Police shot us in the face with rubber bullets – Sioux Tribe Chairman Dave Archambault II

The Standing Rock protests against the Dakota Access pipeline have ended in victory – or so it seems for now. The US Army Corps of Engineers has denied the permit to build the pipeline through sacred lands of Native Americans, asking for further probes. This happens after protesters were fired at with water cannon during ice-cold nights, shot with rubber bullets, and tear-gassed – what the police called ‘non-lethal use of force.’ As winter weather is making it difficult for the Sioux tribe and its supporters to continue their encampment – what’s next for the movement? Will the federal government’s decision against the pipeline hold when the big money starts pushing? And whose side will Donald Trump take when he moves into the White House? We ask the leader of the protest, the Sioux Tribal Chairman of the Standing Rock Reservation in Dakota, Dave Archambault II.

Story by RT
Interview by Sophie Shevardnadze on SophieCo

Sophie Shevardnadze: Dave Archambault, Tribal Chairman of the Standing Rock Reservation in Dakota, the site of one of the biggest Native American protests in decades, welcome to the show, it’s great to have you with us. Now, Dave, the oil pipeline which you’re protesting against was due to go through Native American ancestral burial grounds. That’s now frozen - do you believe the story is over?

Dave Archambault: No. I believe that we have won a battle in a big war, but we definitely did not win the war. Had we had this victory in a different administration from what the U.S. is coming in, then I would say this is a win, we won a war, but because that new Administration is coming and this new Administration will attempt to reverse the decision that was made by the Corps of Engineers, we still have work to do, but I do know that the United States Corps of Engineers rendered a decision not to grant an easement for this pipeline to cross under the Missouri river. That is a huge win for us and this is the first time in history that the Native people, the original occupants of this land have had somebody listen to them and actually rule in our favor. So, it’s a huge win for us, but by far it’s not the end.

SS: So, the U.S. Army Engineer Corps which has finally denied the permit to drill the pipe near the Sioux land, previously ordered police to arrest and forcefully evict protesters. Did they finally hear the environmental argument against the pipeline, or were they scared of your protest’s resilience and that’s why they backed down?

DA: I never believed that they would come in force and the reason they were not coming in force is not because they were afraid of us, they were afraid of our resilience, afraid of our resistance. I’m telling you that they just made this order because they wanted to reduce the liability risk that exists. There’s a liability for people occupying federal lands, so by releasing a statement, the Corps of Engineers released a statement saying that “you’re on these properties and you’re subject to fines for trespassing if you will remain there”, but never once did it say that they were going to remove people. What it did, it relieved the Federal government, the Corps of Engineers from any liability that was there. So, now it’s a responsibility of the individuals who remain on the lands.

SS: The builders of the Dakota access pipeline - Energy Transfer partners and Sunoco logistics partners - say they will stick to the original plan. What’s the point of them being so stubborn - in the end, they got a lot of bad publicity, 8 lost months, lost money, why not just agree to build it somewhere else?

DA: You have to understand, there are always two sides. Once this decision was rendered by the Corps of Engineers, either side would’ve opposed the decision. So, if the easement was granted, our strategy and our reception, out acts would’ve been just the same. We would have filed a suit against the easement, we would have looked at all of our legal options to continue and try to stop this pipeline from happening. But because the right decision was made, the company is going to do the same thing. They’re going to look at all of their legal options and they’re going to try to push forward, and this is just another example of corporate world, forcing their hand on the government, forcing their hand on people. They’re going to continue to try and move this pipeline in its current location, and if they disregard the federal laws, they’re jeopardizing the project’s investment, they’re jeopardizing their investors’ money, they’re jeopardizing the banks who lent them the loans to keep this project going. So I don’t believe that they’re going to move forward and continue to push the project underneath this river. They’re going to stop, they’re going to have to stop, and the Corps of Engineers is going to require them to do a full environmental impact statement, and the environmental impact statement looks at people, and we are the people and we have a rich culture, we have a rich history, we have a rich heritage, we have an environment, we have land that we’re trying to protect. So, the environmental impact statement is necessary when they’re looking at this crossing. They are also going to have to just conform to the existing laws.

SS: President-elect Trump is a big supporter of the pipeline - he may simply undo Obama’s decision to reroute it once he’s in office. How far are you willing to go, if he indeed does that?

DA: What I look at is an opportunity with President-elect. This is an opportunity for us to consult with him, to open up communication lines, to open up a relationship with the President-elect and help him understand that we’re the first occupants of this country, and help him understand that all the benefits that are received by this nation, were paid for by somebody and they were paid for by us, and we continue to pay for them.

SS: Young protesters from Dakota organised a run to Washington to draw attention to their cause - but once they got there, the White House refused to receive them. Was it easier for Obama to pretend you don’t exist?

DA: Obama has been, probably, the most supportive President in the history of the U.S. for Indian country and the petition that was delivered, was delivered to the Army Corps of Engineers, to their general, so... For you to say that it was not received - the petition did get received by the U.S. Federal Government.

SS: But, I’m just thinking that, maybe, now he’s listening because he has nothing to lose, he is an outgoing President?

DA: No, all you gotta do is take a look at the history of the time that he spent in office and all the policies and all the actions that he has done for Indian country and it isn’t because he is “lame-duck” status, it’s because he had a sincere concern for the first people of this nation.

SS: The original plan called for the pipeline to cross the river near the state capital - but the authorities decided to move it closer to the Native lands because they feared a possible accident. Why are they worried about the pipeline’s effect on a city - and not on a Native reserve?

DA: When you take a look at EA - Environmental Assessment - they will say: “this is the least impactful route”. It had nothing to do with people, it had nothing to do with the city of Bismarck. There was an environmental assessment, and what we asked for is an environmental impact statement, and the reason why we want an environmental impact statement is because we now we have to take a look at people. Even though there are 150,000 people that live in a state capital of North Dakota, we are the first occupants of this land, we have a rich heritage, we have a rich culture, we have a rich tradition, we have our language, we have sacred places, we have the environment, we have our water, and this very pipeline threatens all of that. We also have to take a look at the history of the people that are occupying this land where this pipeline is going, the proposed pipeline. If we look at the history, we have paid over and over and over for the benefit of this nation, so those two things combined, it’s very vital that we do an environmental impact statement rather than just an environmental assessment. So, the original route, with an assessment is justifiable to relocate to this. We’re asking for environmental impact statement so that our concerns are addressed.

SS: It all started with something around 30 people camping out at the protest site - do you remember when it started getting bigger, when the group grew to the thousands?

DA: It started, I’d say, the whole month of August it continued to grow, and in September it was growing, in October it was kind of stable, I would say, between 4-5 thousand, and then on weekends it would expand to 6-7 thousand people that would come to the camp, and on weekdays it would contract to maybe 3 to 4 thousand. As soon as there were confrontations with law enforcement, it had expanded and it’s continued to evolve and grow. So, we had, this past weekend, over 10 thousand people, easy.

SS: Water cannons were used by police against the protesters, in freezing temperatures - isn’t that against the law where you’re at? Because, I don’t know, in some countries that’s forbidden, so I just wonder is not against the law in America?

DA: The way I look at it is that law enforcement chose to take actions that are not commendable, are not the right thing to do. Their behaviour on how to handle the situation could have been better, but it wasn’t. So, as a result of that, we have had people seriously injured, we have had over 100 people experience hypothermia because of water being used in 24 degrees Fahrenheit weather. I can’t answer your question, is it legal or not. If the law enforcement is using it, in this country, or in this state - then obviously it must be, because they’re not getting charged with anything.

Read more: https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/369739-protests-dakota-pipeline-us/