And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: from Elsbeth Vocat via warriornet Subject: WG99: Statement of the Navajo Nation Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 11:43:09 +0200 From: "Condori" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
