http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=187209&section=News&freebie_c
heck&CFID=78055867&CFTOKEN=32699764&jsessionid=8830fefa5e44654c2772

Tribe official says council will consider treaty pullout

Mike Nowatzki
The Forum - 12/27/2007

Avis Little Eagle says she understands the frustration that led Lakota
activists to announce a plan to withdraw from the tribe’s treaties with the
U.S. government.

However, the vice chairwoman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council
advocates holding the federal government to the provisions in those
treaties, rather than withdrawing from them.

“I see where they’re coming from,” she said of American Indian Movement
leader Russell Means and other members of the Lakota Freedom Delegation who
declared the Lakota people’s independence to the State Department last week
in Washington, D.C.

“But we, as elected officials, on a daily basis we refer to those treaties
because to us they are living documents,” Little Eagle said Wednesday from
the tribe’s headquarters in Fort Yates, N.D.

Little Eagle said council members will probably discuss the delegation’s
letter, “and I can’t say what action they will take.”

Duane Martin Sr., a delegation member and leader of the Strongheart Civil
Rights Movement, said Wednesday that the State Department had yet to
respond to the notice of withdrawal from the treaties.

“We are anxious that they will (respond). We’ve got other nations looking
at us in a positive venue,” he said, noting that the delegation has sought
recognition of sovereignty from Bolivia, Chile and South Africa, among
others.

In its notice, the delegation claims that the United States’ continuing
violation of treaties, including the Treaty of 1851 and the Treaty of 1868
at Fort Laramie, “have resulted in the near annihilation of our people
physically, spiritually and culturally.”

If the federal government doesn’t recognize the tribe’s independence,
Lakota people will file liens on land in the five-state treaty area, which
includes parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska and
Wyoming, the letter of withdrawal says.

Means said members of the new Lakota nation wouldn’t pay taxes, and the new
government would issue its own driver’s licenses and passports, the Sioux
Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader reported. Non-Indians could still live in the new
territory.

Little Eagle, a Hunkpapa Lakota, said many tribal governments are
frustrated with a lack of federal support for health care, law enforcement
and other provisions in treaties the U.S. government has failed to honor.

“If they bring attention to it, maybe it’ll be to the good,” she said.

She said she didn’t know about the delegation’s plans before the
announcement.

Delegation members have made it clear that they don’t represent tribal
governments, which are described on the group’s Web site as “beholden to
the colonial apartheid system” and “ ‘stay by the fort’ Indians who are
unwilling to claim their freedom.”

Martin said members spent 3½ years gathering input and support from tribal
elders and others on the reservations before announcing the plan.

“They’re tired of this colonial oppression,” he said.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Mike Nowatzki at (701) 241-5528