|
The
Alaska Claims Settlement
Comments by Janie Leask From a panel discussion "The Objectives of Land Claims Settlements" during the International Conference "Towards Native Self-Reliance Renewal and Development" held in Vancouver, August 19-24, 1984 Alaskool note: At the time of this speech Janie Leask was president of the Alaska Federation of Natives I would like to start off
by giving you a little bit of background information, and then go into
historical perspective and an overview of Alaska Settlement and the
negotiations which led to the signing of the law. Then I will follow
this by talking a little bit about objectives of the land claims and
the expectations of the people, as a result of the settlement.
Background
The Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN) was formed in 1966, to be the Native voice in the push
for a land claims settlement in Alaska. Since the passage of the Claims
Settlement Act in 1971, AFN has evolved into a political advocacy group
which takes on state‑wide issues of concern to Alaska Natives.
The membership in our organization is made up of thirteen regional corporations
that were established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. In
addition to the twelve non‑profit Native associations, have a
board of directors or approximately 24 organizations. Our major effort
for the last couple of years has trying to resolve some of the serious
problems of the Settlement Act through amendments. We have already two
separate pieces of federal legislation passed amending the Settlement
Act. We are working on a third right now. The Alaska Claims Settlement
Act provided Alaska Natives with 44,000,000 acres of land and $962,000,000
as payment for lands given up. The land and the money assets of the
settlement were considered a great victory for Alaska's 80,000 Eskimos,
Indians, and Inuits. The uniqueness of the settlement lies in the structure
of the settlement which is rooted through the establishment of corporations.
Regional and village corporations were established and they were chartered
under state laws. They were organized to own and manage the assets with
the individual Natives enrolled as shareholders in these corporations.
The intention was to give the Native corporations some time to get on
their feet, free from the threat of immediate takeover as soon as the
law was signed. There is a provision within the law, which prevents
Native shareholders from selling their stock or pledging it as collateral
for a period of twenty years. That period ends in 1991. Thus, the year
1991 has become synonymous with three major problems of the Settlement
Act. These are the problems that we in AFN have been working on for
about the last two years. Settlement Problems
One problem, which is a
very real possibility, is that Natives may lose control of these newly
formed corporations after 1991, when individual Natives are able to
sell their stock. The second, is the loss of Native lands because, as
structured in the Settlement Act, the lands are tied directly to corporations.
The third problem is the settlement's exclusion of Natives born after
the Act is signed into law. Under this provision, young people born
after 1971, when the Act was signed, will not be members of the corporations,
and as a result, will not benefit from the settlement. This is a very
simplified explanation of the concern over the date 1991, and some of
the issues that we in the AFN are dealing with. This background is relevant
to today's discussion. The Motivations
For Settlement As we in Alaska have learned
all too well over the years, winning a settlement is really just a beginning.
The land and the money that is received through the settlement itself
is really only a tool. It should be viewed as a tool. The success or
failure of the settlement, in the long‑run, depends on how it
is used. The ultimate objectives is to determine how you can use this
tool to achieve certain goals. This is a far different perspective from
that of the late 1960s and the early 1970s, when the settlement was
finally signed into law. The goals of Alaska Natives, back then, were
quite similar to the goals of Natives today. First and foremost, we
wanted to protect our traditional lands to carry on a subsistence way
of life, which has been the essence of Native life in Alaska for centuries.
We wanted to stop the encroachment by non‑Natives in general,
but especially by the State of Alaska, as it began selecting the 102,000,000
acres under its entitlement. We wanted cash compensation for the lands
previously lost or given up, and we wanted the right and opportunity
to improve the standard of living for our people. The fact that the
Settlement Act came out the way it did, is a function of several different
elements which served the objectives of the other major parties that
were involved in the settlement. Those other parties were the State
of Alaska, the oil companies, and the Federal Government. The Federal
Government had its own objectives. Important in this regard, is the
fact that through Congress, the legislative branch served as the arbitrator.
The major motive behind
the oil industry and the State of Alaska, in seeking a claims settlement,
was the Prudhoe Bay pipeline and the Alaska lands entitlement. The fact
is that neither the Prudhoe Bay pipeline or the land selection process
could proceed until Native land claims were settled. Construction of
the oil pipeline and state selections were frozen in 1966, by the then
Secretary of the Interior, Steward Udall. It appears also that the economic
interests were also a motive in Congress as well, because as early as
1962, congressmen began talking about settling Native land claims in
Alaska, because of its potential for impeding development of Alaskan
resources. The historical factor really
breaks out into two facets, both affecting Congress' attitude towards
aboriginal people. First, since the treaty succession with Russia, the
United States Congress has repeatedly recognized Native land rights
by virtue of aboriginal use and occupancy. Yet decisions about how those
land rights would be settled were repeatedly left for future congresses
and future legislative actions. Nobody really wanted to deal with them
so they passed the buck for the next major settlement. The second historical factor
which really has a lot of bearing today, is the treatment of aboriginal
people by the United States Government. If you look at the history of
how the United States Government has dealt with aboriginal people, you
will see two basic trends. One is self‑determination and self‑government,
and the other one, the second one, is usually called termination. While
termination gives recognition of Native rights to land, it also pushes
for Indians and Alaska Natives to be treated just like any other citizen,
without any special considerations or special legal status. If you look
at the history you will see that the United States Government has gone
from one school of thought to another, and back and forth again, in
its treatment of aboriginal people. I do not pretend to be an expert
on Indian policies, or Indian law, but I believe that if you plotted
the course and took a look at the actions of the United States Government,
you would find that the Government has veered really more often towards
encouraging the assimilation of Indians into the American mainstream.
This really should not be surprising, because the United States has
always been in image, if not in reality, the great melting pot of the
world. The unstated rule of American society seems to be that you can
retain your particular identity, be it cultural, racial or national,
but only in so far as that identity does not come into direct conflict
with the larger political and social order in society. However, Indian
people in the United States historically have been an exception to these
general social and political pressures. The Federal Government has consistently
recognized the unique status of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
The special status stems from the fact that basically we were there
first, but even with this special status, pressures to assimilate have,
at times throughout history, been strong enough to infringe on this
special status. By the mid and late 1960s,
about the time when Congress and Alaska Natives were starting
to really get serious about the settlement, Indian policies had begun
to swing from assimilation back to tribalism. The social and political
atmosphere of the time was dominated by the war on poverty, by President
Johnson's great society and an increased sensitivity to the plight of
racial and ethnic minority groups. That sensitivity brought recognition
of the value of cultural diversity in the United States. And hand‑in‑hand
with that sensitivity was the belief, or the assumption, that equal
opportunity and economic development were the keys to improving the
welfare of these racial and ethnic minorities. So what we had in the
mid 1960s was a mix, it was a mix
of economic, historical, social, and political factors which made an
Alaskan Native land claims settlement possible in the first place, and
which had a big influence on how that settlement was implemented.
It was this economic, historical,
social, and political mix, that shaped the objectives for each of the
parties involved ‑ the objections that were not in total conflict
with each other. Alaska Natives wanted their land. Congress wanted to
settle the issue in a fair manner and to pave the way for economic development.
The oil industry wanted to get on with the pipeline. The State of Alaska
wanted to get on with its land selection and the development of the
resources on the land. Conditions Necessary
for Claims Settlement Native groups today cannot
manipulate the forces that were present back in the 1960s, when the
Alaska Native land claims were being negotiated, but we can look at
the situation in ways that are applicable to any Native groups seeking
a land settlement. In theory, at least, the Alaska experience would
seem to point to four things that could be applied anywhere to the benefit
of those involved in claims settlements. First, you need a legal basis
‑ the law must be on your side. Second, you need a group consciousness
to motivate your people as a group. In Alaska, the overwhelming fear
in the 1960s was that
Native land claims would be overridden by State land selections. The
State had already gone out and started selecting traditional Native
lands as part of their selections. Third, you need a dedicated group
of Native leaders who have the talents and the time to negotiate with a government and any
other non‑Native interest, on behalf of their people. Fourth,
you need leverage, you need a weapon. In Alaska, the Natives had a formidable
one: a threat to both the oil pipeline and a continued freeze on State
land selections. In Alaska's case, the objectives of the different interests,
the Federal Government, the State of Alaska and the oil companies, were
not fundamentally conflicting. There were conflicts, but the stakes
were such that compromise was possible and all interests, at least,
got something they wanted. The nature of negotiations and compromise,
which I am sure you are very well aware of, is that all parties must
have something at stake and those objectives must have some compatible
elements. If the different objectives are totally at odds the chances
of reaching an agreement are reduced considerably. Expectations
I have been talking about
the objectives of the Alaska Native claims settlement, but I think the
expectations are a different issue, although people often talk of objectives
and expectations as being somewhat synonymous. And as I said earlier,
the objectives of Alaska Natives were very straightforward. We wanted
our land claims settled, and we wanted compensation for lands taken
or surrendered. But the expectations went much further. In retrospect,
I think that our expectations reflected the atmosphere that was prevalent
with the level of optimism present in the United States in the 1960s.
If you look back at some of the testimony which was given by Alaska
Natives during that period, you can see the great aspirations toward
developing village economies, creating jobs, educating our young people
and curing all the social ills. As viewed at that time, all this would
occur while retaining and protecting Native lands and traditional ways
of life. Yet, despite all these expectations, the settlement was and
is a settlement of Native land claims and nothing more. It was not a
conscious concerted effort to assimilate Alaska Natives, or to terminate
the trust relationship that we have with the Federal Government. We
are hearing some hints now, however, that Congress did hope that through
the structure, through the corporate structure, that Alaska Natives
would no longer need federal services and programs, because the corporations
would eventually eliminate the need for them through indirect benefits,
stemming from the healthy village economies that were going to develop
in all of the villages. But the expectations of our Native people are
really more important than any of the expectations Congress might have
had. I think that many of the frustrations that we are hearing now,
in Alaska, stem from the inability of the settlement and the corporations
to meet these expectations. The Settlement
in Hindsight Among Alaska Natives today,
there is extensive and often times very heated discussion and debate
about the corporations. The corporations are not traditional Native
entities, they are something totally different from what Alaska Natives
have ever had before. During the land claim struggle, very little attention
was focused on how the settlement was going to be implemented and structured.
Most of the emphasis, the energy, and the negotiations, were directed
at how much land the Natives would receive and how much money they would
get and the formulas by which the assets would be distributed. It was
clear that Congress was adamantly opposed to a reservation system, because
Congress had been hearing in the late 1960s (when the Land Claims Act was being drafted
and negotiated) that the Lower 48 Indians felt that the reservations
system had been a failure. So Congress wanted to try something new.
And while Congress did not seem to be consciously promoting assimilation,
it was not pro‑tribal either. And there is a section on language
in the Settlement Act that specifically states that the Settlement Act
was not to result in any permanently racially defined institutions.
Again, I think the prevailing attitudes of the time, of economic development,
and giving minorities the opportunity to "raise themselves up by
the boot straps" made the corporate structure the very obvious
choice. People tend to be quite
skillful in hindsight, and we have had thirteen years to take a look
at the settlement and the accomplishments and some of the problems of
the settlement. We see now, that in 1971 that the typical corporate
structure conflicts with traditional Native values. We see now that
in 1971 we should have insisted on a perpetual role to ensure that our
children and future generations would benefit from the settlement. We
see now that there are numerous ways in which we can lose our lands
even before 1991. And we see now that we were perhaps very naive in
our expectations of what the settlement and the corporations could accomplish.
Some of the problems were obvious soon after the Act was passed, and
as I mentioned, we have succeeded over the years in getting amendments
passed through the Federal Government to correct some of the inadequacies
of the Act. We were not able to see all of the problems nor were we
able to predict what would happen, how it would work ten, thirteen,
even twenty years down the road. But really, how realistic is it to
anticipate changing perspectives and changing aspirations? Lessons Learned
Nonetheless, I think that
there are lessons that can be learned from our experience in Alaska,
and one is that, yes, it is important to try to anticipate the ramifications
of a settlement, and to do so very realistically. That requires a very
hard, critical look at how your long‑term objectives mesh with
the settlement structure. And I would like to just give a couple of
examples from our experience, a couple that I have alluded to when I
have talked about some 1991 issues. The protection of Native lands,
as well as the title to those lands, were the essence of what Alaska
Natives wanted from the Settlement Act. But did the structure ensure
that protection in perpetuity? No, not at all. In retrospect, it should
have been clear that by tying the lands to the corporations, the lands
would be vulnerable if the corporations went public, which they are
to do in 1991. My guess is that some of the Native leadership at the
time saw that, but as the old quote goes "the train was leaving
the station" and the Native leadership back in Washington at the
time, who were negotiating the settlement, felt that there was a risk
if we held out for more changes. They felt that we would perhaps lose
some of the ground that we had already gained in the years of negotiating
the settlement. Another example was that
the settlement called for Alaska Natives, as defined by Congress, to
be one‑quarter or more Naive blood, were alive on December 18th,
1971, and enrolled in a village or a regional corporation as shareholders.
If you happen to be born on December 19th, 1971, you would then be able
to own stock only through inheritance. I gather then that the assumption
was that Natives born later would inherit the stock from shareholders,
thus perpetuating the "Nativeness" of the corporations. Apparently
Congress really did not give a lot of thought to the "cut‑off"
day. The government did not, at the time, want to create a perpetual
role for Alaska Natives and the date of the signing of the Act was a
very convenient one. But thirteen years later, we see that the cut‑off
has created an artificial division between those Natives who are original
shareholders and recipients of stock and money, and those who are not
included simply because they were born too late. Furthermore, Native
stock is falling into non‑Native hands, through inheritance and
also sometimes through divorce settlements. And there is no provision
in the settlement for Native children, born after 1971. Natives born
after 1971 do not receive Native stock in the corporations. Could we
have won a perpetual role? The answer is I really do not know.
Another lesson that can
be learned from the Alaska settlement, is that the land and the settlement
is not the ultimate objective. If the ultimate objective is protecting
traditional lands and traditional Native ways of life, such as subsistence
ways of life, then only land can help you do that. But the fact of ownership
of the land is not enough to ensure protection. Title to the land is
only a tool. The corporations that were established under our settlement
are only tools. In this same way, the settlement itself is really only
a tool. For any of these to work they must be used correctly, and yet
they cannot be used correctly unless you know very, very clearly about
what it is that you want them to do. The point here is that you must
know what you want, and understand very clearly what you are receiving.
That, in a nutshell, gives you a little bit of perspective about Alaska and about the settlement and all that the AFN is working on. As I mentioned, we are working on the 1991 issue. We have been on this issue for the last couple of years. We have been holding statewide retreats for the Native leadership in order to try to work out the language. It is going to take another very major effort, back in Washington, D. C., to obtain the necessary amendments. But this has been very interesting for me to sit and listen to you and hear some of the same problems that we are currently working on. It is also very good to be able to come and talk to you, to share in some of the lessons we have learned over the last thirteen years. This speech is posted with permission of the author, Janie Leask and was copied from the prepared proceedings of the conference. Copyright by William F. Sinclair on behalf of contributors, July 1985. |