Whose Border? Contested Geographies and Columbia River Treaty Modernization

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the links between contemporary bordering processes, Indigenous nations traditional territories, and transboundary water governance processes, using the case of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) modernization process. We posit the Columbia River is shared not just by two nations, but also by multiple Indigenous nations with various inter-nation borders. To-date, the implications of this in practice do not appear to mean a re-imagination of borders, changes in legal authority for CRT renegotiation and implementation, or rethinking the state-centric institutions in which governance of the Columbia River is based. Three primary themes emerged from the empirical data that illustrate: (1) a reaffirmation of state-centric discourse on borders and bordering processes in CRT modernization, while (2) at the same time we see changes in the legal landscape in Canada and the U.S. that inform the obligations of colonial governments to move towards collaboration and shared governance with Indigenous nations on a government-to-government basis on issues impacting Indigenous interests. And, (3) emerging are the seeds of governance structures that seek to engage Indigenous nations within CRT renegotiation and implementation, including potentially providing a seat at the renegotiation table and including Indigenous nations within implementation structures for a modernized CRT.

KEYWORDS:

• Columbia River Treaty
• borders
• transboundary water governance
• indigenous nations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the individuals who took the time to share with us their interests, insights, and passions about the Columbia River, without which this article would not have come to fruition. Specifically, we would like to thank the following reviewers for their valuable suggestions and guidance on earlier drafts of the article: Dr. Stephen Tyler, Dr. Michael Webb, and Dr. Suzanne von der Porten. We could also like to thank the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria for providing an interdisciplinary academic affiliation, and for providing a community network for knowledge sharing. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and with funding from the Borders in Globalization research program. A big thanks to Hailey Eckstrand for her development of the Columbia River basin map used in this article. All errors and omissions in the article are the fault of the authors alone.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The Indigenous Governance literature considers Indigenous peoples as autonomous nations and governments (Fleras 2000; Tully 2000; von der Porten and de Loe 2013a). As explained by von der Porten and de Loe (2013b, 5), this “stems directly from the fact that Indigenous people lived within sovereign nations prior to colonial contact”, and reflects the “sui generis, or unique, rights of Indigenous peoples”.

2 There are 15 Indigenous nations in the U.S. portion of the Columbia River basin, and 18 Indigenous nations (including the Sinixt) in the Canadian portion of the basin. The Syilx Nation and the Ktunaxa Nation ?amak?is (the name of the territory of the Ktunaxa Nation) is bifurcated by what is now the international border between Canada and the U.S. The Ktunaxa Nation ?amak?is has been mapped by the Ktunaxa Nation, and the representation of their knowledge of these boundaries can be seen at: http://www.ktunaxa.org/who-we-are/

3 We recognize that the concept of sovereignty, with its European roots, is an ongoing source of debate amongst Indigenous scholars (see: Alfred 2005; Cobb 2005; Stark 2013). Alfred (2005 cited in Lightfoot 2016, 9) argues the concept of sovereignty is “grounded in the European experience” that has its roots in “notions of domination that stand in stark contrast to Indigenous forms of political relations, which are based on freedom, respect, and autonomy”. Yet, Stark (2013, 341–342) posits that, although the term has its roots in Europe, contemporary understandings of sovereignty “reference the unique traits of a nation that enable their self-governance” and the “right of a people to live in accordance with their own ways”. And, referring to Indigenous peoples of Australia, Kwaymullina (2018) writes of “narrative sovereignty,” which is how networks of relationships and responsibility to homelands, which themselves are founded on stories, are indivisible to conceptions of sovereignty from an Indigenous perspective. As we write, we are aware these debates and differences exist, and we use the term “autonomy” where possible and appropriate in support of efforts of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and peoples to determine processes to achieve autonomy and self-determination of Indigenous peoples as defined by them.

4 We use the term federal government as shorthand for the most senior level of government in Canada and the U.S. We also recognize that not all colonizing states are federal.

5 A note on language use is relevant before proceeding. We use “modernization,” “review” and “renegotiation” to describe the current state of the CRT. To be clear, the CRT has undergone a review on both sides of the border leading up to 2014 to understand what could be included in a modernized treaty. Though the treaty does not have an expiry date, certain flood control provisions automatically expire in 2024. With 10 years notice, 2024 is the earliest date when Canada or the U.S. may unilaterally terminate or amend the treaty. The review of the treaty has been conducted to inform renegotiations between Canada and the U.S. to modernize the CRT.

6 We understand “time immemorial” as meaning “ancient beyond memory or record” (English Oxford Dictionary 1971, vol. 1, 63c).

7 At the time British Columbia entered into Confederation with Canada, Indigenous peoples outnumbered the settler population 4:1 in the province, increasing to more than 15:1 on the north coast (Borrows 1999).

8 The Syilx Unity Declaration between the Okanagan Nation Alliance and the Colville Confederated Tribes provides a powerful counter-narrative to colonial border-making processes and illustrates ongoing transnational unity between a people divided by imposed colonial borders. The declaration states

without consultation or agreement with the Parties, colonizing governments established an international boundary, dissecting the Parties’ homelands; and the parties never agreed to or acquiesced to the international boundary at the 49th parallel; and despite the international boundary the Parties remain united through cultural, familial, territorial, economic, and political ties (Syilx Unity Declaration 2010).

9 Article 3 of UNDRIP articulates the rights of Indigenous nations to self-determination, understood as the right to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” and “have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters … ” (UNGA 2007, 7–10). Indigenous political theorists have debated the alignment of Article 3 with Article 46, which protects the “territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States” (UNGA 2007, 14). Scholars discussing these issues have done so in greater detail and articulation than we possibly could, including Corntassel (2007, 2008), Newcomb (2011), Pulitano and Trask (2012), Lightfoot (2016).

10 Various Indigenous political theorists suggest alternative political and relational systems between colonial and Indigenous nations built on mutually respectful negotiations that do not involve the dismantling of the nation-state system. This includes a “third spaces of sovereignty,” where Indigenous peoples and nations “are neither fully inside nor outside of the state structure” (Bruyneel 2007 cited in Lightfoot 2016, 10) or “multinational” structures that “would recognize the social, institutional, territorial, and political powers and values of its constituents [creating] a consensual basis for participation in the multinational community and multinational state” (Champagne 2005, 19). These alternative political relationships illustrate de-coupling of the concept of self-determination from the state (which is often understood as statehood), suggesting “self-determination may take on multiple forms and achieved or advanced with or without independent statehood” (Anaya 2009 cited in Lightfoot 2016, 10).

11 Though we may highlight briefly instances where Indigenous peoples engage in international relations with nation-states (within an international system premised on sovereignty of nation-states only), we stress these are illustrative only, and do not constitute how Indigenous nations could engage formally with CRT modernization. We believe it is through nation-to-nation discussions between Indigenous peoples and federal governments that this involvement and role could be co-defined.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and with funding from the Borders in Globalization research program Grant: [Grant Number 895-2012-1022].