The declaration was overwhelmingly adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 largely by rich, European countries whose indigenous peoples triumphed over the Romans and by poor, non-European countries whose indigenous populations either never were, have long since vanished or are now relatively small and powerless.
For a wealthy country like the United States with large numbers of politically connected Indian tribes, formal adhesion to the declaration might be just a little more consequential.
The declaration starts off by affirming the rights of indigenous peoples on a number of worthy fronts, such as self-determination, freedom, peace, human rights and native languages. But then there's Article 26, which states that, "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired."
You don't have to be Christopher Columbus to see how this might raise a few red flags. About 500 years ago -- circa 1491 -- the United States was wholly occupied by indigenous peoples, also known as American Indians. If they now have a legal claim to the lands they have "traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired," this could place a significant wrinkle in New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's redevelopment plans for Lower Manhattan.
U.S. adhesion to the Declaration should be uplifting for the fees of international “public interest” lawyers, who’ve been increasingly encouraged by proliferating references federal judges have made to transnational “norms,” “customs,” and standards in their decisions.
Perhaps recognizing this, the Bush Administration voted against the resolution when it was introduced in 2007, as did three other nations: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In March, however, Canada broke ranks and announced that it would support the declaration, albeit with what Ottawa termed a “qualified endorsement.” Australia confirmed its endorsement April 3, while New Zealand announced its support April 20.
Not wanting to be seen as an international killjoy, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice jumped on the bandwagon in an April 20 address to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, saying she was "pleased to announce that the United States has decided to review our position" on the declaration.
"There is no American history without Native American history. There can be no just and decent future for our nation that does not directly tackle the legacy of bitter discrimination and sorrow that the first Americans still live with," said Rice in her remarks. "Let there be no doubt of our commitment. We stand ready to be judged by the results."
The result, of course, could be legal chaos as tribes attempt to renegotiate treaties, exercise control over development, and litigate ancestral lands and trusts claims, potentially far beyond their current reservations. The declaration is non-binding, meaning that it technically has no legal force, but it's already being viewed by advocates as a potent legal weapon.
6 comments:
Well in that case just about the entire United States will be handed back over then.
but who was here before the indians? someone came from somewhere. this is a simply 'feely-goody' law to make everyone smile. they need to get over themselves and make some new laws, like "do unto others..." wait, that one has been taken.
And we thought that there is a current problem with Illegal Aliens. Would this mean that nearly the entire population of the US would become illegal residents.
Indians are not unreasonable people, they just don't trust the government, with good reason. However, I certainly don't think the GSN is going to want Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Minnesota and parts of Montana back, probably just their treaty lands. They are not the ones that violated or continue to violate every treaty ever written and signed by the government. The Black Hills is their land, they would be smart to hold title to that land and make every town that has been built their pay them a sizable rent or leave. Always a choice. :)
Then there is the Oneida...wooo hoooo the problems those folks could create. People should not take what does not rightfully belong to them. There are consequences to be paid sooner or later.
These problems would not exist between Sovereign Indigenous nations and the U.S. if the U.S. would honor their own treaties. You are only as good as your word and the word of the U.S. government has been proven for centuries to be worthless.
hhhm, give it back
maybe they can do a better job running it.
The author of this article is either uninformed or intentionally attempting to create false fears and discrimination.
First of all contrary to the headline, this is not a treaty and does not have the power of a treaty. As the article itself says, it is a ‘declaration’.
The Declaration was overwhelmingly adopted by the countries of the world, period. The vote was 143-4, later changed to 144-4 and yes, some of those countries are poor but others are not.
The words describing the U.S. Indian nations as ‘large numbers of politically connected Indian tribes’ would come as a great surprise to this less than 1% population of the U.S. population.
Article 26 detailing lands and resource rights is balanced by Article 46, paragraph 2, “In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected.” All. What’s wrong with that?
Post a Comment