Contributed by Marie Francis
The Alaskan Independence Party was founded in 1984, and since its establishment, the party has grown to be the largest third party in the state. Yet, they lack an updated Facebook page, and their website has not been updated since 2010. When I emailed the party’s point of contact, I did not receive a response. Their website claims the AIP is “the largest of any third parties in the 50 states,” yet their political inactivity breeds apathy amongst their considerable pool of voters. This piece is a rallying cry to Alaskans, to rejuvenate the Alaskan Independence Party, to validate their platform.
Alaska’s path towards statehood was determined in a 1946 plebiscite. The results were 3:2 in favor of statehood. The AIP objects to the results of that plebiscite, citing the historic disenfranchisement of Alaska Natives, who comprised a larger percentage of the population then than today. The plebiscite only provided voters with two options for the fate of Alaska: remain a territory or become a state. The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1. Remain a territory
2. Become a separate and independent nation
3. Accept Commonwealth status
4. Become a state
I will make the case for choice no. 2. The AKIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, was explicitly a secessionist, saying, “I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.” Secession was ruled to be unconstitutional, in the 2006 Kolhaas v. State. The appellant, Scott Kohlhaas, had drafted a ballot initiative “requiring the state of Alaska to vote on obtaining Alaskan independence, if legally possible, or to seek changes in existing law and constitutional provisions to authorize, and then obtain, independence.” His initiative was denied on grounds of unconstitutionality.
From the court, “Like representation in Congress, secession from the Union springs from joinder to the Union. No state possessed a right to secede before admission, and so no state would retain such a right under the tenth amendment… we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.”
I will quote James Madison, the Father of the Constitution: “But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”
As a Founding Father of the Union, James Madison opposed arbitrary secession. Secession from intolerable oppression is permissible by the Founding Fathers, revolutionaries themselves. It is my view and the view of my compatriots that Alaskans are being oppressed by the federal government.
Over 60% of land in Alaska is administered by the federal government. As a result, management of Alaska’s natural resources is dictated by unelected bureaucrats. Is that not tyranny? No matter what your position on development and the environment is, many will agree that Alaskan land belongs in Alaskan hands.
As the United States engages in trade wars, an independent Alaska would make international trade agreements on our own terms. Our geographic position at the top of the Pacific grants us access to Asian and North American markets, and as Arctic shipping lanes open in the decades to come, European markets. Alaska’s economic potential is much greater than what the United States allows.
Inarguably, federal money has been a lifeline for Alaskans. Yet, the Trump Administration has proposed severe cuts to several federal programs, particularly ones that support Alaska Native communities and their public safety and development. The justification? “The rationale for a unique and additional federal subsidy to Alaska is difficult to justify given that the State of Alaska's oil revenues allow it to pay an annual dividend to each resident.”
We are receiving less favors from the federal government, and an independent Alaskan government would manage a better budget that would provide for all. As civil welfare programs are cut, the federal defense budget has been fluffed. We are being exploited by a government thousands of miles away for military purposes.
The notion of secession begs the question: What would be the fate of American military bases in Alaska? The United States has maintained a military base in Cuba, despite the longstanding conflict between the two nations. In the instance of secession, a deal can be arranged between the United States and Alaska concerning American military bases, but I will leave such negotiations to experts. A clean breakaway, without violence, would be preferred by all.
In national political conversations, Alaskan voices are not heard, because of our small population in comparison to the lower 48. At the same time, we are being exploited for our land, our geography and our natural resources. The dignity of autonomy is not granted to 800,000 people. Secession would grant Alaskans the freedom to determine their own destiny without federal oversight. I encourage my fellow Alaskans to discuss the endless possibilities, and consider the Alaskan Independence Party.