And now:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by imo16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id 5CVGa28697 (3704)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 11:55:00 EDT
Subject: Re: DDRIP
The following is based on a meetings with State Department people at the Kennedy
School of Government and our talks with them in Geneva. I am an attorney who works
for the Navajo Nation (for identification only) and I have a background in
international law.
Jim Zion
-----------------------------------------
I will offer one view of the State Department's essential position.
When we have spoken with State Department people on the Draft Declaration,
they have admitted that they know very little about American Indian law and
how that fits into the discussions. The State Department position is being
put forward by Michael Dennis, and he drafted the positions on both the Draft
Declaration and the Organization of American States declaration. The theme
of the State Department's position is essentially two-faced.
First, they say, that Amerian Indians and other indigenous peoples are doing
very nicely under U.S. law and they don't need international protection. The
State Department is attempting to stall and defeat the Declaration, or water
it down so it has no meaning. The State Department documents do a lot of
"tsk-tsking" about indigenous peoples honoring civil rights. The most
outrageous one is that indigenous peoples should honor gender equality, when
the U.S. rejected the Equal Rights Amendment, and gender is not a "protected
classification" for purposes of discrimination law.
Another two-faced aspect of the State Department's position is that it holds
"consulations" with Indian nations (wanting of course to make certain that
Native Hawaiians are not part of the process) shortly before gatherings in
Geneva. They are held on short notice, and many Indian nation leaders cannot
afford to attend. Then, they report that everyone's happy and the indigenous
leaders have been consulted.
The State Department fields three groups of people in Geneva: First, the
State Department itself, advised by Michael Dennis. I categorize Dennis'
arguments as racist, and they speak for themselves. Second, the Office of
Tribal Justice in the U.S. Justice Department. They are "yes" people for the
State Department's positions. Third, Elizabeth Homer, for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, another "yes" person to State.
The State Department people react in horror and deny it when they are accused
of wanting to defeat or water down the Declaration. They are excellent
liars. All one need do is read what the State Department is putting out.
The difficulty is picking up on what State is doing. For the past several
years, when indigenous representatives attempt to speak out, tell the truth,
and point out that the emperor has no clothes, they are immediately shut up.
These views are based on meetings with State Department people, participation
in Geneva, and following what is going on. The problem is that we in the
United States have not united and gone public on the issues.
The most hilarious part of the State Department's position is that its people
say that they are not behind the Declaration because the United States does
not want to support international standards it knows it cannot keep.
James W. Zion
Navajo Working Group for Human Rights
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/
UPDATES: CAMP JUSTICE
http://shell.webbernet.net/~ishgooda/oglala/
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
