Check for web archive captures
Justice Begins at Home
By anitamckay on 2009-08-26 08:05:11
Two principles of contracts exist under the common law of the United States. One is the recognition of a contract of
adhesion. The term refers to a boilerplate contract that is likely to have provisions favorable to the one who has created the
contract. The contract is offered on a "take it or leave it" basis and is typical in a situation of unequal power. The other
principle is called unconscionability. It is an argument for breaking a contract that has been made under highly inequitable
circumstances. Would it not seem strange that the party with the upper hand in such circumstances - everything on one side -
would have to be forced to honor the contract? The is what is happening (and has been for decades) with the Treaty of Ruby
Valley. The United States forced this treaty on the Western Shoshone in 1863. Anyone reading the terms of the treaty can see
that the deck is certainly stacked against the Western Shoshone. The surprise is that the group had to take legal action against
the United States to have the treaty enforced. The treaty offers little protection, but it is better than the actions the US
government has taken. At issue is more than 93,000 acres in the west, stretching from California through Nevada to Utah
and Idaho. The area includes Las Vegas (which the tribe says it is not interested in recovering). The Western Shoshone have
been litigating for decades to have the treaty enforced. Their main concerns are the intensive mining in some areas, weapons
testing, the storage of nuclear materials, and the destruction of holy lands. Cases have lost in court more from technicalities
than fundamental legal principles. The US government has offered $145 million in compensation, but the group wants their
land, not money. The government argues that it is unrealistic to expect the US to give back lands that have been taken over
by gradual encroachment and are now being used for activities such as mining and recreation. In 2006, the UN Committee
for the Elimination of Discrimination censured the US government for the privatization of Western Shoshone lands. This,
plus a threat to the tribe's sacred Mt. Tenabo by mining has reinvigorated the group's fight. The US government is allowing
Barrick Gold, a Canadian company, to create a cyanide leach gold mine that will destroy 6,800 acres of land sacred to the
Western Shoshone on Mt. Tenabo. Finding an equitable solution is not easy. Many people have purchased and developed
land in good conscience; others may have done the same but not in good conscience. Should they be the ones to take
government money to go elsewhere? No doubt, they do not want their way of life destroyed by government action, either.
As long as the United States government refuses to honor an old treaty and to negotiate in good faith to find a solution
acceptable to all parties, there is no way the situation can be resolved. While not trying to negotiate in good faith, how can
the United States government take the moral high ground with other countries guilty of human rights abuses? A link to the
text of the treaty: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/ruby_valley.html For more information about the struggle
for Mt. Tenabo: http://intercontinentalcry.org/stop-barrick-gold-from-destroying-mount-tenabo/
