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


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]




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


[8]    See the following link to the list of Trust Territories, which include Alaska:


[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:


[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


    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

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council 

Charmaine White Face

presentation at the

Encounter of Indigenous Peoples of Abya Yala

Self Determination – Decolonization 

June 7, 2022

Continental Commission Abya Yala 




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



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


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.



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.



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;" 



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.


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




1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Consejo de Todas las Tierras Mapuche

Western Shoshone Defense Project