Trump advisers propose tribes ‘privatize’ reservations
Published
time: 5 Dec, 2016 20:58
A
Navajo Nation woman stands on Highway 1806 during the protests
against Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian
Reservation, North Dakota, November 6, 2016 © Stephanie Keith /
Reuters
RT,
5
December 2016
Native
American advisers to President-elect Donald Trump have proposed that
tribal lands be removed from government control. While they say that
the move could help impoverished tribes profit from oil and gas,
critics have denounced it as “privatization.”
Trump advisors aim to privatize oil-rich American Indian reservations
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/trump-advisors-aim-to-privatize-oil-rich-indian-reservations.html …
#INDIGENOUS #TAIRP
"We
should take tribal land away from public treatment," said
Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), a Cherokee tribe member
and chair of the Coalition. “As
long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will
have broad support around Indian country.”
Ross
Swimmer, a co-chair of the Coalition and former chief of the Cherokee
Nation, said it was possible to turn over reservation lands to tribe
members without opening them for sale to outsiders.
“It
has to be done with an eye toward protecting sovereignty,” he
said.
However,
the tribes also sit on approximately $1.5 trillion worth of energy
resources, according to a 2009 estimate by the Council of Energy
Resource Tribes, a tribal energy advocacy.
In
2008, BIA officials told Congress that the reservations contained
about 20 percent of untapped oil and gas reserves in the US.
The
Crow Nation in Montana and the Southern Ute in Colorado have made
mining and drilling deals, hoping to generate funding for health,
education and infrastructure. The projects have progressed slowly,
however, since federal stewardship of the land translates into a lot
of red tape.
"The
time it takes to go from lease to production is three times longer on
trust lands than on private land," Mark
Fox, chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes in Forth Berthold, North
Dakota, told Reuters. Their operation produces around 160,000 barrels
of oil per day.
"If
privatizing has some kind of a meaning that rights are given to
private entities over tribal land, then that is worrying,"Fox
said. "But
if it has to do with undoing federal burdens that can occur, there
might be some justification."
Privatization
is an ugly word among the Native Americans, however. The tribes lost
some 90 million acres under the 1887 Dawes Act, which parceled out
Native land to individuals. The practice was only abandoned in 1934,
with the Indian Reorganization Act.
The last time the gov't privatized Native land, it was repossessed by the gov't and sold off to white settlers, know your history @RepMullin
“Privatization
of Indian lands during the 1880s is widely viewed as one of the
greatest mistakes in federal Indian policy,”said
Kevin Washburn, member of Oklahoma's Chickasaw Nation and assistant
secretary for Indian affairs at the Department of the Interior
between 2012 and 2015.
Mullin
and Swimmer said the Coalition intends to preserve tribal control of
reservation land, and keep the $20 billion or so in federal aid to
the tribes flowing. They maintain, however, that the existing
arrangement is preventing the tribes from benefiting from the
resources in their possession.
"Privatization
has been the goal since colonization – to strip Native Nations of
their sovereignty," said
Tom Goldtooth, head of the Indigenous Environmental Network and one
of the organizers of resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline on
grounds that it threatened the drinking water of the Standing Rock
Sioux Nation. “Our
spiritual leaders are opposed to the privatization of our lands,
which means the commoditization of the nature, water, air we hold
sacred.”
After
months of protests by Native Americans and environmentalists, the
federal government decided on Sunday to revoke
the easement for
the construction of the pipeline under Lake Oahe. Energy Transfer
Partners, the company building the pipeline, said it would go ahead
with the construction nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.