August 2020

Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights

Friday, December 14, 2012

Censored 2012: Thai activist says UN Rapporteur caused extensive harm to the people

Matthew McDaniel: "In this photo of James Anaya in Thailand,
Anaya makes no mention of the only case from that part
of the country that is already in process at the UN. This guy was
chosen because he is useless, no threat to any country."
(Photo Asia Pacific Human Rights Center)

Censored 2012: Thai activist says UN Rapporteur caused extensive harm to the people
 
SR Anaya and Wasted Time
The Akha of Hooh Yoh and Pah Nmm Akha vs. the Queen of Thailand
By Matthew McDaniel
Censored News

The following statement is in response to 'Censored 2012: Mohawk John Kane says the truth about UN Rapporteur James Anaya was the most censored issue in 2012.'
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2012/12/mohawk-john-kane-most-censored-issue.html
 
My name is Matthew McDaniel.
I have worked with the Akha people of SE Asia for more than 20 years as a volunteer advocate for human rights.
In 2003 the Akha people of Hooh Yoh Akha village cluster asked me to help defend their land from a take over by the Queen of Thailand's Royal Project. The Royal Project was staking out a claim to 8,000 rai of land, pretty much all of the farming land of 1500 Akha and Lahu villagers. Informed consent was no part of the picture. Project managers brought in army personnel, dogs and began building structures on the land they staked out. The Akha would have nothing left at all and would be reduced to working for what ever wages the project paid for a limited number of people from the village. Their decades of investment in the land would be lost.
As a result of taking on this case I was expelled from Thailand after living with the Akha people for 13 years. It took me a year and a half to get my wife, who is Akha, and our children out of the country. The Akha paid a very high price for this case. I and my family paid a very high price for this case. It is impossible for anyone in Thailand to make a direct accusation against the royalty.
But two weeks after leaving Thailand for good, I presented the Akha case at the UN in New York. This was the first time anyone had spoken the name of the Akha people at the UN. Over time I was able to build the case of the Akha and present it to Special Rapporteur Rudolfo Stavenhagen. He was willing to assist the Akha case.
We made extensive progress at the UN with Special Rapporteur Stavenhagen. We were able to get the Thai government's attention with a high level "Letter of Allegation" filed against them over land the Queen of Thailand took from two large village groups, driving them into poverty and desperation.
The Thai Government was shocked and would have to respond. And they did. Full on denials of what had obviously occurred.
Former Rapporteur Stavenhagen's help was tremendous. But he left, and the case fell directly to SR Anaya. This man has refused to make any accurate responses to our inquiries or replies to the Thai rebuttal. He is an absolute disaster, incompetence at the highest level, total disrespect for the very hard and dangerous work of other people to expose violations and protect the rights of indigenous people. This case was handed to him on a silver platter. Instead of engaging the Thai government with our formal "point by point" reply to their denials, he totally ignored the case and would not discuss it with us at all.
Further, he never informed us that he had gotten a response from the Thai government. We had to discover this on our own. When we sent our itemized reply to all of his offices, office staff denied they received them. We sent them several times, only to be told that such discussions and actions were totally confidential so there was no need for Anaya to discuss the case with the very people who had filed the case. Somehow, just now coming to the UN he has much more information on the Akha case than we did.
Many Akha put their names and lives on the line in the battle for this village land. SR Anaya let them completely down. He accepted the Thai denials no questions asked. This was his reward to the courageous Akha who stood up for their rights.
Not ever having heard of the Akha before, he is so competent that he has in fact done nothing with the case and even at an indigenous meeting in Chiangmai, Thailand, informs no one, says nothing, communicates with no one and still has his job.
The guy is a joke, an impostor, a loser, hardly a defender of indigenous causes before nation state governments.
Matthew McDaniel
The Akha Heritage Foundation

Colville members outraged over millions in missing claims settlement

 

Students describe extreme hardship in getting their
education.
Justice for Colville members:
2,606 signatures on a petition to the Colville Business Council asking them about $96 Million

By Yvonne L. Swan
Censored News

http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com

Scroll down for Dec. 13, 2012 statement

(Dec. 9, 2012) Tomorrow morning Colville tribal elders and members will gather at the Administration building at the Colville Indian agency campus at Nespelem, Washington to deliver a Petition bearing 2,606 signatures asking the Business Council once again for the remaining 50% of $193 Million claims Settlement.

The people will arrive at 8:30 a.m. or earlier, hopefully to get a seat in the Business Council meeting room before the Business Council convenes for Special Session at 9:00 a.m.

This action is a culmination of an on-going 10-month attempt by tribal members at convincing the Business Council to provide a proper forum to answer their questions, listen to their concerns, and adequately include them in the decision-making process over this important subject matter.

Considering the contempt and disregard for their rights in the past months, it is unknown what exactly will take place tomorrow. Members are rightfully upset.


Summary of Dispute between tribal members and elected representatives over decisions regarding handling of the $193 Million claims Settlement
by tribal member Yvonne L. Swan December 9, 2012
Until February 2012 not every member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation knew that in 2005 former Business Council members filed a claim known as CCT v. Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al, through US District Court, No.: 1:05-cv-02471-TFH for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ mismanagement of the Tribes’ natural resources and, to date, tribal members are still trying to understand how this came about and how the Business Council reached an out-of-court compromise that granted the members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation $193 Million.

Members first learned about the claims settlement one afternoon at the end of February when the then Chairman of the Business Council, Michael O. Finley, received official news of the $193 Million settlement and happily began spending the money by granting all tribal employees a 2-hour Administrative Leave with pay.

Instead of calling the members together to discuss this issue in a General Membership meeting as they were accustomed to in the past by considerate former tribal leaders, Finley began communicating plans for the money to the members through the news media. In late February he issued a press statement that was carried in the Omak Chronicle as “Tribe settles trust suit” on February 26, 2012 written by Dee Camp and that is how members began hearing of it. Time went by and still there were unanswered questions.

Then on April 11, 2012 the U.S. Department of the Interior through Secretary Salazar and Attorney General Holder issued a News Release announcing the “1 Billion Settlement of Tribal Trust Accounting and Management Lawsuits Filed by More Than 40 Tribes”. Contacts listed on the News Release were Adam Fetcher, (DOI) 202-208-6416; Department of Justice, 202-4114-2007.

Tribal members were dissatisfied with the Business Council decision and were upset that they were not getting complete and truthful information, so in May they started a petition drive asking the Business Council for another 30% of the Settlement. The petition in circulation also asked that the issue be put to a Referendum Vote. In the months of June and July the Business Council boycotted meetings to avoid answering questions and continued to scare the members with the threat of imposed income tax by the U.S. and interruption of their Social Security and other assistance like Temporary Aid for Needy Families. The scare tactics prevented some members into not signing the petition. The members wanted the Business Council to call a General Membership meeting for discussion and they refused. On July 4, the members met at the Nespelem July Grounds and the petition drive continued. It was turned in to former Business Council member Ricky Gabriel who was then Chair of the Tribal Government Committee. The count of the signatures took several days by the Elections Committee and signatures totaled 1,706.

Gabriel took the petitions to the Business Council meeting at Nespelem Community Center along with a Recommendation sheet for a vote on July 12th and, prior to the swearing in of the newly-elected Business Council, they voted to accept it and to set up a Referendum. In August the Referendum passed and each member received another $6,000 of the Settlement. Wait…

…not every member received $6,000. Some members received the whole amount, some a portion of it, and some, including elders, received nothing at all. The Business Council was upset over having to give the members another 30% and told tribal programs that included Tribal Court and Colville Indian Housing Authority to hold money owing them by tribal members.

The members argued this to no avail and another Petition was drawn up asking the Business Council for the remaining 50% which would bring the total disbursement to the membership to 100%. Many members felt the 100% distribution should have been done in the first place insisting that claims monies belong to the entire membership, not just fourteen elected Business Council.

Members felt the holds on some of the members’ share of the Settlement was arbitrarily unjust and by October a total of 1,393 signatures were collected. Although this was less than the signatures formerly acquired the people sent a delegate to present them to the Business Council’s Tribal Government (TG) Committee. This time the people had to face a new Chairperson Luana Boyd Rowley who was not so accommodating. In fact, the day before the Thursday, September 27th TG meeting the member delegated to present the Petition was taken off the agenda.

The delegate tried to find out the reason she was bumped to no avail so, on the day of the TG Committee meeting, she arrived in chambers at ten minutes to 9:00 a.m. before the meeting was to begin and attempted to give the Petition to Boyd-Rowley. In front of eight (8) other Business Council members and an elder, Boyd-Rowley became upset and refused to take the Petition. When the delegate tried to explain that the Petition she was carrying were voices of several members Boyd-Rowley still refused to take the papers.

The delegate told Boyd-Rowley that by her refusal to accept the Petition she was committing political suicide and Boyd-Rowley angrily shouted at the tribal member asking “Are you threatening me?!” and ordered a secretary to call the police. The tribal member was attempting to conduct tribal business which was her right according to the CCT Constitution and was wrongfully blocked. Further, not one of the other Business Council members intervened.

The delegate left Business Council chambers peaceably and met a tribal officer outside and gave a statement along with the witnessing elder and in front of a former Business Council member who was delivering more signatures for the Petition. To date, the police report has not been given to the delegate or the elder. After they left, the Business Council went into closed session.

Since the Chair of the TG Committee blocked her, the delegate took the Petition bearing 1,393 signatures to the annual General Membership Meeting on Saturday, October 13th and in the afternoon handed them to the new Business Council Chairman John Sirois. In front of at least 50 witnesses he and Business Council Secretary N. Lynn Palmanteer-Holder apologized to the delegate for TG Committee Chair’s ill treatment. However, on a Recommendation Sheet immediately drawn up to accept the Petition was voted down.

Days later another member called Management & Budget Chair Billy Nicholson and realized the number of signatures (1,393) was not nearly equal to 1/3 the number of eligible voters at the last election and during the discussion was led to believe that, if more members signed the Petition, it could be turned in for approval by the Business Council. Thus, circulation of the Petition for the remaining 50% was resumed.

In early December tribal members were satisfied they had well over their goal of getting 900 more signatures, thus bringing the total to more than the overall goal of 2,400 signatures and decided to submit the Petition to the next scheduled TG Committee meeting; but, when the delegate filled out the application to get on the agenda for the upcoming Thursday, December 13th TG Committee meeting Luana Boyd Rowley denied the delegate’s request.

As of now, we have a total of 2,606 signatures which is more than 1/3 of the number of eligible voters at last June’s General Election and so as not to be chased away by the TG Chairwoman, we plan to approach the Business Council during Special Session tomorrow.

Yvonne L. Swan 


Dec. 13, 2012

To the Office of the Reservation Attorneys, through the news media, on behalf of Colville Indians for justice.

In light of precedents set by former Colville Business Council who in the 1950s and 1990s immediately informed tribal members of claims settlements, called general membership meetings, and in the 1990s put the issue to a vote, I and other elders expected this example to be followed by current Colville Business Council regarding the recent (2012) $193 Million claims settlement.

Also in the light of the above-mentioned decisions by leaders of the governing body of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation we elders had questions of the Business Council as to why we were not given a general membership meeting and why we were told through the news media that we would get only a portion (20%) of the money.

Our questions went unanswered and we elders endorsed the petition launched by younger tribal members asking the Business Council to disburse another portion (30%) of the funds.

In August 2012, when the majority of votes in the ensuing Referendum were for the 30% disbursement, we elders were appalled that the Business Council gave tribal programs the authority to withhold money from tribal members responsible for certain debts. Such holds were to be put on their share in the 30% disbursement.

These holds placed against the members’ share of the claims settlement were held without fair notice which brought hardship on elders and other members. They also went against the previous precedents set by tribal government leaders and were not acceptable to us.

Therefore, we not only sanctioned the initiation of another petition, this time for the remaining 50% of the claims settlement money totaling 100% distribution to the members, but we helped circulate it and present it to the Business Council in two parts on October 13, 2012 and December 10, 2012.

We do not accept another news release (December 10, 2012) issued by the Business Council as a response to our petition, and we reiterate on behalf of all who signed that we want full distribution of the rest of the $193 Million claims settlement.

In the spirit of inherent rights as shareholders of the Colville Reservation,