Friends of the Lubicon
485 Ridelle Ave.
Toronto, ON M6B 2K6
Canada
tel: (416) 763-7500
fax: (416) 603-2715
e-mail: fol@tao.ca
June 3 1998
Two weeks ago, Daishowa-Marubeni International President Tokiro Kawamura
wrote to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak saying,
"I am writing to formally advise you of DMI's public commitment not to
harvest or purchase timber in your area of concern, until your land issue
is resolved with both levels of government, including harvesting rights,
fish, and wildlife concerns."
Chief Ominayak responded promptly on May 25th, saying,
"Hopefully your letter and public announcement that you'll stay out of the
Lubicon 'area of concern' pending settlement of Lubicon land rights will
end the current dispute between us and allow Lubicon supporters to wind
down the boycott of Daishowa paper products. However, given the various
definitions of the phrase 'area of concern' used by Daishowa in the past,
the Lubicon people require that you publicly define this phrase Lubicon
'area of concern' ...
Mr. Kawamura has not responded to that letter.
The first time the Lubicon people ever heard the term "area of concern" was
when then-Alberta Provincial Forestry Minister LeRoy Fjordbotten wrote to
an Edmonton woman in November 1990 telling her that wholly-owned Daishowa
subsidiary Brewster Construction would "not be logging in the area of
concern this winter."
That very same day, Brewster Construction began clear-cutting spruce and
aspen in the Lubicon traditional territories.
When challenged on the matter first by opposition members and then by
reporters, Minister Fjordbotten replied that the area he was referring to
when he used the term "area of concern" was the 95-square-mile proposed
reserve area, not the entire 4,000 square mile unceded Lubicon traditional
territory.
In 1991, when a newly launched boycott forced Daishowa to abandon plans to
once again clear-cut Lubicon traditional territories that winter, Daishowa
wrote to the Toronto Friends of the Lubicon saying that "Daishowa Canada
(and its subsidiaries) have elected to avoid the area of concern to the
Lubicons this winter."
The Toronto Friends wrote back, in part asking for clarification of what
the term "area of concern" meant. Specifically, their letter said:
"The 'area of concern to the Lubicons' you refer to throughout the document
is never clearly defined. We are concerned with the ambiguity expressed. In
fact, the very day you wrote us, the Edmonton Journal reported that
Daishowa has been using faulty maps in a related dispute, despite having
been provided with clear maps delineating the entire unceded Lubicon
traditional territory. Any public commitment made by Daishowa Canada Co.
Ltd. must include clear representation of the area covered by the
agreement."
The Toronto Friends never received a response to that letter.
On April 20, 1998, after having failed to shut down the Daishowa boycott
using the Canadian courts, Daishowa asked for a meeting with the Friends of
the Lubicon to discuss the boycott. Representatives of the Friends met with
Daishowa the following morning. During that meeting, Daishowa Inc.
President Dick Kazuta asked "If we go to (Daishowa-Marubeni International)
and DMI makes a statement saying that they will not go in to the Lubicon
area of concern, would that be it?"
Kevin Thomas, of Friends of the Lubicon said, "We would need to clarify the
area in question, agree on the details, but if we got that commitment on
paper, the boycott would end that very day."
Daishowa's Tom Cochran replied, "So the first step then is to agree on the
area, agree on a map."
Thomas replied that the first step was for Daishowa to make an agreement.
He said that he was merely pointing out that the area would have to be
clearly defined in any agreement.
Needless to say, there was no such definition in the letter Daishowa sent
to Chief Ominayak a month later. Asked to comment on the ambiguous "area of
concern", Daishowa's Tom Cochran told one reporter that the "area of
concern" was the area defined in the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation
Board (ERCB) hearings on approval for the Unocal sour gas plant in 1995.
That same line was delivered to another reporter by Daishowa's Jim Morrison
a couple of days earlier.
However those ERCB hearings also heard various definitions of what the
"area of concern" really means. The map enclosed with their final report,
in fact, outlines three different areas: a 95 square mile proposed Lubicon
reserve area; an "ERCB Notification Area"; and a "Traditional Lubicon
Hunting and Trapping Area." In the end, the ERCB effectively adopted only
one definition of the Lubicon "area of concern" and it wasn't the entire
traditional Lubicon territory. It was the 95 square mile proposed reserve
area.
The Lubicon have consistently asked Daishowa for a clear, public and
unequivocal commitment not to cut or to buy wood cut in the entire Lubicon
traditional territories until a land rights settlement is reached with both
levels of government and a harvesting agreement negotiated with the
Lubicons which respects their environmental and wildlife concerns. No one
-- Daishowa included -- should be surprised that the Lubicon people require
clear, written definitions of the terms of any agreement they might reach
with Daishowa. To allow ambiguous promises to pass unchallenged is to
invite inevitable trouble later.
Of course, if Daishowa is sincere about giving the commitment that the
Lubicons have asked of them, it should be a simple matter to send Chief
Ominayak a map outlining the area Daishowa intends to avoid.
If Daishowa is not sincere, they will undoubtedly continue to avoid
defining the "area of concern" in the hopes that they can conduct future
logging operations within Lubicon traditional territories while claiming
all the while to be upholding the terms of their own ill-defined promises.
In the absence of any clear, unequivocal commitment from Daishowa Lubicon
supporters will have to assume the latter and will therefore have no reason
to end the international boycott of Daishowa products.
fol-request at masses.tao.ca