Opening Statement of the Navajo Nation Delegation
Fourth Inter-sessional Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples November 30, 1998
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the delegations present. As this is the first time my delegation has had the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman, please let me express our congratulations to you for your re-election this morning as the Chairman of this working group and how much we appreciate your fair and able approach to these proceedings.
My name is Milton Bluehouse, Sr., and I am the President of the Navajo Nation, the elected government of the Navajo people. Our lands are located in the southwestern part of North America and comprise more territory than the nine smallest states of the United States, with close to 250 thousand members. I am a member of the Kinlichinii Clan and am born for the Honaghaanii Clan.
The Navajo Nation calls upon each of the States who are members of this Working Group to adopt the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its present text. The Draft Declaration is the product of more than 11 years of work by legal experts and Indigenous representatives and has been adopted by the Subcommission on the Protection and Elimination of Discrimination Against Minorities.
The fundamental principle underlying the entire Draft Declaration is the right of self-determination of all peoples throughout the World, specifically including Indigenous peoples. The Navajo Nation believes that many governments object to expressly recognizing the existing right of self-determination of Indigenous peoples, and indeed insist even on qualifying or defining-away the existing right of self-determination of nonIndigenous peoples, because self-determination implies a right to succession from existing states in certain circumstances. These governments therefore believe that the right of self-determination by Indigenous peoples or other "sub-state groups" constitutes an unacceptable threat to the territorial integrity of existing states. These governments undoubtedly are concerned that the political stability and peace of the World in part depends upon maintaining the territorial integrity of states.
The Navajo Nation believes that the governments of the World should not fear the right of self-determination of all peoples of the World. In our opinion, rather than being a threat to the territorial integrity of states, the full and unhindered ability of all peoples to freely exercise the right of self-determination will help to promote political stability and peace throughout the World.
Two hundred and twenty-two years ago, the English colonists in America proclaimed to the World a fundamental principle that they had recently learned from the Indigenous peoples of the east coast of North America: that the purpose of governments is to promote and protect the general welfare of people, and that the legitimacy of any government can be measured by how well that government fulfills that function. The 1970 Declaration on Principles of Friendly Relations makes clear that the territorial integrity of states is legally threatened only where states deny fundamental human rights. World history confirms that oppression by any government will eventually lead people to question and even take arms against that government. At that point, law has little utility in solving the problems created by governmental oppression. But, if through law, including the continued evolution of international standards protecting and promoting human rights, governments will accept the indigenous principles of the purpose and legitimacy of governments, then states will be more secure, not less secure, in their territorial integrity: Self-determination is the way to the security of states, not the obstacle.
The Navajo Nation urges each of the state delegations to consider the right of self-determination as providing the legal means to protect and promote the Human Rights of all peoples. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
********
SUPPLEMENTAL OPENING STATEMENT OF THE NAVAJO NATION
FOURTH WORKING GROUP ON THE DRAFT DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
1 DECEMBER 1998
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Navajo Nation would like to take this opportunity briefly to express its concern with several of the points raised by the United States yesterday in its General Statement.
The United States is to be commended for the hopes it expressed yesterday that the adoption of a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will assist in the effort to protect indigenous rights, counter discrimination against indigenous people and foster appreciation for indigenous traditions, cultures and institutions. Let us analyze the positions expressed by the United States against this expressed desire.
The United States suggests that a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be built upon and be consistent with existing Human Rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two Human Rights covenants. The Navajo Nation agrees with this suggestion. Unfortunately, however, many of the specific suggestions of the United States, if adopted, would be inconsistent with existing international Human Rights law. Instead of building upon existing Human Rights instruments, the United States' suggestions would tend to defeat the universal application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two Human Rights covenants, in violation of, among others, the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Although not specifically a concern of international law, it is also true and particularly ironic that some of the suggestions of the United States would be inconsistent with the principles expressed in the United States' own Declaration of Independence and would violate basic guarantees contained in the United States Constitution.
The Navajo Nation is not here to participate in the proceedings of this Working Group in order to promote "the privileging of historically prior inhabitants," as the United States suggests is the focus of the current text of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nor do we think that that is why other indigenous representatives are here, nor that this is a fair or constructive characterization of the current text. Rather, the Navajo people simply insist that the United States honor the legal commitments it has made to the Navajo people and abide by the relationship it entered into with the Navajo people through treaties in 1849 and 1868, in accordance with the law applicable to that relationship at the time it was formed. We ask that the United States honor this legal relationship in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the provisions of its two treaties with the Navajo people and with the United States Constitution and international law, including the law of Treaties and the law of Human Rights, formulated and applied in a manner free from discrimination based upon national or indigenous origin or political expediency.
We have always understood that the fundamental tenet of American democracy, as expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence, is that "the just powers of the government derive from the consent of the governed." Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is similar, declaring that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government." In the case of the Navajo people, and we are confident in the case of most other Indigenous peoples within the United States, we have not consented, or willed, to be governed by the United States government, or the governments of the domestic states, except to the extent agreed upon in our treaties. To treat the Navajo treaties as "domestic" obligations that the United States may violate with virtual impunity, rather than as the international obligations that they are, between two self-governing and self-determining sovereign peoples, is to violate the fundamental tenet of American democracy and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet this is what the suggestions of the United States amount to, and in a manner unintended by the United States, its suggestions eloquently prove the necessity of adoption of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in its current text, especially Article 36 relating to treaty obligations and Article 3 relating to self-determination.
The United States indicates that it does not believe that international law accords "indigenous groups everywhere" the right of self-determination. This may or may not be true, but the Navajo Nation is sure of this: the principle of non-discrimination demands that Indigenous peoples possess the precise same right of self-determination as all other peoples throughout the World. And while the United States expresses its concern that self-determination has been interpreted to include "the right to separate or succeed from society," we believe that the succession of a people from society at large is an oxymoron and therefore agree with the United States that it is impossible as a practical matter. Therefore, we must ask: If it is impossible, why is it a matter of such concern? Autonomy is a choice that some peoples may chose and that others may not in the exercise of their rights of self-determination. However, as we explained yesterday and reiterate today: succession is a realistic fear only for those governments that do not accord their people substantial freedom and do not act in a manner consistent with the United Nations Charter and with international Human Rights standards.
The United States suggests that it is "confusing" to state that international law accords rights to Indigenous peoples as peoples, because it claims that international law, "with few exceptions," protects the rights of individual persons rather than groups of persons. Of course, the "exceptions" are all-important. Among these all-important and very illuminating exceptions are the United Nations Charter, which declares that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims itself "as a common standard of achievement of all peoples and nations"; the two Human Rights covenants, each of which declare that "all peoples have the right of self-determination . . ., by virtue of" which "they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" and "may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources . . ."; and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, whose references to the rights of peoples are too numerous to detail in this statement, but which declares again the right of self-determination of all peoples and which further declares that "the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation."
With "exceptions" such as these, the Navajo Nation respectfully submits to the members of this Working Group that the protection of the rights of "peoples" in international law is as fundamental as the protection of the rights of individuals, and that what would be "confusing," as well as ineffective, would be to adopt the suggestion of the United States that the rights of Indigenous peoples may best be protected by making clear that their rights are individual only. It is often true that Indigenous peoples are denied their rights, both as peoples and as individual indigenous persons, precisely because they are Indigenous peoples or individual members of such peoples. The solution surely is not to continue that discrimination by characterizing Indigenous peoples' Human Rights as being founded, in part, upon a different fundamental basis than that of the Human Rights of peoples everywhere. The United States suggestion is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Indigenous peoples know this better than anyone, and the strong consensus of the Indigenous peoples' representatives here participating in the proceedings of this Working Group is that their peoples' rights must be protected in the manner of the current text of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Navajo Nation agrees with the United States' position that this Declaration must be universal in application. However, the Navajo Nation urges the United States to accept the considered judgment of the representatives of the Indigenous peoples whose rights will be protected by this Declaration, that universality can best be achieved without engaging in an ultimately futile effort to achieve a "universally-accepted definition of indigenous." The insistence by the United States on a universal definition will de-rail the process of adoption of this Declaration just as surely as the insistence by other states on a narrow definition with which the United States expresses its concern. Better it would be simply to declare the Declaration to be universal, as will occur when it is adopted by the General Assembly in its current text.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the United States will accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended: as constructive criticism by a colleague with a common goal-- the adoption of an effective, universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which builds upon and is consistent with existing international Human Rights law.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)