Indigenous  Peoples  and  Nations   Coalition
P.O Box 111
Dillingham, Alaska 99576

DIPLOMATIC PROTEST                                                                 Résumé en français

60th Commission on Human Rights
Item 11: Civil and Political Rights
Friday 2 April 2004
Ambassador Ronald Barnes


Camai distinguished Members of the Commission on Human Rights and all distinguished Participants. This again is a diplomatie protests and legal notice to the agents of the United States of Arnerica for illegal annexation of Alaska and Hawaii. As I stated in the intervention on item 5, the Kanaka Maloli Peoples of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the independently recognized Tribes of Alaska did not consent to annexation.

When the United States of America adopted the Charter of the United Nations and placed Alaska and Hawaii under Non-Self-Governing Territories, it accepted a legal obligation of the historically recognized independent States and to fulfill those obligations. The purposes and principles to promote „equal rights....of nations large and small"(1) and the „respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" and „human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race ... language, or religion" did not occur in our case (2) . Articles 1,2 and 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can also be used a vehicle to promote the principle of selfdetermination in conformity with
the Charter of the United Nations. I have heard many states and non-governmental organizations declare that human rights are universal, indivisible, inter-dependent and inter-related and we all know that the ICCPR is a legal instrument that promotes self-determination. There is no reason why the Commssion on Human Rights cannot review the cases of Alaska and Hawaii with the aim of sending our cases to address our claims to the right body of the United Nations.

The United States uses article 1, section 8, clause 3, the commerce clause and the 1867 Treaty to justify the taking of territory that it recognized as foreign and independent from Russia who therefore could not regulate cornmerce and trade against any European Nation. The United States of America violated not only its constitution, but the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Careful examination would indicate that both territories and peoples were recognized as
fully independent, a principle under the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and by general practice under Article 73, the United Nations and the Administering Power could not unilaterally diminish except by the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned and you cannot use force to deny the right of self-determination.

The claim that we are legitimately citizens of the United States of Arnerica in their nonparticipation hit and run intervention at the
Seminar on Treaties, Agreements and Constructive Arrangements is erroneous. The occupation of a territory that is foreign and independent does not grant absolute title to the State involved in the belligerent occupation. The independently recognized peoples did not consent to annexation. We therefore refuse that you can claim us as your property under the constitution and international law. It is a fundamental principle that prescription does not apply when there is a clear territorial dispute by internationally recognized peoples.

In our case it is up to the United States of Arnerica to prove it has properly annexed Alaska and Hawaij. The Hawaiian Kingdom and the independent Tribes of Alaska were never annexed. Based upon our examination our recognized status of independence does carry and even in the decolonization process you cannot claim prescription, especially since you recognized us as independent.

We are subject to taxation without representation. Where are we represented in the United States Government or with our proper status as international legal personalities in the United Nations? We were denied consent when we were unilaterally annexed. The United States of America recognized us as independent then allowed its Supreme Court to declare that our territories were for the white race. The Ku Klux Klan was well represented by United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. (3)

The United States of America uses the name of God to and Human Rights but chooses to apply Christianity and Human Rights discriminately. As long as the United Nations allows them to freely violate the Charter and oppress peoples they will continue in the name of their White Anglo Saxon Protestant process of justice to promote a form of judicially justified slavery over foreign peoples.

We continue to call upon the Commission on Human Rights to fully examine our cases.
Thank you Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission.



(1) Preamble of the Charter and the 1993 Vienna Declaration on Human Rigthts
(2) Article l (2) of the Charter of the United Nations
(3) The United States of America asserts title and dominion based on principles of racial superiority and religious discrimination to the
intemationally recognized territories of Alaska and Hawaii in United States Supreme Court Cases (Johnson v McIntosh (Wheaton 543 (1823) and the United States v. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians (348 US 272 (1955). lt is our duty to denounce the deny jurisdiction to the United States. These
United States domestic law cases were applied to internationally recognized Kingdom of Hawaii and the Independent Tribes of Alaska by the
United States Supreme Court with the assistance of one Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who swore to „rnost zealously and valiantly shield
and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods... white supremacy“ (page 95) and in a speech declared: „I see a vision honored
by the Nations of the World...With my love, with my faith..this great organization will carry on sacredly...straight for the heart of
Anglo-Saxon patriots...“ (Page 116 of - Hugo Black - A Biography by Roger K. Newman)

Résumé en français  (UN Press)

RONALD BARNES (Indigenous World Association, au nom également de la Ligue internationale pour les droits et la libération des peuples et du Conseil international de traités indiens) a adressé une protestation et une injonction judiciaire aux États-Unis pour leur annexion illégale de Hawaï et de l'Alaska. Il n'y a aucune raison pour que la Commission ne puisse
examiner cette question en vue de référer les plaintes aux instances adéquates des Nations Unies, a-t-il souligné. Il a dénoncé la l'absence de représentation des populations autochtones dans le Gouvernement et le non-respect du droit à l'autodétermination des peuples autochtones de Hawaï et de l'Alaska. Il a exhorté la Commission à se saisir de cette question.