Reports came in late Sunday that construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline would not proceed along the planned route. Instead, the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would begin looking for new routes for the line.
This decision is, to say the least, questionable. The law requires that tribes be consulted on such matters when their lands could be influenced. The parties involved, which include the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the Army Corps and Dakota Access (a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners), did their jobs in accommodating the interests of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Three hearings were held about tribal opposition to the pipeline, none of which were attended by any representative of the Tribe.
In addition to the federal permitting process, ETP had to obtain many more permits from the states the pipeline passed through. Again, the Tribe didn’t cooperate within the legal framework of our nation. Rather, they chose to establish a Spirit camp to thwart construction.
This camp used extralegal methods, such as blocking roads and throwing projectiles at ETP employees. Many arrests have been made due to this behavior.
So it’s curious that the Obama administration has chosen to reward this. It’s the job of the government to enforce the rule of law and primacy of non-violent conflict resolution. When people ignore the law to get what they want, it is the government’s job to jail them, not remunerate them.
This sets awful precedent for the future. Next time a group is opposed to a pipeline, highway, bridge or building being constructed, this shows them that the appropriate and effective place to air their grievances is in the streets, not the courts.
Our problems must be handled in the courts. This is one of the first duties of government, alongside national defense in importance. Historically, when the courts have failed, civil disobedience has been the next step. But here, it was the first and only step.
When Southern courts refused to enforce the 14th Amendment, sit-ins, marches and blockades became necessary. However, if an impartial court was holding hearings on a civil rights issue, and civil rights activists refused to attend, choosing circumvention as their first course of action, their moral standing would have been weakened.
The system must at least be given a chance to work.Needless to say, it’s deeply concerning to see abandonment of the legal process at the highest levels of government. When the Tribe chose not to participate in legal proceedings, it forfeited the right to take issue with the outcome.
Americans rightly take issue with such banana republicanism. If for every action there is a reaction, Donald Trump is Newton’s proof of concept. This sort of behavior creates an opening for a law-and-order candidate to restore sanity to the system.
Regardless of whether or not Trump does this, he certainly tailored his message around this legitimate grievance, whether it’s enforcing immigration law or restoring respect for police.
Democrats after Obama would be wise to learn from this. Differences of opinion are integral to our democracy, but they must be battled out at the ballot box and in the court room, not the plains of North Dakota.
zaochamb@indiana.edu
