therealnews--2020-02-18--US-Philippine Relations Worsen Despite Perceived Trump-Duterte Friendship

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Despite the rosy relationship between President Trump and President Duterte of the Philippines , formal relations between the two countries are on the rocks at the moment .
That is the Philippines just decided to end a Visiting Forces Agreement or VFA with the United States .
This is an agreement that allows the US Navy to sail freely through the territorial waters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Philippine soil and to participate in joint military exercises with the Philippine Military .
The bilateral relationship between the two countries has been deteriorating , partly because US Senate passed an amendment to a budget bill last December , which denied entry to Philippine Senator Ronald dela Rosa because of his role in the drug war in the Philippines .
That drug war has claimed the lives of thousands , some even say tens of thousands of Filipinos .
The US Senate also protested the imprisonment of Senator Leila de Lima , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Tuesday , President Duterte explained his reasons for canceling the VFA .
President Duter… : Imagine demanding the release of de Lima and the threat that we will not receive the aid , [ foreign language 00:01:20 ] , that all persons have had a hand in the imprisonment of de Lima will not be allowed to go to the United States .
Do not destroy my country because if you destroy my country , I will kill you .
Greg Wilpert : Joining me now to analyze the heightened tensions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bello , is a former three term Congressman of the Philippine legislature where he coauthored resolutions for terminating the Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States a few years ago .
Currently he ’ s professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton , and the author of the books Counterrevolution : The Global Rise of the Far Right and of Paper Dragons : China and the Next Crash .
Thanks for joining us again Walden .
Walden Bello : Thanks for inviting me .
Greg Wilpert : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US wants to have a military presence in the South China Sea , and that is in Philippine territorial waters .
But how do you see the interest of the Philippine government ?
Are the insults that Duterte the perceives due to the US Senate ’ s actions more important than the mutual interest of the Philippines and the US in countering China in the region ?
Walden Bello : Well , the situation here is that , yes , Duterte has been a moving closer to China , and he has in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this has become of course , heightened by this refusal of the United States to give a visa to a Senator dela Rosa .
So basically , what we see here is I think Duterte has been smarting for some time at what he sees has been the United States ’ sort of mistreatment of him personally , which started with President Obama back in 2016 , criticizing him for the killings in the drug war .
It ’ s just deteriorated since then .
So with this element that has the refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just blown the lid off his relations with the United States .
Greg Wilpert : Yeah , I find that interesting .
I mean , a few months ago I interviewed you about your book , The Global Rise of the Right , in which we discussed the ethnocentric and nationalist nature of the far right in the Philippines .
Something that we did not really delve into is the international alliances of the far right and the commonalities internationally speaking .
For example , I mean Trump and Duterte to seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visited the Philippines or when they saw each other , I mean , the last time , Duterte even had like some kind of a love song for Trump .
But this admiration actually seems to stand in stark contradiction with each one ’ s desire to play the national sentiments in their respective countries .
So how do you see this contradiction playing out in the Philippines ?
I mean , and how does this relate to Duterte ’ s war on drugs ?
Walden Bello : Well , I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there ’ s a very strong personal element to this .
I think that Duterte doesn ’ t just , doesn ’ t see this as coming from Trump himself , but from the United States as a government .
So he ’ s reacting to this sense , this agreed sense that the United States has always been dictating to the Philippines and that ’ s were he ’ s coming out of at this point .
He ’ s never really been a friend of the United States .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this other side of Filipinos .
Filipinos , of course have this very ambivalent relationship with the United States as a former colony .
A lot of people here have had this sense that they have a special relationship with the United States .
In fact , many have migrated to the United States .
At the same time , there ’ s been this sense of the slave rebelling against the master , what Hegel calls the master-slave relationship , that ’ s been there .
Duterte has been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a lot of that sort of now feeling against the United States , he ’ s been able to bring that out into the wide open in this case .
So there ’ s an element of national psychology that is a work here that Duterte has been , that Duterte is expressing and he has been able to bring to the surface .
But I guess the point that a number of us see here is that wherever this is coming from , whether it ’ s coming from psychological resentment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he got up at the wrong side of the bed , whether it ’ s coming from whatever , it ’ s a positive move .
It ’ s a positive move because basically it is a move towards cutting off this extremely unequal relationship that places the Philippines in a military alliance with the United States where the Philippines gets nothing and the United States takes everything and this has been a 120 year relationship ever since we were invaded by the United States .
So as I put it , sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right thing and the right thing is ending this relationship , terminating the VFA .
Duterte is somebody that I continued to criticize for his human rights violations in the war on drugs , his trampling on Philippine democracy .
But on this case , in the case of ending the Visiting Forces Agreement , and I hope he also ends the other treaties with the United States like the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement , which gives the United States bases in the Philippines and the Mutual Defense Treaty .
So I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we may not like the person who ’ s doing it , but the important thing is the act of doing it .
Greg Wilpert : Well , that ’ s something I was actually going to ask you next about , I mean , that on the one hand it seems like a bit of a dilemma that the one hand , as you mentioned , Duterte ’ s human rights record is atrocious and he ’ s responsible for these tens of thousands of extra judicial killings in the drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for that .
But on the other hand , and so , but he ’ s canceling the VFA on the basis of the criticism he has received from the United States of the human rights violations .
So I ’ m just wondering , I mean , does that… So even though that seems like a contradiction that is he ’ s in the end doing something that , as you said , should have happened a long time ago , but he ’ s probably doing it for the wrong reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense that you have ?
Walden Bello : Yes , sure .
I mean , history plays tricks on us .
It would have been great if it were a progressive who ended the whole thing .
But it ’ s Duterte , and as I said , it may be the devil incarnate , but on this particular issue , I support him .
You see , the problem right here right now is that it ’ s not just a violation of Philippine sovereignty , which these treaties represent .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis that are nominal Philippine bases , the military exercises had been a way that the United States has lassoed the Philippines into a military alliance against China .
Because the key thrust of the US policy right now in the Asia Pacific from Bush to Obama to Trump , has been in fact to preserve the US hegemonic edge in the area against China ’ s rise .
The Philippines has been central to the US strategy of the so-called air , sea battle , which is directed at how the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China .
So we have this situation whereby through irresponsibility , previous governments have allowed the Philippines to be dragged into this dangerous military alliance and from which we don ’ t benefit .
In fact , we ’ re exposed in this battle between two Goliaths .
So this is a bigger issue .
This bigger issue is really that the United States is engaged in a very destabilizing , aggressive strategy here , and right now we ’ re cutting loose from that .
Greg Wilpert : Very interesting development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave it there for now , but I ’ m sure we ’ re going to continue to follow this .
I was speaking to Walden Bello , a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton .
Thanks again Walden for having joined us today .
Walden Bello : Thanks too for inviting me .
Greg Wilpert : Thank you for joining the Real News Network .

The Philippines ended the Visiting Forces Agreement, which allows the US military to operate within the Philippines and grants access to the South China Sea. Is President Duterte doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Despite the rosy relationship between President Trump and President Duterte of the Philippines, formal relations between the two countries are on the rocks at the moment. That is, the Philippines just decided to end a Visiting Forces Agreement, or VFA, with the United States. This is an agreement that allows the U.S. Navy to sail freely through the territorial waters of the Philippines, to maintain military bases on Philippine soil, and to participate in joint military exercises with the Philippine Military.
The bilateral relationship between the two countries has been deteriorating, partly because US Senate passed an amendment to a budget bill last December, which denied entry to Philippine Senator Ronald dela Rosa because of his role in the drug war in the Philippines. That drug war has claimed the lives of thousands, some even say tens of thousands of Filipinos. The US Senate also protested the imprisonment of Senator Leila de Lima, a staunch critic of President Duterte. On Tuesday, President Duterte explained his reasons for canceling the VFA.
RODRIGO DUTERTE: Imagine demanding the release of de Lima under threat that we will not receive the aid, that all persons who had a hand in the imprisonment of de Lima will not be allowed to go to the US. Do not destroy my country. Because if you destroy my country, I will kill you.
GREG WILPERT: Joining me now to analyze the heightened tensions between the US and the Philippines as Walden Bello, is a former three term Congressman of the Philippine legislature where he coauthored resolutions for terminating the Philippine Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States a few years ago. Currently he’s professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, and the author of the books Counterrevolution: The Global Rise of the Far Right and of Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash. Thanks for joining us again, Walden.
WALDEN BELLO: Thanks for inviting me.
GREG WILPERT: So it’s clear that the US wants to have a military presence in the South China Sea, and that is in Philippine territorial waters. But how do you see the interest of the Philippine government? Are the insults that Duterte the perceives due to the US Senate’s actions more important than the mutual interest of the Philippines and the US in countering China in the region?
WALDEN BELLO: Well, the situation here is that, yes, Duterte has been a moving closer to China, and he has in fact had a strong anti-US rhetoric and this has become of course, heightened by this refusal of the United States to give a visa to a Senator dela Rosa. So basically, what we see here is I think Duterte has been smarting for some time at what he sees has been the United States’ sort of mistreatment of him personally, which started with President Obama back in 2016, criticizing him for the killings in the drug war. It’s just deteriorated since then. So with this element that has the refusal to grant a visa, this has just blown the lid off his relations with the United States.
GREG WILPERT: Yeah, I find that interesting. I mean, a few months ago I interviewed you about your book, The Global Rise of the Right, in which we discussed the ethnocentric and nationalist nature of the far right in the Philippines. Something that we did not really delve into is the international alliances of the far right and the commonalities internationally speaking.
For example, I mean Trump and Duterte to seem to actually admire each other. When Trump visited the Philippines or when they saw each other, I mean, the last time, Duterte even had like some kind of a love song for Trump. But this admiration actually seems to stand in stark contradiction with each one’s desire to play the national sentiments in their respective countries. So how do you see this contradiction playing out in the Philippines? I mean, and how does this relate to Duterte’s war on drugs?
WALDEN BELLO: Well, I think that this situation right now, it seems that there’s a very strong personal element to this. I think that Duterte doesn’t just, doesn’t see this as coming from Trump himself, but from the United States as a government. So he’s reacting to this sense, this agreed sense that the United States has always been dictating to the Philippines and that’s were he’s coming out of at this point. He’s never really been a friend of the United States. He has been skillful in terms of appealing to this other side of Filipinos. Filipinos, of course have this very ambivalent relationship with the United States as a former colony. A lot of people here have had this sense that they have a special relationship with the United States. In fact, many have migrated to the United States.
At the same time, there’s been this sense of the slave rebelling against the master, what Hegel calls the master-slave relationship, that’s been there. Duterte has been able to get at that underside. In fact, a lot of that sort of now feeling against the United States, he’s been able to bring that out into the wide open in this case. So there’s an element of national psychology that is a work here that Duterte has been, that Duterte is expressing and he has been able to bring to the surface. But I guess the point that a number of us see here is that wherever this is coming from, whether it’s coming from psychological resentment, whether it’s coming from he got up at the wrong side of the bed, whether it’s coming from whatever, it’s a positive move.
It’s a positive move because basically it is a move towards cutting off this extremely unequal relationship that places the Philippines in a military alliance with the United States where the Philippines gets nothing and the United States takes everything and this has been a 120 year relationship ever since we were invaded by the United States. So as I put it, sometimes it takes the devil to do the right thing and the right thing is ending this relationship, terminating the VFA. Duterte is somebody that I continued to criticize for his human rights violations in the war on drugs, his trampling on Philippine democracy.
But on this case, in the case of ending the Visiting Forces Agreement, and I hope he also ends the other treaties with the United States like the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which gives the United States bases in the Philippines and the Mutual Defense Treaty. So I think this is something that’s positive and we may not like the person who’s doing it, but the important thing is the act of doing it.
GREG WILPERT: Well, that’s something I was actually going to ask you next about, I mean, that on the one hand it seems like a bit of a dilemma that the one hand, as you mentioned, Duterte’s human rights record is atrocious and he’s responsible for these tens of thousands of extra judicial killings in the drug war and needs to be held accountable for that.
But on the other hand, he’s canceling the VFA on the basis of the criticism he has received from the United States of the human rights violations. So I’m just wondering: Even though that seems like a contradiction that is he’s in the end doing something that, as you said, should have happened a long time ago, but he’s probably doing it for the wrong reasons. Is that more or less the sense that you have?
WALDEN BELLO: Yes, sure. I mean, history plays tricks on us. It would have been great if it were a progressive who ended the whole thing. But it’s Duterte, and as I said, it may be the devil incarnate, but on this particular issue, I support him. You see, the problem right here right now is that it’s not just a violation of Philippine sovereignty, which these treaties represent. But the US presence here, the US basis that are nominal Philippine bases, the military exercises had been a way that the United States has lassoed the Philippines into a military alliance against China. Because the key thrust of the US policy right now in the Asia Pacific from Bush to Obama to Trump, has been in fact to preserve the US hegemonic edge in the area against China’s rise.
The Philippines has been central to the US strategy of the so-called air, sea battle, which is directed at how the United States can penetrate the anti-missile and defenses of China. So we have this situation whereby through irresponsibility, previous governments have allowed the Philippines to be dragged into this dangerous military alliance and from which we don’t benefit. In fact, we’re exposed in this battle between two Goliaths. So this is a bigger issue. This bigger issue is really that the United States is engaged in a very destabilizing, aggressive strategy here, and right now we’re cutting loose from that.
GREG WILPERT: Very interesting development. We’re going to have to leave it there for now, but I’m sure we’re going to continue to follow this. I was speaking to Walden Bello, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton. Thanks again Walden for having joined us today.
WALDEN BELLO: Thanks too for inviting me.
GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Taylor Hebden, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-19--Canada Sees a ‘Watershed Moment’ in the Struggle for Indigenous Rights

DIMITRI LASCARIS : This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News Network from Montreal , Canada .
This past weekend , Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cut short an international charm offensive in order to return to Canada to deal with a worsening crisis .
Trudeau was on a multi-state trip designed to garner support for a Canadian seat on the United Nations Security Council , but solidarity protests with Indigenous Land Defenders forced him to abandon that trip .
The Wet ’ suwet ’ en people , whose land in northern British Columbia has never been ceded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their territory of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline .
The planned pipeline would be 670 kilometers or 416 miles long and would run from a $ 40 billion fracking project near Dawson Creek to a liquified natural gas facility near Kitimat on the west coast of Canada .
There the natural gas would be liquified and prepared for export to foreign markets .
The RCMP or Royal Canadian Mounted Police , have responded to the peaceful resistance to this pipeline with heavy handed tactics .
As revealed by The Guardian in December of last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shoot Indigenous Land Defenders .
According to documents reviewed by The Guardian , RCMP commanders instructed officers to “ use as much violence toward the gate as you want.
” On 7 January of this year , RCMP officers dressed in military green fatigues and armed with assault rifles descended on the land defenders ’ checkpoint , dismantled their gate and arrested 14 people .
Then earlier this month , in a further operation to dismantle the blockade erected by Indigenous level defenders , the RCMP blocked media from bearing witness to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was detained by the RCMP for eight hours , prompting the Canadian Association of Journalists to denounce the RCMP for acting in blatant disregard of the law in a way that is previously unheard of in Canada and unthinkable in a democratic country .
Since early February , solidarity protests have erupted around the country .
Indigenous Land Defenders have blockaded rail lines in Quebec , BC and Ontario .
Demonstrators have temporarily shut down ports .
On February 16th , a solidarity protest temporarily blockaded the Rainbow Bridge between Canada and United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss this burgeoning crisis with us is Pam Palmater .
Pam is a Mi ’ kmaq lawyer and a member of the Eel River Bar First Nation .
She currently holds the chair in Indigenous governance at Ryerson University .
She ’ s also a frequent media commentator , author and former spokesperson and educator for the Idle No More Movement in Canada , defending in Indigenous lands , waters and sovereignty .
Thank you so much for coming back on The Real News , Pam .
PAM PALMATER : Thanks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DIMITRI LASCARIS : Pam , as you know as well as anyone , there is a long and illustrious history in this country of peaceful Indigenous resistance to the abuses of Indigenous rights .
And this includes of course , the Idle No More Movement in which you played so key a role .
But these protests seem unprecedented in one respect .
They are causing economic disruption across the country .
Do you think we ’ re witnessing a watershed moment in Indigenous resistance ?
And if so , why do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PALMATER : I do think this is a watershed moment for lots of the reasons that you ’ ve outlined , but also because Canadians are standing with us in droves .
During the Idle No More Movement was kind of the building of these relations and educating Canadians .
This time around , Canadians are much more informed .
They know to look beyond the headlines .
They do their own research and they ask Indigenous peoples what ’ s going on .
And you ’ ll notice in many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can see hundreds and hundreds of Canadians organizing this .
Not all of them are even Indigenous led .
That shows a real shift in Canadian education but also the will of Canadians to tell government , “ Enough is enough.
” And these are very targeted , very specific actions that Canada has to pay attention to .
And I think how Canada responds right now , whether they respond with force or the promised nation to nation relationship , will determine what happens from this point forward .
DIMITRI LASCARIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the end game at the close of our discussion .
But before we get there , I want to dig deeper into an issue .
You talked about Canadians understanding the issues better today than in the past .
Proponents of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline argue that band councils have consented to the planned route of the pipeline , whereas opponents of the pipeline assert that what matters here for purposes of Indigenous rights , is the consent of the hereditary chiefs , which has not been given .
Could you talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please explain why their consent is not enough to justify the government ’ s actions ?
PAM PALMATER : Yeah , so this isn ’ t about one group being better than the other group .
This is just a matter of law in Canada .
Under the Indian Act , chiefs and counselors , which is an imposed system on our traditional nations , have very , very limited jurisdiction and powers .
It ’ s limited to the reserve lands .
They certainly don ’ t have jurisdiction outside of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t propose to cross any reserve lines .
Whether or not the elected council did or did not consent to the pipeline is beside the issue for several reasons .
One , it doesn ’ t cross reserve lands , they don ’ t have any jurisdiction over it .
And two , the real legal authority over Aboriginal title lands , which is all of the traditional territory , which is far greater than the little tiny reserve lands that had been set aside , is with the hereditary chiefs .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we know this because that ’ s Wet ’ suwet ’ en law .
That it ’ s always been the hereditary chiefs who have responsibility according to each of their clans to protect different areas in their territory .
And we also know this because the hereditary chiefs went to court to assert Aboriginal title over their territory .
And it was the hereditary chiefs who represented the Aboriginal title claim , not the Indian Act chiefs .
Now government , and of course industry is going to try to confuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we have this agreement.
” They haven ’ t shown anyone this agreement .
And that ’ s part of the problem .
We don ’ t know even if the Indian Act councils did consent or not .
What we do know from one of the leaked agreements is that the Coastal GasLink Pipeline has told first nations that they have to take every action to quell any dissent in their communities , not even allow people free speech , to speak in public or on social media .
And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada .
DIMITRI LASCARIS : Now , today , Pam , I don ’ t know if you ’ re aware of this , but Murray Mullen , the CEO of the Mullen Group was quoted extensively in the Canadian Press talking about the rail blockades .
The Mullen Group does trucking for the oil patch in both Canada and the United States .
Mullen described the rail blockades as quote , ecoterrorism .
How do you respond to that charge ?
PAM PALMATER : Well , again , that ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadians against us because there ’ s literally a groundswell of support from Canadians and I would also add Americans who blocked some rails in Seattle .
But this is about racist language .
We ’ ve always been portrayed as dangerous , militant savages , domestic terrorists , and depending on which government is in power , you get more or less of that kind of dialog .
All that does is scare people and it ’ s not based on facts .
Just like the Idle No More Movement , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solidarity , have all been peaceful and everyone organizing these have given as their first instruction , that this is to honor the Wet ’ suwet ’ en , to stand in solidarity with their land rights and no violence , no weapons , nothing is allowed at the site and that ’ s the way it ’ s been .
And you know how it is in the media if people can use inflammatory or scary language that maybe people won ’ t want to support what ’ s happening .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really inflammatory words .
DIMITRI LASCARIS : And finally , Pam , so far , the Trudeau government has resisted calls from people like Mr. Mullen and from right wing politicians , most notably the Conservative Party leader , Andrew Scheer , Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney , to be more forceful in responding to the blockades .
And in fact–and I personally found this rather surprising–the Indigenous Services Minister Mark Miller , after meeting with the participants in one of the blockade stated quote , “ What I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we talk about the rule of law is that the rule of law for them has been time and time invoked to perpetuate what believe to be historical injustices.
” Now , given its record of enthusiastic support for Canada ’ s fossil fuels industry , the Trudeau government looks very much to be caught between a rock and a hard place .
What in your opinion is Trudeau ’ s likely end game here ?
How do you think his government will try to resolve this crisis ?
And how do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis ?
PAM PALMATER : Well , that ’ s a really good question .
And we all know Canada is the state perpetrator of genocide and they still haven ’ t addressed that .
For all the nice words that they have used , they haven ’ t followed that up with actions .
The RCMP still invaded and forcibly removed Wet ’ suwet ’ en peoples from their homes in fact .
What we see though is a categoric difference on a province by province basis .
I wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national response .
You see the province of Ontario saying , “ Wait , we ’ re not going to rush in and forcibly remove people .
That didn ’ t work in any of the other protests .
It just escalated tensions .
We ’ re not going to do it here.
” And it ’ s important to remember in a democratic country , federal and provincial governments aren ’ t supposed to have any sway over law enforcement .
Whether or not that ’ s the case , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be telling them go in and get these people or remove these people or not .
Thank goodness for its law enforcement restraint .
I think Mark Miller so far has had the most relationship focused comments , to actually acknowledge that we ’ re only here because of a continued denial of our sovereignty , our governing systems , and our land rights ; that ’ s the only reason why we keep having these flashpoints .
And I think on a go forward basis , Justin Trudeau is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do business , not as usual , not look to the usual political , “ well , we ’ ll study this or we ’ ll have a meeting , ” and actually sit down and have a nation to nation conversation with the Wet ’ suwet ’ en and try to work things out .
And if that means no pipeline in Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory , they ’ re going to have to once and for all accept that we have the legal right to say no when we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching nationwide whether or not that right is going to be respected .
We ’ ll see how he moves forward .
DIMITRI LASCARIS : Well , we ’ ve been speaking to Indigenous lawyer , activist and scholar Pam Palmater about a burgeoning crisis in Canada relating to the Wet ’ suwet ’ en territory in British Columbia .
Thank you so much for joining us again on The Real News , Pam .
PAM PALMATER : Thanks for covering this .
DIMITRI LASCARIS : And this is Dimitri Lascaris reporting from @ @ @ @

Indigenous lawyer Pamela Palmater says ongoing solidarity protests show Canadians grasp more than ever how their government is violating indigenous rights.
Story Transcript
DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News Network from Montreal, Canada.
This past weekend, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cut short an international charm offensive in order to return to Canada to deal with a worsening crisis. Trudeau was on a multi-state trip designed to garner support for a Canadian seat on the United Nations Security Council, but solidarity protests with Indigenous Land Defenders forced him to abandon that trip. The Wet’suwet’en people, whose land in northern British Columbia has never been ceded, had been peacefully resisting the construction on their territory of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline.
The planned pipeline would be 670 kilometers or 416 miles long and would run from a $40 billion fracking project near Dawson Creek to a liquified natural gas facility near Kitimat on the west coast of Canada. There the natural gas would be liquified and prepared for export to foreign markets. The RCMP or Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have responded to the peaceful resistance to this pipeline with heavy handed tactics. As revealed by The Guardian in December of last year, RCMP officers were prepared to shoot Indigenous Land Defenders.
According to documents reviewed by The Guardian, RCMP commanders instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want.” On 7 January of this year, RCMP officers dressed in military green fatigues and armed with assault rifles descended on the land defenders’ checkpoint, dismantled their gate and arrested 14 people. Then earlier this month, in a further operation to dismantle the blockade erected by Indigenous level defenders, the RCMP blocked media from bearing witness to their operations.
Jerome Turner of Ricochet Media was detained by the RCMP for eight hours, prompting the Canadian Association of Journalists to denounce the RCMP for acting in blatant disregard of the law in a way that is previously unheard of in Canada and unthinkable in a democratic country. Since early February, solidarity protests have erupted around the country. Indigenous Land Defenders have blockaded rail lines in Quebec, BC and Ontario. Demonstrators have temporarily shut down ports. On February 16th, a solidarity protest temporarily blockaded the Rainbow Bridge between Canada and United States in Niagara Falls.
Now here to discuss this burgeoning crisis with us is Pam Palmater. Pam is a Mi’kmaq lawyer and a member of the Eel River Bar First Nation. She currently holds the chair in Indigenous governance at Ryerson University. She’s also a frequent media commentator, author and former spokesperson and educator for the Idle No More Movement in Canada, defending in Indigenous lands, waters and sovereignty. Thank you so much for coming back on The Real News, Pam.
PAM PALMATER: Thanks for having me and covering this issue.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Pam, as you know as well as anyone, there is a long and illustrious history in this country of peaceful Indigenous resistance to the abuses of Indigenous rights. And this includes of course, the Idle No More Movement in which you played so key a role. But these protests seem unprecedented in one respect. They are causing economic disruption across the country. Do you think we’re witnessing a watershed moment in Indigenous resistance? And if so, why do you think this is happening now?
PAM PALMATER: I do think this is a watershed moment for lots of the reasons that you’ve outlined, but also because Canadians are standing with us in droves. During the Idle No More Movement was kind of the building of these relations and educating Canadians. This time around, Canadians are much more informed. They know to look beyond the headlines. They do their own research and they ask Indigenous peoples what’s going on.
And you’ll notice in many of these protest marches, rallies, blockades, you can see hundreds and hundreds of Canadians organizing this. Not all of them are even Indigenous led. That shows a real shift in Canadian education but also the will of Canadians to tell government, “Enough is enough.” And these are very targeted, very specific actions that Canada has to pay attention to. And I think how Canada responds right now, whether they respond with force or the promised nation to nation relationship, will determine what happens from this point forward.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: And I wanted to come back to the end game at the close of our discussion. But before we get there, I want to dig deeper into an issue. You talked about Canadians understanding the issues better today than in the past. Proponents of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline argue that band councils have consented to the planned route of the pipeline, whereas opponents of the pipeline assert that what matters here for purposes of Indigenous rights, is the consent of the hereditary chiefs, which has not been given. Could you talk to us about the band councils and please explain why their consent is not enough to justify the government’s actions?
PAM PALMATER: Yeah, so this isn’t about one group being better than the other group. This is just a matter of law in Canada. Under the Indian Act, chiefs and counselors, which is an imposed system on our traditional nations, have very, very limited jurisdiction and powers. It’s limited to the reserve lands. They certainly don’t have jurisdiction outside of those reserve lands. The pipeline doesn’t propose to cross any reserve lines. Whether or not the elected council did or did not consent to the pipeline is beside the issue for several reasons. One, it doesn’t cross reserve lands, they don’t have any jurisdiction over it.
And two, the real legal authority over Aboriginal title lands, which is all of the traditional territory, which is far greater than the little tiny reserve lands that had been set aside, is with the hereditary chiefs. And how do we know this? One, we know this because that’s Wet’suwet’en law. That it’s always been the hereditary chiefs who have responsibility according to each of their clans to protect different areas in their territory. And we also know this because the hereditary chiefs went to court to assert Aboriginal title over their territory. And it was the hereditary chiefs who represented the Aboriginal title claim, not the Indian Act chiefs.
Now government, and of course industry is going to try to confuse Canadians and say, “Oh, but we have this agreement.” They haven’t shown anyone this agreement. And that’s part of the problem. We don’t know even if the Indian Act councils did consent or not. What we do know from one of the leaked agreements is that the Coastal GasLink Pipeline has told first nations that they have to take every action to quell any dissent in their communities, not even allow people free speech, to speak in public or on social media. And that is also against our laws here in Canada.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, today, Pam, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Murray Mullen, the CEO of the Mullen Group was quoted extensively in the Canadian Press talking about the rail blockades. The Mullen Group does trucking for the oil patch in both Canada and the United States. Mullen described the rail blockades as quote, ecoterrorism. How do you respond to that charge?
PAM PALMATER: Well, again, that’s just more inflammatory language, trying to turn Canadians against us because there’s literally a groundswell of support from Canadians and I would also add Americans who blocked some rails in Seattle. But this is about racist language. We’ve always been portrayed as dangerous, militant savages, domestic terrorists, and depending on which government is in power, you get more or less of that kind of dialog. All that does is scare people and it’s not based on facts.
Just like the Idle No More Movement, all of these activities which are done in solidarity, have all been peaceful and everyone organizing these have given as their first instruction, that this is to honor the Wet’suwet’en, to stand in solidarity with their land rights and no violence, no weapons, nothing is allowed at the site and that’s the way it’s been. And you know how it is in the media if people can use inflammatory or scary language that maybe people won’t want to support what’s happening. But so far Canadians have looked beyond those really inflammatory words.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: And finally, Pam, so far, the Trudeau government has resisted calls from people like Mr. Mullen and from right wing politicians, most notably the Conservative Party leader, Andrew Scheer, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, to be more forceful in responding to the blockades. And in fact–and I personally found this rather surprising–the Indigenous Services Minister Mark Miller, after meeting with the participants in one of the blockade stated quote, “What I hear back from communities and Indigenous peoples when we talk about the rule of law is that the rule of law for them has been time and time invoked to perpetuate what believe to be historical injustices.”
Now, given its record of enthusiastic support for Canada’s fossil fuels industry, the Trudeau government looks very much to be caught between a rock and a hard place. What in your opinion is Trudeau’s likely end game here? How do you think his government will try to resolve this crisis? And how do you think he should try to resolve this crisis?
PAM PALMATER: Well, that’s a really good question. And we all know Canada is the state perpetrator of genocide and they still haven’t addressed that. For all the nice words that they have used, they haven’t followed that up with actions. The RCMP still invaded and forcibly removed Wet’suwet’en peoples from their homes in fact. What we see though is a categoric difference on a province by province basis. I wouldn’t even say it’s a national response. You see the province of Ontario saying, “Wait, we’re not going to rush in and forcibly remove people. That didn’t work in any of the other protests. It just escalated tensions. We’re not going to do it here.”
And it’s important to remember in a democratic country, federal and provincial governments aren’t supposed to have any sway over law enforcement. Whether or not that’s the case, that’s another issue. But they can’t be telling them go in and get these people or remove these people or not. Thank goodness for its law enforcement restraint. I think Mark Miller so far has had the most relationship focused comments, to actually acknowledge that we’re only here because of a continued denial of our sovereignty, our governing systems, and our land rights; that’s the only reason why we keep having these flashpoints.
And I think on a go forward basis, Justin Trudeau is really going to have to sit back, do business, not as usual, not look to the usual political, “well, we’ll study this or we’ll have a meeting,” and actually sit down and have a nation to nation conversation with the Wet’suwet’en and try to work things out. And if that means no pipeline in Wet’suwet’en territory, they’re going to have to once and for all accept that we have the legal right to say no when we want to. And everybody’s watching nationwide whether or not that right is going to be respected. We’ll see how he moves forward.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: Well, we’ve been speaking to Indigenous lawyer, activist and scholar Pam Palmater about a burgeoning crisis in Canada relating to the Wet’suwet’en territory in British Columbia. Thank you so much for joining us again on The Real News, Pam.
PAM PALMATER: Thanks for covering this.
DIMITRI LASCARIS: And this is Dimitri Lascaris reporting from Montreal, Canada.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-19--The Neoliberal ‘New’ Deal: The Rich Drink for Free While the Poor Pay More

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Host & Producer
Stephen Janis is an award winning investigative reporter turned documentary filmmaker. His first feature film, The Friendliest Town was distributed by Gravitas Ventures and won an award of distinction from The Impact Doc Film Festival, and a humanitarian award from The Indie Film Fest. He is the co-host and creator of The Police Accountability Report on The Real News Network, which has received more than 10,000,000 views on YouTube. His work as a reporter has been featured on a variety of national shows including the Netflix reboot of Unsolved Mysteries, Dead of Night on Investigation Discovery Channel, Relentless on NBC, and Sins of the City on TV One.
He has co-authored several books on policing, corruption, and the root causes of violence including Why Do We Kill: The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore and You Can’t Stop Murder: Truths about Policing in Baltimore and Beyond. He is also the co-host of the true crime podcast Land of the Unsolved. Prior to joining The Real News, Janis won three Capital Emmys for investigative series working as an investigative producer for WBFF. Follow him on Twitter.


therealnews--2020-02-20--Trump’s New Rule Favors Pollution Over US Waterways

KIM BROWN : Welcome to The Real News .
I ’ m Kim Brown .
The real estate developer who happens to be president of the United States has taken the last step to fully eliminate the clean water rule of 2015 , also known as the Waters of the United States rule or WOTUS .
The green light has been given for big agriculture and land developers to resume dumping pollutants back into areas that gained federal protections under the Obama administration .
Farmers , miners , fossil fuel drillers and the like have celebrated this move by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking water and habitat for birds and other endangered species fear this latest attack by Trump on the administration could come with devastating effects .
And joining us today to discuss this is Janette Brimmer .
Janette is an attorney with Earthjustice .
She ’ s based in Seattle , and Janette works to protect Puget Sound , national parks , wilderness areas and iconic species such as orcas and salmon in the scarce waters of the Pacific Northwest .
Janette , we appreciate you joining us today .
Thank you .
JANETTE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KIM BROWN : So as I was researching this , I discovered that this issue is a lot more complex and more potentially scary than I thought .
But in order to understand what Trump has done , we have to understand what Obama did and why it has a lot to do with the Supreme Court ruling in 2006 .
Can you explain that to us , Janette ?
JANETTE BRIMMER : Sure thing .
And in fact , I might take you back even a little bit before that .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clean Water Act , a major federal law from the early 1970s , and what water bodies does the act apply to ?
That ’ s really what this is all about .
Does it cover everything that ’ s wet ?
Does it cover some things ?
And how do we figure that out ?
And originally when The Clean Water Act passed , Congress passed it because states had been trying to protect water , but it was all over the place .
And they had not been doing a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies that were highly polluted .
So Congress finally stepped in and said , “ This is really a federal problem .
The waters belong to everybody .
They flow from state to state , they ’ re interconnected , and we need really a federal solution .
We can ’ t have this patchwork because that ’ s just not going to work .
And we ’ ve tried it and it didn ’ t work.
” So we got The Clean Water Act .
Somewhere in the first 20 years or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can imagine , people who perhaps don ’ t like being told that they can ’ t pollute or dig up wetlands or do whatever it is they want to do to water bodies went crazy about this .
And there started this kind of attempt to chip away .
And that really found some traction in some Supreme Court cases in the early 2000s , one of which is called the Rapanos case .
And I think that ’ s the one you ’ re referring to from 2006 .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned whether we should have a super broad application of clean water protections at a federal level .
Now , the thing that ’ s interesting about that case is it left things open .
The court was also all over the place and we didn ’ t get a five person majority .
And that ’ s crazy .
How do you figure that out ?
And so the Obama administration took that confusion that came out of that and said , “ All right .
We ’ ve got to figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act.
” And that ’ s the rule that we got from the Obama administration , which we have called The Clean Water Rule .
KIM BROWN : And there was a lot of misinformation surrounding The Clean Water Rule of 2015 .
For example , I know there was a parody video done by the Missouri Farm Bureau that showed a canoe and a dry ditch and claimed that the dry ditch now , under this new Clean Water Rule , qualified as a waterway .
So explain to us what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not so much that they issued new regulations , it ’ s that they offered clarity as to what types of waterways would be under federal protection .
JANETTE BRIMMER : That ’ s exactly what the Obama administration was trying to do with that rule .
So if you can think about it as a most obvious to less obvious approach .
Most obvious to , I would say , almost anyone would be certain water bodies are going to be protected .
Like the great lakes , like the Mississippi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water bodies are perhaps the most obvious .
But then the rules started to say , “ All right .
So if we step away from that , how do we figure it out ?
” Waters that flow into those waters , perhaps .
Rivers that are flowing into the great lakes of the Mississippi River .
We can start tracing that because people really understand that ’ s how water works , right ?
You put pollutants in , and the headwaters are going to flow down and pollute all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wetland , that is an important water filtering system or habitat or floodwater protection , right ?
Because it takes the floodwaters and stores them .
That ’ s going to be something that should be protected .
And then take a step down from that , and there might be some that are less obvious .
Those were the hard ones .
And what the Obama administration did is it turned to a group of elite scientists , really the best scientists we have in hydrology , biology , geology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ water bodies and how they work and said , “ What about those connections ?
Where are they connected ?
” Because the Supreme Court , justice Kennedy had talked about significant nexus , waters and significant nexus .
And so , relying on the science , they basically created a recipe in the rule for figuring out what should be protected .
KIM BROWN : And so once this rule was put into place , the Obama administration was hit with lawsuit after lawsuit , and after the election of 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promises was to get the WOTUS rule repealed and he has been working diligently on that effort ever since he was elected .
But I want to play a clip if we could from the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency .
They gave a celebratory press conference in January of this year .
Let ’ s take a look .
ANDREW WHEELER : When president Trump took office , he immediately began a process to remove and replace undue regulatory burdens that stifle American innovation and economic development .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s 2015 waters in the United States definition .
Today , EPA and the army corps are proposing a new definition of waters in the United States that puts an end to the previous administration ’ s power grab .
The three overarching principles that I wanted to ensure in this proposal are : One , the property owners should be able to stand on their property and be able to tell whether or not they have water that is a federal water without having to hire outside professionals .
Number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the difference between a federally protected waterway and state protected waterways .
And three , that we are providing the certainty the American public needs , and in a manner that will be upheld by the courts .
That is why we are closely following the language of The Clean Water Act and the three Supreme Court decisions .
KIM BROWN : Janette , in your opinion… Well , first of all , I ’ d like to get your reaction to what the acting administrator of the EPA had to say there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the Trump administration adhering closely to The Clean Water Act ?
The first question though .
JANETTE BRIMMER : No .
they are not adhering closely to The Clean Water Act .
A simple perusal of the act itself as well as the legislative history behind it , would show that they are in fact significantly narrowing the application of The Clean Water Act and cutting a lot of water bodies out of protection , that have in fact been protected for decades under that law .
KIM BROWN : Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from Zippy Duvall , who is the president of The American Farm Bureau .
And farmers really seem to have an issue… Or let me rephrase : The farming lobby really seem to have a problem with the WOTUS rule implemented by president Obama .
But let ’ s hear from Zippy real quick .
ZIPPY DUVALL : Farmers want to make sure that the water is clean .
They want to protect their natural resources .
But just like Mr. James says , if you ’ re a regulator , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulate it .
Under this ruling , it was impossible for our farmers to know what they were supposed to do and what they could and couldn ’ t do .
So we welcome the opportunity to get rid of this old rule and take our time and make sure we develop a new rule that gives us clear rules so that we can have clean water .
KIM BROWN : So Janette , for people who are not familiar–like myself–with exactly what farming practices are and how they could possibly pollute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what is it that the farmers want to do that the WOTUS rule was precluding them from doing , but now the new Trump rule will allow them to do ?
JANETTE BRIMMER : Well , let ’ s start with that assumption that they ’ re making , that the rules somehow prevented them from doing things .
It really didn ’ t .
That ’ s a fiction , frankly .
There might have been a few instances here and there with a wetland that had not already been farm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a permit to do something .
Like if they wanted to dig you up or dredge or put fill into a wetland .
And let ’ s be clear , that just means they have to get a permit .
That doesn ’ t even mean that they can ’ t do it .
It just means they have to go through a process .
But farming practices do in fact affect waters of the US .
It ’ s just that , for the most part , they have been unregulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , many farming practices are exempt from the reach of the act and always have been .
And that ’ s what ’ s so frustrating about the narrative that ’ s been developed to try to push through what we call these dirty water rules .
Many wetlands have been farmed over the years .
Those are grandfathered in , so they don ’ t have to do anything about that .
And so , those wetlands have been destroyed throughout the great plains especially .
You ’ ve got situations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Current farming is quite chemical intensive .
There may be manure runoff .
And many of those practices , because it is just runoff from the fields when it rains or when there ’ s snow melt , has not been regulated .
They don ’ t have to get a permit .
It ’ s not considered something that ’ s regulated under The Clean Water Act .
So again , the practices that the farming community may think were covered by the Obama rule , for the most part , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
KIM BROWN : So Janette , in addition to what the farmers say that they disliked about the WOTUS rule , other industries are celebrating in addition to the farming lobby , including the oil and gas .
Mining is a big industry that has been very ecstatic about the Trump decision to change the rule , so to speak .
So what are some of these other industries now going to be doing that they were not previously doing ?
Because again , it ’ s confusing in the sense that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were doing before , so I don ’ t know what they are now being allowed to do .
But because Trump is in favor of it , I should just assume that it ’ s bad .
JANETTE BRIMMER : Yeah .
Well , I think your assumptions will be borne out .
So I think you ’ re right to call out mining , housing development and not just housing , just real estate development generally , oil and gas .
Any kind of larger industrial things .
Even some things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industries that I think are more directly benefiting from what the Trump administration is setting out to do here , but they make use of the agriculture narrative , right ?
And that ’ s not an unusual thing .
Let ’ s talk a little bit about what The Clean Water Act really does .
What the Clear Water Act did is it came in and it said , “ You can ’ t do bad things to our waters .
You can ’ t discharge pollution to them through a pipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can ’ t go dig them up or don ’ t fill into them.
” And that ’ s wetlands , that ’ s rivers , that ’ s streams , that ’ s lakes .
And that ’ s just prohibited .
Now , if you think you have to do that , if you think there is some reason that that is necessary , then you go to the government and you get a permit .
There ’ s a permitting system for the discharge of pollutants , which allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollutants are , what are the levels .
We can set limits .
We can impose the latest , greatest technology .
Or if you ’ re on the dig it up and dredge side of things , we can put boundaries on what ones you ’ re allowed to dig up and dredge .
There are mitigation requirements if you ’ re going to affect a wetland over here , then let ’ s restore another one over here so that we retain what they call the functions and values that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landscape .
That ’ s what these guys are targeting .
It ’ s not so much that they couldn ’ t do their projects in the past , they just had to do them in a way that the public knew about it .
We had some rules set on it , and they were subject to some permitting so someone was looking over their shoulder .
Now , these destructive activities can occur in many places ; especially in the more dry West I think we ’ re going to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Northern regions of the United States .
I think we ’ re going to see that destructive behavior with nobody monitoring it ; nobody minding the store .
They ’ re just going to go out and do it .
And that ’ s , I think the big danger of ruling .
KIM BROWN : And that ’ s what I wanted to ask .
I hate to sound like a doomsday-sayer , so to speak , but give us the worst case scenario that we could be looking at–or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel as if I am understanding exactly or somewhat what ’ s at stake here .
Here locally in the Baltimore region , obviously , we rely tremendously on the Chesapeake Bay .
And for decades , the state of Maryland has been complaining that states north of us , Pennsylvania and New York state have more lax regulations on things such as manure removal from pig farms , specifically in Pennsylvania .
And how these things get into the Susko Ohana river , they travel downstream and deposit into the Chesapeake Bay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really depends on things coming out of the Bay that are healthy and consumable to eat .
So I understand it from a local perspective .
But give us something that you potentially see that could go really wrong with the repeal of WOTUS .
JANETTE BRIMMER : Sure .
There ’ s a couple of things .
One , I think you astutely point out that there ’ s going to be a drive to the lowest common denominator .
In other words , the dirtiest state , particularly if it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to drive what happens , because now it ’ s going to be a state to state kind of thing .
And you ’ re going to have to be looking over your shoulder upstream , as it were , to see what ’ s going on and who ’ s controlling what .
And if that state is all about , “ Well , we just like the development because we like the tax space or we like the jobs , ” or whatever this narrative might be associated with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downstream citizens are going to bear some of the brunt of that .
So that ’ s a perfect example I think that you gave .
There ’ s also going to be significant effects with respect to flood retention , because wetlands are potentially one of the targets of this .
They are really important on the landscape for flood retention .
Houston is a really good example .
Remember what happened with Houston in the hurricane ?
Part of what was going on there is that development had been allowed rampant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that normally when you get big storms that might be infrequent , that water is allowed to spread out , and it doesn ’ t all get basically into a tinier and tinier tube .
Houston is exhibit A of what that looks like .
You ’ re going to see a lot more of that , and that ’ s just going to be exacerbated with the change in climate patterns that we ’ re seeing with more rain .
And then I would say , a final example of one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this rule that concerns me is that even if , for example , the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA comes in and allows something to happen .
Let ’ s say they say , “ We ’ re going to permit this development or this mine .
We ’ ll permit this mine .
You can dig up some stuff and dump it in this little teeny stream over here because it ’ s tiny and we don ’ t care about it.
” But that stream leads to other waters or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waters .
What can happen under this rule is by allowing that , you ’ ve now cut off everything upstream from being a protected water of the U.S .
So you ’ re going to get this domino effect that ’ s almost just this terrible , insidious thing in this rule , that you almost have to really drill down and have been doing this for a while to understand that that ’ s the terrible plan here in some respects .
KIM BROWN : Well , the Trump administration will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re calling The Navigable Water Protection Rule , which eliminates The Clean Water Rule of 2015 , and Trump ’ s new mandate is set to go into effect 60 days from relatively now .
So late March .
So we ’ ll be keeping an eye on how the Trump administration is handling this and what will be the response from environmental activists such as yourself .
We ’ ve been speaking with Janette Brimmer .
She is a staff attorney from Earthjustice .
Go to earthjustice.org and read some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this issue for quite some time .
She ’ s based in Seattle and she works to protect national parks , wilderness areas , and of course , the beloved Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest .
Janette , we certainly appreciate your time today .
Thank you .
JANETTE BRIMMER : Thank you so much .
It was a pleasure .
KIM BROWN : And thank you for watching The Real News Network .

Trump’s years of dogged attacks on the Clean Water Rule have finally succeeded, and big ag and fossil fuel industries are rejoicing.
Story Transcript
KIM BROWN: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Kim Brown.
The real estate developer who happens to be president of the United States has taken the last step to fully eliminate the clean water rule of 2015, also known as the Waters of the United States rule or WOTUS. The green light has been given for big agriculture and land developers to resume dumping pollutants back into areas that gained federal protections under the Obama administration. Farmers, miners, fossil fuel drillers and the like have celebrated this move by Trump, but those invested in protecting our drinking water and habitat for birds and other endangered species fear this latest attack by Trump on the administration could come with devastating effects.
And joining us today to discuss this is Janette Brimmer. Janette is an attorney with Earthjustice. She’s based in Seattle, and Janette works to protect Puget Sound, national parks, wilderness areas and iconic species such as orcas and salmon in the scarce waters of the Pacific Northwest. Janette, we appreciate you joining us today. Thank you.
JANETTE BRIMMER: Thanks for having me.
KIM BROWN: So as I was researching this, I discovered that this issue is a lot more complex and more potentially scary than I thought. But in order to understand what Trump has done, we have to understand what Obama did and why it has a lot to do with the Supreme Court ruling in 2006. Can you explain that to us, Janette?
JANETTE BRIMMER: Sure thing. And in fact, I might take you back even a little bit before that. What we’re talking about is The Clean Water Act, a major federal law from the early 1970s, and what water bodies does the act apply to? That’s really what this is all about. Does it cover everything that’s wet? Does it cover some things? And how do we figure that out? And originally when The Clean Water Act passed, Congress passed it because states had been trying to protect water, but it was all over the place. And they had not been doing a good job and we were still getting water bodies that were highly polluted.
So Congress finally stepped in and said, “This is really a federal problem. The waters belong to everybody. They flow from state to state, they’re interconnected, and we need really a federal solution. We can’t have this patchwork because that’s just not going to work. And we’ve tried it and it didn’t work.” So we got The Clean Water Act. Somewhere in the first 20 years or so of the act, as you can imagine, people who perhaps don’t like being told that they can’t pollute or dig up wetlands or do whatever it is they want to do to water bodies went crazy about this. And there started this kind of attempt to chip away.
And that really found some traction in some Supreme Court cases in the early 2000s, one of which is called the Rapanos case. And I think that’s the one you’re referring to from 2006. And in that case, the Supreme Court really questioned whether we should have a super broad application of clean water protections at a federal level. Now, the thing that’s interesting about that case is it left things open. The court was also all over the place and we didn’t get a five person majority. And that’s crazy. How do you figure that out? And so the Obama administration took that confusion that came out of that and said, “All right. We’ve got to figure out how to apply The Clean Water Act.” And that’s the rule that we got from the Obama administration, which we have called The Clean Water Rule.
KIM BROWN: And there was a lot of misinformation surrounding The Clean Water Rule of 2015. For example, I know there was a parody video done by the Missouri Farm Bureau that showed a canoe and a dry ditch and claimed that the dry ditch now, under this new Clean Water Rule, qualified as a waterway. So explain to us what the Obama administration did. Because it’s not so much that they issued new regulations, it’s that they offered clarity as to what types of waterways would be under federal protection.
JANETTE BRIMMER: That’s exactly what the Obama administration was trying to do with that rule. So if you can think about it as a most obvious to less obvious approach. Most obvious to, I would say, almost anyone would be certain water bodies are going to be protected. Like the great lakes, like the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Those kinds of water bodies are perhaps the most obvious. But then the rules started to say, “All right. So if we step away from that, how do we figure it out?”
Waters that flow into those waters, perhaps. Rivers that are flowing into the great lakes of the Mississippi River. We can start tracing that because people really understand that’s how water works, right? You put pollutants in, and the headwaters are going to flow down and pollute all the waters below. If you dig up a wetland, that is an important water filtering system or habitat or floodwater protection, right? Because it takes the floodwaters and stores them. That’s going to be something that should be protected.
And then take a step down from that, and there might be some that are less obvious. Those were the hard ones. And what the Obama administration did is it turned to a group of elite scientists, really the best scientists we have in hydrology, biology, geology. All of the things that can affect water bodies and how they work and said, “What about those connections? Where are they connected?” Because the Supreme Court, justice Kennedy had talked about significant nexus, waters and significant nexus. And so, relying on the science, they basically created a recipe in the rule for figuring out what should be protected.
KIM BROWN: And so once this rule was put into place, the Obama administration was hit with lawsuit after lawsuit, and after the election of 2016, one of Donald Trump’s first promises was to get the WOTUS rule repealed and he has been working diligently on that effort ever since he was elected. But I want to play a clip if we could from the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. They gave a celebratory press conference in January of this year. Let’s take a look.
ANDREW WHEELER: When president Trump took office, he immediately began a process to remove and replace undue regulatory burdens that stifle American innovation and economic development. At the top of the list was the Obama administration’s 2015 waters in the United States definition. Today, EPA and the army corps are proposing a new definition of waters in the United States that puts an end to the previous administration’s power grab.
The three overarching principles that I wanted to ensure in this proposal are: One, the property owners should be able to stand on their property and be able to tell whether or not they have water that is a federal water without having to hire outside professionals. Number two, that we are clearly defining the difference between a federally protected waterway and state protected waterways. And three, that we are providing the certainty the American public needs, and in a manner that will be upheld by the courts. That is why we are closely following the language of The Clean Water Act and the three Supreme Court decisions.
KIM BROWN: Janette, in your opinion… Well, first of all, I’d like to get your reaction to what the acting administrator of the EPA had to say there. But to follow up with that, is the Trump administration adhering closely to The Clean Water Act? The first question though.
JANETTE BRIMMER: No. they are not adhering closely to The Clean Water Act. A simple perusal of the act itself as well as the legislative history behind it, would show that they are in fact significantly narrowing the application of The Clean Water Act and cutting a lot of water bodies out of protection, that have in fact been protected for decades under that law.
KIM BROWN: Also wanted to play another clip, Janette, from Zippy Duvall, who is the president of The American Farm Bureau. And farmers really seem to have an issue… Or let me rephrase: The farming lobby really seem to have a problem with the WOTUS rule implemented by president Obama. But let’s hear from Zippy real quick.
ZIPPY DUVALL: Farmers want to make sure that the water is clean. They want to protect their natural resources. But just like Mr. James says, if you’re a regulator, under this ruling, it was impossible to regulate it. Under this ruling, it was impossible for our farmers to know what they were supposed to do and what they could and couldn’t do. So we welcome the opportunity to get rid of this old rule and take our time and make sure we develop a new rule that gives us clear rules so that we can have clean water.
KIM BROWN: So Janette, for people who are not familiar–like myself–with exactly what farming practices are and how they could possibly pollute the environment or pollute the waterways around them, what is it that the farmers want to do that the WOTUS rule was precluding them from doing, but now the new Trump rule will allow them to do?
JANETTE BRIMMER: Well, let’s start with that assumption that they’re making, that the rules somehow prevented them from doing things. It really didn’t. That’s a fiction, frankly. There might have been a few instances here and there with a wetland that had not already been farm historically, where they may have to get a permit to do something. Like if they wanted to dig you up or dredge or put fill into a wetland. And let’s be clear, that just means they have to get a permit. That doesn’t even mean that they can’t do it. It just means they have to go through a process.
But farming practices do in fact affect waters of the US. It’s just that, for the most part, they have been unregulated. Even under the original Clean Water Act, many farming practices are exempt from the reach of the act and always have been. And that’s what’s so frustrating about the narrative that’s been developed to try to push through what we call these dirty water rules. Many wetlands have been farmed over the years. Those are grandfathered in, so they don’t have to do anything about that.
And so, those wetlands have been destroyed throughout the great plains especially. You’ve got situations where there is runoff from fields. Current farming is quite chemical intensive. There may be manure runoff. And many of those practices, because it is just runoff from the fields when it rains or when there’s snow melt, has not been regulated. They don’t have to get a permit. It’s not considered something that’s regulated under The Clean Water Act. So again, the practices that the farming community may think were covered by the Obama rule, for the most part, I think there are a lot of hyperbole.
KIM BROWN: So Janette, in addition to what the farmers say that they disliked about the WOTUS rule, other industries are celebrating in addition to the farming lobby, including the oil and gas. Mining is a big industry that has been very ecstatic about the Trump decision to change the rule, so to speak. So what are some of these other industries now going to be doing that they were not previously doing? Because again, it’s confusing in the sense that I don’t know what they were doing before, so I don’t know what they are now being allowed to do. But because Trump is in favor of it, I should just assume that it’s bad.
JANETTE BRIMMER: Yeah. Well, I think your assumptions will be borne out. So I think you’re right to call out mining, housing development and not just housing, just real estate development generally, oil and gas. Any kind of larger industrial things. Even some things like wastewater treatment. These are all industries that I think are more directly benefiting from what the Trump administration is setting out to do here, but they make use of the agriculture narrative, right? And that’s not an unusual thing. Let’s talk a little bit about what The Clean Water Act really does. What the Clear Water Act did is it came in and it said, “You can’t do bad things to our waters. You can’t discharge pollution to them through a pipe or a ditch or some conveyance. You can’t go dig them up or don’t fill into them.”
And that’s wetlands, that’s rivers, that’s streams, that’s lakes. And that’s just prohibited. Now, if you think you have to do that, if you think there is some reason that that is necessary, then you go to the government and you get a permit. There’s a permitting system for the discharge of pollutants, which allows us to monitor what the kind of pollutants are, what are the levels. We can set limits. We can impose the latest, greatest technology. Or if you’re on the dig it up and dredge side of things, we can put boundaries on what ones you’re allowed to dig up and dredge. There are mitigation requirements if you’re going to affect a wetland over here, then let’s restore another one over here so that we retain what they call the functions and values that those water bodies give to us on the landscape.
That’s what these guys are targeting. It’s not so much that they couldn’t do their projects in the past, they just had to do them in a way that the public knew about it. We had some rules set on it, and they were subject to some permitting so someone was looking over their shoulder. Now, these destructive activities can occur in many places; especially in the more dry West I think we’re going to see it, or the prairie regions, or Northern regions of the United States. I think we’re going to see that destructive behavior with nobody monitoring it; nobody minding the store. They’re just going to go out and do it. And that’s, I think the big danger of ruling.
KIM BROWN: And that’s what I wanted to ask. I hate to sound like a doomsday-sayer, so to speak, but give us the worst case scenario that we could be looking at–or a potential worst case scenario. Because I feel as if I am understanding exactly or somewhat what’s at stake here.
Here locally in the Baltimore region, obviously, we rely tremendously on the Chesapeake Bay. And for decades, the state of Maryland has been complaining that states north of us, Pennsylvania and New York state have more lax regulations on things such as manure removal from pig farms, specifically in Pennsylvania. And how these things get into the Susko Ohana river, they travel downstream and deposit into the Chesapeake Bay where we have an economy here that really depends on things coming out of the Bay that are healthy and consumable to eat. So I understand it from a local perspective. But give us something that you potentially see that could go really wrong with the repeal of WOTUS.
JANETTE BRIMMER: Sure. There’s a couple of things. One, I think you astutely point out that there’s going to be a drive to the lowest common denominator. In other words, the dirtiest state, particularly if it’s upstream of other states, is going to drive what happens, because now it’s going to be a state to state kind of thing. And you’re going to have to be looking over your shoulder upstream, as it were, to see what’s going on and who’s controlling what. And if that state is all about, “Well, we just like the development because we like the tax space or we like the jobs,” or whatever this narrative might be associated with that, then the downstream states and the downstream citizens are going to bear some of the brunt of that. So that’s a perfect example I think that you gave.
There’s also going to be significant effects with respect to flood retention, because wetlands are potentially one of the targets of this. They are really important on the landscape for flood retention. Houston is a really good example. Remember what happened with Houston in the hurricane? Part of what was going on there is that development had been allowed rampant in the flood plain. In areas that normally when you get big storms that might be infrequent, that water is allowed to spread out, and it doesn’t all get basically into a tinier and tinier tube. Houston is exhibit A of what that looks like. You’re going to see a lot more of that, and that’s just going to be exacerbated with the change in climate patterns that we’re seeing with more rain.
And then I would say, a final example of one of the things that’s buried in this rule that concerns me is that even if, for example, the Army Corps of Engineers or EPA comes in and allows something to happen. Let’s say they say, “We’re going to permit this development or this mine. We’ll permit this mine. You can dig up some stuff and dump it in this little teeny stream over here because it’s tiny and we don’t care about it.” But that stream leads to other waters or maybe it cuts off two bodies of waters. What can happen under this rule is by allowing that, you’ve now cut off everything upstream from being a protected water of the U.S. So you’re going to get this domino effect that’s almost just this terrible, insidious thing in this rule, that you almost have to really drill down and have been doing this for a while to understand that that’s the terrible plan here in some respects.
KIM BROWN: Well, the Trump administration will implement its final version of what they’re calling The Navigable Water Protection Rule, which eliminates The Clean Water Rule of 2015, and Trump’s new mandate is set to go into effect 60 days from relatively now. So late March. So we’ll be keeping an eye on how the Trump administration is handling this and what will be the response from environmental activists such as yourself.
We’ve been speaking with Janette Brimmer. She is a staff attorney from Earthjustice. Go to earthjustice.org and read some of her pieces. Janette has been working on this issue for quite some time. She’s based in Seattle and she works to protect national parks, wilderness areas, and of course, the beloved Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest. Janette, we certainly appreciate your time today. Thank you.
JANETTE BRIMMER: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.
KIM BROWN: And thank you for watching The Real News Network.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.