Sioux Nation Treaty Council - est 1894

Hello Everyone,

With the current situation in the world as it is, rather chaotic, I am going to try to send more Newsletters as we submit reports or receive information from the United Nations. That way, hopefully, information won’t be lost, and you can keep up to date on what is happening.

1. INCOMINDIOS Project

In the last Newsletter, I mentioned the video and information project that was being funded by the International Committee for the Indians in the Americas located in Switzerland. We are still not finished. Hopefully that last video on Revitalization of our Nation will be finished in a couple of weeks. I’ll let you know. 

2. Attached is a Report to the UN Expet Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) on the topic of Post Conflict situations. Edward Valandra, Ph. D. and a Sicangu delegate helped with the report. Thank you, Tahansi. Really appreciate it. 

3. A reminder that on March 20th, I will be at Little Wound School in James McDonald’s classes. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind if anyone wanted to listen in as we will be discussing the Treaty and probably the International work. Hope we have good discussions.

4. Still looking for funds to attend the UN Decolonization Meeting in New York during the 2nd or 3rd week of June, and the 62nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, the third week in Sept. 2026. We need a resolution from the General Assembly that our Nation should be put on the list for Decolonization, and these two committees should help us according to the UN Charter. Letters will be sent to the Chairperson of the Decolonization Committee asking for time on their agenda. The HRC already has a special time for our request next Sept.

As we do not get any money from any government, we need donations for the travel expenses. Usually one or two others attend the meetings with me depending on the funds. Thank you in advance for any donations. 

Respectfully submitted by

Charmaine White Face Zumila Wobaga__
Charmaine White Face, Spokesperson Zumila Wobaga, Itancan

Enc: Report to EMRIP 

1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council

Submission to

the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

in their Study on “the rights of Indigenous Peoples 

in Conflict and Post-conflict situations.”

January 2026

Submitted by

Zumila Wobaga (Charmaine White Face), Spokesperson

&

Waŋbli Wapȟáha Hokšíla (Edward Valandra, PhD), Delegate

Post Office Box 2003

Rapid City, South Dakota 57709 USA

www.siouxnationtreatycouncil.org

The Sioux Nation is an ancient Indigenous nation which was originally located in 24 American states and 4 Canadian provinces in the middle of the North America continent for thousands of years. The European invasion did not reach the middle of the continent and the remainder of the Sioux Nation until the early 1800s. However, unable to subdue the western part of the Sioux Nation, the United States (US) asked for a treaty for peace to allow passage to the northwestern part of the continent. The Sioux Nation agreed as the Treaty provided that the Treaty territory would be “for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians.” This was in Article II of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. However, the US had no intention of upholding the Treaty and allowing us to be undisturbed as will be shown.

This submission presents a few examples of the ongoing conflict since 1868 to the present and its impact on our human, collective, and sovereign rights. We highlight challenges in protecting our sovereign rights, especially our 1868 Treaty rights, and show how, despite our efforts to resolve them, our prolonged involvement with conflict resolution remains ignored by the US and the United Nations (UN). We have attended and participated in many meetings at the UN over the past forty (40) years presenting our situation over and over again only to be dismissed.

The conflicts between the Sioux Nation and the United States has persisted since the early 1800s, beginning with a US-sanctioned expedition trespassing through our territory in 1804. Most recently in 2016, we challenged the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to bring tar sands oil through our unceded Treaty territory. However, even before 1804, the origins of the US reveal an inherent, structural violence against Indigenous Peoples. This violence is rooted in a fictional Christian Doctrine called the Doctrine of Discovery. At its core, the Doctrine simply claims that Indigenous Peoples do not hold an Absolute—only an Aboriginal—Title to lands in North America and other places. In reality, this is false. The Doctrine “grants” to Indigenous Nations the Aboriginal Title: a right to use and occupy land. However, settler states such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and others illegally claim an Absolute Title under the guise of that Doctrine. In our case, as the examples below demonstrate, US settlers arbitrarily and unilaterally pre-empt Aboriginal Title and Sovereignty of Indigenous Nations as they wish. These are clear violations of International Law and would be considered acts of war.

Non-Consensual Annexation and Genocide, 1873-Present

•1873 Buffalo Extermination. The US government knew that the Buffalo provided all that was needed for the Sioux people. The Buffalo was not just our economy but provided vital nutrients needed for our health. From an article by the US National Parks Service states, “In 1873, the Secretary of the Interior noted that ‘[t]he civilization of the Indian is impossible while buffalo remain on the plains’; following this logic, the Army provided free ammunition to hide hunters, who brought bison to the brink of extinction.” This was only five (5) years after the signing of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty but the US knew that the Indians would die without the Buffalo. Therefore, destroying the Buffalo would destroy the Indians. Not only were the Buffalo almost totally exterminated but also the Sioux people as well.

•1877 Black Hills Act. This illegal Act made into law by the US government is known as the Sell or Starve Act. It was the US settler states’ retaliation against our resistance, armed and otherwise, to their colonization. When we refused, even under the threat of being starved, to give consent to ceding our territory, the US unilaterally annexed and then nationalized the Treaty Territory, opening it to white settlement. This Act not only violated the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty, Article 12 but also Article 2 which delineated the Treaty territory for our “absolute and undisturbed use and occupation.”

•1889 Sioux Agreement. This 2 March 1889, illegal “agreement” which annexed our remaining territory, opened it to white settlement, and established several Prisoner-of-War camps called “reservations”. Like the 1887 Black Hills Act, this act violated the Fort Laramie Treaty, specifically Article 12 which required the US to obtain our consent before any land cession was valid. To date, we have never given consent to any land cession since the 1868 Treaty. This is also a violation of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent.

•1889 South Dakota Enabling Act. Eight months after the 1889 Sioux Agreement, which annexed and then nationalized our territory, the states of North and South Dakota were admitted to the US on 2 November 1889. Because the US never obtained our consent for any land cession, North and South Dakota’s establishment remains an ongoing illegal settler occupation and trespass.

Non-Consensual Political Incorporation, 1885-Present

•The 1885 Major Crimes Act. This illegal Act usurps our sovereignty and violates the jurisdictional terms of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, specifically Article 1. This Article states that any offense committed where both the offender and victim are Sioux people falls under the jurisdiction of the Sioux Nation, not under US jurisdiction. This Act asserted concurrent US jurisdiction over our Treaty territory without our consent. As a result, it has caused a disproportionate number of our citizens to be held in US and state prisons today. The population of the Sioux people in South Dakota is only nine percent (9%) but in 2015, seventy-five percent (75%) of pretrial detainees were Indigenous (Vera Institute of Justice, December, 2019).

•The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. This US settler Act unilaterally declared all Indigenous Peoples to be US citizens. It politically incorporated the Sioux Nation into the US without determining whether we desired US citizenship. The act neither provided for individual choice, such as naturalization, nor required the Sioux Nation to hold a national referendum on the citizenship question. Only when questions about Sioux Nation sovereignty and jurisdiction arise do settlers question the Act’s legitimacy. In today’s understanding, this Act would be considered an Act of War and a violation of many International laws.

•The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act (IRA). This US settler Act established modern Tribal governance but denied true self-determination. The Tribal governments were forced on many of the reservations in violation of the Act when the people resisted. A reading of the Act shows that the Tribes had the option to adopt a constitution and bylaws. However, the Act’s exceptions and limitations demonstrate that the US enforces Tribal sovereignty, which allows the settlers’ US Supreme Court to define tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” In other words, colonizing Indigenous territory remains an ongoing US settler policy. Perhaps the most recent expression of this policy involves the US settler state’s desire to colonize Greenland. The US wants to annex Greenland, which is home to Indigenous Peoples who make up the majority of the population. This US desire to acquire Greenland reflects a historic pattern where the US annexes and then nationalizes Indigenous territory.

•1968 Indian Civil Rights Act. During the 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the US, when landmark civil rights and voting rights became US settler law, it drew settler attention that Indigenous Peoples “deserve” or “need” civil rights protections, too. These Indian civil rights are modeled on several amendments of the settlers’ constitution, though some anomalies exist, such as the omission of the right to keep and bear arms. First, like previous settler laws concerning Indigenous Peoples, our participation came in the form of providing testimony, as any US citizen could, to Congress rather than through a nation-to-nation basis. Second, this settler act, like the 1885 Major Crimes Act, infringes on the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty’s jurisdictional framework and, therefore, our sovereignty. Third, this settler act applies only to Indigenous governance, whether IRA or traditional. Fourth, with the exception of habeas corpus, there is ambiguity about whether settler courts can review Indigenous civil court rulings, as in cases involving settlers and Indigenous sovereignty and jurisdiction. Fifth, this settler law imposes individual rights on Indigenous Peoples versus our collective or group rights.

•1978 Oliphant Decision. The settlers’ US Supreme Court unilaterally ruled that Indigenous Peoples have no criminal jurisdiction over settlers, often called “non-Indians” in federal Indian law. This settler ruling ignored the “bad man” clause in the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which affirms our sovereignty to apprehend, detain, and release to US authorities those non-Indians who violate treaty terms or commit crimes. This ruling allows state and federal jurisdictions to operate within our territories without our consent or a negotiated amendment to the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Today, this settlers’ ruling has virtually allowed settlers to commit crimes, such as human or drug trafficking, with impunity. Although recent settler laws recognize this imbalance, they are written to provide more protection to settlers who commit crimes than to the Indigenous individuals, communities, or nations that are harmed.

•1980 Sioux Nation of Indians v. the United States. The settlers’ US Supreme Court ruled that the Sioux Nation of Indians were entitled to compensation for the “taking” of our territory pursuant to the 1877 Black Hills Act mentioned previously. The settler court deemed the annexation and nationalization of our territory as an “eminent domain” taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which mostly pertains to individuals. Eminent domain is a domestic, not international, law and thus inapplicable; and there is no identifiable public purpose for this taking. The settler court manufactured a Fifth Amendment argument out of the air, ignoring the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty provisions regarding land cessions and their own US Constitution’s Article VI which states that “treaties are the Supreme Law of the land”. The Sioux Nation of Indians have refused the settlers’ monetary compensation and instead demands the return of our land as land cannot be bought or sold according to Sioux culture.

Furthermore, since January 2025, the US has implemented Project 2025, which includes a blueprint for restructuring Sioux Nation—US settler relations. Most concerning is the fact that the United States does not require Indigenous Peoples’ Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). For the Sioux Nation, this FPIC language aligns with the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty between the “Sioux Nation of Indians and the United States.” This treaty requires our consent before ceding our national territory, the Great Sioux Reservation, and other adjacent treaty territory. The United Nations must recognize that the US’s annexation of our territory is no different from the proposed annexations of other territories inhabited by Indigenous Peoples, such as “running” Venezuela, or claiming Greenland, or continuing to help Israel with destroying the Indigenous peoples of Palestine, the Palestinians. As a nation belligerently occupied by the US, and experiencing for generations the loss of basic human rights and especially the right to true Self Determination, the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council opposes all US colonizing actions.

The US annexation of our territory and subsequent belligerent colonization represents the ongoing conflict we have with the US. For example, the US president has issued Executive Orders 14225 and 14241. These orders speed up resource extraction at the expense of ignoring Indigenous consent. At least 80,000 permits (for mining or exploratory drilling) have been issued in the Black Hills area, which is within our treaty-recognized territory. Concerns include the effects of mining, drought, water runoff from development, and more. Preliminary research indicates that this illegal occupation—where settlers’ environmental laws, regulations, and monitoring promote development—impacts our Sioux nation’s environment and human health. For instance, the Coeur Wharf Resources Mine is an active open-pit gold mine. Since 1985, it has expanded by 519%, from its original 0.31 acres. In 2023, it was reported that the mine’s expansion “will disturb an estimated 31.9 million tons of material, including 6.7 million tons of ore and 25.2 million tons of overburden and non-mineralized rock. Wharf’s 2022 gold and silver sales totaled over $150 million, and its net income was over $34 million. Wharf paid about $4.3 million in state [South Dakota] mineral severance taxes last year.” Although we have never ceded our sovereignty or territory, it is clear that neither the US nor South Dakota sought our FPIC when approving this mine and its expansion all these years.

Second, satellite imagery suggests that climate change (not to mention forestry management) increases wildfire potential in our semi-arid territory. Since 2001, several fires in the Black Hills forest area have destroyed tens of thousands of acres, indicating that the area’s drought is climate change related, and that spontaneous fires threaten our sacred places and cultural sites. The Black Hills are sacred to more than fifty (50) other Indigenous nations besides the Sioux Nation. However, our environmental concerns of potential fire hazards during drought-like conditions drew little attention when settlers proposed using fireworks for a combined 4 July 2020 political rally and commemoration. Though fireworks were eventually banned, other environmental health challenges emerged in 2020. 

The 2020 Sturgis, South Dakota, Motorcycle rally, which drew about 445,000 attendees from every US state and various countries was viewed as a COVID-19 spreader event. COVID-19, by that time, had reached pandemic levels. In fact, a few months earlier, our Sioux reservations in South Dakota established COVID-19 border check points as a precautionary measure to lessen the adverse health impacts on our people. Our determination to use check points to protect our people met settler hostility. The South Dakota white governor Kristi Noem, now US Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the US Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs, both contested our sovereign authority to establish COVID-19 checkpoints at our reservation borders. Their actions showed that they were not thinking of the good health of our people, again as recently as 2020.

There are many other environmental concerns such as radioactive pollution in the air and water from the more than two-thousand (2,000) abandoned Uranium mines in our Treaty territory. Our people have the highest cancer rate in the nation including Alaska but nothing is done about the cause, the radioactive pollution caused by the abandoned Uranium mines, approved by the US without our FPIC in our Treaty territory. 

Therefore, the 1894 Sioux Nation Treaty Council maintains that until the United Nations recognizes the Sioux Nation as a colonized Indigenous nation with a legal, International treaty with the United States, nothing will be done to enforce the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. Our people will continually have health problems and be subjected to the threat of extinction. As a result, there will never be a “post-conflict situation.”