ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Witness List | PDF
Version
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: The next one is Dalee Sambo.
(Pause.)
MS. SAMBO: Thank you very much. I think I -- am I last on the list here?
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: No, we have one more.
MS. SAMBO: Oh, okay, okay. At this point in time, what I'd like to do is limit my comments to the Alaska Native Review Commission Project; and the other comments that I have related to governance and the right of self-determination, I'll go ahead and withhold, and try to relate those to the entire Commission, which I understand is holding hearings tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. As well, maybe people will be a little more alert at that point in time, hopefully.
First of all, after hearing the earlier discussion, I must make it clear that myself; as an indigenous person, am not an ethnic minority. Ethnic minorities are very distinct and different from indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples recognize the collective dimension of their rights; and this relates specifically to the political right of self-determination. Indigenous peoples also have land rights that are inherent out -- often. When I use the term distinct, I mean distinct from others in society; and that I'm not merely an advocate for Native human rights, with the desire or the aspiration to be equal to other Americans or other ethnic minorities who make up society in America; but more specifically, my advocacy work is -- or the path leads to recognition of the distinct status and distinct rights of Alaska Native people, as well as indigenous peoples around the world.
I think back, when you hear the terms ethnic minority, to what Brooklyn Rivera (ph.), the Mosquito Indian leader of the Mosquito, Sulu, and Rama (ph.) Indian people of the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua said to the Alaska Native Review Commission that:
"Ethnic minorities run restaurants; that indigenous
peoples have land rights' have rights of self-determination; have hunting
and fishing rights."
So I think it's really important to make that distinction, because Alaska Native people are not merely seeking equality in the way that Black people are, or Chinese Americans are, or others in society; but more specifically, we're seeking distinct recognition of, and respect for, our inherent rights as indigenous peoples; which are merely inherent in our legal status as Indian people, or Native people, or whatever each respective tribe chooses to call themselves.
I think it's a really important distinction that must be made; and, again, it doesn't go -- it doesn't apply merely to Alaska Native people; it applies to all indigenous peoples around the world. At the international level, there has been some development related to the definition of indigenous peoples; and it's very, very clear that the international legal community, or the world community generally, makes this distinction; and I think that it's important for the Alaska Natives Commission to make this distinction as well. Because, again, it's not equality that we're seeking; we're seeking recognition of and respect for our distinct rights, which are the political right of self-determination; the rights to ownership and control of lands and resources; the right to continue our own traditional economic activities, whether they're hunting or fishing; whatever they might happen to be.
With regard to the Alaska Native Review Commission, and
I think some -- many of you here know about the work of the Alaska Native
Review Commission. Just for the record, I'll state that the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference in 1983 established the Alaska Native Review Commission; appointed
the sole commissioner, former Justice Thomas R. Berger (ph.) from British
Columbia, Canada, as, again, it's sole commissioner. The Alaska Native Review
Commission conducted its work from 1983 to 1985. The result of the 62 hearings
that were held throughout rural Alaska, and embraced the testimony of the
Native people who came forward throughout those 62 hearings, was "Village
Journey, the Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission.''
I think that it's extremely important that the Alaska
Natives Commission go back and visit, especially Chapter Seven of "Village Journey," which
outline the specific recommendations of Justice Berger (ph.), after listening
to 1,450 Alaska Native people across this state, as well as indigenous peoples
from other parts of the world who came forward and shared their experiences
with self-determination, lands and resources, hunting and fishing, and agricultural
rights.
Specifically, when I think about the title of this Commission itself, the Programs and Policies Affecting Alaska Native People, what we have is really a contradiction of programs and policies. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services of the federal government, Administration for Native Americans, provides funds directly to tribal governments in this state for political development, cultural development, social development, whatever it is that these communities aspire to. Albeit, the funding is very little; but it is funding again from the Administration for Native Americans to tribal entities.
Yet, at the same time, there's an unclear policy within the federal government as to the existence and the status of tribal governments in the state of Alaska, not to mention the total denial of the recognition of the status of tribal governments by the present Hickel Administration.
I won't go into all of that history. I mean, most of you are very familiar with the present state of affairs, at least at the state level. So what we're saying is that at the federal level, the programs exist that -- Indian Health Service is another example. I know that there are other people who can provide you with greater details, in terms of the funding that's brought into this state and helps to generate the overall state economy by virtue of the fact that tribes are a reality here; that tribes exist here; yet, at the same time, there's an unclear federal policy, and a total denial on the part of the state of Alaska.
I think that one of the things that needs to be done with respect to state policy, as well as federal policy, and the rights of self-government of Native tribes in this state, there must be clear and explicit recognition of the right of self-determination of the Alaska Native people. Once this clear and explicit recognition is put in place, whether it's in terms of policy, or in terms of -- gosh, I would love to see a Constitutional amendment -- but I know that that's not going to happen.
But once there's clear and explicit recognition of the right of self-determination and the right of self-government of Native people from this state, and if there follows with that, the political will and the political generosity to recognize these tribal governments as a third order of government, meaning we have the federal government; we have the state government; and we have tribal governments, then we can create cooperative relationship between these three levels of government -- or three distinct governments, to respond to the various different problems that are facing the Alaska Native community.
Upstairs, throughout this AFN Convention, we've heard people speak on panels about the social and cultural problems. I mean, you, yourselves, as Commission members, have heard many of these problems raised in the few hearings that you've already held; the political problems, in terms of recognition; the economic problems.
But, again, once there's clear and explicit recognition of the right of self-determination, then I think we're going to see real collaboration and cooperation to resolve some of these problems. And without that clear and explicit recognition, we're always going to be in this grey area, which has not been helpful to anybody.
Tribes are beginning, as many of you know, to assert their right of self-determination in their own communities, in their own languages, and in their own ways, to solve their own problems. The attitude is changing. People are recognizing that they can't rely upon anyone else to solve their problems or to take care of them; that they are going to have to take care of themselves. And if there were a measure of political generosity shown to tribal governments in this state, I think we could then turn around and begin to resolve some of the dire and urgent problems that do face the Native community here.
The recommendations of Justice Berger (ph.) are not a White man's version, or they're not a White man's solutions to the problems. The recommendations that Thomas Berger (ph.) made, after hearing from Native people are simply a reaffirmation of what Native people have been saying in my lifetime, and even previous to this. It's a couple generations back from con -- from first contact basically. So, Justice Berger's (ph.) recommendations, I really urge you to seriously look at them and consider them; and also to incorporate them into the work of the Alaska Native Commission, especially with regard to governance; because, again, the clear and explicit recognition of the right of self-determination will be key to the many other areas, whether it's self-determination and health care delivery, solving social and cultural problems, pursuing economic development that's distinct from what we already see going on with the Native regional corporations and village corporations, as well as the issues of hunting and fishing rights.
One last point is it boggles my mind -- I just don't understand it that here in Alaska and the United States, the great super power, one of the most developed countries in the world, that we are seeing a diminishment and deterioration of indigenous rights; whereas, right next door in Canada -- you know what they just went through in Canada? Maybe most of you are aware of it; but it's amazing to me. I think it's an extraordinary development. They just went through a constitutional negotiation, where the indigenous peoples were able to put in place language that would entrench the inherent right of Native self-government in the Canadian constitution, the highest law of the land as it's referred to.
That is an extraordinary political development. Yet, at the same time, here in Alaska, we have a Hickel Administration that denies the recognition and the powers of tribal governments. It doesn't make sense. It simply doesn't make sense. The world community; the international legal community is beginning to accommodate the rights of indigenous peoples.
I'd like to save that whole discussion of the International Human Rights Law development for the full commission; but, again, I think that there has to be clear and explicit recognition, of the inherent right of self-determination and self-government; and it's for the people out there and on the ground to exercise it and demonstrate it in their own way.
It'll take their own prerogative to do this. There, obviously, is a real political spectrum in terms of how they exercise it and demonstrate it; but I think the key -- the first hurdle to clear is having a clear policy, providing for explicit recognition: then people can move on. I mean, they're moving on, despite what the Alaska Natives Commission says, or despite what the State of Alaska says, or despite what the Secretary of Interior says. People are persisting, and their resilience ought to be celebrated in that regard. But in terms of actual policy, I think that this is going to be really, really critical to the further political development of Alaska Native tribes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Any comment, Ella?
MS. ANAGIK: Yes, I would like to comment on that. I do agree, and I would like to reiterate the fact that the U.S. Congress, in making millions of dollars of appropriations per year, has operated on exactly that premise; that is, the funding, in order to be constitutional under the U.S. Constitution, has appropriated millions of dollars to the villages, on the premise that these villages -- Native villages are tribes. But there has been no clear expressed statement, and I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Bart?
MR. GARBER: No. Thank you very much, Mary Ann.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Boyko?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I'm a bit at a loss. This has been a very articulate statement; and I thank you for it.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Father Elliott?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: But let us assume -- let us -- I wasn't quite done.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: (Laughing) I'm coming to my point now, forgive me. Let us assume, you know, that we all died and went to heaven, and tomorrow the federal government will have a declaration of the rights of indigenous people of -- kind of a second Magna Carta. As a matter of policy, -- okay? -- we recognize that indigenous people are not just minorities -- it's like Italian or Polish immigrants -- they were here first; and they have certain basic rights that we have to recognize. Now, let's say we've got that. Now what do we do in the present-day world? With the realities, political and economic, that exist in Alaska, what do we do to implement that?
MS. MILLS: You know, that's a very good question; because that's exactly what indigenous peoples at the international level are struggling with as well. What are the practical realities here that we have to deal with? How is it that we implement something that will be meaningful in some way to our own communities? Really, what it's going to take, that if, in fact, this did happen, your scenario, and this was the new Magna Carta; and the state of Alaska, as a political subdivision of the United States, had to adhere to this as well; then we would not only need to bring -- or conform state laws and policies, as well as federal laws and regulations, to traditional laws and customs, or the desires of Native communities out there.
So I'm talking about wha -- that we'd have to deal with any conflict of laws that might exist out there. But that's all in writing. What's more important is what, I think, you're getting at; and that is actually the actions of people out there and on the ground. If we could clear this all up on paper, and there was clear policy, then it would really take just the hard work of these individual communities to breathe life into this new Magna Carta -- to make the reality of self-determination a reality for themselves.
The other thing that goes along with this, and I think we here in Alaska and the United States generally, have a different view cowards this than others in Canada and elsewhere, that not only comes a right, but also a duty; and tribal members would be able to exercise certain rights; but they would also have a duty and an obligation to their community. The same goes for the state of Alaska and the United States government that they' re -- they exercise certain rights, and powers, and authority; but, in addition to that, they have an obligation and they have a duty to provide financial resources to our communities to insure that they can make their aspirations a reality out there and on the ground.
So it's not only going to take clear and explicit policy, and laws that are entrenched in things like Constitutions, and so forth; but it's going to take the hard work of people within their own communities, as well as the financial resources that are needed to really make these things feasible in any way.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: What would you do -- my last question. What would you do with, basically, competing and perhaps conflicting, systems and structures such as ANCSA, which really doesn't fit into the tribal and sovereignty picture, does it?
MS. MILLS: Not to mention other competing rights and interests. I mean, the subsistence debate is the classic example of competing rights and interests; and I think Natives first. I mean, (laughing) without question. That's not acceptable to --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: But would you repeal ANCSA? Would you give the land and the money back --
MS. MILLS: No, this is one reason --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: -- and say:
"Let's start from scratch?"
MS. MILLS: No, this is one reason why I'm urging you to look
at the recommendations in "Village Journey," and Chapter 7 specifically. Here,
again, it would be a matter for every community to look into. If their village
corporation -- at a small community level, if their village corporation happens
to be operating, and operating well, and conducting appropriate economic development
for that particular community, what I would probably urge a community to do is
to -- through the framework of a tribal government, to bring that village corporation
under its arm, or to make it the economic-development arm of that tribal government.
On the regional level, it's a whole another matter. I think its important to recog -- at least for me it is important to recognize that the Native regional corporations serve a very different function and a very different purpose, distinct from smaller grassroots' communities and villages out there. That's a little more complex. I don't think that I would repeal ANCSA; I would certainly repeal the extinguishment of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights. To date, there's been absolutely no one who's gone forward to challenge the plenary power of Congress to extinguish the rights of the Native people in that regard. That's what's put us in this present day deba -- situation on the subsistence debate, is that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 extinguished the aboriginal hunting and fishing rights of Alaska Native people.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: It said it did, anyway.
MS. MILLS: Well, it said it did; but that's what has, indeed, put us in this present --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: But where are you going to change that? In the Court of International Justice before the United Nations assembly? I mean, you're not expecting Congress to say:
"Well, we overstepped our rights under generally-accepted
human rights' concepts in the New World Order, or whatever you want to call
it.''
How you going to remedy that?
MS. MILLS: Well, I think -- well, we're always changing policies; we're always -- I mean, we've amended ANCSA how many times?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I'm not suggesting that the policy couldn't be changed; --
MS. MILLS: Uh-huh (affirmative).
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: -- but I -- are you -- you expect Congress to admit that it didn't have either the Constitutional or the international power to extinguish --
MS. MILLS: Absolutely not. Congress would never say that we never had the power in the first place. Is it -- I mean, you know, we're balking about the most elite, all-male, you know, I mean, it's not going to happen.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Last time I looked, it wasn't very all male (laughing).
MS. MILLS: Well, practically. I won't get into that; but, no, --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I thought this was the Year of --
MS. MILLS: -- I'm under no delusion that --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I thought this was the Year of the Woman.
MS. MILLS: You know, we'll see; we'll see. You know, I'm under no delusion over whether or not Congress would go back and question their own plenary power. They've used it against Alaska Native people; they've used it against Indian people all across the United States to further their own interests and their own initiatives, which are primarily motivated by greed. And I think that that was what was going on here in Alaska with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
But I think that there is no problem with opening up this issue and entrenching the rights of Alaska Native people to hunting and fishing.
You know, it boggles my mind that in 1982, we even had a referendum as to whether or not subsistence was a good use of our resources. I mean, talk about competing rights and competing interests here. Obviously, I'm going to stand up for Native rights. I think that it's -- that if we could go back and -- or, no, if we can -- if we could actually take the present-day laws and policies and bring them in line with the international legal developments. I mean, you're aware that our individual rights, and now collective indigenous people's rights, in no case may a peoples be deprived of its form of subsistence. But the Alaska Native people, through ANCSA, and by the pen, have been -- I mean, their aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, their subsistence rights, were extinguished.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: But then an effort was made to ameliorate that in ANILCA, wasn't it?
MS. MILLS: But, again, we're not talking about distinct rights and distinct status. We're talking about rural users and, I mean, all these other terms that have emerged.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Okay.
MS. MILLS: Anyway, I'm sure you're --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Well, appreciate the (indiscernible -- speaking simultaneously).
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: One comment. You have very interesting testimony; however, I do understand, you know, as you say, tribes are reality in Alaska. But I guess what Governor Hickel has a problem with is not recognizing tribes as sovereign, and to what degree sovereign rights? Tribes and sovereignty, two different things. And I guess that's the question many of us have as to what sovereign limits there are, you know, in the tribes, and then how the tribes would affect the corporate structures? And so -- and I think the big confusion in Alaska Natives and why we're sitting arguing against each other, pushing in wrong directions --
MS. MILLS: Uh-huh (affirmative); uh- huh (affirmative). Just --
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: -- but that's just a comment I had (indiscernible speaking simultaneously).
MS. MILLS: Yeah, well, just in follow-up, at the international level, this very same dialogue is taking place; this discussion of the external right of self-determination and the internal right of self-determination. Indigenous peoples at the international level, their present position is that there should be no limitation on the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples anywhere, any time, and for any reason.
I think that it's safe to say that here in the case of Alaska Native tribes, that we're not going to see 200 secessionist movements crop up just because there's some clear and explicit right of -- or recognition of the right of self-determination. I mean, let's be practical, the moment that it's written down, it's not going to happen. This is the fear of Australia, of Canada, of all these other states out there; but I think, to be realistic, that it really is not going to take place here. Certainly there -- I don't want to undermine the arguments of those tribes and those nations who want to pursue that avenue. I mean, the Hoden (ph.) and Shawnee people, the Six Nations people, who have clear and distinct treaty rights, they believe they are a nation. It's a -- but that's a whole another issue.
COMMISSIONER PAGANO: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time and concerns.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Think that'll be all.
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
