Meeting at Kee Shay's Place
On Sunday, Jauary 8, I went out to a meeting Grace Smith told
me about at Kee Shay's house. Mr. Shay is the person on whose HPL
customary use area the Survival Camp is located, also where the
Crow Dog Sun Dance takes place. He is a World War II veteran,
tall, slim and very active. Last time I was out at his place,
Miguel Alfonso-Martinez, Chairman of the U.N. Sub Commission on the
Prevention of Discrimination and protection of Minorities, was
holding a hearing under a brush shelter at his hogan on the Hopi
Partitioned Land. He also has a place on the NPL side of the line,
with electricity. That's where Sunday's meeting took place.
I got a fairly early start, but the weather had been bad, too
cold to start any of my cars to go to Teesto Saturday. Sunday it
warmed up, my old '64 Volvo started like (ha ha) new. The snow we
had got the week before was meltin like crazy, so when I got to
Hardrock Chapter House I put on the chains, then proceeded through
the foot-deep mud then next 12 miles or so to Big Mountain.
Those of you who have been out there in the winter mud know
what I'm talking about. By the time I got to Mr. Shay's place the
few people who had showed up had gone - by the foot prints and tire
tracks it didn't look like more than a half-dozen people. Grace
Smith and her husband were still there, so we had a talk with Mr.
Shay and his family.
I was surprised to hear kind words. In the past Mr. Shay has
been among the most anti-tribal government of the resisters. He is
also bitter about having to take down the community hogan at
Survival Camp and sit still while the BIA finished the HPL boundary
fence across his customary use area - all part of the 10 demands
with which the Hopi Tribe began their paqrticiaption in the
MANYBEADS mediation.
Mr. Shay was worried about the possibility that Roman Bitsuie
might lose his job as my boss (he did, a day and a half later). I
think he wants Roman to continue working directly with the Big
Mountain families. I suggested they make their wishes known to
President Hale and the next Land Commission. He went on to say
that he really believes Council did the right thing passing the
recent resolution on mediation of the so-called "land dispute."
He told me, through Grace, that the rain and snow which was coming
had really made their life better, after all the wind and drought
this summer and fall. It is a sign, he said, that we were doing
things which pleased the creator.
For that reason, and also because there are a lot of people
asking questions about the resolution, or saying things about it
without having even read it, I took an afternoon and retyped it
verbatim, errors and all. I wrote a lot of the original
resolution, from then on it is committee work. It was worked over
by a gang of attorneys, then by the Land Commission, and the
Intergovernmental Relations Committee which sent it on to full
Council in special session. Attorney General Herb Yazzie called it
"the mother of all resolutions." It follows.
*****************************************************************
RESOLUTION OF THE
NAVAJO NATION COUNCIL
Acknowledging and Declaring the Duties and Responsibilities of
the Navajo Nation Council to Protect, Preserve and Defend the
Navajo Beauty Way of Life; Authorizing the Navajo Nation
Representatives to Continue Negotiations Towards a Settlement of
the Hopi-United States-Navajo "Land Dispute", Providing Certain
Instruction for the Negotiations, and Formally Rescinding
Resolution CAU-56-93
WHEREAS:
1.Pursuant to 2 N.T.C. 102(a), the Navajo Nation
Council is the governing body of the Navajo Nation; and
2.Through the grace of the Holy People, the Navajo People
were placed into this world within the Four Sacred Mountains;
having been placed here, the Navajo People have lived within these
boundaries since time immemorial following the teachings and
instruction s of the religion set for them by the Holy People.
This religion, beauty Way of Life, holds this land sacred and that
we the Navajo People, must always care for it. Through this sacred
covenant, this sacred ancestral homeland is the home and hogan of
all Navajo people. Further, if the Navajo left their homelands,
their prayers and religion would be ineffective and lost forever.
The Navajo People must remain on this land in order for the Holy
People to continue to recognize and protect them. The Navajo
people have recognized this truth since time immemorial and the
Navajo leadership has consistently asserted this necessity in all
negotiations with the European Colonists including those before the
signing of the Treaty of June 1, 1868, 15 Stat. 667, and ending
their captivity and incarceration at Fort Sumner. Consequently,
the essence of Navajo religion and Navajo lives are being
threatened by relocation; and
3.For many generations the Navajo People have
worshipped, held sacred and protected the land. The history of the
Navajo People is that they resisted and fought off all those who
would desecrate or dispossess them of their land. The Hopi and
other neighboring Native peoples have benefitted from this Navajo
vigilance and stewardship. The Navajo People have protected the
Hopis even after European Colonists appeared and established
settlements. The colonists, without understanding the relationship
between the Navajo and the Hopi, took sides against the Navajo and
have consistently punished the Navajo People for not being town-
dwellers and for resisting their encroachment. To this day the U.S.
government follows this same pattern through its policies and laws.
The 1974 Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (Public Law 93-531), 25 U.S.C.
640 et. seq. as amended) is only the latest of these actions which
punish the Navajo and reward the Hopi. The Act treats the Navajo
in a manner fundamentally different from the manner in which non-
Indian people are treated when their land claims conflict with
those of indian people. When a group of people is disadvantaged by
a government or by society's disparate treatment based on
slanderous mischaracterizations of all people within that group it
is called "racism" and "discrimination"; and when people are
forcibly relocated, as this law provides, it is called "ethnic
cleansing." Where such policies and laws are found, they are
universally condemned by all people of conscience; and
4.The Hopi Tribe has consistently portrayed the
Navajos as a people without religion and as "invaders and
encroachers" on our own land. With the assistance of certain paid
anthropologists, the Hopis have successfully promoted falsehoods
and misinterpretations of the history, religion and culture of the
Navajo people, in particular, and of the Southwest in general.
This has led well-meaning leaders and law makers to think that by
enacting the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974, which attempts to
take away the sacred lands and homes of the Navajo People, they
were correcting an ancient wrong. the effect of the Act has been
the severe and systematic religious persecution of the Navajo
People and is one more sad chapter in the federal government's long
history of genocidal policies towards Native Americans. As long as
federal policies and laws are premised on falsehoods, there can be
no justice; and
5.Since June 1991, the Navajo Nation and the Navajo
families living on the Hopi Partitioned Lands (HPL) ("Navajo
families") have been participating in mediation ordered by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Manybeads v. United States and
Masayesva v. Haskie, the purpose of which has been to recognize and
accommodate the religious freedom and the cultural way of life of
the traditional Navajo families who still reside on the HPL and to
settle the Hopi-United States-Navajo "land dispute"; and
3. In the first phase of the mediation, the Navajo
Nation and Navajo families worked diligently in satisfying ten (10)
demands ("demands") set by the Hopi Tribe as preconditions to the
Hopi Tribe beginning any negotiations. In May 1992 Judge Harry R.
McCue (the court appointed mediator) determined that these demands
had been successfully met by the Navajo Nation and the Navajo
families:
a.Navajo families had to sign jurisdiction
statements, acknowledging Hopi jurisdiction to
the Hopi Partitioned Lands;
b.The Navajo Nation had to adopt Navajo
Partitioned Lands grazing regulations;
c.Dismantling and removal of the Coalmine Mesa
Chapter complex and the Big Mountain survival
camp;
d.Dismantling and removal of all allegedly
illegal construction on Hopi Partitioned
Lands;
e.Dismantling of wall at Cliff Springs;
f.The Navajo Nation must ensure that no
construction occurs within a one mile radius
of any golden eagle nesting area;
g.The United States must complete Hopi
Partitioned Lands/Navajo Partitioned Lands
boundary fence at Big Mountain;
h.The United States is to enter into Indian
Self-Determination Act contracts with Hopi
Tribe for grazing regulation administration on
Hopi Partitioned Lands;
i.The Navajo Nation will to allow access by
Hopis to Hopi religious sites on Navajo
Reservation;
j.Navajo Nation must pay post-partition rent; and
4.The Navajo Nation has incurred costs in connection
with meeting the ten demands and there are further outstanding
commitments, as well as ongoing expenses of mediation, for which
there are no Navajo Nation funds available; and
6. The Navajo Nation entered into these negotiations
without any preconditions. Moreover, in the first phase of the
mediation, the Navajo Nation and Navajo families worked diligently
in satisfying ten (10) demands ("demands") set by the Hopi tribe as
preconditions to the Hopi tribe beginning any negotiations; the
Hopi tribe's demands are attached as Exhibit "A". In order to meet
these conditions, among other actions, the Navajo families for the
purposes of mediation only, agreed to acknowledge Hopi
jurisdiction; the Navajo families, at great emotional and spiritual
cost, agreed to dismantle certain religious and community
structures; the resources Committee of the Navajo Nation Council
promulgated grazing regulations over the Navajo Partitioned Land
and the Navajo Nation renewed its guarantee of Hopi access to
sacred sites on the Navajo Reservation and agreed to take over
restrictive measures to protect certain sites from development. In
May 1992, Judge Harry R. McCue (the court appointed mediator)
determined that these demands had been successfully met by the
Navajo Nation and the Navajo families; and
7.On October 30, 1992 representatives of the Navajo
Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the United States and the attorney
representing the Navajo families signed the Agreement in Principle
for Resolving Issues in Connection with the Settlement Act ("AIP")
with the provision that it would need to be ratified by certain
federal officials in the United States government, the Hopi Tribal
Council, and the Navajo Nation Council. Most importantly, the
families themselves would not have to ratify it until much later,
after they had a chance to review its terms and the terms of the
Hopi lease agreement. The Navajo Nation Council ratified the AIP,
subject to specific conditions on November 23, 1992; and
8. The Hopi Tribal Council ratified the AIP on November
23, 1992, and on November 25, 1992 the Secretaries of the
Department of Interior and Agriculture ratified the AIP on behalf
of the United States government; and
9.Subsequently, the Hopi Tribe developed and proposed
a 75-year "residential lease agreement" ("proposed lease concept")
which was little more than a concept paper and which lacked
critical details including, among other terms, provision providing
for the protection of the religious beliefs and practices of the
Navajo families. Thereafter, until and through August 5, 1993,
representatives of the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation and Navajo
families met individually and in groups with the Navajo families to
inform them of and explain to them the AIP and the proposed Lease.
In various written communications and telephone conference calls
with counsel for the Navajo Nation and other parties, Judge McCue
directed the Navajo families to ratify or reject the AIP and the
Hopi proposed lease concept on or before August 5, 1993, even
though the lease concept had never been subject to negotiation, was
unchanged despite many concerns raised by the families, lacked the
basic elements of a lease, and still failed to address several
critical issues; and
10.An overwhelming majority of the Navajo families did
not ratify the AIP. The Navajo families rejected the AIP and Hopi
proposed lease concept because it made no provision for renewal and
other necessary protections and modifications, and did not address
religious freedom, cultural needs, or provide a basis for a
realistic settlement of the "land dispute". On August 5, 1993, the
President of the Navajo Nation, with the Navajo Nation Council,
attended a meeting at Rocky Ridge Boarding School, Hardrocks,
Navajo Nation (Arizona), called by Judge McCue, along with
representatives of the Hopi Tribe and the United States government,
to receive the responses and opinions of the Navajo families; and
11. At that meeting, the President of the Navajo Nation,
with the authorization of the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission (NHLC-
025-94), offered aa generous alternative proposal for settlement of
the United States-Navajo-Hopi "land dispute," which was ratified by
the Navajo Nation Council on August 6, 1993 (CAU-56-93); and
12.The Chairman of the Hopi Tribe rejected the Navajo
Nation's offer outright, declared that the "mediation is over," and
together with the rest of the Hopi representatives, walked out of
the meeting; and
13.Subsequently, the Hopi Tribal Council by Resolution
H-127-93 declared that the mediation was over and called on the
United States to evict the Navajo families living on the Hopi
Partitioned Lands; and
14.Part VII of the AIP provides that it is a "Unitary
Settlement" meaning that by its terms, the critical provisions of
the AIP are interrelated and interdependent and that amendment of
any provision relieves the parties of their commitments under the
Agreement. The AIP cannot be implemented in its entirely without
additional negotiations to address the following problems:
a.The AIP and both the original and a later
revised Hopi proposed lease concept do not
provide specific and adequate protection for
the religion and way of life of the Navajo
families, which was the principal reason the
Ninth Circuit ordered the mediation in the
first place, and why the families refused to
ratify the AIP and Hopi proposed lease concept
on August 5, 1993;
b.The AIP has become the focus of intense public
opposition, particularly opposition from
political officials at the federal, state and
local levels, as well as environmental,
community and business organizations;
c.Congressional leaders have made it clear that
it is unrealistic to expect that the federal
legislation necessary to implement the AIP
would be enacted into law (See Exhibit "B");
d.The owners of the CO Bar Ranch have withdrawn
the Ranch from the market, making it
impossible for one of the critical provisions
of the AIP to be met;
e.The original Hopi proposed lease concept
submitted to the Navajo families by the Hopi
Tribe provided for the unilateral termination
of the lease without just cause, did not
provide for quiet enjoyment of the leasehold
interest and did not provide for renewal;
f.The elders and medicine people of the Navajo
Nation have made it clear that the sacred site
located near the confluence of the Little
Colorado and Colorado Rivers, is not to be
sold or traded away for any purpose, but is to
be left as is, without being developed or
exploited, and must remain open to the use of
Native American people who have a legitimate
religious purpose for visiting it;
g.The State of Arizona has formally indicated
that it will oppose any transfer of U.S.
Forest Service lands as specified in the AIP,
but that it will provide, through fair-value
sale or exchange if possible, Arizona State
Lands if necessary, on the express condition
that such exchange be part of a permanent
settlement (See Exhibit "C");
h.Despite the agreement by officials of the Hopi
Tribe and United States to act in good faith,
the harassment of Navajo families has
continued, including arrests for cutting
firewood, livestock impoundments, "posting" by
Hopi officials of Hopi-approved construction
by Navajos on the HPL, and surveillance of and
nocturnal visits to Navajo families homes by
Hopi and BIA rangers and police (See Exhibit
"D"); and
15.The United States negotiators worked with the
Manybeads plaintiffs and their counsel to outline the specific
concerns and objections of the Navajo families to the AIP and
proposed Lease, which were the subject of a religious report
entitled "Report to the Honorable Harry R. McCue Regarding the
Dine' (Navajo) Families Religious Concerns and Suggested Solutions"
on December 21, 1993 (See Exhibit "E"); and
16.Judge McCue requested the Hopi Tribe to develop a
modified lease proposal to address the specific, detailed and
substantive concerns raised in the December 21, 1993 report; and
17.A modified lease proposal called an "accommodation
agreement", was provided by the Hopi Tribe on April 6, 1994, but
such proposal still did not address adequately the substantive
concerns of the Manybeads plaintiffs; and
18.In spite of this, Judge McCue directed that the
Navajo Nation circulate "ratification statements" for the Navajo
families to indicate whether they accepted or rejected the
accommodation agreement, and the Navajo families were told by their
counsel, at the direction of the United States and Judge McCue that
failure to sign the ratification statement would end negotiations,
but that signing the statement would allow negotiations to
continue; and
19.In accordance with Judge McCue's directive, the
"ratification statements" were provided to all of the Navajo
families, except for those families who could not be contacted; and
20.The result was that 287 families replied, of whom
193 responded "yes" (a large number included written conditions or
qualifications to their responses, which therefore should not be
considered outright "yes" votes), 41 of whom responded "no", and 53
responded by abstaining. At least 30 families could not be
contacted and therefore did not respond; and
21.On repeated occasions since September 1994 Judge
McCue, United States representatives and the Hopi Tribe declared
that the mediation is over and that it is time to implement the AIP
and modified proposed Lease. Such statements are directly contrary
to the understanding that the Navajo families had when they
indicated their acceptance or rejection of either the AIP or the
accommodation agreement; and
22.The United States and Judge McCue are now seeking
interim implementation of the AIP, including drastic changes to the
compensation offered to the Hopi Tribe, however, without
corresponding accommodations to the Navajo families; and
23.The United States and Judge McCue, to encourage the
Navajo families to support the accommodation agreement, repeatedly
promised that the families would enter into immediate further
negotiations to address directly their religious concerns, that the
federally-imposed construction freeze would be lifted so that their
horrendous living conditions could be mitigated, that more grazing
permits would be issued, and that federal funds would be made
available for housing repairs, improved water systems and major
roadways. Six months after the families voted, with the
expectation of immediate results, none of these promises have been
kept; and
24.The federal government has engaged in a deliberate
attempt to "divide and conquer" the Navajo people by insisting that
the Navajo Nation k\make a $200,000 payment of interim rent to the
Hopis before allowing any assistance to the Navajo families, even
though such payment is not contemplated by the AIP. This policy is
tantamount to hold the Navajo families hostage so that the federal
government can push its own political agenda while escaping its
previous commitments and promises; and
25.Navajo Nation Council Resolution No. CAU-56-93,
Offering a Comprehensive Settlement to the Hopi Tribe for a
Permanent and Generous Resolution of the Hopi-Navajo-United States
Land Dispute, has been repeatedly rejected by the Hopi Tribe and is
therefore, not considered an outstanding offer to the Hopi Tribe.
26.The Intergovernmental Relations Committee and the
Navajo-Hopi Land Commission, on behalf of the Navajo Nation
Council, held a series of hearings throughout the Navajo Nation in
October and November 1994, receiving testimony from federal, state
and tribal officials, as well as from the Navajo families most
directly affected by the "land dispute" and the relocation law and
have made certain findings regarding the destructive and harmful
effects of the "land dispute" and the relocation law (See Exhibit
"F"); and
27.At the December 10, 1994 meeting among the Hopi
Tribe, the United States, the Navajo families' representatives and
the mediator, the Hopi tribe stated that they are willing to
consider accepting alternative compensation as settlement and to
consider revising the extent of the settlement in the Agreement in
Principle. And in the meantime, the Hopi tribe would be willing to
meet directly with the Navajo families and to work with the
families on housing issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1.It is a fundamental duty and responsibility of the
Navajo Nation Council to protect, preserve and defend Navajo
religious beliefs, values, practices and culture. Therefore, the
Navajo Nation Council reaffirms in the strongest terms possible its
unwavering commitment to this duty and to the Navajo people in the
context of the "land dispute" and the Manybeads litigation.
2.The Navajo Nation Council declares that forcible or
coerced relocation is morally wrong, inhumane, illegal, and a
violation of fundamental human rights, and therefore, is and shall
and be unacceptable, and that compulsory relocation, the
destruction of sacred places, and the threat of forcible eviction,
which have been brought to bear against our people, present a
fundamental threat to Navajo religion and to the existence of the
Navajo People and The Navajo Nation.
3.The Navajo Nation Council further declares that
because the federal government's policy of forcible or coerced
relocation is directed at the navajo people based on their
ethnicity that policy is the same as the internationally-condemned
practice od "ethnic cleansing" in other parts of the world, with
many of the same devastating consequences.
4.The Navajo Nation Council, because of the gravity of
the situation and the threat it presents to the religion and
existence of the Navajo people, calls on United States President
Clinton, Attorney General Reno and Interior Secretary Babbitt to
meet personally with the negotiating team named in section (6)
below to receive input on the current situation at the local level
wit the affected families.
5.The Navajo Nation Council reaffirms its support for
continued negotiations among the Navajo families living in the
Hopi-partitioned Lands, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe and the
Unite d States and calls on the United States and the Hopi tribe to
immediately sit down with the families to discuss the concerns they
raised in their religious report submitted in December 1993, and
declares that such negotiations must take place before further
negotiations on other issues..
6.The Navajo Nation Council authorizes the President,
Attorney General and Legislative Counsel of the Navajo Nation,
assisted by the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission, to continue to
negotiate a comprehensive, just and permanent settlement of the
United States-Navajo-Hopi "land dispute" with a special obligation
to promote and protect the religious rights of the affected Navajo
families and to make this matter a priority of the Navajo Nation.
7. The Navajo Nation Council further rescinds
Resolution CAU-56-93, Offering a Comprehensive Settlement to the
Hopi Tribe for a Permanent and Generous Resolution of the Hopi-
Navajo-United States Land Dispute.
8.The Navajo Nation Council finds that the
circumstances surrounding the families vote on the accommodation
agreement in no way constitute a ratification of the Agreement in
principle or the proposed Hopi lease terms.
9.The Navajo Nation Council declares that the
Agreement in Principle signed on October 30, 1992, has expired in
accordance with its terms and is no longer of any force or effect,
and that the Navajo Nation is no longer bound by the specific terms
of said agreement through no fault of its own and because of
circumstances beyond its control; notwithstanding the foregoing,
the Navajo nation Council acknowledges that progress has been made
in the mediation to resolve the "land dispute" and that, building
on that progress and the principles reached in mediation
negotiations must continue.
10.The Navajo Nation Council directs the persons named
in Section (6) above to develop a comprehensive settlement package
for all the parties, that can be accomplished within existing
political and economic constraints. This settlement must address
all Navajo-Hopi litigation authorized under the 1974 Settlement Act
and the complete rehabilitation of all areas and communities
impacted by the Act.
11.The Navajo Nation Council directs the Navajo teams
negotiating water rights, resource issues, and rights-of-way with
the Hopi Tribe to conform their strategies with the policies and
positions of the Navajo Nation Council set forth herein.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
considered at a duly called meeting, at Window Rock, Navajo Nation,
(Arizona) at which a quorum was present and that same was passed by
a vote of 53 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstained, this 13th day of
December, 1994.
/S/
Nelson Gorman Jr., Speaker
Navajo Nation Council
Motioned By: Kenneth Nez
Seconded By: Benjamin Curtis
This resolution was subsequently signed into law by President
Peterson Zah, who had the option to veto it.
so there it is.
until next time,
jn