The Oka Crisis of 1990 Conflict Resolution - Case Study Example

Section/# Environmental Conflict Resolution: The Oka Case The following research paper provides an overview and discussion of the environmental conflict surrounding the 1990 Oka Crisis. Through the lens of this particular crisis, the author will seek to leverage a greater understanding for the shortcomings of Canadian law and the failures that underscore the need to address these shortcomings as a means of seeking to effect a different future outcome for any further crisis that may develop. Although it is understood that a direct duplicate of the Oka Crisis is unlikely to unfold within the next few years, the means by which this crisis presented itself and the missteps the government made serve as an extraordinarily powerful counterexample for the way in which meaningful change could safeguard such a situation from arising with similar unwanted results in the near future. Introduction and Overview: The Oka Crisis of 1990, involving the territories of Mohawk people in Kanehsatuake and the Oka town of Quebec, began on 11 July 1990 and ended on 26 September 1990. The crisis involved the Mohawk community in a dispute with the town of Oka; due to their plan to extend a golf course and residential development on land which was traditionally used by the Mohawk community. The land contained a Pineland and a ground used for burials and of the Mohawk community ancestors. Initially, the Mohawk community had made attempts of laying claim to land. One of the most recent of these took place in in 1986; which attempted to legally assert sovereignty over the land as a function of he sacred nature of the grove and cultural importance of the burial ground (Peace 4). However, this claim was turned down in a ruling as the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims on “credible legal grounds” (Gerald 1995). Accordingly, the Mohawk community was unable to secure a resolution that was favorable in their various official claims that they had made over the decades and centuries leading up to the 1970s and 1980s. By the 10th of March, the Mohawk community began to formally occupy parts of the disputed land; sparking the reaction of the Oka town administration. On the 11th of March, the Quebec police arrived to the disputed land and demanded the removal of the Mohawk community barricades on the territory; as well as the immediate dispersal of the protestors (Regan 32). However, as the Mohawk community resisted, after a few hours of verbal confrontation, the Quebec Police started lobbing teargas canisters, as well as concussion grenades at the barricades. Not surprisingly, this violent reaction from the Quebec Police also elicited similar reactions from the Mohawk community warriors; so much so that during the ensuing fire exchange, a policeman was shot. Although it was not clear whether it was a stray bullet emanating from the police or the Mohawk community, the result was drastically increased tensions for a standoff that continued for a full eleven weeks. Furthermore, the standoff elicited the natives to block railways, bridges and highways throughout the territory of Quebec as a measure of solidarity; these “choke points” included core access points of the island of Montreal (Ross 47). With these measures, the standoff created unprecedented amounts of media and political reaction and attention regionally and globally. Moreover, the economic hardship that this standoff imposed came to be severe; so much so that Canadians of the surrounding region began to demand action as a means of addressing and ameliorating the issue. Yet, regardless of the back and forth that existed within this protest, the way the local government handled the case has left many to question the integrity of the laws in accordance to native populations and their claims to land. With respect to the historical issue that has been presented, the ultimate research question that will be put forward is contingent upon the question of whether or not existing legal structure and approach is sufficient to deal with potential future environmental conflicts that may well develop along similar lines to the Oka Conflict of 1990. It is the further understanding and expectation of this author that without strict laws put in place, conflicts will continue to ensue when it comes to cases dealing with environmental/aboriginal rights/issues. Theoretical Framework: The theoretical framework will explain the intrigues of the paper in terms of the statement of the problem, the intensity of the standoff and the methods used in establishing a resolution. The paper will thus explain optional environmental conflict resolutions and how they can be used to stop a recurrence of a crisis like that of the Oka conflict. The land that was in dispute was approximately 39 hectares, and the actors in the conflict included the Quebec Ministry of Native Affairs, the Canadian Armed Forces and various environmental justice organizations such as the Mohawk Nation, Coalition for Solidarity with Native People and Native Friendship Center, among others. The intensity of the conflict was high and widespread, characterized by mass mobilizations, violent incidences and arrests (Ross 52). The mobilization styles adopted by the Mohawk community included the physical occupation of the land in dispute, blockades of the land and highways, as well as the threat of using arms to defeat the opposition. The crisis will be depicted as environmental in nature since the proposed golf course developments would lead to a loss of the natural landscape, vegetation cover, deforestation and aesthetic degradation (Ridd 5). The proposal was a result of corrupt deals in the government, and they wanted to dispossess the Mohawk community of their native lands. There were various methods used in the resolution of the dispute such as the non-violent actions, which supported the Mohawks of Quebec. For example, the ‘Peace Camp.” This was established on the outskirts of Oka and involved aboriginal and non-aboriginal people (Swain 186). The camp did numerous and lengthy sit-ins on the ground mobilizing people to use non-violent means of fighting for human and environmental rights. The peace camps further provided a camp where many people who could have played a part in violent attacks, resided. There were various speakers who addressed the crowd, also holding traditional ceremonies where they sang traditional Mohawk songs. Although there were cases when tension could rise in the camps, they restrained from violently responding to the government’s actions (George-Kanentiio 124). Operationalization and Measurement of Variables The variables that present themselves within the hypothesis that has been posited are concentric upon measurement of group attitudes, legal norms, motivation, and definitions of identity/conflict. Accordingly, as these are socially constructed norms, the best way to operationalize these variables and define them for means of analysis is to rely upon existing research within the related fields of study. In such a manner, the use of legal precedent and measurement against the norms of aboriginal dispute resolution will take place in order to more accurately define the way in which this aspect helps the analyst to understand the situation (O’Leary 17). Furthermore, cultural and anthropological resources will be leveraged as a means of drawing the analysts attention the differentials that existed within the both the aboriginal (Mohawk) and white Canadian societies as they engaged in the dispute that has been thus far related. IN much the same manner as legal precedence will be engaged, via a review of case studies relating to aboriginal rights, group attitudes and measurements of dispute resolution will be inferred and measured based upon the resulting determinations that have come to be exhibited within the intervening years since the conflict first was witnessed. Data Collection: The vast majority of all data that will be collected within the course of this analysis will be drawn from primary resources and qualitative analysis of the events that have thus far been described. Whereas interviews are still possible, as the time frame since this event has taken palace is not such that would render this approach futile, the level of inference that these could provide are necessarily limited; at least within the understanding of this researcher. Additionally, by defining and collecting data via an overview of existing literature, case law, and precedent, it is the belief of this student that the overall level of inference that the analyst can make, with respect to future changes to engagement, can be maximized in a way that few other approaches could affect (Regan 23). Case Study: With respect to the case in question, it cannot and should not be understood that the events of the summer of 1990 can be understood as separate and removed from the larger issues at hand. Firstly, the historical dispute over the land dates back to 1717; at a time in which the Catholic Church was given a grant that encompassed the Pine forest and burial grounds that are under discussion. Technically, the grant that was given in 1717 was a “trust”; meaning that the Catholic Seminary was to hold the lands for the natives as a means of safeguarding it from the designs and aspirations of others that would want to construct or settle the land. However, soon after the trust was established, the seminary moved to grant itself full ownership rights; creating an outcry from the Mohawk people who petitioned the courts as early as 1868. After the seminary sold the land in 1936, the city began to partition the land and subsequent owners came to hold interest in it. However, the Mohawk people did not relinquish their claim and continually petitioned the courts to honor the precedent they believed had been set by the “trust” that was established in 1717; seeking a return of the lands and the complete cessation of further development. The legal issues that are entailed within this are concentric upon aspects of ownership, the status of a trust, the ability of multi ownership, and the necessary limitations that the Canadian legal framework had in dealing with the Mohawk claim to the land the anthropological/cultural/environmental issues associated with this. Moreover, the legal issues that are entailed within this particular case point to the inequality of the Canadian system; in that the legal framework was amenable towards the needs of direct ownership by title holders but did not consider the direct ethnic/cultural impacts that this claim to ownership entailed. The lack of consideration and the continual rulings in favor of further development are ultimately what prompted this particular situation to come to a head in the form of the Oka Conflict. Moreover, the inherent legal limitations are concentric upon the fact that ownership and the status of the trust were not defined in terms of mutual benefit but in terms of what particular group had the greater standing legal claim. Naturally, within an alternative structure, the legal claim of the indigenous people, the Mohawks, would have been considered as supplemental information towards further development and the delineation of ownership rights. However, as the case unfolded, it is clear from a historical review that the ownership and legal limitations were concentric upon the fact that these issues were not even broached within the courts that considered them. As such, the Oka Conflict was all be predestined to occur; as a function of the fact that the Mohawk people had no recourse within the legal system – even though they had attempted to leverage this approach for the better part of 250 years (Swain 44). Even as the Mohawk leveraged their culture and identity as a means of laying claim to the disputed territory, the legal system pointed to the fact that the dispute over which groups could accurately represent themselves as natural and legal proprietors of the land further inflamed the situation. As a means of expanding the cultural and identity claim, opponents pointed to the fact that even if the Mohawk people were given a greater share legal determinacy based upon these metrics, this would not ultimately serve to correct or ameliorate the situation; due to the fact that the cultural identity of the original Mohawk peoples, to whom the original trust was directed, was so far removed as to make further cultural and identity inclusion within the law somewhat meaningless as a legal precedent. Naturally, this was merely an excuse; however, it was utilized as a means of continuing to deprive the Mohawks of the rights to the land that had been legally authorized as theirs nearly 300 years previously. Reporting and Analysis of Data: Reflection on Rights and Related Issues The legal cases surrounding “ownership” of the land in question and the ultimate rights to develop or utilize it also encourage a level of understanding and appreciation for the way in which the rights of stakeholders within Canadian society were defined. For instance, the aboriginal people were provided comprehensive land claim treaties dating back as far as 1701 and extending until 1923. Moreover, endogenous self rule and treaties of confederation have further redefined and nuanced the relationship between aboriginal people and the government of Canada. As this relationship has experienced many differentials over the years, a reasonable response would be to assume that a baseline of legal application is relative to the status of the treaties and the means by which these people were incorporated within key periods in time. This adds a unique nuance to the way in which the legal authority of the Canadian legal system can exert itself and seek to serve as a final arbitrary of rights and ownership; specifically within the case in question. Regardless of these nuances, from the information that has been engaged, it is clear and apparent that core responsibilities of the legal system include the following: promoting adherence to legal precedent and law, encouraging a level of protection and heritage for the natural environment, encouraging the unique understanding of rights and privileges for aboriginal peoples, maximizing personal safety, and encouraging the definitions and applications of private property within the system. As such, these core elements of legal responsibility, when analyzed under the rubric of the Oka Conflict reveal the fact that the Canadian legal system was wholly unprepared for the dynamics of applying all of these metrics. Instead, the main determinant that the legal system sought to apply was the appropriation of private property; irrespective of the need for personal safety, aboriginal rights, or the unique needs of protecting the environment and cultural heritage. From such an understanding, the reader can firmly point to the fact that the current application of law, and especially the application of law that took place during the Oka Conflict, was patently unfair and unrepresentative of the core needs that have herein been defined as part and parcel of what the legal system should afford to all stakeholders. Conflict Management: Regardless of the approach that one takes to the Oka Crisis, it is more than apparent that it is indicative of conflict between the authorities and between aboriginal peoples (Ridd 15). As such, a further understanding of conflict management is essential; both as a means of understanding the case in question as well as seeking to provide an actionable approach through which future conflicts might be ameliorated. Firstly, a core definition of conflict that is used throughout the literature is contingent upon the following: “a differentiated struggle for power, parity, or property that exists between individuals or groups of individuals”. Within such a broad and expansive definition, it is clear and apparent that almost each of the qualifiers of conflict are met within the Oka Crisis. Moreover, if one were to categorize this conflict beyond merely one that involved aboriginal peoples and the regional/provincial government, it would have to be concentric upon defining it as an environmental conflict; as the core contention that existed was over whether or not the utilization of the land in question was permissible by either side that laid claim to it. Additionally, from an understanding of conflict management, it is reasonable to assume that the situation what unfolded in 1990 could have likely been much more effectively resolved if only conflict resolution theory were employed (Napier 29). Yet, as a result of the heavy handed response of both sides, the situation escalated and ultimately caused the death of a police officer. Notwithstanding this, perhaps one of the greatest reasons for why conflict resolution was not utilized has to do with the lack of emphasis that both sides paid towards it. This oversight is of course only part of the issue; coupled with inherent and seething frustration on the part of the aboriginal people and generations of neglect and racial superiority evidenced by those that represented the provincial government. However, before the reader begins to realize that the Oka Crisis is merely indicative of an environmental conflict, the nature of legal ownership, rights of aboriginal people, and prior precedent must be understood. In short, even though there are a litany of different types of environmental conflicts which are exhibited throughout the current system, the fact of the matter is that the environmental conflict exhibited within the Oka Crisis is differentiated and adulterated by the inclusion of other conflicts of the other conflicts of interest that have thus far been analyzed. Finally, the dimensions and effects of this environmental conflict resulted in the inclusion and notice of the media, as well as stakeholders throughout much of the remainder of Canadian society and the rest of the world for that matter (O’Leary 50). The ultimate rational behind this has to do with the fact that the diversity of issues affecting the Oka Crisis necessarily encouraged more stakeholders to show interest and become involved; at least as compared to a situation in which only one of the crisis determinants was exhibited. Interestingly, the role of the government in conflict resolution was somewhat limited; at least with respect to what the analyst might have come to expect from other conflicts and the means by which governments have worked to ameliorate them. Ultimately, it was not the provincial or federal government that were able to resolve the Oka Crisis; instead, it was the active engagement of the activists on the side of the Mohawks and their desire to broker a truce with the officials that spelled the end of this particular action. As such, the role of the government in attempting to facilitate a peaceful resolution to this crisis was severely lacking. Within such an understanding, the researcher can note that the lack of conflict resolution engaged in by the local and provincial/federal government was at least partially responsible for the drawn out duration and ultimate situation that transpired. Yet, rather than shifting blame on the authorities entirely, it must also be understood that the Mohawk community did not come to a clear agreement with regards to how to proceed with the conflict. Whereas it was widely understood that non-violence was the best possible approach, economic and political tensions caused for divisions to be manifested within their number; eventually culminating in a situation in which elements within the Mohawk community longed for a peaceful resolution – even if it favored the end desires of the regional government. The model to mediation that the Mohawk nations originally engaged was one that placed the primary focus on the need to instantly raise awareness and promote the failure of the legal system; yet, what transpired was divergent voices within the community seeking to leverage interests alongside the need to protect what they saw as native lands (Napier 19). In effect, the models and strategies put forward by the Mohawks as well as the models and strategies to mediation put forward by the government culminated in a situation in which joint failure was almost guaranteed. Recommendations: One of the first and most relevant recommendations that can be engaged as a result of the information that has thus far been presented is with respect to the need of expanding the present legislation that will allow for the consideration of historical and cultural claims that a specific group of individuals might seek to leverage within the legal framework. Whereas the existing system has allowed for additional interpretation of the likes of ownership, unique determinants of prior claim and rights to property that exist within Canada, as a function of the presence of a sizable ethnic minority of aboriginal peoples, alerts the analyst to the patent impropriety and unfairness of a system that only seeks to acknowledge and implement legal precedent based upon proto-European norms of ownership. Such a recommendation is not meant to that the entire legal system of governance is useless; rather, the means by which property rights are decided and adjudicated is inherently flawed within Canada and requires a determined and applied approach towards ameliorating the potential for such crises in the future. Furthermore, the need for the government to actively engage in crisis remediation and actively practice mediation techniques has been denoted as of extreme importance; if further crises of this type and magnitude are to be averted or addressed within a reasonable time frame. The failure of the government to provide an actionable way out of the situation that arose during the Oka Crisis is further evidence of the fact that this situation caught the government off guard and provided them with a potentially disastrous situation that they had neither the expertise or training to engage. Although changes have been made with respect to the way in which force or separatist conflict is met, further work must be performed in order to diminish the risk of a future environmental conflict of interests quickly spiraling out of control. Conclusion: The Oka Crisis has underscored key shortcomings with respect to the way the Canadian government should engage with environmental conflict issues; especially those relating to indigenous peoples and the rights and claims that they have. As such, in order to create a more fair and equitable society, it is necessary to amend the legal framework as a means addressing these shortcomings and seeking to safeguard such a situation from arising in the future. Even though the situation that has thus far been described and elaborated upon took place a full 24 years ago, the reality of the situation is that such conflicts are likely to take place again in the future; especially as more and more people within Canada and elsewhere compete for fewer and fewer resources. In this way, the need and requirement to ensure that the legal system is capable of addressing and maximizing the best interests of all groups in society simultaneously. Works Cited Alfred, Gerald. “Heading the Voices of our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native Nationalism.” London: Oxford Univeristy Press. 1995. George-Kanentiio, Douglas M. “Iroquois on Fire: A Voice from the Mohawk Nation.” New York: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Napier, Christopher. Environmental Conflict Resolution. London: WM Gaunt & Sons, 1998. O’Leary, Rosemary, & Bingham, Lisa, B. Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution. New York: RFF Press, 2003. PEACE, TOM. "Remembering Oka." 5 JULY 2010. Active History CA. 27 March 2014 . Regan, Paulette. “Unsettling the Settler Within: Indian Residential Schools, Truth Telling, and Reconciliation in Canada.” Toronto: UBC Press, 2010. Ridd, Karen. "29 July." 17 August 2012. 27 March 2014 . Ross, Jeffrey Ian. “Violence in Canada: Sociopolitical Perspectives.” New York: Transaction Publishers, 2012. Swain, Harry. “Oka: A Political Crisis and Its Legacy.” Victoria: Douglas & McIntyre, 2010. Read More