Neocolonial trade corridors vs. Indigenous sovereignty: Macron-Carney deal in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon risks erasing Mi’kmaq land rights and Arctic resource exploitation
Original framing: “From French outpost to Euro-Canadian corridor? Why Carney and Macron met in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon” — The Conversation - Global
This headline’s framing is a classic *Eshu* (Yoruba trickster) move—disguising a land grab as 'diplomatic progress' while the real actors (Macron, Carney, and their corporate backers) play a game of 'let’s pretend' about sovereignty. The archipelago’s name itself, *Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon*, is a colonial erasure: the Mi’kmaq call it *Alqoqmi’q*, meaning 'place of the herring,' a reminder that the land’s value lies in its ecological integrity, not its extractive potential. The trickster here is the *corridor* itself—a hollow concept that obscures the very real stakes of Indigenous resistance and climate vulnerability.
The Macron-Carney meeting in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is not merely a bilateral economic discussion but a neocolonial power play disguised as 'Arctic cooperation.
' The archipelago’s status as unceded Mi’kmaq territory, its ecological fragility, and its strategic location in the Northwest Passage make it a battleground for competing visions of sovereignty, climate adaptation, and resource control. Historical patterns—from the *Treaty of Utrecht* (1713) to the *Daniels* ruling (2019)—show that Indigenous resistance has repeatedly thwarted colonial land grabs, yet the current framing treats Mi’kmaq opposition as an afterthought. The solution lies in centering Indigenous governance, as seen in Greenland’s *Naalakkersuisut* (parliament) or the *Saami* *Parliament*, where climate and economic policies are designed with ecological and cultural integrity in mind. The trickster here is the illusion of 'neutral' diplomacy; the real work requires dismantling the power structures that treat land as a commodity and Indigenous peoples as obstacles to 'progress.