Lithium mine being built on ‘sacred ground’ where Native Americans say they were massacred
It could be a scene from centuries ago. In the Nevada desert, Native Americans are protesting over a mining project they say desecrates sacred land.
They are riding to Sentinel Mountain, which their ancestors once used as a lookout in times gone by. Here, they say, more than 30 of their people were massacred by US cavalry in 1865.
Today, the land is at the heart of America’s electric car revolution and Joe Biden’s clean energy policy
Native American tribal members say the mine neglects their interests and offends their history.
The route of the “Prayer Horse Ride”, a journey on horseback through mining-affected communities in Northern Nevada, is designed to publicise their objections.
“Being the original inhabitants of the land means we have cultural ties and roots to these landscapes,” says Gary McKinney, a member of the Duck Valley Shoshone Paiute tribe.
“To me, it’s sacred ground,” says Myron Smart. His grandmother survived the massacre of 1865 as a baby. Industrialising this place, he says, offends her memory and reflects the story of Native Americans through time.
“We’re people too. We have red blood just like everybody in the United States.”
Myron Smart says the land is sacred ground
Myron Smart’s grandmother, who survived the 1865 massacre
However, a US judge has rejected their complaints and the project is going ahead.
The open mine, which is on public land, will source lithium to power up to a million electric vehicles a year and will create 1,800 jobs in its construction phase.
President Biden aims to make the United States a world leader in electric vehicle technology and reduce reliance for lithium supply on countries like China.
The Thacker Pass project has supporters as well as opponents.
Lithium Americas, the company behind the project, insists the mine is not located on a massacre site. This was supported by a judge in 2021 who ruled the evidence presented by tribes “does not definitely establish that a massacre occurred” within the proposed project area.
Tim Crowley, the company’s VP of Government and External Affairs, said in a statement to Sky News: “Lithium Americas is committed to doing this project right, which is why we have a community benefits agreement in place with the local Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe that ensures benefits from Thacker Pass accrue to them.
“Concerns about cultural and environmental resources were thoroughly addressed in the BLM’s (Bureau of Land Management) approved Environmental Impact Statement, which withstood comprehensive reviews by the Federal District and Circuit Courts.”
However, members of different Nevada-based Native American tribes continue to oppose the mining project. They say their evidence of the 1865 massacre, and a separate inter-tribal conflict, is rooted in the oral history passed on from their ancestors, through generations – not collated with a court case in mind, but compelling nonetheless.
“Back in our ancestors’ days, they didn’t write any documentation down, they didn’t send letters, they didn’t write in journals,” says Gary. “So there was no way that the United States government could know our story.
“These stories have been passed down generation to generation, so we have direct lineage from survivors of these massacres, which is how these stories remain in our families.”
The courts have also rejected complaints by tribal members and conservationists on the environmental impact and planning consultation.
The project throws a focus onto the issues surrounding the pursuit of clean energy.
“First off, we have to acknowledge that we need electric vehicles,” says Amanda Hurowitz of Mighty Earth, a global environmental non-governmental organisation.
They are more efficient than petrol and diesel cars, she says, and they are needed for the US to hit its climate targets.
But they also need more mined minerals – like lithium – and getting those materials out of the ground has an impact.
“All mining operations need to get consent from the local people,” she adds, “and the more consent, the better.”
The US will take over Gaza and “own it”, Donald Trump has said.
Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, he said the two million Palestinian people living in the territory, which he described as a “demolition site”, would go to “various domains”.
Asked about deploying US troops to fill a potential security vacuum, the president replied: “We’ll do what is necessary.”
Expanding on plans for the territory, he said the US would “develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs” and turn it into “something the entire Middle East can be very proud of”.
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu during a news conference in the East Room of the White House. Pic: AP
The president reiterated his suggestion from 25 January that Palestinians could be relocated to Egypt and Jordan – something both countries, other Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, and Palestinian leaders, have rejected.
Palestinians in Gaza could go to countries beyond Jordan and Egypt too, he said.
Asked whether he thought Egypt and Jordan would accept Palestinians, he said he believed they would.
But, he added: “I hope we could do something where they wouldn’t want to go back. Who would want to go back?
“They’ve experienced nothing but death and destruction.”
Saudi Arabia immediately responded, stressing its rejection of attempts to displace Palestinians from Gaza, and insisted it would not establish relations with Israel without a Palestinian state.
Pic: AP
Asked on what authority the US could take control of Gaza, Mr Trump told reporters he sees a “long term ownership position” which would, he claimed, bring stability to that part of the Middle East.
“This was not a decision made lightly,” he said.
“Everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs.”
It would be the “Riviera of the Middle East”.
He continued: “I’ve studied it. I’ve studied this very closely over a lot of months, and I’ve seen it from every different angle.”
He does not believe Palestinians should return to Gaza because it is a “guarantee that they’re going to end up dying”.
He talked about finding a “beautiful area to resettle people, permanently, in nice homes where they can be happy and not be shot and not be killed and not be knifed to death like what’s happening in Gaza”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Gazans return home to rubble
Read more from Sky News:
‘Hardest Geezer’ to run full length of New Zealand
Why China has not retaliated more in Donald Trump trade spat
The war, triggered by Hamas carrying out a massacre of 1,200 people and taking 250 others hostage during the 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel, has temporarily stopped since the long-sought ceasefire deal came into effect on 19 January.
More than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas’s attack, according to local authorities.
Mr Netanyahu, the first world leader to meet Mr Trump since the pro-Israel president’s return to the White House, sat beside the Republican as he answered questions from the press.
‘Plans change with time’
The US president hinted he would seek an independent Palestinian state as part of a broader two-state solution to the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict.
“Well, a lot of plans change with time,” he told reporters when he was asked if he was still committed to a plan similar to the one he spelled out in 2020 that described a possible Palestinian state.
That plan proposed a series of Palestinian enclaves surrounded by an enlarged Israel, did not have the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, but suggested a Palestinian capital on the outskirts of the city.
“A lot of death has occurred since I left and now came back. Now we are faced with a situation that’s different – in some ways better and in some ways worse. But we are faced with a very complex and difficult situation that we’ll solve,” he said.
On the likelihood of getting a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, Mr Trump said: “We are dealing with a lot of people, and we have steps to go yet, as you know, and maybe those steps go forward, and maybe they don’t.
“We’re dealing with a very complex group of people, situation and people, but we have the right man. We have the right leader of Israel. He’s done a great job.”
Mr Trump was also asked whether he should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
He said: “They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.”
US
Trump threatens Iran would be ‘obliterated’ if it assassinates him – as he signs ‘tough’ directive against Tehran
China has, as expected, hit back at Donald Trump’s imposition of a 10% tariff on its exports to the United States.
Beijing has slapped levies of between 10-15% on a range of energy products that imports from the US.
But what has surprised observers – particularly when Mr Trump kicked off the trade war over the weekend – has been the president’s comparatively lenient treatment of China and, moreover, Beijing’s calm response.
While America’s two closest neighbours, Canada and Mexico, were hit with 25% tariffs (falling to 10% for Canadian energy exports) – since put on ice – China was merely hit with a 10% levy.
Money blog: Now we know why Guinness tastes worse in Britain
That struck many observers as curious since China is regarded as a bigger trade adversary by the US than Mexico and Canada, with the latter traditionally seen as a close friend to the US, particularly through the pair’s involvement in the ‘Five Eyes’ security alliance along with Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
The big question raised by this is what motivated Mr Trump to do this.
The thinking is that the president was trying to bring China to the negotiating table and that, by initially hitting a close ally like Canada harder, he was trying to send a message to China’s leaders as to what they might face further down the line.
That impression was reinforced by Mr Trump’s overnight description of his 10% tariff on China as an “opening salvo”.
Why is China so calm?
That is not the only curiosity concerning this affair.
The other is the relatively calm response from Beijing. While Canada immediately responded with retaliatory measures and Mexico indicated that it would, China merely murmured in the first instance about taking “necessary countermeasures” and indicated that it would raise a complaint about the US with the World Trade Organisation.
Since then, Beijing has of course hit back with tariffs of its own on US energy imports, as well as launching an antitrust investigation into Google and adding the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein on a blacklist of “unreliable entities”.
That gives Chinese president Xi Jinping something to take back off the table if, as expected, he speaks to Mr Trump in coming days as the pair seek to de-escalate this row.
But it all feels relatively restrained and raises the question of why China has responded in this way.
There is certainly a view in Beijing that, with Mr Trump’s first moves, China got off rather lightly compared with the Canadians and Mexicans.
That sanguine response may also indicate that Beijing knows it has other weapons it can deploy other than retaliatory measures.
Cards in China’s back pocket
For a start, China owns $769bn worth of US Treasury bonds. Dumping some of those aggressively – while hurting the Chinese – would push up America’s implied borrowing costs.
Alternatively, Beijing could allow its currency, the renminbi, to weaken on the foreign exchange markets, just as it did during Mr Trump’s first term of office.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump tariffs: What is America’s trade position?
Either way, Mr Trump’s latest measures are unlikely to change the way Chinese businesses operate, particularly the country’s manufacturers.
They have become accustomed over several years, dating back to Mr Trump’s first term, to aggression from the US. They have adapted the way they do business accordingly, for example by shipping a lot of their exports to the US via third countries, most notably Vietnam.
Chinese businesses relieved
Even Chinese companies specifically targeted by Mr Trump – the e-commerce giants Temu and Shein – may not be too badly affected.
They were both singled out as the president closed the so-called “de minimis” loophole, dating back to 1938, which allows goods worth less than $800 to be sent directly to US consumers without incurring import duties or rigorous customs inspections.
Read more:
What’s going on with Trump and tariffs?
How UK finds itself in a strong position to avoid Trump tariffs
This has been a constant thorn in the side of US retailers and its removal helps explain why, for example, shares of Walmart were on Monday spared the spanking meted out to other US stocks.
Yet Shein and Temu are said to be taking the news calmly.
They may even be calculating that this is a short-term squall that will soon blow over – or calculating that, such is the enormity of their buying power and supply chains, they can simply ship inventory elsewhere in the meantime or even just warehouse it.
It is also worth noting that Shein, having been banned by India in 2020, has just begun selling in the country again.
Overall, then, Chinese businesses have reacted with relief to what has happened. They know it could have been worse.
It explains why, even though the Chinese economy is presently misfiring, the authorities in Beijing have reacted relatively calmly to what Mr Trump has done.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports10 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway