DOCUMENT: STATCRFT.TXT
S T A T E C R A F T, N A T I O N S A N D
S H A R I N G G O V E R N M E N T A L P O W E R
by
Rudolph C. Ryser
Center for World Indigenous Studies
(c)1995 Center For World Indigenous Studies and
International Work Group For Indigenous Affairs.
This article was published in IWGIA Document No. 76,
"Indigenous Peoples Experiences with Self-Government",
proceedings of the seminar on arrangements for self-
determination by Indigenous Peoples within national
states, 10 and 11 February 1994, University of
Amsterdam.
Exercising governmental power within the framework of a
state has evolved since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia into a
generally accepted system predicated on the principles of
legal universality and of individual rights. While the
actual arrangements for implementing these principles in
each state vary the principles remain defining features of
the state. Despite the rationalist's certainty that human
freedom, liberty and equality are best served by the
universalist/individualist formulation, ample historical and
contemporary evidence exists to suggest such certainty is
not well founded -- indeed such certainty may prevent
realization of evolving principles that may better serve
human societies.
In this essay I will discuss developing arrangements
for indigenous nations to govern themselves and examine the
new political realities flowing from the collapse of
numerous internationally recognized states. These new
conditions demand a new formulation for sharing governmental
power. The universalist state clashes with persistent human
requirements for cultural diversity, and increasingly it is
apparent that the state is in violent conflict with
biological diversity as well. The movement for self-
determination of "indigenous peoples" reflects the long
struggle between those who seek the permanent establishment
of the state and the original nations on top of which the
state was established. Leaders of the original nations call
for respect of diverse cultural realities and international
recognition of collective rights, while the leaders of
states demand unswerving loyalty to singular state cultures
and individual rights. Given the more than 6000 culturally
distinct nations and the 192 recognized states, it would
seem there is no contest. The sheer number of nations would
seem to outweigh the states. Numbers help create illusions,
however. The state systems, indeed each state, developed
through the power of gun powder. This was true in 1648 and
during the American and French revolutions of the late 18th
century. To a large extent, it remains true that whomever
controls the greatest fire power in weapons, controls the
state. Too often, it is through gun powder that power in
the state is held by a ruling class drawn from immigrant
populations or by one nation ruling many other nations
without their consent. A result, nations find themselves
engaged in violent conflicts with states, defensive wars,
that number as many as 82 conflicts (1993) world-wide.
Despite this rather dark picture, there are some
hopeful indicators suggesting the possibility of new and
constructive alternatives. Through the efforts of scores of
talented and far-sighted individuals, the United Nations has
provided a forum for discussions of the situation of the
world's original nations since 1982 through the United
Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. This forum
has given impetus to many more meetings internationally and
inside existing states between nations' and states'
representatives. They have engaged in discussions about
changing state constitutions, shared or autonomous control
over educational systems, health systems, policing of
national territories, and regulation of natural resources.
Such discussions have occurred quietly, without much fanfare
in both Europe and North America and to a lesser extent
elsewhere in the world.
In Europe where there are 130 nations inside the
boundaries of 35 states these discussions have been taking
place within the framework of the European Community (EC).
Two forces are converging in Europe to create a "Europe of
Nations and Regions."[1] The nations and regions of Europe
seeking local control and less centralized methods of
solving local problems constitute one major force. The
other force is the EC proponents of a Federal Europe who
regard the states and their claim to sovereignty as an
obstacle to achieving their goal. These not insignificant
forces are joined in a common venture by the principle of
subsidiarity where decision-making is placed at the "scale
most appropriate to the problem."[2] The political movement
in Europe extends to Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain,
Italy, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, United
Kingdom, Ireland and Greece.[3] New and constructive
arrangements in each of these states often place a nation or
region in the position of primary decision-maker on
increasingly wider issues including education, public works,
natural resource management, banking and trade. If this
trend continues, states in Europe will soon be regarded as
"multi-national organizations" representing remnants of
earlier stages of political development. Indeed, given the
inability of states' governments to deal with such large
international problems as "international crime syndicates,"
environmental disasters -- natural (like hurricanes killing
more than 100,000 people in the Chittagong region of
Bangladesh) and human created (like the Chernobyl nuclear
explosion that crossed states' borders), and "regional
conflicts," as well as "local problems" of poverty and
famine it is difficult to conceive of a long-term future
role for the state. The nations and regions of Europe seem
to point the way for one approach to meeting the needs of
nations as well as those who see the need for large umbrella
structures which extend over very large pieces of geography.
The principle of subsidiarity may be an appropriate and
workable solution to the conflict between nations and
states, and, thus provide an important model for the
exercise of governmental power by the world's original
nations.
In the United States of America, another process is
underway where America's original nations have begun to
engage the state to build a framework for government to
government relations. Beginning in 1964, Indian nations
started to seeking direct control over their social,
economic and political affairs. Much of this developing
movement started with tribal councils promulgating their own
laws for land use within the boundaries of reservations.
Since there were relatively few non-tribal members living
inside the boundaries of reservations directly affected by
these new laws, there was initially little challenge. When
these laws began to affect non-tribal members, resistance
began to grow. Tribal governments claimed their "inherent
right to govern" inside the reservation boundaries and
sought to demonstrate U.S. agreement to these claims by
pointing to a treaty with the United States.
While many Indian nations had during the 19th century
concluded more than 400 treaties with the United States
(concerning peace-making arrangements and cession of
hostilities, land cessions, and ingress/egress through
Indian territories among other things) no arrangements had
been established to join Indian governments and the U.S.
government. Despite occupying neighboring territories and
the U.S. government claiming dominion over all the lands
from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, no political power-
sharing arrangements took form. The U.S. and Indian tribes
saw themselves as politically separate entities. On the
basis of this experience, Indian nation leaders like Joe
Gary (Spokane/Cour d'Alene Tribes), Earl Old Person
(Blackfeet), Mel Tonasket (Colville Confederated Tribes) and
Joe DeLaCruz (Quinault) each in their turn called on the
United States to recognize the right of Indian nations to
exercise the right of self-determination. Each called on
the United States to recognized the right of each Indian
nation to govern itself.
President Lyndon B. Johnson was the first U.S.
president to endorse the principle of self-determination
being extended to Indian nations.[4] On March 6, 1968,
President Johnson established by Executive Order the
National Council on Indian Opportunity (NCIO) -- a new U.S.
governmental body established to facilitate Indian
participation in U.S. government decision-making concerning
Indian Policy. The new organ of government with all of its
members appointed by the President of the United States.
The Executive Order provided that the NCIO would have the
Vice President of the U.S., Secretaries of the Departments
of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health, Education
and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development and the Director
of the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Council was also
to include six members chosen by the President of the United
States from Indian nations. The Council did not become
active until the election of the next administration when
membership was increased to include the Attorney General and
two more representatives of Indian Nations. In January of
1970, the Indian members of the Council announced their view
of this new body: that it would pursue an ambitious agenda
of new programs and new policy for Indian Country.[5] Indian
leaders hailed the National Council on Indian Opportunity as
a new and vital connection to the President and power to
implement favorable U.S. policy toward Indian peoples. Many
Indian people throughout Indian Country regarded NCIO as
just another imposition of bureaucracy to further strangle
Indian aspirations. While NCIO did eventually contribute
several important studies on Indian Affairs and stimulated
the development and issuance of a new U.S. policy on Indian
Self-Determination, the agency actually had very little
influence in the halls of the White House. The Council's
organization contributed importantly to this lack of
influence:
The structure of the organization included four parts:
the Vice President and his own personal staff; the
Indian members; representatives of federal agencies;
and the Council staff. Each organizational unit
tended to function as a separate part, with the
Council staff acting as a sort of liaison between the
other three parts. During the Johnson years of NCIO
the Indian members of the Council were selected and
appointed on the basis of experience and their
representation of Indian interests. During the Nixon
years the Indian members were selected and appointed
on the basis of their loyalty to the Nixon
administration's goals and objectives.[6]
Though the NCIO started out with good intentions and
with considerable vigor, within a few years it became an
"insidious political instrument"[7] filled with internal
dissension and derided by Indian leaders throughout Indian
Country. The Council's Executive Director was a strong
partisan of the Nixon Administration who viewed the NCIO as
an instrument to advance the political interests of the
Administration and not as an instrument of policy
development on Indian Affairs. Despite the ultimate failure
of the National Council on Indian Opportunity, its early and
quick start produced an important policy change that had
long-term importance. The Council is widely credited with
being the source and impetus for the Indian Self-
Determination Policy issued by the White House. It was on
July 8, 1970 that the "right of self-determination" was
officially pronounced as U.S. government policy applying to
Indian tribes by President Richard M. Nixon. Despite its
rocky origins, the new policy began a new era in U.S./Indian
nation relations, and so to began the search for a mechanism
or mechanisms to facilitate Indian participation in the
formulation of new policy and programs for Indian Country.
On October 24, 1974, in San Diego, California the
National Congress of American Indians met in its 31st Annual
Session and promulgated the American Indian Declaration of
Sovereignty which became a signal sent by Indian nations to
the United States government that they were prepared to
reassume governing powers in accord with their right of
self-determination. The Congress of the United States added
its endorsement to the movement toward Indian self-
determination by enacting the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act of 1975 (PL 93-638). Another joint
Indian nation/U.S agency was established to review, consider
and recommend new administrative and legislative initiatives
to improve U.S. government policy toward Indian nations.
The U.S. Congress established the American Indian Policy
Review Commission in 1975 with a membership of 3 Senators 3
Congressmen and 5 Indian representatives acting as
individual advocates for the more than three hundred Indian
tribes and communities. After two years of conducting
research, public hearings and consultations with U.S. and
Indian publics, the Commission issued more than 200
recommendations for changes in U.S. laws, regulations,
policies and practices concerning civil and criminal
jurisdiction on Indian reservations, economic and natural
resource management, procedures for U.S. recognition of more
than 100 Indian tribes not administratively recognized by
U.S. government agencies, Indian religious freedom, health
policy changes, education and organization of U.S.
government agencies responsible for dealing with Indian
Affairs. The Commission produced the most sweeping
recommendations for changes in Indian Affairs policy ever
produced by the United States government. Despite its
important recommendations, the Commission was unable to
directly respond to one of its key mandates: Consider and
make recommendations for alternative elective bodies for
Indian people to participation in the federal policy
formation process. The Commission took the recommendation
of the task force assigned responsibility for this question:
It is our opinion that because the legal or political
status of tribes today, as discussed herein, is not
settled, the tribal governments are reluctant to
release what authority they now have or to permit it
to be further undermined; that a voluntary intertribal
affiliations method is growing; and there is doubt of
the sincerity of the federal government to provide an
indefinite status without termination. Tribes could
assume that benefits would accrue if PL 93-580 studies
result in Congress improving its record and allowing
stronger application of self-determination and self-
government....[8]
The Commission concluded with Indian leaders that more
local control by Indian tribes was more desirable than
establishing an elective body which represented each of the
Indian nations in relations with the United States
government. Despite this view, attempts were repeated in
the U.S. government and in relation with individual state
governors and Attorneys General from 1977 onward to form
intergovernmental policy-making bodies. Where general
policy advice was being sought, U.S. government officials
and Indian government officials shared responsibility on an
equal plane. However, when regulatory power vested in a
governmental entity must be exercised, Indian government
representation is little more than perfunctory. The Pacific
Ocean Salmon Fishery Commission has representatives from the
federal government, and state governments proportional to
their responsibility. Indian nations have one
representative thought their responsibility runs the full
coastline from the Canadian to the Mexican borders with the
United States. The National Indian Gaming Commission,
established by the United States government to regulate
gambling enterprises on Indian reservations, has three
members. All three members, appointed by the President, are
non-Indians. After some pressure from the Chairman of the
U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on President Clinton
consideration is now being given to appointing an attorney
who is an Indian as Chairman of the Commission.[9]
As the illustrations above indicate, though there have
been virtually no formal agreements or other constructive
arrangements at the federal level of state government for
permitting Indian nations to participate in the regulation
of broad issues of public policy, there have been some
attempts at establishing advisory bodies. Advisory
positions in the federal government have been used to give
guidance to U.S. officials who actually have the power to
effect public policy.
Indeed, this pattern of involving Indian nations in the
exercise of governmental power within the U.S. federal
system has been repeated at the state level where governors
or other officials of state government invite tribal
officials to sit on advisory boards, to suggest policy to
persons holding the power of state government.
While the advisory role Indian officials have played in
the U.S. government and various state governments has give
Indian officials extensive knowledge of the functioning of
those governments virtually any participant or observer
would readily agree that no governmental power sharing is
actually occurring. Officials in the U.S. government
clearly reserve the right to ignore Indian official advice,
and one must admit this is the rule rather than the
exception. The same is general true with domestic state
governments. Recognizing this reality, Indian leaders began
in the late 1970s to formulate a new approach to working
with the U.S. government and neighboring domestic state
governments: Negotiating a framework for the conduct of
government to government relations.
Indian leaders began to recognize fully in the early
1980s that the United States government would not, and could
not without a change in its Constitution, engage in power
sharing arrangements with Indian nations. The only workable
arrangement for conducting U. S. and Indian nation relations
would be as the American Indian Policy Review Commission
concluded: improve the self-determination and self-
government capabilities of Indian nations. Toward this end,
Indian nations (particularly in the northwest part of the
United States) proposed that the United States government
enter into discussions to form a Tri-Party Inter-
governmental Mechanism organized on the principle of
mutually recognized sovereign powers and government to
government relations.[10] Indian government, domestic state
government and federal government representatives were
proposed as co-equal members responsible for resolving
inter-governmental disputes. The Tri-partite
Intergovernmental Mechanism was urged in recognition that
Indian nations were not a part of the U.S. federal
system.[11] Only a few U.S. Senators[12] expressed any
interest in the tribal proposal. Indeed, the proposal
received no other serious attention from U.S. officials.
Despite the failure of U.S. government response,
President Ronald Reagan did announce a new U.S./Indian
Policy in 1983 declaring the United States government's
commitment to conduct relations with Indian nations on a
government to government basis and to promote tribal self-
government.[13] By 1987, through the initiative of the
Quinault, Lummi, Jamestown S'Klallam and Hoopa nations, the
so-called Reagan government-to-government policy was being
translated into new bi-lateral treaties between Indian
nations and the United States. On the way to negotiating
and concluding bi-lateral Self-Governance Compacts in 1990,
Indian nations in the domestic state of Washington
negotiated in 1989 a multi-lateral Accord with that state's
governor to establish a government-to-government framework
between tribal governments and the state government.[14]
This flurry of treaty-making with the federal government and
mutual agreement with a domestic state created new
conditions for intergovernmental relations between Indian
nations, domestic states and the federal government.[15]
Though no formal inter-governmental mechanism has been
formed, the legal framework for inter-governmental relations
has been formed between some Indian nations, the federal
government and neighboring domestic states.
Instead of sharing governmental powers, Indian nations,
the federal government and domestic states have moved to
exercise their separate and inherent governmental powers
along side each other while attempting to discover areas of
dispute that can be resolved by negotiations. In much the
same way, though by way of a different process, Indian
nations in the United States have begun to move along a path
similar to the nations and regions in Europe. Instead of
sharing power, each is exercising governmental authority
appropriate to its scale and proximity to the problem:
Another form of expressing the principle of subsidiarity.
Nations are maintaining their safe distance from control by
a central authority while not threatening the breakup of the
state. They exercise powers of government which if
conflicting with the interests of the state can be resolved
within a framework of mutuality. In widely publicized
meeting between more than 300 tribal officials and President
Bill Clinton the U.S. President issued an Executive Order
directing "federal agencies to deal directly with tribal
councils and to consult the councils before making any
decisions regarding the tribes' natural resources."[16] If
this trend continues in the United States America and in
Europe, self-government exercised by the world's original
nations may not be seen as so much of a threat by other
states.
A new era is emerging where nations and states must
seek early accommodation and cooperation to avoid a future
of conflict that would plunge nations and states into a
period of darkness. It is no accident that after the
collapse of several of the worlds' more prominent states
long persistent bedrock nations re-emerge to claim their
responsibility as full members of the international
community.
The lessons we must collectively learn from the
experience of political events over the last three years
include these:
1. The State system is not perfect, it is an experiment of
human problem-solving that does not always lend itself
well to solving problems for all of humanity.
2. Nations are natural human organisms which persist and
must have an acknowledged place as active participants
in international intercourse coexisting with states.
3. Where States exist and serve the needs of human society
they should be nurtured and celebrated, but where States
fail to serve the needs of human society, they should be
allowed to disassemble in a planned process which
permits the nations within to systematically reassume
their governing responsibilities.
4. If a State is no longer viable politically and
economically and it does not have distinct nations
within, its structure should be replaced temporarily
with international supervision followed by the formation
of an internationally recognized variant of human
organizational structures deemed appropriate to the
extant human cultures and geography of an area such as a
trust territory, freely associated state, commonwealth,
or other configuration established for a protected
population; such a non-self-governing status must have
the potential of being changed to a self-governing
status in the future. Finally,
5. Nations which do not wish to remain within an existing
state, must have the logical option of changing their
political status through peaceful negotiations; and
nations which choose not to leave a state should be
permitted to exercise self-governing powers appropriate
to their scale and to their proximity to the problem
requiring governmental decisions.
As of the present date, there are 192 States that
comprise the members of the world's state system of
governments. Of these states, 183 are members of the United
Nations, fewer are members of the International Court of
Justice, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund,
and the International Labour Organization. The "State" is a
rational organizational construct created to solve specific
social, economic and political problems, and it is made
legitimate by virtue of recognition extended to it by other
established states. All established States are said to be
sovereign political personalities having the recognized
capacity to protect their own borders, carry out political
intercourse with other states and perform those necessary
activities (economic, social and political in character)
sufficient to maintain the loyalty of an established number
of human beings. Not all of these States can be accurately
described as politically and economically viable. Indeed,
no fewer than thirty States are in a condition of perpetual
disarray, collapse, or they are essentially defunct
political and legal organisms. International institutions
and neighboring states which deem the continuity of even
defunct states as essential to their own stability are
obliged to provide support politically, militarily and
financially. Instead of strengthening the state system,
this process tends to further weaken an increasingly
fractured system.
More to the point of my dissertation, however, is that
the economic and sometimes political instability of some
states and the efforts to prop up crumbling states is
bringing other states into direct conflict with nations
inside these states. United Nations joint forces are at
this moment militarily fighting nations inside several
collapsed states. So committed are statists to the
continuity of the State System that they insist that a
failed state must continue even though there is no will or
capacity to ensure its normal operation. The nations which
often make the soul of a state become the objects of
derision and attack. States denounce and fear
"nationalism," or the commitment one has to the persistence
of a nation. Nationalism is regarded as a primitive;
emotionalism that undermines efforts to achieve "higher
forms of human civilization." In reality, properly
respected, the nation stands as the foundation of human
organization essential for human survival. Without the
nation, the State could have never come into existence. The
State could not long survive without national forbearance --
and, so, recent events would seem to bear this view out.
There are between six thousand and nine thousand
bedrock nations in the world. They are culturally diverse
and that diversity reflects the ecological diversity of the
Earth. Human nations, located in their particular places
demonstrate the success of natural adaptation and human
creative energy. They persist because nations satisfy human
spiritual, social, economic, and political (cultural) needs.
Nations are evolved human organisms, self-identified,
including members who share a common culture, heritage,
language and geographic place. Their existence is not
dependent on size, and their identity is essentially
determined by their culture. The culture of each nation is
determined by the relationship between the people and the
land. A nation is large enough to ensure the needs of its
constituents, but small enough to ensure consistency with
human scale.
The nation, the human organism from which all humans
originate, is the parent of the state. It is from the heart
of nations that the concept of the state arose. The
rational state is another of the many experiments attempted
to constructively advance the human condition. As the
parent from which the state springs, each nation is
obligated to ensure that the state fulfills its purposes.
But, when the experiment fails, there is no obligation to
force the continued existence of a state. The nation, is
more than adequate to serve as an independent international
personality on its own. It is quite realistic that the
world's political landscape contain both nations and states
as independent political entities.
While states will continue to perform their function
and nations will continue to function within the framework
of individual states, some states cannot continue to exist.
Many nations do not chose to become states or remain within
state structures. Given these realistic conditions, we must
seek to ensure the peaceful means for a world in which both
states and nations coexist. We must work to establish
concepts like the principle of subsidiarity as an
alternative to violence between nations and states. We must
establish new international institutions, new international
tools for providing the transition from a world of states to
a world of nations and states. We must provide the means
for nations to resolve long-standing disputes between them--
most will be concerned with unresolved land and natural
resource questions. We must also provide the means for
nations and states to resolve disputes between them after
the collapse of a state as well as before the collapse.
Finally, we must create new transitional structures between
nations, and nations and states to replace crumbling state
structures to minimize violent conflicts and maximize
systematic peaceful change.
There is room for new international institutions along
side the United Nations as clearly indicated by the
existence of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe which came into being as a result of the Helsinki
Final Act. New institutions which permit the direct,
coequal participation of nations and states are now
essential for the construction of a new international
political order. The breakup of states like Yugoslavia need
not result in the terror that is now being experienced in
Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Sustained, long-term conflicts
like the war between the Burmese state and the Karen, Kachin
and Shan nations are remnants of a failed British colonial
policy and should be brought to a swift end by
internationally sanctioned peace negotiations. The war
between the Jumma Peoples and the government of Bangladesh
should be ended through peaceful negotiations, mediated and
sanctioned internationally. The expansion of states into
national territories like the Peoples Republic of China's
occupation of Tibet must be halted and brought to a
negotiation table for peaceful disengagement. The war in
Guatemala continues and the wars between the Indonesian
government, the peoples of West Papua, East Timor and South
Molucca continue unabated -- all demanding internationally
sanctioned intervention.
These are not civil wars, but conflicts between states
and nations. They are conflicts which result from the
failure of the state to perform its function. They are
conflicts resulting from a failure of states to ensure the
full sharing of political power by all nations within the
framework of the state. The Geneva Conventions of 1949
provide the initial context within which new international
institutions and mechanisms can be fashioned to directly
address the conflicts between states and nations and between
nations after the collapse of a state. Protocols I and II
of the Geneva Conventions directly address conflicts between
states and between nations and states.[17] Initiatives by
nations and constructive efforts by some states can serve as
the impetus for new international mechanisms for peaceful
conflict resolution based in part on the Geneva Conventions
and particularly on Protocols I and II.
The new political era of nations and states into which
we are now passing demands that the world's nations resume
their duty as active participants in the formulation of
international rules of conduct. What we now call indigenous
nations, must become co-equal partners with states as
international political personalities. They must assume
their responsibilities as mature political personalities
with a full commitment to the restoration of mutual
coexistence between nations and states. Nations must fully
commit themselves to the advancement of human rights and the
democratization of international relations. Nations must
also adopt existing international instruments for the
promotion of peaceful relations between peoples, and they
must work to establish new international instruments for the
establishment of peaceful relations between nations and
between nations and states.
States governments are obliged to recognize that they
do sometimes fail to adequately serve the peoples for which
they were established. States governments must embrace the
changing world which includes many kinds of political
personalities -- not just states. The state system is
useful for some purposes, but not all peoples in the world
must live within a state structure. Where there are no
mechanisms for nation and state cooperation, states must
reach out to the nation and seek accommodation. States
governments must rework their foreign policies to recognize
that nations are a part of the international fabric -- an
essential element of the international arena. They must
learn the courage to seek constructive new relations with
nations to maximize cooperation and mutual benefit.
In a new age unfolding we are confronted by our
greatest hopes and wishes. We hope for accommodation in
Europe and accommodation becomes the practical, daily
demand. We hope for peaceful settlements in the Middle
East, and the State of Israel and the Palestinian nation
engage in fourteen fateful days of negotiations for peaceful
accommodation. In North America, the South Pacific Ocean
and in Africa, new measures of courage are being realized as
representatives of nations and representatives of states
have begun to move toward peaceful accommodation,
coexistence and cooperation. But, as these hopes are now
being realized, we are also discovering the need for new
courage and new creativity in diplomatic relations. Things
are not as "perfectly orderly" as we would want. The
tendency is to move swiftly to an "authoritarian order"
instead of a condition of mutual equality and cooperation.
Diversity is sloppy and uncomfortable at times, but the new
political era of nations and states is necessarily a mirror
of the cultural diversity of humanity. We are looking at
reality when we see many thousands of nations and scores of
states. We are seeing the success of human beings in their
many nations. We are seeing the experiments of the human
spirit when we see the scores of states. Reality demands
that we stretch our minds to find ways to creatively
accommodate the many differences we see among human beings.
Reality demands that we accept the challenge of human
success.
I propose that the world's states governments join with
the governments of the world's nations to form a temporary
Congress of Nations and States to develop new international
protocols which provide for new approaches to dispute
resolution between nations, and nations and states. New
structures, perhaps based in the Geneva Protocols I and II,
for resolving existing conflicts between nations and nations
and states should also be developed. The Congress of
Nations and States should build on the constructive
discussions among many nations and many states that have
been continuing at non-government conferences and within the
United Nations under the direction of the Economic and
Social Council for the last twenty years. Such a Congress
must take into account successful approaches to cooperative
engagement between nations as states like those developments
emerging in Europe and the United States of America.
The opportunity exists now like never before in history
for nations to fulfill their obligations as mature members
of the international community to work toward a peaceful
world. States, the children of nations, must turn now to
realistically work with nations to build a democratized
international community which ensures broad support by all
of the peoples of the world.
This is not simple idealism. The means exist for
representatives of nations and states to begin the process
of constructively re-ordering the world. A new political
order is before us. We need now only to understand
ourselves and our purpose to establish a peaceful and
creative political climate for human development. We must
put aside our fears and exercise maturity and courage to
take the next step in the new era of nations and states.
N O T E S
1. Griggs, Richard A. (1993) The Role of Fourth World
Nations and Synchronous Geopolitical Factors in the
Breakdown of the State. Doctoral dissertation for Ph.D. in
Geography, University of California - Berkeley: 164
Dr. Richard A. Griggs coined this phrase in his doctoral
dissertation. In his discussion of Europe's developing
regionalism he notes in his footnote 6: "This term 'Europe
of Regions' was developed by the Breton nationalist Yann
Fouere in his pioneering work, L'Europe aux Cents Drapeaux
Paris: Presses D'Europe, 1968. The Europe of Regions is
somewhat limiting since it nominally excludes nations
(Fouere did not intend this). To remind the reader that many
of these regions, and the most powerful advocates of this
vision, are Fourth World nations I occasionally substitute
my own expression a 'Europe of Nations and Regions.'"
2. Ibid., 163.
3. Ibid., Appendix C. 297-299.
4. Before he left office in 1968, President Johnson issued a
not so widely noticed statement urging recognition of the
right of self-determination for Indian tribes and denouncing
the U.S. government's policy of "terminating" Indian
Reservations (liquidating land and natural resources and
removing tribal members from the reservation and U.S.
protection).
5. Trimble, Charles E. "Considerations for Improved Federal-
Indian Relations through Consultation," A Paper prepared for
the National Congress of American Indians, Washington, D.C.
May 1993: 11.
6. Report of Federal Administration and Structure of Indian
Affairs Task Force, American Indian Policy Review
Commission. Senate and the House of Representatives of the
United States of America. Washington.,D.C.: Government
Printing Office, September 1976, p. 75.
7. Trimble, 1993:13
8. Report on Federal Administration and Structure of Indian
Affairs Task Force, American Indian Policy Review
Commission. Senate and the House of Representatives of the
United States of America. Washington.,D.C.: Government
Printing Office, September 1976, p. 84.
9. Anquoe, Bunty. "Harold Monteau expected to chair National
Indian Gaming Commission," Indian Country Today. Volume 13,
Issue 43: April 20, 1994: 1,2.
10. Tribes and States in Conflict: A Tribal Proposal, Inter-
Tribal Study Group on Tribal State Relations. Quinault
Indian Nation 1980.
11. Ibid., Tribal officials had concluded that "Indian
nations are not, nor have they ever been, a part of the U.S.
Federal system of governments." This conclusion was drawn
from a simple inspection of the United States Constitution
which provides for the establishment of a federal government
and the "governments of the several states" but does not
recognize Indian nations and their governments as having
powers within the federation of states. This observation
left Indian leaders to finally conclude that "Indian nations
are outside the United States and outside its political
system of governments."
12. Senator Warren G. Magnuson of the State of Washington
and Senator James Abourezk of South Dakota were sympathetic,
but took no formal action to advance the tribal proposal.
13. Statement by the President: Indian Policy. The White
House, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1983. "Our new nation
continued to make treaties and to deal with Indian tribes on
a government-to-government basis. * * * In 1970, President
Nixon announced a national policy of self-determination for
Indian tribes. At the heart of the new policy was a
commitment by the federal government to foster and encourage
tribal self-government. That commitment was signed into law
in 1975 as the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act. The Principle of self-government set forth
in this Act was a good starting point. * * * However, since
1975, there has been more rhetoric than action. * * * This
Administration intends to reverse this trend by removing the
obstacles to self-government...."
14. Centennial Accord between the State of Washington and
Federally Recognized Tribes - June 1989.
15. Ryser, Rudolph C. "Resuming Self-Government in Indian
Country," Hamline Law Review.May 1994. In this essay I
examine the U.S. government's dual policy on the principle
self-determination (internal vs. external policy) and its
implications for the Self-Governance Compacts concluded with
the Quinault, Jamestwon S'Klallam, Lummi and Hoopa nations.
16. Broder, John M. Clinton tells 300 tribal leaders:
'Welcome home.' Los Angeles Times April 30, 1994.
17. Ryser, Rudolph C. "The Rules of War and Fourth World
Nations," Occasional Paper #5 Center for World Indigenous
Studies. September 1985. In this essay I elaborate on the
applicability of Protocols I and II to conflicts between
nations and nations and states.
S O U R C E S
(1989) Centennial Accord between the State of Washington and
Federally Recognized Tribes - June 1989.
(1983) Statement by the President: Indian Policy. The White
House, Washington, D.C. January 24, 1983.
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION.
(1976) Report of Federal Administration and Structure of
Indian Affairs Task Force, Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America.
Washington.,D.C.: Government Printing Office,
September 1976.
ANQUOE, BUNTY.
(1994) "Harold Monteau expected to chair National Indian
Gaming Commission," Indian Country Today. Volume 13,
Issue 43: April 20, 1994.
BRODER, JOHN M.
(1994) Clinton tells 300 tribal leaders: 'Welcome home.' Los
Angeles Times April 30, 1994.
GRIGGS, RICHARD A.
(1993) The Role of Fourth World Nations and Synchronous
Geopolitical Factors in the Breakdown of the State.
Doctoral dissertation for Ph.D. in Geography,
University of California - Berkeley.
INTER-TRIBAL STUDY GROUP ON TRIBAL STATE RELATIONS
(1980) Tribes and States in Conflict: A Tribal Proposal,
Quinault Indian Nation 1980 and excerpted in Solving
Intergovernmental Conflicts, Occasional Paper 19
Center for World Indigenous Studies 1992.
RYSER, RUDOLPH C.
(1994) "Resuming Self-Government in Indian Country," Hamline
Law Review.May 1994.
(1985) "The Rules of War and Fourth World Nations,"
Occasional Paper #5 Center for World Indigenous
Studies. September 1985.
TRIMBLE, CHARLES E.
(1993) "Considerations for Improved Federal-Indian Relations
through Consultation," A Paper prepared for the
National Congress of American Indians, Washington,
D.C. May 1993.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: -= THE FOURTH WORLD DOCUMENTATION PROJECT =- ::
:: A service provided by ::
:: The Center For World Indigenous Studies ::
:: www.cwis.org ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Originating at the Center for World Indigenous Studies, Olympia,
Washington USA www.cwis.org <http://www.cwis.org>
� 1999 Center for World Indigenous Studies
(All Rights Reserved. References up to 500 words must be referenced
to the Center for World Indigenous Studies and/or the Author
Copyright Policy
Material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive
is accepted on the basis that the material is the original, unoccupied
work of the author or authors. Authors agree to indemnify the Center for
World Indigenous Studies, and DayKeeper Press for all damages, fines and
costs associated with a finding of copyright infringement by the author
or by the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation
Project Archive in disseminating the author(s) material. In almost all
cases material appearing in the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive
will attract copyright protection under the laws of the United States of
America and the laws of countries which are member states of the Berne
Convention, Universal Copyright Convention or have bi-lateral copyright
agreements with the United States of America. Ownership of such copyright
will vest by operation of law in the authors and/or The Center for World
Indigenous Studies, Fourth World Journal or DayKeeper Press. The Fourth
World Documentation Project Archive and its authors grant a license to
those accessing the Fourth World Documentation Project Archive to render
copyright materials on their computer screens and to print out a single
copy for their personal non-commercial use subject to proper attribution
of the Center for World Indigenous Studies Fourth World Documentation
Project Archive and/or the authors.
Questions may be referred to: Director of Research
Center for World Indigenous Studies
PMB 214
1001 Cooper Point RD SW Suite 140
Olympia, Washington 98502-1107 USA
360-754-1990
www.cwis.org <http://www.cwis.org>
usaoffice@cwis.org <mailto:usaoffice@cwis.org>
OCR Software provided by Caere Corporation