Carol Liu
Queens Public Library, Jamaica, NY
<standard disclaimer here>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 1995 17:50:18 GMT
Reply-To: Rich Winkel <rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Sender: Activists Mailing List <ACTIV-L@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
From: Rich Winkel <rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>
Organization: Alpha Communications Development Corp., Aurora, CO.
Subject: IT'S TREATY TIME (again)!!!
To: Multiple recipients of list ACTIV-L
IT'S TREATY TIME (again)!!!
On April 2, 1995, without too much fanfare here in the U.S.,
the Senate ratified a United Nations treaty called the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which had been in the
political mill for 30 years. That's a long time to process a treaty,
but it is not a record - there are many U.S./Indian treaties and
agreements made in the mid and late 1800s which have never been ratified.
This treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1966, then signed by
Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1997.
The ICCPR places a responsibility on all signatory countries to
practice human and civil rights for all its citizens and residents of that
country in the areas of:
1. Criminal Justice
2. The Death Penalty
3. Women's Issues
4. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
5. Immigration and Refugee Issues
6. Native American Issues
7. Racial Discrimination
8. Quality of Life Issues
9. Children's Issues
Before anyone gets carried away and begins to insist on certain
rights, it must be explained that the Senate ratified the treaty with
many exemptions, saying that many of those rights are already guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution - then in the final paragraphs of the ratification
document, the Senate, to cover all bases for insurance says that "the
provisions of ...the covenant are not self-executing," and further that
"Nothing in the Covenant requires or authorizes legislation, or other
action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of
the United States as interpreted by the United States." This seems to say
that all "rights" are already granted to citizens under the constitution.
So, while ICCPR sounds so-o-o good, in a sense, things stay like
they are: if you want your rights, you'll have to fight for it as always.
Many non-Indian organizations who make a living by working in the
field of rights and discrimination are wondering how the terms of this treaty
can be used in court cases to enforce those rights, and they are already
mapping plans and strategy to educate people, the courts, and the Congress
about the Articles in the treaty.
A larger and more important question has been raised by a U.S. State
Dept. official at a meeting held on June 15: "Are treaties the law of the
land?"
If so, then this treaty, ratified by the Senate, should stand by itself as an
instrument of justice for all. He then raised a second question: "Does it
take implementing legislation for a treaty to be in force?" This second
question was raised because of the language in the ratifying document which
said, "Nothing in the Covenant requires or authorizes legislation prohibited
by the (U.S.)Constitution..."
In this treaty, there is a Native American section (6.,above). Several
organizations which deal in Indian issues have been monitoring the treaty and
have alerted other to what is happening. One is tempted to say, with just-
ification, "of what use or importance is this treaty to American Indians? In
this country, treaties are not worth the paper its written on." The true story
of broken treaties is a shameful chapter of U.S. history.
Make no mistake - this ICCPR treaty IS important to Native Americans,
especially so to Tribal Governments - because it could help establish the
validity and legality of Indian treaties. It is an indisputable fact that
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution does declare that "treaties are the law of
the land." It is a fact that most tribes signed treaties which were never
ratified by the Senate as required by that same constitution. But the U.S.
took the land and resources anyway and put the Indians in "holding pens."
If those treaties are null and void, it stands to reason that many
tribes could foreclose (as any used car merchant would because of non-payment)
on what is rightfully theirs. Under those legalities, the western Shoshone
Nation rightfully owns all of the State of Nevada. (Chief Ray Yowell has
already declared this to be so.) Likewise, the mighty Sioux Nation may still
own their precious Black Hills.
Under the constitution, as amended, the U.S. recognizes that the U.S.
Supreme Court is the final arbiter of legal issues. In 1831 and 1832, the
Supreme Court legislated against the State of Georgia who wanted to remove
all Indians from the state. When the ruling came down, Georgia's Governor
Jackson defied the court order and ordered his army to remove the Indians.
If this removal was illegal according to the federal law, the Cherokee may
still own Georgia.
But now, fast-forward to the present and the ICCPR treaty. This may
be the proper time to assert the legal sanctity of Indian treaties. The
larger population of non-Indians are becoming concerned of the legality of
the treaty-making process. They want the terms of this ICCPR treaty to be
in force to make their own case for civil rights and their political weight
can help to validate all treaties to the benefit of all Indian people.
Webster's dictionary defines a "treaty" as "A formal agreement or
compact, duly concluded and ratified between two or more states." In
international law "states" is defined as "nations". The word "compact" is
defined as "a covenant, agreement, or contract".
There can be no official denial that over 550 treaties with Indian
Nations have been broken, all because the Congress believes they can break
treaties or terminate Indian tribes any time that they want to. But along
with the treaty issue, there is necessarily the companion issue of:
A) The sovereign power of the Indian Nations
and
B) The constitutionality of the plenary power over Indian affairs which
the Congress has assumed.
If the treaty-making process was legal at the time make and the treaties or
Agreements recognized the sovereignty of Indian Nations, then the entire
Plenary Power concept is invalid. If those contracts were broken (as we
know they were) it gives Tribal Governments ammunition to renegotiate those
treaties and agreements.
It is necessary that this entire issue be brought out in the open
soon, because if the young, rich Republicans now in power in the Congress
are to carry out their six-year agenda, they must dump their trust respon-
sibility and federal recognition for Indian tribes early on. In any dis-
cussion of the treaty issues, it must be necessary to involve tribal
members to develop a consensus because over the past few decades, the assembly
of elected tribal leaders which have met with federal officials are a part
of the problem. In several instances they actually signed away parts of the
sovereign tribal powers and have cooperated with those officials in
disregarding those powers. This is one reason why the Republican Contract On
America now stands a good chance of destroying Indian Country in the near
future. One notable exception to our negative view of present-day tribal
leaders is Chairman Caleb Shields, of the Montana Fort Peck Tribes. He is
one who has questioned the downsizing and streamlining efforts of the BIA
and has insisted that they consider the wishes of the Montana Tribes. He is
a strong leader.
Grassroots Indian people and tribal members are encouraged to tell
their Tribal Governments how they feel about this important time in our
history. Write or call America's EAGLE and tell us if you think it is time
for a national conference of Indian people to discuss our continued exist-
ence as Indian Nations. This is too important an issue to leave the decision
making up to any one group or to any one organization.
(Reprinted with permission from:
America's Eagle Magazine which is published by:
Partners In The Environment a 501(c)(3) organization.
Subscriptions: $24.00 per year (3rd class, US)
Phone number voice: 1-703-550-2375
Phone number fax: 1-703-550-2473 )
This article is not an add.
--Cyro Lord ALPHA Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com UUCP {netcomsv,csn}!scicom!cyrill Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George - ALPHA CDC FAX 1-303-360-9118
----
Carol Liu Queens Public Library, Jamaica, NY 11432 718-990-0890; fax 718-291-8936 cliu@queens.lib.ny.us <standard disclaimer here>