Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Submission on UN Declaration

Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Submittal to State Department on Declaration

Greetings from the International Justice Program of Owe Aku, Bring Back the Way.

As most of you know, the State Department of the United States has begun a review of its position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The State Department arranged for "consultations with federally recognized Indian tribes and meetings with interested nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders."
The Lakota Nation by the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council submitted the attached (below) in writing with respect to the review.
The four-page letter begins with:
"Greetings from the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council (“BHTC”). The BHTC represents the
Lakota people in our sovereign relationship with the United States of American as preserved in the Fort
Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868. We come now to address you regarding the review and
“consultation” process under which the people of the United States of America, through you, their
representatives, are considering the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(“DRIP”). We wish to address two points in particular:
1. “Consultations” with Indian Reorganization Act governments under the supervision of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) established in 1934 on Indian territories in violation of due process and the
treaty relationship between our governments, are not authorized or qualified to discuss issues relating to
the nation-to-nation relationship, treaties or international rights; and
2. The people of the United States of America, to maintain its claim as a just-minded nation with
respect for diverse peoples of the world and the human rights of those peoples, must give unqualified
support to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."
Please feel free to contact us with any questions or comments.
Kent Lebsock
Coordinator
Owe Aku International Justice Program
oweakuinternational@me.com
==============================================================
Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council
P.O. Box 71
Manderson, SD 57756
MEMBER RESERVATIONS
Cheyenne River
Crow Creek
Fort Peck
Lower Brule
Pine Ridge
Rosebud
Standing Rock
Santee
July 13, 2010
Hilary Clinton
℅ S/SR Global
Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW Suite 1317
Washington, DC 20520
via email to declaration@state.gov
President Barack Obama
The White House
600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
Ken Salazar
Secretary of Interior
1849 C. Street, NW
Room 4146 - MIB
Washington, DC 20240
Larry Echo Hawk
Assistant, Secretary of Interior
1849 C. Street, NW
Room 4146 - MIB
Washington, DC
Bob Ecoffey, BIA Superintendant
Red Cloud Agency
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
Representatives of the United States of America:
Greetings from the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council (“BHTC”). The BHTC represents the
Lakota people in our sovereign relationship with the United States of American as preserved in the Fort
Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868. We come now to address you regarding the review and
“consultation” process under which the people of the United States of America, through you, their
representatives, are considering the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(“DRIP”). We wish to address two points in particular:
1. “Consultations” with Indian Reorganization Act governments under the supervision of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) established in 1934 on Indian territories in violation of due process and the
treaty relationship between our governments, are not authorized or qualified to discuss issues relating to
the nation-to-nation relationship, treaties or international rights; and
2. The people of the United States of America, to maintain its claim as a just-minded nation with
respect for diverse peoples of the world and the human rights of those peoples, must give unqualified
support to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
1. “Consultations” with Indian Reorganization Act governments under the supervision of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) established in 1934 on Indian territories in violation of due
process and the treaty relationship between our governments, are not authorized or qualified to
discuss issues relating to the nation-to-nation relationship, treaties or international rights
Although we appreciate that the United States of America and her people have decided to reexamine its
position on the United Nations document crafted and consented to by Indigenous peoples all over the
world, as well as all member nations of the United Nations EXCEPT the United States and Canada, we
reaffirm that international diplomacy and advocacy is the sovereign right of the BHTC. Over the
years, the American people have unilaterally established mechanisms through the United States Congress
with the assistance of the American “judicial” system, US intelligence agencies and the military, which
are purposefully designed to divert focus from the real issues of treaties, self-determination and
sovereignty when it comes to the Lakota Nation. Nowhere has this process been clearer or more
destructive the United States’ imposition of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”).1 The IRA
established tribal government is:
“. . . based, not in native traditions, but in ‘constitutions’ and/or ‘charters’ drafted by the
BIA…. Worst of all, ... the IRA decreed an electoral form of ‘democratic majority rule
which was and still is structurally antithetical to the consensual form of decision making
and selection of leadership integral to most indigenous traditions. The Reorganization
Act was thus designed to undercut the unity marking traditional native societies,
replacing it with a permanent divisiveness. . .”2
Divisiveness has indeed been the result. For most traditional Native Americans, the IRA has been nothing
more than “a blueprint for elected tyranny.”3 The 1934, Indian Reorganization Act, established the
Oglala Sioux Tribal government in violation of the treaty of 1868 as well as the process unilaterally
established by the United States to “approve” the IRA government.
In order to pass the legislation, the bill provided that each Native nation vote on its provisions in a
“democratic façade.”4 However, due to the substantial and vocal opposition to the IRA, pressure and
less-than-honest voting techniques were used. 5 “Consultations” (in the same manner as today) were
organized across the country to explain the IRA but, interestingly, the actual text of the proposed
legislation was not available for review. But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the “democratic
façade” was the rules established by the U.S. for the voting process itself.
“Although the IRA seemed to provide for tribal ratification of its terms, it did so in a way
that effectively negated [Indian] wishes. Tribal members could vote to either accept or
reject the IRA, but all abstentions (that is ‘votes’ of anyone who didn’t vote) were counted
as votes in favor of the IRA. . .”6
The election itself is a violation of Article 2 of the 1868 Treaty in that it disturbed the “undisturbed use
and occupation” of the Lakota Nation by the Lakota people and any changes to that treaty must be
approved by “at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians.”7 Changing the traditional form of
government is certainly a violation of the “undisturbed use” clause.
Setting that aside, however, it has already been stated that Lakota people do not “vote.” Anyone remotely
familiar with traditional Lakota governance knows that, when you object to something, or oppose
something and your view does not prevail, you simply do not participate. Therefore, provisions providing
that abstentions count as votes in favor of the IRA are completely contrary to Lakota tradition,
common sense and justice. Nonetheless, despite treaty violations and voting techniques that equal
Rwandan election protocols, at Pine Ridge, in the heart of the Lakota Nation, even utilizing the
abstentions as votes in favor of the IRA did not provide sufficient votes to empower the IRA
government.8
page 2
The forced imposition of the IRA is an egregious violation of international treaty law, the right to selfdetermination
as set forth in the United Nations Charter, and the United States Constitution which
declares treaties to be the ‘supreme law of the land.‘ Vine Deloria stated that with the IRA the United
States “set up puppet governments on the reservation and somehow mysteriously governs all aspects of
tribal life by remote control.”9 Its purpose was and is to impose what can only be described as colonial
rule within the territories of sovereign nations.
Therefore, the Oglala Sioux Tribe Tribal Government established by an act of Congress under the IRA or
any representatives claiming to act on behalf of the Lakota Nation who are sanctioned by the IRA
government, cannot discuss, negotiate, amend, modify, or propose any changes to the 1851 or 1868 Fort
Laramie Treaties. These rights are solely reserved for the representatives of the traditional Lakota
government as represented by the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council. “Consultations” regarding
any international obligation of either party to the treaty must be done through the rightful representatives
of the Lakota nation and the Oceti Sakowin Bands.
2. The people of the United States of America must give unqualified support to the Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in order to maintain its representation that it is a democracy
based on and in support of justice, human rights, and self-determination for all peoples.
Their is no viable reason for the United State to NOT endorse the Declaration. The document went
through nearly 20 years of debate within various bodies of the United Nations. During this time the
United States had ample opportunity to comment. Often it put up unrealistic obstacles and wielded its
power to remove provisions that were consistent with international law, treaties that ensure the evolution
of human rights standards, and the well-established right to self-determination of all peoples.
Innumerable tracts and research papers have been presented intricately describing the just and legal basis
for the Declaration and the often unreasonable position of the United States. There is no need to repeat
them all here (although we stand ready to discuss them with you if you so desire).
Critically though, in the end Indigenous peoples and representatives of UN member nations
overwhelmingly endorsed the Declaration. Only four countries, all colonial nations established by Great
Britain (Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States), failed to support the Declaration. Since
then, New Zealand and Australia have endorsed the Declaration. It appears Canada will also soon join
with the world. When that happens the United States of America and her people will be isolated amongst
the nations of the world demonstrating U.S. support of the ongoing racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide
being perpetrated against Indigenous peoples all over the world. Without endorsement of the Declaration,
America’s true intentions about the illegal abrogation of treaties, theft of resources, cultural genocide and
the purposeful policies of inter-generational poverty against Native peoples will also be obvious to the
world.
Therefore, Chief Oliver Red Cloud, Itancan, and the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, who have
the inherent right and authority to discuss, negotiate, and participate in all international matters involving
the Oceti Sakowin, urge the United States of America to endorse, without qualification or reservation, the
United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples.
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
I, the undersigned Spokesperson of the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council, Alexander White Plume,
do hereby certify that the above represents the consensus of the Oglala Delegation of the Black Hills
Sioux Nation Treaty Council:
page 3
Alexander White Plume, Eyapaha,
Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council
AWP/kl
oweakuinternational@me.com
917-751-4239
page 4
1 25 U.S.C. 461- 279
2 Rebecca L. Robbins, Self-Determination and Subordination, The Past, Present and Future of American
Indian Governance in The State of Native America, Genocide, Colonization and Resistance, 95, (M.
Annette Jaimes, Ed.), South End Press (1992).
3 Burnette and Koster, Road to Wounded Knee, 16, Bantum Books, Inc. (1974).
4 Rebecca L. Robbins, supra.
5 The Native American historian, Rupert Costo stated that Indian Commissioner John Collier, who had
been instrumental in pushing the legislation through Congress and Indian Country, “was vindictive and
overbearing. He tolerated no dissent, neither from his staff nor from the tribes. . . He did not hesitate to
use informants and the FBI against Indian opponents. He habitually tampered with the truth in his
dealings with the Indians.”
6 Rebecca L. Robbins, supra.
7 Treaty with the Sioux – Brule, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yanktonai, Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle,
Sans Arcs and Santee – and Arapaho, Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, 5 Stat. 635.
8 “It was subsequently discovered that a sufficient number of dead people had cast ballots to provide a
pretext for ratification. Even after this was established to have been the case, the ratification was
described as ‘binding’ upon the Oglalas. The same sort of situation pertained to the reorganization of the
Cheyenne River . . . Reservation and elsewhere.” Rebecca L. Robbins, supra.
9 Vine Deloria, Jr., Custer Died for Your Sins, 147, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1969).