|
Eroding the Spirit of Sovereignty:
Consent or Conflict of Interests?
Questioning LNG Process on Tribal Land and in Tribal
Lives
"We have, as a company, no ability to make a
determination about when they voted or didn’t vote. That was up to them. They
had to make a choice. There is no question that along the way we had very candid
discussions about the need to move with/at a relatively rapid speed. But that’s
not pressuring the government. They could have chosen not to continue, not to
have a vote. They chose to do so."
--(WERU FM interview with James Mitchell, Quoddy Bay
LLC)
Just because a few deem it expedient, is LNG on Tribal land a forgone
conclusion? Whether written or oral, contracts are supposed to state the
obligations of, and benefits to, the parties in question. Reasonably enough,
contracts, agreements or implied contracts are also creatures of domestic legal
terminology. At its best and most basic, the search for truth about LNG (an
energy mega-project) on tribal lands and in tribal lives needs to include
indigenous voices. Otherwise, the concept of “cultural damage” will never be a
consideration in the impact assessments.
With that said, I will propose several questions to the people of Maine (and New
England):
-
Have Passamaquoddys, as the actual occupants and owners
of tribal land and territorial waters, been adequately and explicitly informed
about the complexities and consequences implicit in the potential siting of a
liquefied natural gas import terminal on tribal lands, a residential area
populated by members of the Passamaquoddy tribe?
-
Better still – do local, tribal electoral irregularities
domestic interferences brought on by the inducements of corporate interests
cause any concern about Quoddy Bay LLC’s recent announcement that an agreement
to “lease tribal lands” to an undisclosed entity is pending?
-
Could Quoddy Bay LLC in the guise of a party having a
genuine interest in the well-being and future of the Passamaquoddy people
actually be the undisclosed entity planning to capitalize on the location and
advantageous tax benefits of the tribe?
Put another way, can Passamaquoddys consider the specific
purposes of any contract in light of the fact that there has literally been no
disclosure concerning the proposed LNG import terminal? More important – how can
distressed communities be assured that local officials are safeguarding their
interests, when the same officials have personal interest in the outcome. As we
have seen in Maine’s coastal communities this past year, the situation is now so
acute, critical awareness of unjust social structures and political
relationships is our only hope if any healthy debate about LNG can occur
statewide.
Considering the historical patterns proving how, time and time again, indigenous
people are left insolvent, ignoring the issue of traditional life ways is
antithetical to indigenous culture/tradition. Therefore, any lease, any sale or
any transfer of ownership of tribal lands and territorial waters should always
be scrutinized. Instead of mistaking corporate intrusion for an “internal tribal
matter,” all those concerned about indigenous freedom and independence need to
critically debate issues relating to the erosion of Passamaquoddy culture.
Sovereignty issues are not always glamorous – issues of sovereignty are after
all more often messy than they are neat, and not simple but remarkably complex.
While many of us openly question the validity of any transfer of ownership of
tribal land, others call for a hands-off-approach. Why? “Internal tribal matter”
is not an umbrella term to be used to protect against exposing demonstrations of
disproportionate leveraging of political power. In that, the State of Maine or
its representatives have never been effective guardians of indigenous rights.
But when tribal officials are forced to turn to the same
authorities that have a vested interest in the outcome, the standard of
protection for native communities are made insufficient, maybe even impossible.
It’s not wise, however, to conclude that the only structures and processes
indigenous people have available are the replicas of Western models. Aside from
the tribal council structure, we do have our own social processes, where making
links between the micro-political situation to the macro one is part of our
critical analysis; and where emphasis is not just focused on the individual
right but also on the collective rights of the Passamaquoddy nation.
An ethical breech in democratic
process (a bypass of local approvals) is hardly all that is at issue. Bringing
to light whether Passamaquoddy people have freely chosen to “lease lands” and
whether or not those initiating an agreement are truly considering the best
interests of all Passamaquoddy people is what is at issue here. Are the parties
involved equally represented? In my view, Passamaquoddy land ownership interests
are being forced into closed-door negotiations with a domestic entity (State of
Maine) and multinational corporations (an unknown entity) without any oversight
and monitoring.
Whose responsibility is it to ensure
corporate accountability within structures that have historically operated
adversely to indigenous people? Should the corporate veil of secrecy be allowed
to drive Maine Indian policy today? Does NAFTA have any application on tribal
land and territorial waters? Does F.E.R.C. intend to preempt authority
regardless of community objections?
While a few tribal leaders and Quoddy Bay LLC, the developer desiring to get
their hands on tribal lands and benefits, would have the public believe that the
so called “vote” whether or not to proceed to discuss a development was a
victory for them. The “non-binding “ referendum that was forced upon tribal
members, which now the aforementioned parties call a “mandate from the
grassroots up” was far from a victory.
In effect, our consent to negotiate
any terms for any lease is made suspect by the fact that 68% of our voting
population either disagreed entirely with altering our environment from
residential neighborhoods to a heavy industrial complex or have not even been
given opportunity to decide. If traditional life ways have no bearing on the
rationale to propose an LNG import terminal on tribal lands – be assured –
sovereignty is being eroded, consent does not exist, and questions of conflicts
of interests at tribal and state government levels are magnified.
Even if for the sake of argument” decision-making” is central to sovereignty,
what kind of processes are necessary to establish open systems on reservations
in Maine? I mean, if what you have in the mix include state interference,
corporate encroachment, and factional tribal leadership; where one’s dissent is
met with exaggerated comments that suggests no readdress; where any attempt to
counter a potentially harmful project like LNG is discouraged on every level;
can one reasonably conclude that there is a “hostile corporate take-over”
occurring at Sipayik?
Are there any assurances the Maine Human Rights Commission can make to the
voiceless in Maine – if Passamaquoddy human rights are simply being ignored.
What about our civil liberties? We call attention to our rights. It’s supposed
to be a given that as Passamaquoddy people, we have a right to fully participate
in the social, political, economic decisions that affect our lives at community,
state, national and international levels. Even in this informational age,
disempowering Passamaquoddy people on these fundamental levels would not only be
futile, it’s an outdated mode of politics to intentionally try to take away the
right of Passamaquoddy people to tell their own stories and represent
themselves.
Every Passamaquoddy deserves to know whom these multinational corporations are;
deserve to know the real issues, as well as, knowing the real price attached to
LNG. More than this, we deserved ample opportunity to examine clear and
understandable information about the “proposed” LNG import terminal being
sought for Passamaquoddy Bay.
What are we dealing with? It’s nothing new, it’s the leveraging of
corporate/state/factional politics – it’s even less about tribal sovereignty –
it’s the same-old, age-old tactic, which continues to repeat over time. The
promise of money and perks usually brings with it social disruption and a
scramble by speculators to score. The spirit of sovereignty cannot afford to be
eroded with a breech in process; the dynamic Quoddy Bay LLC has ushered in
should be made visible for others to view. Passamaquoddys deserve to pose
questions, as well as, follow through with the question about any potential
transfer of ownership of tribal lands to our satisfaction. Land loss is, after
all, the greatest threat to indigenous survival.
As Indigenous people we not only have a right to make decisions – we have a
right to control our resources and environments. If Maine’s people want LNG in
Maine remain silent on the issue – but if Maine’s people are dissatisfied with
the current lack of open debate, which is what I suspect, call into question the
material evidence of interference of tribal procedures, ask for public hearings,
demand respectful processes, support traditional life ways and engage direct
democracy, as I ask for an apology from those who rushed into this arrogant
display—this erosion of spirit.
At the very least, vote in the
upcoming election for those willing to defeat the divisive politics currently
running unchecked in Maine. Hold your elected officials accountable to the fact
that Maine’s promise for a quality of life doesn’t have to be at anybody else’s
expense. LNG in Maine calls for an open debate – LNG should not be preordained
by a non-visible entity.
By Vera Francis, Passamaquoddy and
life-long resident of Sipayik, an educator, activist, and proponent for
environmental justice and community advocacy
|
LNG Menu
LNG History
Articles
Events
Past Events
Helpful Links |
