Paul Phillips wrote: >Louis P. just responded in the general debate "The >Canadian Government just signed a compromised treaty with a tiny >Indian tribe and the ramifications are turning British Columbia into >a maelstrom." Now as someone (from BC) who has followed the >history of this negotiation for some time, I would like to >know what "compromised' treaty means (is this some anti-native >appelation?), why Louis thinks that making a treaty with >a "tiny" (they occupy most of the area) is somehow demeaning >to the indians, and that the opposition from the "liberal" >party which represents the forestry and mining interests >constitutes turning BC into a political "maelstrom". None >of my relatives who (mostly) all live there have failed >to tell me about this political maelstrom. Come on Louis, >lighten up! August 3, 1998 Canada, Indians To Sign Land Treaty By The Associated Press VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) -- Rewarded for 111 years of persistence, the Nisga'a Indians were ready to sign a historic treaty Tuesday giving them land, cash and self-government in a remote and spectacular mountain valley. It is a time of celebration for the 5,500 Nisga'a, who have sought a treaty since 1887, but many British Columbians don't share their joy. Critics contend that history of this magnitude should be made only with voters' consent. If ratified as expected, it will be the first treaty this century for any of the 51 Indian communities in British Columbia. Unlike the rest of Canada, treaties in the Pacific Coast province were not signed during colonization. The province's two main opposition parties are demanding a referendum on the treaty, which will cost taxpayers more than $200 million and likely serve as a blueprint for settlements with dozens of other tribes. "We are creating a whole new order of government, we are creating new rights, we are entrenching inequality based on race," said Gordon Campbell, leader of the opposition B.C. Liberal Party. "The least they could do is allow the public a say." But British Columbian Premier Glen Clark has rejected the call for the referendum. Next, the treaty must be ratified by the Nisga'a, Parliament and British Columbia's legislature -- and all are expected to approve the document later this year. "This generation of British Columbians will do that which has eluded all others before," said Clark's minister of Indian affairs, Dale Lovick. "We are going to conclude the unfinished business of an entire century." To build support for the treaty, the province is spending $1.5 million on a public relations campaign. A key selling point is that British Columbia -- its economy now reeling -- needs treaties to end the uncertainty faced by mining and forest companies as they consider new projects on land claimed by Indians. The Nisga'a treaty, which took two decades to draft, gives the Indians $126 million in cash over 15 years, plus title to 745 square miles in the rugged Nass Valley in northwestern British Columbia. The chief Nisga'a negotiator, Joe Gosnell, says the cost to taxpayers is dwarfed by value of fish, timber and minerals taken from Nisga'a territory in past decades. Lack of control over those resources has helped boost the Nisga'a jobless rate above 60 percent. Nisga'a villages have high levels of crime and serious housing problems. Gosnell admits some Nisga'a are bitter because negotiators settled for one-tenth of their original land claim and agreed to relinquish their tax-exempt status. One dissident group unsuccessfully sought an injunction to block the treaty. "There are dissenters within our nation," Gosnell said. "All we can do is provide our people with the information so they can make an informed decision." The treaty provides the Nisga'a with the right to self-government and the authority to make laws governing their own affairs. It envisions a Nisga'a justice system, with its own judges, police force and jails. As part of the settlement, about 250 Nisga'a artifacts -- including carved masks, rattles, and spoons made from mountain goat horns -- are to be returned from museums in Hull, Quebec, and Victoria, British Columbia. The treaty's critics say the 100 or so non-Nisga'a living in the territory will become second-class citizens, excluded from voting for tribal governments. Keith Martin, a Parliament member with the right-wing Reform Party, said the treaty is an unwelcome step toward creation of mini-states for each of British Columbia's native communities. "Apartheid or separate development failed in South Africa and it will fail in B.C.," he said. Government officials insist the treaty does not create racial inequality. "There is no taxation without representation," said Clark, noting that non-Indians in Nisga'a territory will pay taxes to the provincial government, not the tribal council. Under the treaty, a non-Indian might get a speeding ticket from a Nisga'a policeman, but the driver could ask to be tried in provincial court rather than the Nisga'a system. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
