Native Notes

The International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management brought together representatives of Indian tribes, federal agencies, and industry at a workshop in Denver, Colorado to take the first step in establishing a tribal definition of “sustainable” uranium production. Why, you may ask, is a tribal definition of sustainable uranium production needed when Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr., signed the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 which bans uranium mining and processing throughout Navajo Nation and the Oglala Sioux tribal council passed OST Resolution 07-0154, a resolution prohibiting any uranium operations on the reservation?

There are several reasons for tribes to define sustainability. First, nuclear generates approximately 17 percent of the electricity in the U.S. Second, China’s nuclear energy development plan, which had called for operating power capacity to hit 40 gigawatts (GW) by 2020, has been revised to a projected 60 GW. Third, now that concerns about climate change are part of the national energy policy equation, some experts believe nuclear power should be reconsidered since it does not emit greenhouse gases.  These points mean that uranium will be mined and processed—perhaps not on Indian reservations, but it will be mined and processed. Lastly are the map of major U.S. uranium reserves—the correlation between uranium reserves and Indian country and tribal interests is inescapable (a global map would show similar correlations between uranium with the lands of other indigenous peoples); and a Hawaiian proverb, ‘A’ohe ‘ulu e loa’a i ka pō kole o ka lou. No breadfruit can be reached when the picking stick is too short. (There is no success without preparation.)

Furthermore, no definition of sustainability in uranium production can be valid without addressing the environmental, human health, and other impacts uranium production has had on Indian tribes.

History is the memory of human experience. If it is forgotten or ignored, we cease in that measure to be human. Without history we have no knowledge of who we are or how we came to be, like victims of collective amnesia groping in the dark for our identity.

The push towards sustainable production of uranium is based in large measure on preventing the problems of the past. Of course avoiding the creation of “legacy” sites should play an important role in defining sustainability, but how should today’s definition of sustainability address legacy sites such as those on the lands of the Navajo Nation and Spokane Tribe? For example:

• What are, or should be, mining company strategies to build tribal capacity to deal with past impacts of mining?
• What role have federal agencies played in the past? What roles should they now be playing?
• How do local communities or their organizations involve themselves in capacity building, and how might partnership with mining companies, government, NGOs, and tribes facilitate this?
• Can enhanced tribal institutional capacity facilitate enhanced sustainable tribal and regional development? How?

The Department of Criminal Justice, North Carolina Central University, in cooperation with the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, conducted a colloquium titled “Opportunities For Engaging Minority Communities in Securing Our Nation” on February 11, 2008. The conference, held at The Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, attracted over 75 participants and attendees, who addressed methods for successful engagement by security and public health agencies with Latino, Muslim, and at-risk communities. Participants included community, state, and regional leaders from the communities of interest, law enforcement agencies, health service providers, homeland security agencies, and educational institutions. (Click here to access the colloquium brief.)

As we were already previously committed we were hoping to send one of the Institute’s interns. Laura is examining forward deployments of the U.S. military to to see how these deployments consider impacts on the lands, environment, resources and rights of indigenous peoples, ethnic and religious minorities. Unfortunately, she also had previous commitments. The study of law tends to place significant limits on the discretionary time of law students.

The colloquium produced the following key insights:

• *Successful engagement of minority communities by community, state, and national security agencies requires cultural understanding and appreciation for diversity within and among the agencies and willingness by agency leaders to initiate contact, either directly or through mutually-trusted agents.
• *Understanding generational differences within minority communities is important for successful engagement, especially for long-established communities that continue to receive new members from foreign locations.
• *Security agencies must have the ability to communicate effectively with minority communities to establish mutual trust and successfully engage their members.
• *Disadvantaged and at-risk communities, with or without minority populations, are especially vulnerable to disasters and require particular attention when planning for mitigation, response, and recovery.
• *There is a long and honorable tradition of service by minorities in securing their nation; that service must continue to be recognized, as the basis for continued participation and leadership by minority members.

We have no real problem with the colloquium nor with the key insights as far as they went. The problem is that they did not go far enough. Certainly there should have been some recognition that Indian tribes on the southern and northern borders of the U.S. are already significantly (and expensively) engaged in securing our nation’s borders.

We have no real problem with the colloquium nor with the key insights as far as they went. The problem for us is that they did not go far enough. American Indian have the highest per-capita participation in the armed services of any ethnic group.  By the end of last year, according to the website icasualties.org, 23 American Indians and Alaska Natives died in Iraq as of the end of last year.  Certainly there should have been some recognition that Indian tribes on the southern and northern borders of the U.S. are already significantly (and expensively) engaged in securing our nation’s borders. And there are more than a few Kanaka Maoli, Indian tribes, and Chamorros who would prefer that their lands and sacred places were not so actively engaged in the fight to secure our nation.

And there are more than a few Kanaka Maoli, Indian tribes, and Chamorros who would prefer that their lands and sacred places were not so actively engaged in the fight to secure our nation.

We think the Strategic Studies Institute should convene a follow-up meeting to discuss the role the indigenous peoples of the U.S. are playing and can play in securing the nation.  If you feel the way we do, you might want to send the Strategic Studies Institute a short note to that effect by clicking here.

There have been a couple of momentous treaty-making events that have taken place in the last month or so. The first one, perhaps not as momentous to the mainstream as the second, occurred in Denver, Colorado on November 15, 2007 when indigenous nations from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Aotearoa ratified the August 1, 2007 Treaty of Indigenous Nations. Eleven Indigenous Nations, meeting on the homelands of the Lummi Indian Nation near Bellingham, Washington, concluded negotiations and reached agreement on the Treaty of Indigenous Nations.

The Bellingham Treaty was developed and proposed by the National Congress of American Indians’ Special Committee on Indigenous Nation Relationships following meetings with the Assembly of First Nations, Canada, the Mataatua Assembly of Maori Tribes of Aotearoa, and the Ngarrindjeri Nations of South Australia.

The Treaty establishes the United League of Indigenous Nations, an international political and economic alliance to advance common interests regarding the impacts of climate change on their homelands, to promote trade and commerce among Indigenous Nations, to bring their cultural properties under the protection of the laws of Indigenous Nations, to protect the human rights of Indigenous Peoples and to assert traditional rights to cross international borders.

The second event was the long-awaited signing of the new EU treaty by leaders from each of the 27 member countries of the European Union in Lisbon on December 13, 2007. The Treaty of Lisbon is a replacement for the EU constitution, which was abandoned following its rejection by voters in France and the Netherlands. The Treaty of Lisbon, among other things, provides a stronger and more coherent external voice for the European Union by combining the functions of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy with that of Vice-President in the Commission and creating a new External Action Service to support the new “dual role” Representative.

The move from the European Coal and Steel Community which was founded by the 1951 Treaty of Paris to the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon took place in fits and starts but always propelled by visionary Euro-Federalists like Jean Monnett and Robert Schuman. The six initial members of the ECSC were France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Twenty-seven nations signed the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007.

It would be interesting to be around in fity years to observe the workings of the United League of Indigenous Nations and to see how many indigenous nations are members. Will the Treaty of Bellingingham be the indigenous Treaty of Paris? Who will be the indigenous Monnett and Schuman?

On October 15, 2007 New Zealand police raided what they called military-style training camps and private homes, seizing firearms and arresting 17 people from domestic groups on arms and possible terrorism offenses, authorities said.

More than 300 officers took part in the raids in several parts of North Island and in the southern city of Christchurch, which followed reports to police of camps being used to train people to use a variety of weapons.

The raids have been the object of much criticism and protest by Maori and civil liberties organizations. Rawiri Taonui characterized the arrests a sensationalised over-reaction by a dysfunctional police force, a power-seeking intelligence service and a government that has lost touch. The Peace Movement Aotearoa website has an extensive list of links to articles related to the arrests.

Probably the best overview of the raids is Moana Jackson’s Back in the Mists of Fear. A Primer on the Allegations of Terrorism Made During the Week of 15-19 October 2007.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, passed recently by an overwhelming majority of 143-4 at the United Nations General Assembly, is a far-reaching statement on human rights.

The document’s 45 articles set out the rights of 400 million indigenous people in 70 countries to their self-determination, cultures, traditions, languages, institutions, world views and life ways.

One of the best and most succinct commentary on the Declaration I’ve seen is by Rawiri Taonui. It can be found at: Rawiri.