In 2016 and 2017, thousands of indigenous people from all over the world and their allies came to the Standing Rock Sioux territory in North Dakota to participate in a mass protest to stop the Dakota Access oil pipeline from being built through their ancestral lands. Before he left office, President Obama ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a more thorough environmental impact statement in December 2016, but as soon as President Trump was sworn into office the first time in January 2017 he immediately ordered the pipeline completed.
The company behind the pipeline, Energy Transfer, then sued Greenpeace for $300 million, charging that the “Big Green” environmental group had organized the protest. The trial of their Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation began on Feb. 24 in Mandan, North Dakota and is expected to last several weeks.
[Web editor’s note: This transcript may differ from the audio version due to broadcast time constraints.]
SUSHMA RAMAN: Greenpeace really showed up in solidarity when asked to by indigenous leaders and movements to support their efforts at Standing Rock. So, we are just one of many players from civil society. There were over 100,000 people both from within the US and around the world.
MELINDA TUHUS: Greenpeace came to Standing Rock to support indigenous demands against the Dakota Access pipeline, not to organize the whole thing. Why do you think Energy Transfer targeted Greenpeace with this $300 million lawsuit?
SUSHMA RAMAN: I’m still not clear why Greenpeace was targeted but it’s entirely possible that Energy Transfer was trying to send a message and that’s what SLAPPs are all about. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation are a tool increasingly used to stifle dissent and protest, and they target not only environmental groups, but also members of the media, advocacy groups, protesters and so on. And it’s a way whereby powerful actors are trying to silence critics and to send a message to other audiences. But we at Greenpeace are saying in response we will not be silenced.
MELINDA TUHUS: I imagine that also maybe they thought Greenpeace had deeper pockets than many of the other groups and individuals who came to Standing Rock. I know it’s not all about the money, but the fact is that these lawsuits, which would result in devastating payouts if the defendants lose, is the source of a lot of stress. I wanted to ask what kind of support Greenpeace has gotten as the defendant in this lawsuit?
SUSHMA RAMAN: It’s extraordinary the outpouring of support that we’ve been receiving. Hundreds of organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals have signed our letter to Energy Transfer. The message is loud and clear. We had a week of action with folks joining us in Dallas and San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and online through our webinars through our social media channels, where people are clearly saying that they will not be silenced, that they are joining with us to send a message to Big Oil. And what Greenpeace is much broader than just one organization or a set of entities.
We are a movement for peace, non-violence, for ensuring protection of the planet and the people and that work will continue during and beyond the trial.
MELINDA TUHUS: Sushma Raman, where do things stand in the trial right now? It’s scheduled for five or six weeks, is that right, and you’re in week two now?
SUSHMA RAMAN: You know, there’s quite a bit of media coverage that people can research and there’s also some coverage we’ve posted on our website and on our social channels that you can follow to get more information, and there was jury selection at the beginning of Week 1, and opening statements. And then we had the various witnesses from Energy Transfer. And at this point the North Dakota Supreme Court has denied our motion to change venue. And so we are looking ahead to the coming weeks. We anticipate that this might be done earlier than anticipated, but we don’t know. Each day things unfold slightly differently. But there are several outlets that are covering this in quite great depth, including The New York Times, the Guardian, the North Dakota Monitor, and there are various blogs and so on.
MELINDA TUHUS: Are you encouraging people to come to the trial in the small town of Mandan, North Dakota? How big is the courtroom?
SUSHMA RAMAN: Well, I don’t know if we’re encouraging people or not come, but the reality is the space is quite limited. The fact that no live streaming is allowed does make it somewhat challenging, so you can’t watch live coverage of it, but the coverage you’re seeing on line is testament to the fact that the media is also keenly watching this and following it and that’s a great way for folks who don’t live in North Dakota or aren’t able to come.
MELINDA TUHUS: Anything else you want to add?
SUSHMA RAMAN: Well, I think that a part of what we need to do as individuals who care about the planet, who care about communities affected by climate and environmental injustice, is that we have to be part of movements that are bigger than ourselves. And by doing so we can really hold power to account, whether it’s government accountability or corporate accountability. And so I firmly believe in the power of nonviolent social change. I believe in the power of movements that bring together folks across communities. I believe in the power of indigenous sovereignty and I believe that coming together, united, we will be a force to ensure that we will not be silenced.
Between The Lines’ Melinda Tuhus spoke with Sushma Raman, the interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, about her organization’s role in the Standing Rock protest, the objective of the fossil fuel company’s lawsuit and the future of peaceful protest and dissent after the trial, whatever the outcome.
For more information, visit Greenpeace USA at greenpeace.org/USA.
For the best listening experience and to never miss an episode, subscribe to Between The Lines on your favorite podcast app or platform.
Or subscribe to our Between The Lines and Counterpoint Weekly Summary.
