint Use Area into Navajo
Partition Land (NPL), on which lived 100 Hopi, and Hopi Partition Land
(HPL), on which lived 13,000 Navajo. Those on the wrong side of the line
were required to relocate.
Over the course of the next decade, thousands of Navajo were evicted from
their homes and sacred lands. In 1988, Manybeads v. U.S. was filed to stop
the relocations. The class action challenges the Navajo relocation
primarily by alleging that it destroys the Navajo�s right to exercise
site-specific religion. The Court dismissed, stating, among other things,
that "relocation benefits (provided by the U.S.) would be the envy of
countless millions in other countries." The 9th Circuit detoured the case
into mediation, which was wrestled from the grasp of the plaintiffs into
that of the tribal governments. They negotiated an Accommodation Agreement,
permitting only specified individuals to sign, and thereby to stay put for
75 years but thereafter to forego relocation benefits. Other Dineh who
were ineligible to sign were simply required to move on.
Through the federally established Navajo Hopi Indian Relocation
Commission, a total bounty of $25 million to the Hopi was placed on Navajo
Accommodation Agreement signatures, resulting in fraud, threats and
intimidation. The nonsigning resistors who cooperate with the ONHIR in
their removal have some say in the location and construction of replacement
housing. Resistors who do not cooperate will be concentrated in an area
called the "New Lands." Purchased at a bargain basement price by the U.S.
in 1980, the New Lands, near Sanders, Arizona, are completely inadequate
for subsistence grazing and agriculture, and are 60 miles downstream from
the containment dam that held back uranium-contaminated water until the dam
burst and the water spilled into the Rio Puerco in 1979. Removal of both
cooperating and noncooperating resistors, begins in February, 2000.
Meanwhile, the ONHIR enforces a strict prohibition against repairs and
improvements to the properties of resistors. New glass for a broken window
must be smuggled in. Vehicles and homes are searched for building
materials, which when found, are confiscated. Both signors and nonsignors
alike are subject to grazing restrictions that require them to sell most of
their sheep and cattle, leaving them with insufficient numbers to maintain
a subsistence living. Those who refuse to sell have their animals forcibly
removed and killed.
The Manybeads plaintiffs are now petitioning the 9th Circuit to revisit
the merits of their claims, alleging the failure of mediation. In addition,
the Navajo are pursuing political clout with the U.N. Human Rights
Committee and Commission, the White House, the BIA, the Department of
State, and other agencies.
2. Legal and historic context
a. International Human Rights and the Special Case of Native
Americans�The Historic Context.
The right of self-determination, the right to pursue one�s religion and
culture, the right of access to legal remedies, the right to subsistence,
to equal protection of law under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) are all implicated. Customary international law prohibiting
genocide and concerning aboriginal rights of use and occupancy of land also
apply, as do rights under the Genocide Convention, the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ILO
Convention 169 (Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries), and the American Convention on Human Rights. The U.N.
Charter�s provisions concerning the rights of non-self-governing peoples
has also been violated.
The rights and obligations of nations under the Vienna Convention on
Treaties provide a context for critical, fundamental, and novel analysis
of the status of indigenous tribes in international law. At the dawn of the
colonial period, the Indian nations were treated by colonial authorities
and their master governments as just that: nations, with whom relations
were conducted by treaty. This was consistent with then prevailing
standards of international law, which recognized a limit to colonial
authority arising out of the mere fact of �discovery�. It was also
consistent with, and more probably the consequence of, a practical fact:
the relative strength and continentwide presence of the tribes in contrast
to the precarious east coast foothold of the fledgling European colonies.
By the early nineteenth century, the loss of native land base to the
irrepressible force of manifest destiny destroyed the ability of the Indian
nations to feed and otherwise provide for the survival of their people.
That fact, tempered by a lack of national will to affect the total
annihilation of native peoples, determined the standards that would govern
Indian/federal relations to this day. As a necessary corollary to their
diminished status, Indian tribes were declared by Chief Justice John
Marshall to be "domestic dependant nations...in a state of pupilage...their
relation to the United States resembl(ing) that of a ward to his guardian."
A concomitant of the guardian/ward trust relationship is the plenary
power doctrine, pursuant to which Congress has exercised one and a half
centuries of unbridled authority in Indian affairs. Along with, and as a
consequence of the Indians� loss of land base and lost means of independent
survival, plenary power justified congressional and judicial usurpation of
the Indian nations� sovereignty over their own people. By 1871, bilateral
treaty-making was outlawed in favor of legislation over people who, lacking
citizenship, enjoyed no right of representation. Responsibility for
Indian affairs had shifted from the War Department to the Department of the
Interior, signaling the shift of Indian relations from the realm of foreign
to domestic affairs. The very existence of an Indian tribe and the identity
of its members became a prerogative of Congress. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs thus replaced the buffalo.
The guardian/ward/trust relationship and the plenary power of Congress
over Indian affairs, the two fundamental common law doctrines dominating
all questions regarding Native rights, both stem from the early
nineteenth-century era of crusading manifest destiny, when Indians and
tribes were, at best, deemed savage inferiors in need of the civilizing
effect of assimilation or, at worst, savage obstacles to civilization in
need of eradication. These doctrines have no foundation in either the
domestic or international law extant at the time of their annunciation.
Rather, they are hypocritical, utilitarian measures designed to create a
rhetorical construct pursuant to which the requirements of "utmost good
faith" may be enunciated, while genocide is performed on people relegated
to being "strangers to the Constitution."
b. Constitutional Rights and the Navajo Situation
Under domestic legal doctrines, the U.S. has violated its
fiduciary/trust
responsibilities to the Navajo people and engages in unlawful racial
discrimination, in violation of due process and equal protection rights, by
requiring Native people to vacate their land, while never having required
non-Natives to vacate Native lands. Relocation also violates the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The U.S. also violates environmental laws in permitting harm to the Navajo
homelands and water table through mining and in seeking to remove Navajo
people to lands that are contaminated by spills of uranium-contaminated water.
c. Looking Back to See Ahead
Attorney Lee Brooke Phillips, for the Big Mountain Legal Office and
National Lawyers Guild; The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), through
Ellen Yaroshefsky; Rabinowitz, Boudin, for the National Emergency Civil
Liberties Committee; and Bruce Ellison were among the attorneys who filed
Manybeads in 1988. Today, no less than then, the case hits on all
cylinders of the public interest, including International Human Rights,
Civil Rights, Racial Justice, Government Misconduct, and Economic and
Social Rights.
Over the years, the United States has assumed varying degrees of
responsibility for Indian survival. Federal Indian policy has fluctuated.
During the treaty period, 1789�1871, Native people were removed from their
ancestral homelands and concentration onto reservations. Next was the
disastrous drive toward forced assimilation (1871�1928), followed by a
period stressing tribal reorganization (1928�1942). Thereafter came the
"termination" of tribes, at least in the sense of federal oversight
(1943�1961). Since the 1960s, there have been schizophrenic strands of all
the prior policies combined with ideals of self-determination. It is in
this historic context that Felix Cohen analogized our treatment of Native
Americans to the canary in the coal mine.
Native Americans are now the poorest, least healthy, least educated
minority in this country. They have the highest rate of infant mortality,
the lowest life expectancy, and are more likely to be victims of violence
than other minorities. While many laws are violated to keep them that way,
the historic drive to dispossess Native Americans has fomented a legal
cottage industry of hypocrisy called federal Indian law, much of it in
violation of international law, under which oppression and destruction of
Native American is codified. The Navajo�s experience exemplifies what
crimes can be rationalized under the rubric of due process. As such, it is
a case requiring reform, as well as enforcement of the law.
This is a propitious time for a frontal assault on the retrograde
doctrines used to justify the oppression of Native Americans in general,
and the Navajo, in particular. Enthusiasm is waning in the executive and
administrative offices responsible for Navajo relocation. Perhaps
authorities do have the stomach to forcibly remove hundred year old
grandmothers from their homes, but not if the whole world is watching and
the people resist. One bureaucrat is alleged to have said "It is becoming
increasingly difficult to attract people of competence and integrity to
administer a program of genocide."
It was false and racist premises that characterized the shift from respect
for tribes as nations to their denigration to subjects of plenary power.
Now, there is an opportunity to advocate for the reinstatement of
treaty-based dealings, based upon the right of self-determination and
consistent with the requirements of the Vienna Convention on Treaties. As a
law reform case, the Navajo situation presents an opportunity to push the
legal envelope in the interest of justice for the underdog. Since the law
and the Navajo situation cannot get much worse, efforts can only help save
a people from destruction and, in the process, advocate for a new, humane
construct for relations with Native Americans and tribes.
This case also presents an opportunity for Native people to continue to
build a presence and credibility in international human rights advocacy at
the United Nations and before administrative and executive organs of the
federal government, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Department
of Justice, and the State Department.
3. Individuals or groups who are committed to do legal, organizing, and/or
education work.
In addition to existing counsel of record that remain active in the
case,
legal assistance may come from other attorneys with proven track records in
Native rights advocacy, organizations that advocate for environmental
justice and religious freedom, former government officials familiar with
the issues involved in relocation policy, historians, anthropologists, and
other academic experts.
There is a substantial support network of extremely energetic,
articulate, and well connected advocates for the Navajo cause. The Dineh�s
organizational name is Sovereign Dineh Nation and they have cultivated
relations with influential and sympathetic authorities in the U.N. and in
relevant federal agencies. There is also reason to be optimistic about the
potential fruit of efforts to win backing in Congress. As a result of
organizing and lobbying efforts to date, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on
Religious Intolerance made a site visit last year and will present his
report to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva this spring. It is the
first time a U.N. Human Rights organ officially and publicly took on
investigation of a specific case against the U.S. Also as a result of their
efforts, meetings have been held and will continue to be held with
policy-level people in the BIA, Department of Justice, State Department,
and White House.
This is a notorious case that also draws interest and offers of
cooperation from the nation�s best-known Native law scholars, historians,
anthropologists, psychologists, celebrities, and mainstream and alternative
media. The work of the U.N. will be a substantial catalyst for media
attention and a powerful source of pressure, mostly through "quiet
diplomacy" on U.S. policy. The Christian Science Monitor featured a
front-page story on January 26, 1999. CNN and Time Magazine are working on
stories that will culminate with a possible confrontation over grazing
rights in the course of the next several days or weeks. Other media
organizations have demonstrated interest and one law firm has offered
assistance as a networking resource.
4. Summary of status and needs
a. The Manybeads case is pending in the 9th Circuit. Remand would be to
the U.S. District Court of Arizona. Otherwise, there will be a Cert.
Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Dineh need help in the court case.
b. There is also a need to support the substantial activity on behalf of
the Dineh taking place at the United Nations (New York and Geneva).
c. A lobbying presence needs to be established in D.C., in connection with
the authority of various federal agencies, Congress and the White House.
d. There also needs to be a legal or quasi-legal presence on the
reservation (i) to assist people with day-to-day issues arising in
connection with livestock confiscations and with the ongoing abusive
activities of the Relocation Commission, and (ii) to act as a link between
the clients and advocacy efforts taking place on their behalf.
e. Finally, there is another urgent need that, if addressed, will help the
people immeasurably, and without regard to the success of efforts to
prevent their relocation. The Dineh resistors� life consists of an
intolerable web of jurisdictions and regulations affecting their ability to
graze livestock, to repair and improve their homes, to gather firewood, and
to maintain sources of potable water. The law recognizes different degrees
of right and privilege in these matters for those eligible to sign
accommodation agreement than it does for the noneligible. Of the eligible,
it distinguishes those who have signed from those who have not. Of those
who have signed, it creates subclasses of privileges based on distinctions
concerning full-time presence vs. temporary absence from the land. Of those
who are ineligible or who choose to not sign, it creates distinctions based
on a family�s indication of desire (or lack) to cooperate in their
relocation. Since only heads of household are recognized as eligible to
sign accommodation agreements, survivors of deceased signors lose their
beneficiary status.
Only a police state can enforce such intrusive regulations that meet with
understandable resistance because they have such a dramatic impact on the
ability of individuals and communities to survive. Armed Hopi, Navajo, and
BIA police and rangers maintain constant surveillance. One eighty year old
woman�s horse was impounded while she attended a meeting. Thirteen armed
rangers in four vehicles arrived at her home and physically held back her
nonresisting son while they removed the horse. She then received a bill for
over $800, the cost of the impoundment operation. There are many such
stories, akin to the Chinese government�s humiliating tactic of sending a
bill for the cost of the bullet to the family of its execution victim.
A complex and abusive bureaucratic machinery, now of at least two
generations� duration, has imposed a heavy psychological burden on the
Dineh. It has led to great fear and loss of hope and dignity. The sense of
desperation and depression is pervasive. In addition, the existence of
different classes of rights accorded by law or regulation to different
categories of Dineh people has created confusion and divisive schisms in
the community. Quite apart from assistance and advocacy designed to improve
their legal situation, the Dineh need and can benefit from psychological
intervention and community mediation efforts.
********************************************
You are on the BIGMTLIST, a moderated mailing list
of Big Mountain relocation resistance information
(not discussion or debate). To unsubscribe, email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject header. For non-list members receiving
this post as a forwarded message, you may subscribe
by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word
"subscribe" in the subject header. For Big Mountain
and other activist internet resources, visit "The
Activist Page" at
http://www.theofficenet.com/~redorman/welcome.html
Also, for great internet tools please visit:
http://www.msw.com.au/cgi-bin/msw/entry?id=1271
********************************************
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit)
Unenh onhwa' Awayaton
http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
