|
July 5, 2014 - No. 22 Supreme Court Acknowledges Tsilhqot'in Land
Title Press
Conference Celebrates
|
 Chief Roger William |
Tsilhqot'in Chief Roger William and Grand Chief Stewart
Phillip,
President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), together with other
Tsilhqot'in chiefs and leaders of other indigenous peoples'
organizations held
a press conference on June 26 at the offices of the UBCIC to celebrate
the
Supreme Court of Canada decision affirming Tsilhqot'in title to their
lands. It
concludes 24 years of litigation launched by Chief William to stop
illegal
logging. His court action was backed by a road blockade that stopped
logging
as the court case wound its way through the BC Supreme Court, the BC
Court
of Appeal and finally the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court
ruling was released at 7:00 am BC time. It acknowledges Tsilhqot'in
title to
1,750 square km of their lands.
The press conference opened with a traditional recognition of the site as unceded Salish territory. First speaking in Tsilhqot'in to Canada's media, Chief William proceeded to thank the Tsilhqot'in people, especially the ancestors and elders for their courageous leadership. He pointed out how the older and previous generations had fought to affirm rightful title to their ancient homeland, including the 1864 "Chilcotin War" against illegal colonial occupation, right up to the present-day 24-year legal battle. Acknowledging all those who helped in the long legal battle, he thanked in particular all the indigenous peoples across Canada, notably during the "Title Case Express" trip across Canada last year and their appearance before the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa on November 7, 2013. He thanked as well all the non-indigenous organizations, lawyers and Canadian people for their support. Chief William emphasized that good things come for all Canadians from First Nations having land title.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the UBCIC, and an important figure to both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in BC fighting for a new direction to politics and the economy, spoke next. He said the case successfully challenged "the racist notions of the province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada" that First Nations only have title with respect to the reserve system. He said he was "ecstatic" that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's decision rejected the BC Court of Appeal's "postage stamp" view of Tsilhqot'in land title being restricted to village sites, and reaffirmed BC Supreme Court Justice David Vicker's view affirming the existence of a large contiguous territory that belongs to the Tsilhqot'in.
 Chief Stewart Phillip |
Addressing Canada's media, he said, "I believe that we owe a debt of gratitude to those legions of indigenous leaders over the last hundred years who suffered the indignities of residential schools, who suffered the indignities of racist legislation, yet persevered and carried that vision and that dream forward that someday this country would come of age, that this province would come of age and recognize indigenous land rights, and know and understand that the indigenous people were here first. And by virtue of that undeniable fact we have an undeniable right to expect to enjoy the benefits of the rich resources within our territories.
"I believe that the win today is a win for all Canadians and all British Columbians, certainly for my grandchildren and everyone's grandchildren, because now we have the opportunity, the platform to build a genuine dialogue of reconciliation that has eluded us for so long. I truly believe a rising tide carries all boats and we have an opportunity to participate in this province as equal partners."
He said that when the unexpected decision was announced before the press conference the room erupted into "tears and cheers." He introduced many of the leaders and chiefs who had gathered at the UBCIC office and thanked them for participating in this "epic struggle." He said this is "an incredible day" and the court decision is an historic victory for everyone to celebrate.
Regional Chief Puglaas (Judy Wilson-Raybould) of the Assembly of First Nations from the Kwakwaka'wakw peoples followed Grand Chief Phillip. She called the decision a "game changer." She said recognition by the decision of the Supreme Court that indigenous peoples in BC have unextinguished land title "has to be a wake-up call to the provincial and federal governments." She called on Harper to "sit down with us" and move beyond "truth telling and apology" to changing laws and policies, which will be "fundamentally good for this country as we move forward from this historic day."
 Cheryl Casimer |
Cheryl Casimer, representing the First Nation Task Force in place of Chief Ed John, reiterated it was a joyous day to have land title recognized and confirmed, adding government can no longer rely on racist tradition to advance its interests. "Canada Day can now be celebrated on the truth that (indigenous) title exists." She said now her son and generations to come have a "fighting chance" as the "truth has been set free." She asserted indigenous peoples now have a right to be "an equal player in the economy" and concluded by thanking the Tsilhqot'in nation for persisting, along with all those who helped them.
Remarks by several Tsilhqot'in chiefs emphasized the historic struggle of their ancestors and the ongoing life on their land pursued by the young generation in whose minds title to their land was never a question, but has now been confirmed by Canada's highest court.
During the question and answer session that followed, the chiefs emphasized that there is a new legal landscape in Canada. The provincial and federal governments and corporations have to deal with the fact that unceded indigenous land belongs to the indigenous peoples. With this precedent case each people will now be entitled simply to prove their historic occupancy and use of their lands to acquire title to it. Moreover, the court's clear limitations on government over-riding indigenous title for the "national good" poses the need for government to "come to the table on an equal basis," nation to nation. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip referred explicitly to the Mines Act which "must be changed immediately." He reiterated that the UBCIC never entered into the treaty process because the government refused to acknowledge indigenous land title. He pointed out that several more cases involving the Okanagan and Secwepemc nations are already before the courts.
The press conference ended as it began with drumming and traditional Tsilhqot'in songs.
Tsilhqot'in Historic Success Opens a Path
for British
Columbians
The Tsilhqot'in victory in having their indigenous land title to 1,750 square km of their significantly larger homeland affirmed June 26 by the Supreme Court of Canada does not mean it is the Supreme Court of Canada which gets to decide who owns Indigenous land in Canada. While recognizing this legal victory, it is crucial to note that the Supreme Court of Canada made this decision that impacts the Tsilhqot'in Nation, as if they were the subject people of a colonial power. As Chief Joe Alphonse, Tribal Chairman of the Tsilhqot'in National Government, asserted at the June 26 press conference, if the decision had gone differently, the Tsilhqot'in Nation would nonetheless persist in defending their title, as they have never given up sovereignty over themselves or their land.
 Map of the Tsilhqot'in claim. Click to enlarge. |
Ironically, Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme
Court of Canada
cites approvingly the observation of Justice David Vickers of the BC
Supreme
Court, who initially ruled in favour of the Tsilhqot'in claim in 2007.
Justice
McLachlin wrote that "from the evidence that prior to the assertion of
sovereignty [sic] the Tsilhqot'in repelled other people from
their
land and demanded permission from outsiders who wished to pass over it,
[Justice Vickers] concluded that the Tsilhqot'in treated the land as
exclusively
theirs." Who "asserted sovereignty" over whom and what? The fact is the
Tsilhqot'in asserted their sovereignty over their land by exercising
their law
over that territory and executing their law against invading land
speculators
who were spreading small pox in a despicable act of "ethnic cleansing."
Vicker's reference cited approvingly by McLachlin is to the "Chilcotin
War"
of 1864, and the heroic resistance of the Tsilhqot'in war chiefs to the
illegal
occupation of their land.
"Indigenous Land Title Express: Tsilhqot’in Journey for Justice" held last fall in which Tsilhqot'in Nation Elders undertook a journey from their homeland in BC to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada seeking recognition of Aboriginal title for the first time in Canadian history. Shown here, joining with local First Nations in Winnipeg, November 13, 2013.
Tsilhqot'in authority had been established with respect to the invading U.S./British settlers when they tried three land speculators and convicted them in 1862 of deliberately spreading small pox to depopulate Tsilhqot'in territory. These individuals, refusing to submit to a sentence of banishment from the territory, were subsequently ordered executed by the chiefs to stop the germ warfare. This was an expression of their sovereign decision-making power. Two years later the Tsilhqot'in war chiefs declared war on the invading party of surveyors pushing a road through their territory to access the gold fields of Barkerville in the Cariboo. Fear of small pox epidemics being deliberately spread through "Indian territory" by the colonial occupiers to empty the land led the chiefs to declare war. Thus the Tsilhqot'in people exercised their sovereign authority: they executed mass murderers and declared war against invaders infecting them with small pox.
How did Tsilhqot'in sovereignty get usurped or negated? Legally it never has been. How did the proclamation of a British colony illegally signed into existence in Fort Langley in 1858 by the Hudson Bay Chief Factor and self-appointed Governor, James Douglas, establish British authority over a sovereign people who have neither signed away their national authority over themselves and their land by treaty nor been defeated in war? It did not.
 Map showing location of some of the key events during the Chilcotin War. This map, created by Stuart Daniel in 2004 criminalizes the Tsilhqot'in defence of their sovereign territory as "attacks" and "murder." Click to enlarge. |
In 1864 after the Tsilhqot'in Nation declared war and killed a number of the invading surveyors, Perfidious Albion (as colonizing England is known) invited the war chiefs to a peace parley in Quesnel. When they arrived, they were clapped in irons, rushed through a show trial in front of "hanging judge" Matthew Baillie Begbie, and hanged. Begbie, an English lawyer appointed Chief Justice of the new colony of British Columbia proclaimed in violation of British colonial law by Governor James Douglas at Fort Langley in November 1858, is still celebrated today as "BC's first citizen" and a "friend of the Indians." Five of the six war chiefs were hanged in front of 250 people, mostly indigenous, on the site of a Native cemetery.
The story of the war chiefs, their heroic stand and the perfidious and illegal behaviour of the colonial invaders has been passed down generation to generation amongst the Tsilhqot'in people. As Chief Alphonse emphasized in the June 26 press conference, these chiefs cannot be "pardoned" as they did nothing wrong. They can only be exonerated, which indirectly the Supreme Court of Canada case does by ascribing their resistance to "strangers" as a factor in establishing Tsilhqot'in land title. The war chiefs' act of resistance was an act of a sovereign people enforcing the law of their nation over their national territory, and declaring war against an invader. When the last chief was hanged he stated, "This was war not murder." Declaration of war, execution of criminals, these are acts of a sovereign people. How did that sovereignty get annulled? It never was.
Thus the acknowledgement of land title by the Supreme Court of Canada begs the question: why Canada does not acknowledge the continuing sovereignty of the Tsilhqot'in people over their own land? Why is this sovereign people not entitled to make arrangements with the Government of Canada on the basis of nation-to-nation relations? This is the relationship that cries out for recognition today.
Thus while the Supreme Court of Canada judgment is a victory for indigenous peoples, in particular the Tsilhqot'in Nation, it is clear that entirely new constitutional arrangements are required to expiate once and for all, the racist and colonial relationship of the Canadian and provincial governments with indigenous nations, the "first inhabitants and settlers" of British Columbia and rest of Canada. Such a new constitution needs to uproot all vestiges of colonialism, Euro-centrism and hierarchal power arrangements in a manner that sovereignty of indigenous nations is fully recognized. Such a constitution must also confirm the sovereign rights of the Quebec nation to self-determination including secession if it so desires. By guaranteeing the sovereign rights of nations within Canada and enshrining the rights and duties of all, the empowered peoples will create conditions to eliminate all forms of colonialism, racism and national oppression in the country.
For the present, the historic decision of June 26, as
acknowledged by the
Tsilhqot'in Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and other indigenous
leaders,
is attributable to the resistance and persistence of generations of the
Tsilhqot'in
nation, the wide support of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and
organizations across Canada, and to the eloquent arguments of their
lawyers
in the Supreme Court of Canada. Most importantly the victory reflects
the
increased tempo of indigenous resistance right across the country and
increased
support by masses of Canadians to end Canadian colonialism and block
reactionary governments like the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa and the
Clark
Liberals in BC from serving only private monopoly interests while
violating
the
rights of indigenous and non-indigenous people across BC and the rest
of
Canada.
How Tsilhqot'in Sovereignty Was Usurped --
A Story of
Colonial
Genocide and Treachery
As part of opposing disinformation and providing people with the real history behind the Tsilhqot'in land claim TML is printing below a July 2 interview with author and historian Tom Swanky conducted by BC Worker, a supplement of TML Daily.
Swanky is the author of The True Story of Canada's 'War' of Extermination on the Pacific and other related works. He grew up in Quesnel, BC, where five Tsilhqot'in patriots were executed and buried in 1864. He first learned about the "Chilcotin War" of 1864 from the stories of Johnnie Twan who at eight years of age witnessed the hangings and told the story to Swanky's grandfather, who passed it on to him. Swanky subsequently spent 10 years doing meticulous research so British Columbians might understand the acts of genocide and treachery carried out against indigenous peoples to make room for capitalist development under British colonial authority.
***
Question: How did Tsilhqot'in sovereignty get usurped and replaced by British colonial rule?
Tom Swanky: In 1864 there had been no contact between the colonial administration and the Tsilhqot'in nation, so we know at that point the Tsilhqot'in were a sovereign people living on their ancient homeland. In 1862 the Tsilhqot'in invited road builders to construct a road across their territory. There were two roads, the Bentinck Road and the Bute Inlet Road, which met at Puntzi Lake. The Bentinck Road was under the control of George Cary, the Attorney-General of Vancouver Island, and Governor Douglas' legal advisor. Cary died certified insane in 1866. He hired a road builder, a Californian named William Hood. Hood had never been in BC when he accepted a contract and was not aware he was obligated to build the road within 38 days, even though the road went from Bella Coola to the Fraser River, an absolutely impossible task. Cary had no plan to sign treaties or to pay for easements for the road. When they arrive on the scene, they brought small pox with them. Evidence shows that small pox was spread deliberately by people associated with the Bentinck Road project.
To get the land to build the road
house at the
Bentinck/Bute
Inlet road junction they extorted the land from a Tsilhqot'in
family headed by a man named Tahpit by threatening his family
with small pox if they did not give the builders "quiet
possession."
Six weeks later, in June 1862, the road builders introduced small pox. Under Tsilhqot'in law, the only sovereign power in this region, three of the road house entrepreneur/land speculators, Manning, McDonald and McDougall, were all convicted of multiple murders by the Tsilhcot'in. The convicted criminals were given a choice of permanent exile leaving behind their possessions, appeal for sanctuary or execution. The three were too arrogant to leave or appeal for sanctuary, which would be a recognition of Tsilhqot'in sovereignty. The Tsilhqot'in subsequently executed them. Manning was shot by Tahpit, the man whose land had been extorted; McDonald by the war chief, Klatsassin (Lhatsassin), his teen-aged son, Biyil, killed McDonald's horse; and McDougall by Ahan, another war chief. All four of these men were hanged by the colonial authorities for "murder." At no time had British colonial authority legally abolished Tsilhqot'in sovereignty or even approached them to sign a treaty. The legal authority to carry out the executions was inherent under the sovereign authority of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, which made and executed the law on their lands.
From the Tsilhqot'in perspective this spreading of small pox in 1862 begins the "Chilcotin War;" they perceive it as an act of aggression by the colonial administration under Douglas and Cary.
Question: So how does this "Chilcotin War" develop and conclude with the Tsilhqot'in having their sovereign power usurped by the colonialists?
TS: In March 1864, when Captain Edward Howard lands the crew at Bute Inlet to build the road, Howard threatens to spread small pox among the Tsilhqot'in to punish them for taking some flour the Tsilhqot'in thought was owed to them. Howard had spent the 1840s as the owner of two slave ships which conducted the slave trade illegally between Africa and Brazil. With the experience of 1862 fresh in their minds, the Tsilhqot'in take pre-emptive action and wage an act of war by killing 14 road builders.
The deaths finally bring the new governor of BC of less than a month, Frederick Seymour, to the first ever official colonial administration meeting with the Tsilhqot'in Nation held on July 20, 1864. The two sides meet at cross-purposes: the Tsilhqot'in seek an agreement and peace treaty, which will recognize their sovereignty; Seymour seeks to capture the Tsilhqot'in war leaders to kill them as a means of intimidating the Nation and usurping their sovereignty.
 Tsilhqot'in Chief Lhatsassin |
After a month of negotiations, agents for the colonial administration offer to absolve all the Tsilhqot'in involved in the war, to recognize the Tsilhqot'in war chief as the high chief in Tsilhqot'in territory (i.e., to establish diplomatic recognition of the Tsilhqot'in Nation), and thirdly, to host a heads of state conference with the Governor at Puntzi which is where the negotiations were taking place. When the Tsilhqot'in chiefs appear for the conference at 8:30 am, August 15, 1864, they complete a sacred pipe ceremony following which the colonial militia ambush them. Perfidious Albion strikes again.
The militia chained them with beaver trap chains and took them to Quesnel for a "show trial," where Mattiew Begbie, the "hanging judge," sentenced them to be hanged. British "justice" assigned them a defence counsel -- George Barnston, who was a business partner of the Bentinck Road builders who had spread the small pox. On October 26, five of the Tsilhqot'in were hanged publicly in front of about 250 mainly indigenous peoples from hundreds of miles around. Two of those five were hanged for their participation in the Bute Inlet war. Three others were hanged for executing the Puntzi land speculators who had spread small pox. The mass hanging took place over a graveyard where indigenous small-pox victims had been buried next to the Fraser River. According to the colonial administration they were hanged for "murder," even though everyone who was killed in the "Chilcotin War" died on Tsilhqot'in sovereign territory over which the colony did not exercise even a pretence of jurisdiction.
Even in chains and under guard the Tsilhqot'in are still under the misapprehension they are going to Quesnel to meet the Governor. At the end of the trial Begbie, while sentencing them, asked them what is the punishment in their law for "murder." They replied "death." Begbie then sentenced them to death. When visited by an Anglican Minister the next morning, the first thing Chief Lhatsassin said was "We meant war not murder."
Ahan, who executed McDougall in 1864, was hanged in New Westminster on July 18, 1865, six years before BC joined Confederation.
This is how the colonial administration convinced itself that they had usurped Tsilhqot'in sovereignty: through deliberate spread of small pox, treachery and "legal" murder.
TML: Thank you.
(Images/Photos: S. Swanky,
www.canadianmysteries.ca)
For Your Information
Landmark Land Claim Case:
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia
On June 26, in Tsilhquot'in Nation v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, "Held: The appeal should be allowed and a declaration of Aboriginal title over the area requested should be granted. A declaration that British Columbia breached its duty to consult owed to the Tsilhquot Nation should also be granted."[1]
Reasons for judgment were written by Chief Justice CJ McLachlin, with Justices LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ concurring. The unanimous decision overturned a 2012 BC Court of Appeal decision to dismiss the 2007 decision of the late Justice Vickers, BC Supreme Court. The Vickers case, consisting of 335 trial days over a five-year period, concluded that the 1,750 square kilometres of territory claimed by the Tsilhqot'in met the tests for Aboriginal title, but did not confer title because of some faults in the pleadings. The provincial government later withdrew complaints about the pleadings and McLachlin emphasized that pleadings in these land claims cases have to be flexible. The BC Court of Appeal had, according to McLachlin, erred in law by restricting title to "postage stamp" pieces of land where villages existed.
Their view that "only the regular presence on or intensive occupation of particular tracts would suffice ... is not supported by the jurisprudence." McLachlin upheld Vicker's conclusion, holding a broader interpretation of land occupancy including lands occupied traditionally by a people for hunting, fishing, agriculture, gathering etc. "Most of the Province's criticisms of the trial judge's findings on the facts are rooted in its erroneous thesis that only specific, intensively occupied areas can support Aboriginal title."[2]
McLachlin's decision emphasizes that in each indigenous
peoples' land
claim, the key task for the nation to show occupation includes regular
and
exclusive use of the land through evidence produced at court. Further,
once
title is established, as in the present Tsilhqot'in case, the Constitution
Act,
1982 permits government incursion on that land only if "justified
by a compelling and substantial public purpose and are not inconsistent
with
the Crow
s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group; for the purposes of
determining the validity of provincial legislative incursions on lands
held under
Aboriginal title, this framework displaces the doctrine of
interjurisdictional
immunity."[3]
Elaborating she adds: "This means the government must act in a way that respects the fact that Aboriginal title is a group interest that inheres in present and future generations, and the duty infuses an obligation of proportionality into the justification process: the incursion must be necessary to achieve the government's goal (rational connection); the government must go no further than necessary to achieve it (minimal impairment); and the benefits that may be expected to flow from that goal must not be outweighed by adverse effects on the Aboriginal interest (proportionality of impact). Allegations of infringement or failure to adequately consult can be avoided by obtaining the consent of the interested Aboriginal group. This s. 35 [Constitution Act, 1982] framework permits a principled reconciliation of Aboriginal rights with the interests of all Canadians."
One of the essential legal considerations in this case is whether provincial laws, in this particular case, the Forestry Act, would supercede Aboriginal title. McLachlin argues that collaboration between the federal and provincial governments to negate Aboriginal title over their forests because both governments agree to provincial authority is not acceptable. The case emphasizes both that the Tsilhqot'in people have full right to enjoy the fruits of their lands, and that in any case the provincial government had failed to consult with the Tsilhquot'in Nation in allocating forests on their land to a private logging company.
What is new and historically significant in this unanimous Supreme Court of Canada ruling is clearly articulating that a substantial territory of contiguous land proven to have been historically occupied by an indigenous people is sufficient to give them title over that land, especially by those nations who have not previously entered treaties with Canada. It is precisely the refusal of the provincial and federal governments to recognize land title of the indigenous nations in British Columbia who have never ceded their territories by treaty or through war that has led to over 20 years of futile "treaty making," costing millions of dollars and resulting in only two or three treaties out of hundreds of unsettled claims. Without question the jurisprudence of the Canadian state in acknowledging title to the 1,750 sq. km of Tsilhquot'in Nation land lends more weight to the struggle of indigenous peoples in BC to assert title over their unceded territories. The case also provides assistance to other nations in Canada to fight for their territories originally signed in treaty, but since violated by government and private authorities as in the Haldimand tract held by Six Nations, and others.
To view the decision in its entirely, click here.
Note
1. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do
2. Ibid., p.
21.
3. Ibid., p. 6.
June 3 Syrian Presidential Election
Syrian Elections and Imperialist Crisis of Legitimacy
Damascus, June 3, 2014 (Xinhua)
The Syrian Arab Republic held its presidential election on June 3, 2014. According to the U.S., a good election is one that lives up to imperialist expectations and desires. Syria instead held true to the efforts of the people to take their stand against imperialist intervention and U.S.-style democracy, with the elections being one part of the on-going struggle of Syrians to resist U.S. imperialism. The election also further revealed the crisis of legitimacy faced by the U.S., whose wars, occupations and unleashing of terrorists cannot stop resistance and the drive of the peoples to affirm their rights.
Imperial Legitimacy and Popular Legitimacy
According to the Supreme Constitutional Court, the legal body that oversaw the election process, 11,634,412 of the 15,845,575 eligible Syrian voters over the age of 18 voted - a 73.42% turnout. This included large segments of those who had been displaced internally or externally, the number of whom is estimated to account for about one-third of the population. Most of the 7 million displaced are internal refugees. The figures also included Syrian expatriates in countries where voting was not blocked (as occurred in the U.S. and Canada).
The elections were monitored by observes from 32 countries, including the U.S., Canada, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, India, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). They issued a joint statement affirming the elections as free, fair and valid.
Incumbent Bashar al-Assad won 88.7% of the vote, while the other two runners - Hassan Annouri and Maher Hajjar - received 4.3% and 3.2% respectively. Another 3.8% of the votes were invalid or blank.
Syrians outside the country got to vote first - at a total of 43 embassies across the world. Voters in neighboring Lebanon - where 1.1 million Syrian refugees live, turned up in huge numbers to take part in the elections. Their sheer number brought traffic on highways leading to the embassy compound in Beirut to a halt. Even the embassy staff were surprised and voting had to be extended. A similar situation was at hand at the Syrian Embassy in Amman, Jordan, where large numbers of Syrian refugees also live. Inside the country, voting was also extended late into the night due to the large turnout.
In many parts of the country people celebrated Election Day with rallies and dancing, but also with gunfire - a ritual common in many countries in the Levant but which has become more widespread since the Syrian crisis began.
Many people also posed for pictures proudly sporting the semi-permanent election ink on a finger or two. Some considered this election significant as it was the first multi-candidate election since 1953. However, even as one of the candidates put it, people recognized that the election was between Syria and its enemies, not between the candidates.
It can be said that for Western imperialist eyes, the sight of endless lines of voters waiting to cast their ballots in the Syrian elections must have been as unintelligible as medieval Indians using palm leaves as ballots to elect members of village assemblies in Tamil Nadu. If ancient Rome and Athens were and remain the model for pre-modern electoral practices, Western and Western-style elections must serve as a model in the present times. A "lineage of democracy" that defies interruption, or so the dominating narrative goes.
Imperialist Claim of Coercion
Despite the high turn-out, rallies and broad support publicly expressed by the people, U.S. imperialism dismissed the Syrian election as "illegitimate," a "fraud," and a "disgrace." In making this claim, the U.S. is quite true to how it construes the question of legitimacy: not as essentially inherent to the principles of sovereignty and self- determination, but as something the imperialists bestow on those they decide merit it.
This effort to brand the election is illegitimate has been three-pronged. Firstly was the claim that the elections were illegitimate because the government tightly controlled them and people were coerced or intimidated into participating in the vote. The outpouring of voters in Lebanon, for instance, did not register with imperialist media outlets, which chose to either ignore the matter altogether or portray the masses lined up to cast their votes as part of a generalized frenzy where an individual's capacity to vote rationally was somehow prevented. The sheer impossibility of the Syrian state security apparatuses managing to coerce such a large majority of voters inside the country, let alone at the 43 embassies abroad, evidently also did not register.
That not everyone who voted was an Assad supporter was another aspect ignored. Many who turned up to take part in the elections were among the opposition in the earlier stages of the crisis and who came to reject how the whole affair transformed into an imperialist proxy war against the Syrian people and state in the name of "regime change." These voted to affirm that they stood for the sovereignty and independence of their country. It mattered more to vote in defiance of the many actions and threats by the U.S. and the violence of the terrorists backed by them, which included the shelling of polling stations.
In other words, people voted for the state against intervention by U.S. imperialism and its reactionary Arab footmen. The elections were branded "illegitimate" despite the large overall turnout of 73.42%. Compare this with figures from the Egyptian presidential election - 47.5%. The Obama regime and U.S. allies markedly applauded Egypt's election, while dismissing Syria's. The much prized discourse of democracy and human rights also need not apply where the Egyptian military is concerned.
Elections During War Time
Another layer of "illegitimacy" was holding the elections while the war raged on, which was echoed by the UN Secretary General himself. However, the 2005 Iraqi general elections and the 2004 Afghani presidential elections were held not only during fighting but also under colonial occupations. The U.S. regarded them as significant "benchmarks" on the road of enabling the natives to take matters into their own hands, to come of age democratically. This is a narrative reminiscent of backward and racist colonialist designations of the colonized as deficient and immature and "requiring" colonization.
In the language of the Obama Doctrine, "Syria had no right to hold elections amidst war" naturally translates into "Syria has no right to be sovereign." Countries like the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates imposed this dictate by blocking Syrians from voting at Syrian embassies there.
The U.S., which has orchestrated and carried out coups, imposed unlawful and criminal sanctions and embargoes that strangle peoples and economies, denied and undermined African-American voting at home, and funded and backed campaigns to destabilize and fragment countries the world over, is in no position to preach democracy to the world.
U.S. Effort to Brand Syrian Resistance as Illegitimate
The final aspect of "illegitimacy" is to deny that the Syrian people have stood their ground in the face of imperialist aggression and foiled the many attempts to strip away Syrian sovereignty, including through unleashing terrorists (such as those of the Wahabi type) all under the banner of "regime change" and "humanitarian interventionism." For the U.S., resistance is "illegitimate," and so is any nation-building project that seeks political and economic independence, whether in Africa, Latin America or the Middle East.
At the same time, U.S. actions make clear that funding and training extremists who commit heinous crimes against the people of Syria is "legitimate." Recruiting "jihadists" from 87 countries to wreck the country is also "legitimate." Equally "legitimate" is the systematic targeting of hospitals, power plants and substations, highways and infrastructure - all U.S. crimes.
Dismantling more than 10,000 factories in Aleppo, the industrial capital of Syria, and moving them into Turkey, a key member of the NATO military alliance, is "legitimate" too in the eyes of the humanity-loving imperialists. The European Union even partially lifted the sanctions imposed on Syria to enable the re-flow of oil from fields under the control of al-Qaida offshoots. This is a significant source of revenue that is said to have been used to expand and finance the carnage these terrorists have been carrying out in Syria, and now once again in Iraq.
According to current estimates, the Syrian economy has shrunk by more than 45% with unemployment impacting almost half of the population. Close to 8 million Syrians have fallen into poverty with 4.4 million living in conditions of extreme poverty. According to the Syrian Center for Policy Research, the economic impact of the war against the people of Syria has been "tantamount to wholesale de-industrialization." For the international imperialist oligarchies led by the U.S., all this systemic destruction of a nation is justifiable while resistance or anti-hegemonic projects the people advance are criminalized.
The "right to protect" - a staple in the Obama Doctrine, has aimed at displacing the right to sovereignty, which has been so integral to managing international relations since the end of WWII. Sovereignty and self- determination are internationally recognized collective rights, vested in member states by the UN Charter. Their enshrinement in law arose out of the defeat of Nazism and Fascism in World War II and the demand of the peoples to prevent more wars and expand and modernize democracy.
The imperialists, in their arrogance, are blind to the reality that sovereign and independent states hold elections not as an affair that satisfies others - as a performance for the imperialists - but rather, these states call on their populace to vote as an expression of the right to self-determination and defense of sovereignty. The U.S. is acting to end such defiance, and, as examples worldwide show, does not hesitate to try and decimate peoples using sectarian and ethnic lines, proxy warfare and outright colonization and destruction.
The Syrian people are rejecting Obama's plans for more chaos, devastation and war. The right to self-determination and the right to sovereignty is the platform of the struggle of the Syrian people today against imperialist intervention and aggression. And casting a ballot in the recent presidential elections was one of the many facets of this on-going struggle.
* Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization.
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca