Ads by Google Ads by Google

Op-Ed: Why were the successor treaty chiefs not invited to the Decolonization seminar in Fiji?

Part 2 of 4

 

If the U.S. violated our Tutuila and Aunuu and Manu’a  treaties by failing to move us into a permanent political status that guaranteed the kind of protections our Treaty Chiefs had bargained  for with the U.S., who has the duty to stand up to the U.S. and insist that they do so?  Or who has the duty to stand up against U.S. laws and federal agency regulations that undermine or compete with our treaty interests in protecting our matai titles, lands waters and continued access to our natural resources?  In my humble opinion, it is the chiefs who today who hold the same titles as our Treaty forefathers.  I refer to them as “successors to the Treaty Chiefs.” 

 

It is these persons, in my opinion, that have inherited the right and the duty to voice objection to treaty violations and infringements.  Since probably 80 to 90 percent of the resident population of American Samoa  are descendants of the inhabitants of these islands at the time of the treaties, this is a significant number of people they have the right and duty to advocate for when it comes to U.S. laws and federal regulations that infringe on our treaty rights and protected interests.  When they are not invited to international forums such as the United Nations Committee On Decolonization, a most important stakeholder and spokesperson for 80 to 90 percent of the population who are treaty beneficiaries is absent.  This includes me, which is why I am speaking out on this issue.  

 

Some may think that because we have a locally elected Governor and a fono with members who are in large part Samoan, that this is sufficient to protect our treaty interests.  This 3rd body of chiefs is not needed to move us forward to a permanent political status model.  I disagree.  My understanding from reading the Tutuila and Aunuu treaties of cession of 1900 and the Treaty of Manu’a of 1904, the U.S. was one party to these treaties and the Treaty Chiefs were the other party to these treaties.  The governorship position and the legislature itself are entities created by the consent of the U.S. Congress.  As important as their roles are in governing and administering this territory, and as desirable as it is that they are largely native Samoans from our islands and would have our cultural interests at heart, they are on the U.S. side of the treaty equation.  While supportive of Treaty rights, it maybe difficult for them to oppose U.S. law or regulations if our people felt it compromised our Treaty rights and interests.  If the U.S. refused to recognize a permanent political model that fully safeguarded what the Treaty Chiefs intended, it might be difficult for these extension of the U.S. Government to object and consider the option of restoring back to us what we lost… sovereignty.   Isn’t that what happens when one side of an agreement breaks the agreement, the other side has to give back what it took? 

 

Some may also think that we should be more trusting of the U.S. and respectful of what they have done for us and not take such a harsh position.  This is the Samoan way.  Well that has been the polite position of the fono and local Governors have taken in the past.  That is an understandable position for them to take given that they are on the U.S. side of the equation when it comes to the treaties.  But, those who are opposite the U.S. on the treaties  have to remain objective and ready to defend our rights under the treaties at all times.  Sovereignty was a high, high price to pay.  The relinquishment of Tui Manu’a Elisara of a kingship for all time was too high a price paid to be concerned with criticisms of being impolite to the U.S..  For those who want to be so trusting of the U.S. track record in keeping treaty agreements, please interview a few native American Indian chiefs and research their almost 200 years worth of  treaty experience with the U.S.. 

 

What specific role do the successors to the Treaty Chiefs have today? The successor Treaty Chiefs, in my opinion, are the very group that has the right to appear before the United Nations Committee on Decolonization to give a report card on the U.S. Government’s compliance with their treaty promises in moving us into a permanent political status. They should give a report on how the U.S., a United Nations member, has performed.  After all, they are the party opposite the U.S. in the treaties.  This does not detract from the role of the Governor and fono, who can give their report as the local extension of the U.S. Government.  If the two are in agreement, that is good too, but, the successor Treaty Chiefs must not be excluded from the international arena. 

 

If the promises/guarantees under the treaties are seriously violated by the U.S., we must remember that it is the Treaty Chiefs that can hold the U.S. to account before the International Court of Justice.  It is they who can take our grievances to these international arenas and demand justice or even the restoration of sovereignty to our people. Right now we are being inundated by federal regulations from NOAA that are restricting access to our marine waters to fish and harvest.  Where are our successors to the Treaty Chiefs to help assert our Treaty rights and guarantees?  Stay tuned.

 

Click on attachment below to download Deeds of Cession