Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Video Archive: UNHRC Panel on the Legacies of Colonialism Wednesday September 28, 2022

 United Nations

Human Rights Council

51st Session

Geneva, Switzerland

Wednesday September 28, 2022


Special Panel on the Negative Impact of the Legacies of Colonialism on the Enjoyment of Human Rights

UNWeb Live TV

 

Summary

Panel discussion on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on human rights.

Description

- Panel discussion on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights
Opening statements:

  • Ms. Nada Al-Nashif, Acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
  • Ms. Verene Shepherd, Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Moderator:

  • Ms. E. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance

Panellists:

  • Mr. José Francisco Calí Tzay, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
  • Mr. Mihir Kanade, Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development (EMRTD)
  • Mr. Koen de Feyter, Member of the EMRTD
  • Mr. Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence

SPEAKERS:

  • Barbados (on behalf of a group of countries), Mr. Ricardo Kellman
  • Côte d'Ivoire (on behalf of the group of African States), Mr. Kouadio Adjoumani
  • European Union, Ms. Marleen Steenbrugghe
  • State of Palestine, Ms. Dima Asfour
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Mr. Hussam Edin Aala
  • Mauritius, Mr. Omduttrajsingh Sewraj
  • China, Mr. Li Song
  • Armenia, Mr. Nairi Petrossian
  • Ukraine, Ms. Yevheniia Filipenko
  • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Mr. Manuel Enrique García Andueza
  • Switzerland, Mr. Tim Segessemann
  • South Africa, Mr. Duncan Sebefelo
  • International Lesbian and Gay Association, Ms. Crystal Hendrix
  • American Civil Liberties Union, Ms. Theodora Simon
  • Action Canada for Population and Development, Ms. Natasha Dowell
  • Russian Federation, Mr. Stanislav Kovpak
  • Pakistan, Mr. Danyal Hasnain
  • Togo, Mr. Wemble Badibalaki
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of), Mr. Hamid Ahmadi
  • Cuba, Mr. Roberto Cabañas
  • Ethiopia, Mr. Yibza Aynekully Tesfaye
  • United States of America, Ms. Kelly Billingsley
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Mr. Olmer Torrejon Alcoba
  • Malawi, Ms. Rose Nayeja
  • Tunisia, Mr. Sabri Bachtobji
  • Indonesia, Ms. Nadia Amalia
  • Malaysia, Ms. Yazmalina Yaacob
  • Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme, Ms. Laura Gomez Perez
  • Penal Reform International, Ms. Triona Lenihan
  • Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Ms. Valentina di Paco
  • Ms. E. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance (Final Remarks)
  • Mr. Koen de Feyter, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development
  • Ms. José Francisco Calí Tzay, Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples  
  • Mr. Fabian Salvioli, Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
  • Ms. E. Tendayi Achiume, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance

 

 


Monday, October 3, 2022

UNHRC 2013: Declaración de Gary Harrison, Jefe Tradicional, Chickaloon Village [Alaska]




8 de septiembre de 2013

Secretaría del Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas

Avenida de la Paz, 8-14

CH 1211 Ginebra 10

Suiza

Atención: Kate Fox/Sindu Thodiyil

 

A: Los miembros del Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, 109° período de sesiones

Re: Revisión del 4° Informe Periódico de los Estados Unidos

 

Declaración de Gary Harrison, Jefe Tradicional, Chickaloon Village [Alaska]

 

 DESCARGAR PDF

 

Le escribo en nombre del Pueblos Indígenas de la Aldea Chickaloon de la Nación Athabasca como su Jefe Tradicional. Mi papel como Líder Indígena es asegurar el disfrute pleno y completo de los derechos humanos para todos en nuestra comunidad.

 

La toma de Alaska y el artículo 1 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos

 

Preguntas para los Estados Unidos de parte del Comité:

 

1. ¿De qué manera obtuvo Estados Unidos el título territorial en Alaska?

 

2. ¿Cuándo se va a reincorporar a Alaska a la lista de descolonización de la ONU?

 

Este informe se presenta de conformidad con el artículo 1 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos (PIDCP), luego de la próxima revisión de los Estados Unidos por parte del Comité de Derechos Humanos y el Cuarto Informe Periódico de los Estados Unidos bajo el PIDCP.

 

Este informe explica por qué Estados Unidos nunca realizo la compra de Alaska ni tiene el derecho de usar el poder plenario domestico para llevar a cabo la supuesta y continua dominación de Alaska.

 

También escribo este informe para solicitar que el Comité recomiende que se reincorpore a Alaska a la lista de descolonización para facilitar el inicio del proceso de descolonización en Alaska como se pretendía originalmente en virtud del Artículo 73 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas.

 

En 1787, se ratificó la Constitución de los Estados Unidos y el Artículo VI (2) establece lo siguiente:

 

Esta Constitución, y las Leyes de los Estados Unidos que se dicten en cumplimiento de la misma, y ​​todos los Tratados celebrados o que se celebren bajo la Autoridad de los Estados Unidos, serán la Ley suprema del País; y los Jueces de cada Estado estarán obligados a ello, a pesar de cualquier Disposición en Contrario en la Constitución o las Leyes de cualquier Estado. (énfasis añadido) [1]

 

En septiembre de 1821, el gobierno ruso estableció reglas marítimas especiales que limitaban la navegación en el océano alrededor de las Islas Aleutianas y las aguas costeras continentales de Alaska. Estas reglas implicaban un reclamo de soberanía sobre Alaska por parte del gobierno ruso [2]. Los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña protestaron de inmediato por estas normas [3].  El gobierno ruso se abstuvo deliberadamente de hacer cualquier afirmación basada en la Doctrina del Descubrimiento. Rusia no había descubierto ni conquistado Alaska; de hecho, los fuertes rusos fueron quemados en el territorio continental de Alaska, incluidos los de Nulato, Kustatan y Kenai [4]. Un importante documento histórico de esta época, el Memorándum Kostlivtzov, afirmaba:

 

“la necesidad de protección de los habitantes de Alaska porque los expoliadores tomarían sus posesiones y la explotación depredadora de las riquezas tanto en la superficie como en el útero de la tierra. Para civilizar a los salvajes ofréceles comodidades materiales, lujo y religión”. [5]

 

El Artículo VI del Tratado de Cesión de 1867 establecía que Rusia solo vendía los intereses que tenía en Alaska. Todo lo que tenían era un monopolio para el comercio con los demás países: los Pueblos Indígenas no firmaron un tratado ni hicieron ningún acuerdo similar relacionado con el territorio[6].

 

En algún momento, EE. UU. le preguntó al gobierno ruso qué les había comprado EE. UU. en el Tratado de cesión. La respuesta rusa fue que el Memorándum de Kostlivtzov describía lo que se había comprado y vendido en virtud del Tratado de Cesión. Decía que Rusia no era dueña de Alaska, pero que poseía un fuerte en Kodiak y un fuerte en Sitka, con algunos reductos y varios puestos comerciales temporales en el continente.

 

¡Los Estados Unidos se convirtieron en los “expoliadores”!

 

¡El Tratado de Cesión NO se hizo con los Pueblos Indígenas del nuestro territorio!

 

El valle de Matanuska-Susitna en Alaska es parte de la patria original de los indios Ahtna Athabasca. Fue explorado por primera vez por los rusos en 1818. En 1935, como parte del "New Deal" (una serie de programas económicos nacionales de los EE. UU.), 200 familias del medio oeste de los EE. UU. viajaron a Alaska, incluidos los primeros pobladores de la Colonia del Valle Matanuska. La ciudad de Palmer, Alaska, se estableció en la tierra natal de los indios atabascanos. En 1880 se construyó una estación comercial y, posteriormente, el área fue poblada por mineros de oro en 1913 [7].

 

Alaska es, e históricamente ha sido, una fuente de inmensa riqueza para los Estados Unidos. Recursos como pieles, oro, plata y otros extractivos han sido los principales generadores de ingresos durante décadas.

 

Durante la Primera Guerra Mundial, se extrajo carbón para alimentar la Flota del Pacífico. Fue entonces cuando la Marina de los EE. UU. llegó a Alaska. Su llegada trajo crimen, alcohol, enfermedades, daños ambientales devastadores y destrucción (incluida la aniquilación de salmones, caribúes y ovejas) que impactaron a mi Pueblo en Chickaloon y cambiaron para siempre nuestras formas de vida.

 

Al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial en 1945, se establecieron las Naciones Unidas y Estados Unidos fue uno de los primeros en ratificar la Carta de la ONU. De hecho, Estados Unidos asumió un papel de liderazgo en la creación, estructura y desarrollo de las Naciones Unidas. La Carta de las Naciones Unidas estableció en el Capítulo XI (Artículos 73 y 74) los principios que continúan guiando los esfuerzos de descolonización de las Naciones Unidas, incluido el respeto a la libre determinación de todos los pueblos.

 

La Carta de las Naciones Unidas también estableció el Sistema Internacional de Administración Fiduciaria en el Capítulo XII (artículos 75-85) y el Consejo de Administración Fiduciaria en el Capítulo XIII (artículos 86-91) para monitorear ciertos Territorios, conocidos como Territorios “Fideicomisarios”[8]. Como miembro fundador, Estados Unidos debería descolonizar sus territorios reclamados. Alaska y Hawái estaban en la lista de los Territorios en Fideicomiso, ninguno fue anexado de acuerdo con la Carta de la ONU, ahora ley establecida internacionalmente.

 

En esta presentación, hablaré exclusivamente sobre el caso de Alaska. La Carta de la ONU bajo el Capítulo XI (artículo 73) establece el sagrado deber y la obligación de promover al máximo: el bienestar de los habitantes; cultura; ya los pueblos concernidos, su adelanto político, económico, social y educativo; trato justo; y protección contra los abusos.

 

Hasta la fecha, nada de esto se ha logrado.

 

En 1959, se promovió un votó sobre la integración de Alaska como un estado de los EEUU. Por ley, los Pueblos Indígenas eran prohibido votar sobre la cuestión.  Esa ley requería que para poder votar, el individuo en cuestión tenía que hablar y escribir en el idioma inglés. Había un reprensible requisito adicional de que cinco (5) personas blancas tenían que verificaran mediante documentación que afirmaba que la persona era “competente” para votar [9]. La afirmación como “Estado” era lo único que estaba presentado en la boleta electoral. No había opción de votar por la libre asociación, la independencia o el estado libre asociado; estas opciones deberían haber estado en la boleta electoral. En ese momento, a los militares se les permitía, y desafortunadamente aún se les permite, votar en las elecciones locales en Alaska a pesar de que en su mayoría son residentes de otros estados o países reclamados [10]. A lo largo de este período, los EE. UU. no proporcionaron ningún informe sobre los procesos de descolonización; simplemente enviaron una comunicación declarando que la conversión del territorio de Alaska a un “estado” bajo los EE. UU. fue un cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas en el Capítulo XI (artículo 73).

 

Una década después, se aprobó la Ley de Liquidación de Reclamos de Nativos de Alaska (ANCSA) de 1971. El lenguaje utilizado en el texto de esta legislación tenía la intención de destruir las verdaderas identidades legales y políticas de los Pueblos Indígenas de Alaska. Dos ejemplos de las herramientas para lograr esto fueron la “corporativización” de las comunidades indígenas y el traslado o traslado forzoso de niños indígenas fuera de dichas comunidades. Ambas acciones tomadas por el gobierno de los EE. UU. califican como un "acto genocida" según el artículo II de la Convención para la Prevención y la Sanción del Delito de Genocidio (adoptada por la Resolución 260 [III] A de la Asamblea General de la ONU el 9 de diciembre de 1948 ) y la Ley de Implementación de la Convención sobre el Genocidio de los Estados Unidos [11].

 

Ahora soy testigo de corporaciones que intentan hacer valer, ejercer y han reconocido los mismos derechos que los Pueblos Indígenas, excepto sin todas las responsabilidades que deberían acompañar a esos derechos. Hay un flagrante desprecio por el sagrado deber que Estados Unidos acordó cumplir en virtud del Capítulo XI, Artículo 73 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas; al hacerlo, están ignorando los derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Las leyes de Estados Unidos y Alaska privan a los Pueblos Indígenas de sus derechos de subsistencia en virtud del Pacto de Derechos Civiles y Políticos de las Naciones Unidas. Por ejemplo: en la pesca, los derechos de subsistencia vienen después de la pesca comercial y deportiva y los derechos de subsistencia deberían estar PRIMERO. La exploración y el desarrollo de la minería, el petróleo y el gas son la primera prioridad por encima de la caza, la pesca y la recolección de subsistencia, y debería ser al revés.

 

Mientras tanto, se siguen saqueando los recursos no renovables, en detrimento del medio ambiente, los alimentos tradicionales y las aguas. Las corporaciones extranjeras y las llamadas corporaciones nacionales están extrayendo estos recursos de las aguas superficiales como arroyos, aguas subterráneas en acuíferos y otras extracciones de nuestras tierras, cerros, montañas y valles, contaminando las aguas a su paso y poniendo en peligro las fuentes de agua potable de las comunidades. Los “expoliadores” están cavando en el útero de la Madre Tierra.

 

Espero que Alaska sea reinstalada en la lista de descolonización para que Estados Unidos pueda defender su verdadero y sagrado deber como se pretendía originalmente en el Capítulo 11, Artículo 73 de la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y con esta acción pueda cumplir el Artículo 1 del PIDCP.  Estados Unidos puede entonces detener el uso de la doctrina del Poder Plenario para privar a los pueblos indígenas de sus derechos humanos, responsabilidades y recursos, ya sean sociales, culturales o físicos (es decir, tierra, agua, aire, peces y otros animales, etc.) .

 


********************

 

[1]   U.S. Const. art. 6, §2

[2]   Senate Document No.152, 81st Congress 2nd Session 1950, Library of Congress, at page 7 para. 5

[3]   Id., page 8 para.1

[4]   Id., page 8 para.3

[5]  Appendix 3 of Senate Document No.152, Translation of Russian Memorandum marked A.A. by B.N. Buynitsky, second to last para.

[6]  Treaty of Cession, 1867 (15 Stat.539) Article VI

[7]    Basic historical facts, which may be found in numerous historical and academic texts, and is also available on Wikipedia, accessed online (09-8-13 at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska)

[8]    See the following link to the list of Trust Territories, which include Alaska: http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml)

[9]    In the early years of the twentieth century, the burgeoning Alaska Territory passed laws limiting

the ability of Alaska Natives to be citizens, to participate in the political process, and to enter

certain public establishments. In 1924, when the U.S. Congress conferred citizenship on “all

noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,” the Territorial

Legislature responded by enacting a literacy law the next year requiring that “voters in territorial

elections be able to read and write the English language.” Alaska’s Constitution, which became

operative with the Formal Declaration of Statehood on January 3, 1959, also included an English

literacy requirement as a qualification for voting which was not repealed until 1970.” SEE: Natalie Landreth and Moira Smith, “Alaska Voting Rights” (March 2006) accessed online at: www.protectcivilrights.org

[10]   R.W. Wade – Personal oral account of non-native uncle and Ernest Gruening, “The Gruening of Alaska”, 1974.

[11]  The Proxmire Act is contained in Chapter 50A of the US Law Code Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes). Section 1091 deals specifically with Genocide. The law implements the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the United States.


Friday, September 30, 2022

UNHRC 109th Session 2013: Statement by Chickaloon Village [Alaska]

September 8, 2013

United Nations Human Rights Committee Secretariat

8-14 Avenue de la Paix

CH 1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Attention: Kate Fox/Sindu Thodiyil

 

To: The Members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, 109th session

Re:  Review of the 4th Periodic Report of the United States

 

Statement of Gary Harrison, Traditional Chief, Chickaloon Village [Alaska]

 


DOWNLOAD PDF

 

I am writing on behalf of the Peoples of the Chickaloon Village of the Athabascan Nation as their Traditional Chief.  My role as an Indigenous Leader is to ensure the full and complete enjoyment of human rights for everyone in our community.

 

The Taking of Alaska and Article 1 of the ICCPR

 

Questions for the United States from the Committee:

 

1. Where did the United States get the Title to Alaska?

 

2. When are they going to reinstate Alaska to the decolonization list?

 

This report is submitted pursuant to Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), further to the upcoming review of the United States by the Human Rights Committee and the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States under the ICCPR. 

 

This report explains why the United States did not purchase Alaska nor have the right to use plenary power to carry out assumed and continued domination of Alaska.

 

I am also writing this report to request that the Committee recommend that Alaska be re-instated on the decolonization list so as to facilitate commencement of the decolonization process in Alaska as originally intended under Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations.

 

In 1787, the United States Constitution was ratified, and Article VI (2) states as follows:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added) [1]

 

In September of 1821, the Russian government established special maritime rules limited navigation in the ocean around the Aleutian Islands and the Alaskan mainland coastal waters. These rules implied a claim of sovereignty over Alaska by the Russian government [2]. The governments of the United States and Great Britain immediately protested these rules [3]. The Russian government deliberately refrained from making any claim based on the Doctrine of Discovery.  Russia had not discovered nor had they conquered Alaska – in fact, the Russian forts were burned on mainland Alaska, including those in Nulato, Kustatan and Kenai [4].

An important historical document from this time, the Kostlivtzov Memorandum, stated: “the need for the protection of the Inhabitants of Alaska because spoliators would take their possessions and depredatory working out of the riches as well on the surface and as in the womb of the earth. To civilize the savages offer them material comforts, luxury and religion.”[5]

 

Article VI of the 1867 Treaty of Cession stated that Russia was only selling what interest it had in Alaska. All they had was a monopoly for trade with the other countries – the Indigenous Peoples did not sign a treaty or make any similar agreement related to land [6].

 

At some point, the US inquired of the Russian Government as to just what the US had purchased from them in the Treaty of Cession. The Russian response was that the Kostlivtzov Memorandum was descriptive of what had been purchased and sold under the Treaty of Cession. It said that Russia did not own Alaska, but that they owned a fort on Kodiak and a fort at Sitka, with a few redoubts and various temporary trading posts on the mainland.

 

The US became the “spoliators”!

 

The Treaty of Cession was NOT made with the Indigenous Peoples of this land!

 

The Matanuska-Susitna Valley in Alaska is part of the original homeland of the Ahtna Athabascan Indians.  It was first explored by Russians in 1818.  In 1935 as a part of the “New Deal” (a series of US domestic economic programs), 200 families from the US mid-west travelled to Alaska, comprising the first settlers of the Matanuska Valley Colony.  The City of Palmer, Alaska was established on the homeland of Athabascan Indians. In 1880 a trading station was built, and the area was subsequently settled by gold miners in 1913 [7].

 

Alaska is, and historically has been, a source of immense wealth for the United States. Resources such as fur, gold, silver and other extractives have been the main revenue generators over the decades.

 

During World War I, coal was extracted to fuel the Pacific Fleet. That was when the US Navy came to Alaska.  Their arrival brought crime, alcohol, disease, devastating environmental damage and destruction (including the decimation of salmon, caribou and sheep) which impacted my Peoples in Chickaloon, and forever changed our ways of life.

 

At the end of World War II in 1945, the United Nations was established with the United States being amongst the first to ratify the UN Charter. In fact, the United States took a leading role in the creation, structure and development of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations established in Chapter XI (Articles 73 and 74) the principles that continue to guide United Nations decolonization efforts, including respect for self-determination of all peoples.

 

The United Nations Charter also established the International Trusteeship System in Chapter XII (articles 75-85) and the Trusteeship Council in Chapter XIII (articles 86-91) to monitor certain Territories, known as “Trust” Territories [8]. As a charter member, the United States was to decolonize their claimed territories. Alaska and Hawaii were both on the list of the “Trust” Territories, neither was annexed in accordance with the UN Charter, now internationally established law.

 

In this submission, I will speak to Alaska exclusively. The UN Charter under Chapter XI (article 73) lays out the sacred trust and the obligation to promote to the utmost: the well-being of inhabitants; culture; and to the peoples concerned, their political, economic social and educational advancement; just treatment; and protection against abuses.

 

To date, none of this has been accomplished.

 

In 1959, there was a vote taken for Alaska statehood. The Indigenous Peoples were prohibited from voting by law. That law required that in order to vote, the individual concerned had to speak and write in the English language. There was an additional (reprehensible) requirement that five (5) white people verified through documentation, that the individual was “competent” to vote [9]. Statehood was the only thing that was on the ballot.  There was no option to vote for free association, independence, nor commonwealth – these options should have been on the ballot. The military was at this time, and unfortunately continues to be, allowed to vote in local elections in Alaska even though they are mostly residents from other claimed states or countries [10].   Throughout this period, the US did not provide any reporting on decolonization processes – they simply sent communication declaring that the conversion of Alaska to “statehood” under the United States was a fulfillment of the requirements set out in the UN Charter under Chapter XI (article 73).

 

A decade later, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 was passed. The language used in the text of this legislation had the intent of destroying the true legal and political identities of the Indigenous Peoples of Alaska.  Two examples of the tools to accomplish this was the “corporatization” of Indigenous communities, and the forcible taking or transfer of Indigenous children away from such communities. Both of these actions taken by the US Government qualify as a “genocidal act” under Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted by Resolution 260 [III] A of the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948) and the United States Genocide Convention Implementation Act [11].

 

Now I am witness to corporations attempting to assert, exercise and have recognized the same rights as Indigenous Peoples, except without all the responsibilities that ought to accompany those rights. 

There is a blatant disregard of the sacred trust that the US agreed to abide by under the United Nations Charter Chapter XI Article 73 – in so doing, they are disregarding the rights of Indigenous Peoples. US and Alaska laws deprive Indigenous Peoples of their subsistence rights under the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For instance: on fishing, the subsistence rights come after the commercial and sports fishing and the subsistence rights should be FIRST. Mining, oil and gas exploration and development are first priority above subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering and it should be the other way around.

 

Meanwhile, the non-renewable resources continue to be plundered, to the detriment of the environment, traditional food and waters. Foreign and so-called domestic corporations are extracting these resources from the surface waters like streams, groundwater in aquifers, and other extractions from our lands, hills, mountains and valleys – defiling waters as they go and endangering the communities’ source(s) of drinking water. “Spoliators” are digging into the womb of Mother Earth.

 

I look forward to Alaska being re-instated on the decolonization list so the United States can uphold its true sacred trust as originally intended under Chapter 11 Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations and with this action it can fulfill Article 1 of the ICCPR. The United States can then stop the use of Plenary power doctrine to deprive the Indigenous peoples of their Human Rights, responsibilities and resources, be they social, cultural or physical (i.e., land, water, air, fish and other animals, etc.).

 


****************************

 

 

[1]   U.S. Const. art. 6, §2

 

[2]   Senate Document No.152, 81st Congress 2nd Session 1950, Library of Congress, at page 7 para. 5

 

[3]   Id., page 8 para.1

 

[4]   Id., page 8 para.3

 

[5]  Appendix 3 of Senate Document No.152, Translation of Russian Memorandum marked A.A. by B.N. Buynitsky, second to last para.

 

[6]  Treaty of Cession, 1867 (15 Stat.539) Article VI

 

[7]    Basic historical facts, which may be found in numerous historical and academic texts, and is also available on Wikipedia, accessed online (09-8-13 at http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska)

 

[8]    See the following link to the list of Trust Territories, which include Alaska: https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt

 

[9]    In the early years of the twentieth century, the burgeoning Alaska Territory passed laws limiting the ability of Alaska Natives to be citizens, to participate in the political process, and to enter certain public establishments. In 1924, when the U.S. Congress conferred citizenship on “all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States,” the Territorial Legislature responded by enacting a literacy law the next year requiring that “voters in territorial elections be able to read and write the English language.” Alaska’s Constitution, which became operative with the Formal Declaration of Statehood on January 3, 1959, also included an English literacy requirement as a qualification for voting which was not repealed until 1970.” SEE: Natalie Landreth and Moira Smith, “Alaska Voting Rights” (March 2006) accessed online at: www.protectcivilrights.org

 

[10]   R.W. Wade – Personal oral account of non-native uncle and Ernest Gruening, “The Gruening of Alaska”, 1974.

 

[11]  The Proxmire Act is contained in Chapter 50A of the US Law Code Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes). Section 1091 deals specifically with Genocide. The law implements the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the United States.

 

 

Wednesday, September 28, 2022

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council Statement to the UN Human Rights Council 51st Session (2022)

 

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Statement of Charmaine White Face

Spokesperson for the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

United Nations Human Rights Council
 51st Session - Geneva, Switzerland

Panel discussion on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of Human Rights

 
 
YouTube:

    My name is Charmaine White Face.  I am the Spokesperson for the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council.  We are located in the middle of North America. We are from the Great Sioux Nation and have an International Treaty with the United States.  However, the U.S placed us in Prisoner-of-war camps which they call American Indian Reservations, and the US is illegally occupying our Treaty territory without our consent.


    Thank you for approving Resolution 48/7 regarding the Negative Impacts of Colonialism.  Approving a Resolution recognizing that there are still dehumanizing effects of colonialism  in the world is a first step in healing those harmful effects for millions of Indigenous Peoples and Nations.

 
    To fully activate Resolution 48/7, this Human Rights Council needs to recommend in your report to the General Assembly that all Indigenous Nations that have International treaties or agreements with colonizing governments are automatically placed on the Decolonization List. Resolution 48/7 was meant to truly eliminate not enable colonization.
 

     In addition, this Council must offer to all Indigenous Nations and Peoples including those without treaties, or agreements but who suffer oppression by colonizing governments, the opportunity of participating in the process of Decolonization.  Without that opportunity, the Human Right to Self Determination of Indigenous Peoples and Nations is denied and colonialism condoned. 

 

    Mitakuye oyasin (For all my relations),  Thank you.

 


 **************

 June 30, 2022

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council: 

Alternative Report to UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 

The Sioux Nation Treaty Council has been sending representatives to attend various meetings at the United Nations since 1982 after exhausting all remedies in the American courts.  The main purpose has always been to find a resolution of this International Treaty which would mean the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty would be enforced, the land title returned to the Sioux Nation, and the USA, with rare exceptions, removed from the Treaty territory.  The UN Decolonization process could be a way to stop the forced assimilation, racism, and bigotry that has been inflicting drastic harm to the Sioux people for more than 150 years.      

 


******************

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council - Charmaine White Face

YouTube:
1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council 

Charmaine White Face

presentation at the

Encounter of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala
for

Self Determination – Decolonization 

June 7, 2022

Continental Commission Abya Yala 

 



 

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

1994/45.  Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous Peoples

The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

 

Article 36

(Original)

 

Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors, according to their original spirit and intent, and to have States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.  Conflicts and disputes which cannot otherwise be settled should be submitted to competent international bodies agreed to by all parties concerned.

Introduction to the Spanish translation

January 2021

 

The narrative and comparative analysis in this fundamental study of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by Charmaine White Face, provides critical context for the battle for self-determination that the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples face today in the global arena of shifting geopolitical powers. The original English language edition of this book was published in 2013.  Now, with this Spanish translation being made available to the leadership of the Indigenous Peoples of the world at a climactic turning point in the history of world affairs, the Mandate of the Indigenous Peoples emerges once again in power and purpose with a message for all humanity.   


The final text of the Declaration as adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007, was preceded by two other versions.


In 1994 the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities approved the Original Text of the declaration which was the product of many years of deliberation that allowed for a degree of meaningful and decisive participation of Indigenous Peoples from around the world.


In 2006, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a version of the declaration submitted by an individual official of the UN system, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the Draft Declaration, Sr. Luis Enrique Chavez.  After the African Union inserted changes to this version, the UN General Assembly then included nine additional changes in the final version of the text which was approved in 2007.


The presentation of the version as adopted by the General Assembly was challenged on November 29, 2004 by a five-day prayer fast/hunger strike by six indigenous delegates to the Working Group on the Draft Declaration at UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.  With support and solidarity of Indigenous Peoples from around the world, the demand was that the Original Text as approved by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities be recognized as the only legitimate version of the declaration that would be advanced on the floor of the UN General Assembly.  With assurances from representatives of the UN Commission on Human Rights (also called the CHR) that if no consensus could be achieved by the end of the 2004 session of the Working Group, the only version of the declaration that would be submitted to the full Commission would be the Sub-Commission Text as approved in 1994, the hunger strike/prayer fast came to an end.


This agreement was subsequently violated, and then betrayed.

 



United Nations Human Rights Council

Panel discussion on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism

Wednesday September 28, 2022

51st  session of the Human Rights Council

Panel discussion on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights

Concept note (draft as of 29 August 2022)

Date and venue:

Wednesday, 28 September 2022, 4 to 6 p.m. (UTC+2)

Room XX, Palais des Nations, Geneva, and online platform (Zoom)

(will be broadcast live and archived on https://media.un.org/en/webtv)


Outcome: 

A summary report on the panel discussion will be prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and submitted, including in an accessible format, to the Council at its fifty-fourth session (September 2023). The panel discussion will contribute to renewing and strengthening commitments to effectively address the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights, and contribute to the implementation of the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2021-2030) designated by the General Assembly.

 

Mandate:

In its resolution 48/7 on the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights, the Human Rights Council decided to convene a panel discussion at its fifty-first session to identify challenges in addressing the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on human rights, and to discuss ways forward.

 

Format:

The panel discussion will be limited to two hours. The opening statement and initial presentations by the panellists will be followed by a two-part interactive discussion and conclusions from the panellists. A maximum of one hour will be set aside for the podium, which will cover the opening statements, panellists’ presentations and their responses to questions and concluding remarks. The remaining hour will be reserved for two segments of interventions from the floor, with each segment consisting of interventions from 12 States and observers, 1 national human rights institution and 2 non-governmental organizations. Each speaker will have two minutes to raise issues and to ask panellists questions. Panellists will respond to questions and comments during the remaining time available.

 

The list of speakers for the discussion will be established through the online inscription system and, as per practice, statements by high-level dignitaries and groups of States will be moved to the beginning of the list. Delegates who have not been able to take the floor due to time constraints will be able to upload their statements on the online system to be posted on the HRC Extranet. Interpretation will be provided in the six United Nations official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish).

 


NTCP: New Technologies for Corporate Privilege and the

Territorial Integrity of Mother Earth

 

"In order to fulfil their obligations to guarantee Indigenous Peoples’ right of self-determination and permanent sovereignty over our lands, territories, resources, air, ice, oceans and waters, mountains and forests, we recommend that States, as a matter of urgency, establish effective mechanisms through agreements reached with the Indigenous Peoples concerned, to effectively implement the aforementioned rights consistent with State’s obligations under international law, the UN Charter, the Declaration and Treaties and agreements concluded with Indigenous Peoples and Nations;" 

 ALTA OUTCOME DOCUMENT (2013)

 

What is in question is not just the inherent right of Indigenous Peoples to free, prior, and informed consent in a culturally appropriate manner regarding projects that impact their territories and human rights. Nor is this issue only limited to the specific treaty concerns of specific Indigenous treaty nations with specific states.


What is in question is the need for the international legal system of the planet to escape the conceptual constraints and the ethical void of the colonial legacy which gave origin to the present international framework, in open violation of the right of self-determination of the Indigenous Peoples, equal to all other peoples. Such a geopolitical trajectory could provide an effective strategic repositioning of global ecological concerns vis-à-vis the fractured interests of the states and the corresponding geopolitical blocs of power and competition. A multilateral world that integrated the recognition of Indigenous Nationhood, where the rights and responsibilities of the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples of Mother Earth are acknowledged and respected could provide a possible alternative to the self-destructive modus operandi of the present international regimes of competition, consumption, and finally the fatal degradation of the biosphere.


Conclusion


In consideration of the preceding, we now submit:

 

On March 20, 2022, a joint Declaration by a Western Hemisphere Alliance of Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples that includes the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council, the Western Shoshone Defense Project, the Consejo de Todas las Tierras Mapuche, and TONATIERRA was submitted to the United Nations Secretary General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.


This declaration invoked the principles of UNHRC Resolution 48/7 Negative impact of the legacies of colonialism and called upon the UN system to address the institutionalized and systemic legacies of discrimination and colonialism within the UN system.

(A/HRC/RES/48/7 Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 8 October 2021)

 

1.   Stresses the utmost importance of eradicating colonialism and addressing the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights;

 

2.   Calls for Member States, relevant United Nations bodies, agencies and other relevant stakeholders to take concrete steps to address the negative impact of the legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights;

 

Without the international recognition, respect, guarantees to honor and mechanisms of effective enforcement of the Treaties between the states and the Original Nations of Indigenous Peoples within the international legal system of the UN member states, the concept of free, prior, and informed consent for Indigenous Peoples is reduced from an international standard and principle of law to a political phrase with significance derived from the domestic interpretations and bureaucratic policies of the individual states. 


In terms of the discussion and debate over NTCP, all of the strategies and plans to address documented threats to the human rights of Indigenous Peoples exacerbated by NTCP projects will be devoid of justice, and instead serve as instrumentalities of even deeper subjugation and colonization in particular for the Treaty Nations.


Therefore, in order to advance a substantive discussion on the processes presented by United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee per UN HRC Resolution 48/14, we respectfully call for the inclusion of the UN Study on Treaties, Agreements, and Constructive Arrangements concluded by Special Rapporteur Miguel Alfonso Martinez in 1999 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/20) as fundamental reference to contextualize the issues being brought forward.

 

“We, Original Nations and Indigenous Peoples of Mother Earth, assert our right to address all forms and manifestations of colonialism, foreign occupation, including all scourges of racism and racial discrimination, apartheid, crimes against humanity, and genocide on an equal basis to all other peoples and nations in accordance with the United Nations Charter.”


Joint Declaration from the following Indigenous Nations and Peoples to the United Nations Secretary General, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the

Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

March 20, 2022

 

Signed:

 

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Consejo de Todas las Tierras Mapuche

Western Shoshone Defense Project

TONATIERRA

www.tonatierra.org

chantlaca@tonatierra.org