Intervention for Indigenous Rights
International Law as an Instrument to Mitigate Cultural Oppression
Jun 16, 2007
Protection of basic human rights for indigenous peoples of the United States is at a curious juncture. Historically international law has seen as an instrument of oppression used against indigenous peoples. Ironically, indigenous peoples now find international law is a way to mitigate cultural oppression. Human rights associated with land, language, food, education and self-determination are all part of the debate. Testimony by indigenous groups supports the hallmark that self-determination is the prerequisite right. Enjoyment of any other human right hinges on self-determination. Most indigenous peoples do not see a conflict between group and individual rights of self-determination, but some governments do. The United Nations (UN) has debated the establishment of a permanent forum for protection of indigenous rights.
The United States publicly promotes international support of human rights. Human rights are at the forefront of many foreign policy objectives. Granting similar protections to indigenous groups in an entirely different story. Throughout the developmental history of UN declarations concerning the human rights of indigenous peoples, there has always been concern for group and individual rights. Human rights of an individual cannot be guaranteed without protecting the rights of an entire indigenous group.
The term “peoples” provokes apprehension from many governments. Concerns center around two issues, collective rights and group self-determination. The first matter involving collective rights is easy to document. Subsistence rights for rural residents in Alaska, at the expense of urban residents is a good example. People in the United States have historically objected to preferential rights being given to one group at the detriment of another. The second concern is group self-determination. An indigenous group could see international support of a group’s right to self-determination as the support needed for secession. History shows that governments will resist efforts that encourage secession of any group or state.
Canada, Norway, Australia and New Zealand have had objections to the concept of indigenous peoples and collective rights. It may be that issues surrounding the assimilation of aboriginal lands and peoples have not been resolved. Many attitudes hark back to colonialism and conquering nationalism. Indigenous use of international forums to secure human rights begin in part while debating the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN. Numerous indigenous and non-governmental organizations participated in the UN working group effort to develop the draft declaration.
The Grand Council of the Crees and Inuit peoples voted in the last referendum on Quebec secession to remain part of greater Canada. Quebec is seen as an ethnic minority, which proclaims its rights to group self-determination, but refuses to grant such a right to indigenous peoples living within the province. Cree peoples feel that inclusion in a Quebec Republic would harm their human rights and fundamental freedoms. This scenario shows that group rights have an internal and external component to consider. Governments may refuse to recognize indigenous group self-determination because of the fear that groups will gain international rights of secession.
The Navajos see self-determination as the foundation upon which all other rights are based. Continued resistance of group rights builds an artificial barrier between domestic and international law. Fears of secession are understandable, but this is not a likely option for the Navajo Nation. It is in the Navajo Nation’s best interest to remain a viable part of the United States. The United States Supreme Court has already rejected the government’s stance describing Indian nations as private associations. A unique government-to-government relationship exists between tribes and the government that affects any discussion of self-determination. Because of this relationship, Congress allows tribes the opportunity to assume many federal responsibilities formerly conducted on the behalf of tribes.
Self-determination being the cornerstone of indigenous peoples rights, Natives are still concerned with land, language, food and educational rights.
