University Of Lapland

Faculty of Social Science

Political Science

The Fisher, the Herder and

the Soldier

How does Arctic’s Indigenous Peoples face Militarization and

Environmental Degradation?

ASPA1303

15.05.15

Student: KentyDubois

Student number0434744

Teacher : Lassi Heininen

Introduction/Abstract

In this essay, I will discuss the impacts that militarization had/have on indigenous peoples of

the Arctic, the bad as well as the good influence and how they had to adapt. First, as an

introduction, I will make an historic of the militarization in this part of the world. Second, I

will bring about the impact properly speaking of the militarization on indigenous peoples.

Third I will investigate the importance of the indigenous people in the foreign policy of the

Arctic Countries and also how these countries deal with militarization and environmental

issues on an international/regional level. Fourth I will analyze how they choose to organize on

an international level to face this challenge and how they became a Non-State Actors (namely

via the Arctic Council but also through other institution).

An approach has been raised, it is called comprehensive security and in the Arctic it brought

new questions on the agenda which can be summarize by: “how do we clean up the

environmental mess when the mess is a product of Cold War effort to secure military

security?” (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 122)

An history of weapons, snow and indigenous peoples

Historically speaking, the Arctic has been through 3 different steps of militarization. The first

period is the Second World War, the second period is the Cold War and the third occur today

(Heininen 2010: 230,231,232).

One has also to keep in mind that the militarization of the Arctic is linked to technology,

environment and societies and this interplay lead to risky situations environmentally and

humanly speaking (Heininen 2010: 234). Northern Security is also linked to environmental

security because all the different actors take actions in a vulnerable environment (Heininen

2010: 232).

The availability of ice free water can explain the military importance of the region, for

example: Russia/Soviet Union fearing that their fleet would be blockaded in the Baltic Sea or

in the Black Sea choose to build an harbor in the Murman Coast (Palossari & Möller 2004:

259).

In the first period, a hot warfare was conducted in the North. This warfare situation brought

globalization and cooperation and also result in improvement in technology and the

establishment of the national sovereignty in the Arctic (Heininen 2010: 230). The Second

World War change the vision of USA about the Arctic indeed they choose to put military

bases in Greenland and Iceland (Palossari & Möller 2004: 259). During this period a greater

cooperation between the USA and the Soviet Union has been launched but for obvious

reasons, the Cold War put it to an end. (Heininen 2010: 230) According to Palossari and

Möller (2004: 259) they were already trans-boundary troops’ movement in 1918 after the

October Revolution when Western Countries sent troops to Murmansk.

Lassi Heininen (2010: 231) calls the 2nd period “The Military Theatre” where no war was

physically conducted but where the North has witnessed an arms proliferation as well as a

political and military competition between the two superpowers. According to Palosaari and

Möller (2004: 256) military speaking, the Arctic move from marginality to centrality during

the Cold War, it is to say that it became the principal place of competition between the

superpowers. This move from the marginality to the centrality causes damages to indigenous

peoples. (Heininen 2010: 239 and also Palosaari & Möller 2004: 256).

During the Cold War, the Circumpolar North has witnessed a military built up where the two

superpowers brought submarines and nuclear weapons into the regions, it became fully

militarized(Heininen 2010: 230-231). The real militarization started in 1957 when the Soviet

Union launched the first nuclear-powered submarine (Palosaari & Möller 2004: 259).

The Cold War also divided indigenous peoples before this period, indigenous peoples from

North America used to sail to the Asian Arctic. Some scholars say that after the Cold War, the

circle was “made complete once again” (Heininen 2007: 137).

In 1987, the speech held by Gorbatchev in Murmansk gave the opportunity to shift from

confrontation to cooperation and to start the Rovaniemi Process also known as AEPS (Arctic

Environmental Protection Strategy) (Palosaari & Möller 2004: 260). This speech started what

can be called the desecuritization of the Arctic. Desecuritization as a concept stands for:

“shifting of issues out of emergency mode to the normal bargaining process of the political

sphere.”(Åtland 2008: 292). Linked to the AEPS, the Arctic Council was put into place, it has

brought cooperation on environmental, social and economic issues (Palosaari & Möller: 260).

The speech held in Murmansk and other phenomena are the reason why this period can be

called the “Transition Period”. This period has witnessed a lowering of military actions and

settlements (military bases, radar stations, troops’ movement) in the North. Also this period

has seen an increase in the participation of Non-Actors States (Heininen 2010: 232).

The Murmansk’s speech as security’s shift

The speech held by Gorbachev in Murmansk was the first signal of a change of the Arctic’s

approach. As a part of the Perestroika, he wanted to reform different area such as

environmental policies, economic issues and security. The 1rst October 1987 an invitation to

the demilitarization of the Arctic was officially sent in Murmansk (Åtland 2008: 290).

What was doing Gorbachev in Murmansk was an attempt to move the Arctic from a security

agenda to “an everyday politics agenda”. It is namely what scholars called desecuritization

(Åtland 2008: 292).

There is three ways to desecuritize:

1. “Desucuritization through avoidance of security-speak”: avoiding speaking about

something in the term of security, using another framework for the discourse.

2. “Desecuritization through management”: acknowledging that something is relevant to

security but finding another way to solve the issue such as avoiding any vicious spiral.

3. “Desecuritization through transformation”: bringing an issue in the realm of regular

politics.

(Åtland 2008:292)

Contemporary issues

One might think after reading the chapter upward that the Arctic is now a peaceful no man’s

land…This affirmation is not true. Nowadays, the Arctic is still an area of training; the idea is:

if the troops survived this region they will be able to survive in another challenging part of the

world yet different (Palosaari & Möller 2004: 258). The Sustainable Development Working

Group (SDWG) of the Arctic Council also stress that the Arctic will remain strategically

speaking important because of the resources and also Russia and USA are two Arctic

countries (Heininen 2007: 125).

According to Ebinger and Zambetakis (2009: 1217-1218) the melting of ice will increase

economic, military and environmental presence in the Arctic. The military will have to adapt

and take new role such as border patrolling and search-and-rescue operations (Ebinger and

Zambetakis 2009: 1217-1218). The increase in tourism activities in the Arctic will probably

bring more search-and-rescue activities indeed a lot of boat taking the sea are not ice-capable

(Ebinger & Zambetakis 2009: 1223).

Moreover Stephen Harper (Canada’s prime minister) has called for a new military base in

Resolute Bay/ Nunavut, the refurbishment of a deep-sea harbor in Nanisivik and has launched

the construction of six to eight ice-breakers (Ebinger & Zambetakis 2009: 1219).

In order to get access to some more resources, Arctic countries start the production of new

ice-breakers; technology is always a barrier when it comes to the Arctic. Ice-breakers are

expensive; due to the economic crisis Arctic Countries cannot build as many as they want

(Ebinger & Zambetakis 2009: 1220).

Impacts on Indigenous Peoples

One has to keep in mind that the militarization of the Arctic is as said earlier linked to

technology, namely we can see a great relation between technology, environment and peoples

in this region who lead to great risk. The utilization of nuclear militaries as well as civil could

result in great damages in regional or global level affecting environment and people living in

the affected areas (Heininen 2010: 234).

Different events forced the indigenous peoples to adapt to militarization. First: the building of

a nuclear test site in Novaya Zemlya forced the Nenets to abandon their traditional area of

hunting and fishing. The explosion in this domain exposed the Sami and the Nenets to a high

level of radioactivity. Second the establishment of an American base in Thule Greenland

forced the Inughuits to leave their traditional area of living. Third the DEW line caused great

environmental damages by bringing industrialization and militarization in the

American/Western Arctic (Heininen 2010: 239).

There is a multiple source of nuclear risks such as lack of storage facility, decommissioning

of nuclear submarine, illegal dumping in the Barents and Kara Sea (Palosaari & Möller 2004:

264).

After 1980 the public starts to show concern about nuclear and military catastrophes namely

due to events such as Novaya Zemlya, Chernobyl, the Komsomolets in the Norwegian Sea

and the loss of a submarine called Kursk somewhere in the Barents Sea (Heininen 2010:235).

Norway and NATO planned to extent the areas of missile testing and bombing into Lakselv

area of reindeer herding, so even today armies continue to bypass environmental law

(Heininen 2007: 125).

The relations between armies and indigenous people is a little bit more complicate that a

situation where indigenous people have everything to lose. They get benefits in form of jobs

and infrastructure, services therefore some inhabitants were supporting the militarization and

were hoping to have a word to say in the decision making process (Heininen 2010: 240).

The militarization is not the only phenomenon occurring resettlement and resulting in

adaption, also industrialization especially in Russia forced indigenous peoples to leave their

area of herding (Crake & Nutcall 2003: 88-89). The resettlement of indigenous peoples in the

Cold War in the Soviet Union was mostly due to the increase of infrastructure in the North not

because local governments or indigenous peoples wanted to leave their homeland (Crake and

Nutcall 2003:93).

Indigenous Peoples, Demilitarization and Foreign Policy of the Arctic’s

Countries

Institutional change and Non-States Actors Raise in the Circumpolar North

The North was defined as a physical region after the end of the Cold War which has brought a

better co-operation and the end of the fight between the two superpowers. Gorbatchev itself

proposed to bring confidence-building and to lessen militarization in the Arctic (Heininen &

Nicol 2007: 137). Also at the end of the Cold War, the concept of “Northern Dimension”

foreign or trans-border policy was established and framed within regionalism (Heininen &

Nicol 2007: 142).

In 1992 the Copenhagen Agreement was launched and brought to live the following

institutions: the Baltic-States Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Cooperation. In 1991, the

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was launched (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 138).

Through the Brandt Commission a move has been made from traditional security to

human/comprehensive security which emphasizes transparency, disarmament and

demilitarization (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 140). Nowadays, the security agenda concerning the

Arctic also include trans-boundary pollution and environmental threat (Heininen & Nicol

2007: 118).

The polar regional institutions now includes more non-states actors than before namely in the

Arctic Council and in the Barents Regional Council (Duyck 2012).

The UNCLOS (United Nation Convention in the Law Of the Sea) has brought the military,

industrial and environmental communities around a table. Once again the US by no signing

the UNCLOS shows its lack of interest and its conservative vision. The irony is that over

countries are rushing to extent their maritime realm while the US is still trusting customary

law (Ebinger and Zambetakis 2009: 1224).

Arctic’s Countries’ and EU’s Foreign Policies after the Cold War

In 1995 Finland and Sweden enter into the European Union, under their influence it will

developed what it is called the Northern Dimension (ND) (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 143).The

aim of the ND was to deal with issue and foster cooperation between Scandinavian countries,

Baltic states, Germany, Poland and Russia (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 128).This policy

encompasses external and internal factor and an area going from the Baltic Sea to Russia and

the European Arctic .It focuses on democratic reforms, positive interdependence and

sustainable development. The Circumpolar North here is seen as having environmental issues

which need to be solved and also as a military platform. It also gives a platform for

indigenous peoples. However in the ND, the Circumpolar North is seen as being linked to the

European North and it is not hitherto the main focus (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 143-144-145).

Finland also launched the AEPS (Arctic Environment Protection Strategy) in 1991, the

agreements was signed by the eight Arctic Countries and aimed at coordinating efforts in

climate change mitigation and fight against environmental degradation. The AEPS Task

Group was transformed in the Sustainable Development Working Group of the Arctic Council

which has now a broader focus (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 128).

In 1999, the EU launched the Northern Dimension which consists in a set of policies whose

goals are to enhance cooperation between the EU, Russia, Iceland, Norway and Greenland.

(Heininen & Nicol 2007: 139). The EUND has five keys points:

1. Economy, markets and business to promote the shift of Russia towards a liberal

economy.

2. Human resources, education, scientific research, healthcare.

3. Environment, nuclear safety and natural resources.

4. Cross-boarders communication as to promote economic developments and achieve

social, educational and health goals.

5. Justice and home affair as to enhance security (namely in drug trafficking, cross

border crime and illegal immigration).

(Heininen & Nicol 2007: 140).

Canada has a foreign policy towards the North since 1940. In 1999 they launched the

Northern Dimension of its foreign policy which brought human security on the agenda.

Canada has a long tradition of cooperation in the North nonetheless the lack of definition of

Northern Dimension is an impediment (Heininen & Nicol 2007:148).

For a long time the USA do not have a strong vision on the Arctic, seeing as a no man’s land

rather than a zone of geopolitical importance except when it comes to Alaska. The first

consistent policy launched by the US in this area was the “Northern European Initiative”

(NEI) in 1997. The NEI focuses on Northwest Russia and the Baltic countries and less on the

Circumpolar North. The main goals was to enhance the democracy and civil society in the

Baltic area and to build stability in the Post-Cold War’s North. USA’s participation in Arctic

Council unlike the Canada’s one only focuses on a narrowed number of issues and it is not

driven by regionalism. USA is active on two levels: national and Alaskan and the two

governments not always want the same thing. To summarize, from what I have read USA lack

of consistent policies, give little attention to human security and the goals are strategic and

self-interested. (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 150-151-152).

To summarize, the cooperation in the North can be applied on different scales and every

countries or actors has a different policies. These different policies (ND, Barents Euro-Arctic

Region, Baltic State Council, Arctic Council) help building a conceptualization of a

geographic space of cooperation (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 155-156).

The Murmansk speech as a shift in foreign policy

According to Åtland, Gorbachev’s military agenda had 3 components related to the Arctic:

denuclearization, Naval Arms Control and Confidence-building measures (Atland 2008: 295)

Gorbachev launched the North European Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, the goal was to reduce

the nuclear threat in the European North (Barents Sea not included), he also proposes to

withdraw ballistic missiles from this part of the Arctic. Sweden was asked to take the lead as a

non-aligned country but did not. European countries saw this policy as a way for Moscow to

undermine their power and gain advantages which was not well received by the USSR. The

West also doubted the fact that a nuclear free zone can relaxed the tension (Åtland 2008: 296-

297).

The main aim of the Naval Arms Control seems to have been the limitation of Western

submarine to this extent it brings an ASW’s (Anti-Submarine Warfare) point on the agenda.

NATO has much to lose in this proposal but since 1985 the submarine activity in the Arctic

has decreased mostly due to financial constraints and change in Soviet’s training strategy.

Also Gorbachev wanted to remove the vessels out of the international shipping lane (Åtland

2008: 298-299).

The last part of the Gorbachev military’s agenda was to bring more confidence between the

different national actors by bringing more transparency. The idea: establish a regime where

every party notifies their military activities in a way to avoid vicious spiral. In 1988 Nordic

countries were invited to send observers to Soviet military’s exercises, it was something new

at that time (Åtland 2008: 299-300).

Indigenous Peoples within (Foreign) Policies

As said earlier, the EU through the ND gives a certain importance to the indigenous peoples

of the Arctic. The Sami Council is seen as a main area (Heininen & Nicol 2007:145). The ND

made a transition to a new internationalism taking care not only of indigenous peoples but

also of sustainable developments (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 130).

Canada has a Northern Dimension Policy since 1940 but indigenous peoples have not been

brought on the agenda before 1980. The North is seen as an important part of the Nationhood.

Canada seeks to promote cooperation with the other countries but also within its borders with

northern peoples. (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 147-148).

Canada’s Northern Dimension has four goals:

1. Enhance prosperity and security; the targets are all the Canadian but more especially

the Northerners and the indigenous peoples.

2. Keep and protect Canada’s Sovereignty in the North.

3. Establish a geopolitical zone integrated into international law.

4. Promote human security and sustainable development in this part of the world.

(Heininen & Nicol 2007: 149).

To achieve this goals Canada is willing to play an important role within the Arctic council and

work with indigenous peoples not only for environmental challenge but also for social and

economic issue (Heininen & Nicol 2007:149).

The USA when it comes to the Arctic give more attention to US peoples and very little to

trans-boundary affairs and organizations such as environment and indigenous associations. To

make it simple, the American agenda is rather traditional and state-centered based on national

interest and security although with a broad recognition of globalization. Although on a

national/Alaskan level there are, sadly narrow but real, possibilities for indigenous people to

make their voice heard. (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 151-152).

According to Heininen and Nicol (2007: 153) Washington’s preoccupation in North,

indigenous organization/representation as well as civil organization is decreasing. Conversely

civil participation has increased in oil drilling but it is mostly private participation and the

cooperation with Russia is increasing but only when it comes to resources (Heininen & Nicol

2007: 153).

American policies towards indigenous peoples and the Arctic Council has been criticized by

the EU and Canada but it has given more room to the two last, especially Canada the

opportunity to take the lead and to strengthen policy with indigenous concern (Heininen &

Nicol 2007: 157).

At the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev noticed the lack of trans-border contact between

indigenous peoples therefore he tried to foster cooperation and communication between the

Sami of Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula. He also allows Eskimo from the Far East to go

to the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) in Greenland (Åtland 2008: 302-303).

Indigenous peoples’ opportunities to be heard on international level

To study the Arctic from a political/IR perspective, one has to keep in mind that indigenous

peoples and non-indigenous people are co-resident and that indigenous identity is also built in

relation with the State. Also indigenous and non-indigenous are not mutually exclusive

categories, they fall more into something which can be called “in-betweeness” (Heininen &

Nicol 2007:160).

Lately the regional affairs of the Arctic include more and more indigenous people namely

thanks to the Arctic Council. There are two options for an indigenous group to be part of the

Arctic Council:

1. A single indigenous people living amongst several Arctic’s countries

2. Several indigenous peoples living in one country

(Heininen & Nicol 2007: 158).

Since indigenous peoples are minorities in their own countries, working on a regional level

give them more opportunity to make their voice heard as trans-national actors (Heininen &

Nicol 2007:158). Moreover several Arctic’s indigenous peoples are what are called

borderlands’ communities: they are used to cross borders. In fact the national borders of the

circumpolar North are quite recent and linked to colonization and militarization so they only

appeared in the nineteenth century and even after that communities were still crossing border

to trade (Heininen & Nicol 2007: 135-136).

The fact that indigenous peoples are separated by boarders means that they have to adapt, for

example the USA and Canada does not have the same regime and do not give the same

importance to them. Alaska does not have so much indigenous peoples while Canada’s North

is mostly inhabited by them (Heininen & Nicol 2007:159).

The scientific community also starts to use local peoples’ knowledge when it comes to

climate change and adaptation but the way indigeneity is commonly defined brings some

shortcomings. Since they are seen to be linked to a specific place and a particular culture,

their knowledge and point of view is supposed to be connected only to these topics. Indeed

indigenous peoples are seen to be linked to a place and to traditional practices therefore they

are not supposed to be heart when it comes to topics such as industrialization, mining and

drilling (Cameron 2012: 105).

Indigenous peoples have another view on human security which aims to decrease their

dependence from the South which sees the Arctic as military arena and resources reservoir

and moreover they also want to frame it through sustainable development (Heininen & Nicol

2007: 130).

Indigenous Peoples as Non States Actors and the Arctic Council

According to Sebastien Duyck (2012: 101) the international system remains Westphalian

where States play a great role.

The Arctic council since it is not legally binding is not a strong institution legally speaking is

more an international forum (Ebinger & Zambetakis 2009: 1227).

When the Arctic council was created, the Indigenous Peoples were recognized in its status as

Observers. The Ottawa Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council in its Article 2

enhance the role given to IPOs (Indigenous Peoples Organization) by recognizing three

associations and letting some room for other organization. They have the same right than

other participants except when it comes to decision making (Duyck 2012: 103).

Thirteen regions and three IPOs can be found inside of the Barents Region Council. The

Kirkenes Declaration stresses the chapter of the Agenda 21 relatives to the participation of

Indigenous Peoples (Duyck 2012: 108).

The Arctic countries understand now that they have to strengthen cooperation on trans-border

issue and that the Arctic Council could be the platform to enhance this cooperation but the US

is still unwilling to go further than the mandate as it is now established. The Illulissat

Declaration recognizes the UNCLOS as being a commitment for the entire group even though

the US still have not signed the convention (Ebinger & Zambetakis 2009: 1226).

Historically speaking: the Russian/USSR’s indigenous peoples became Non States Actors

after the Murmansk’s Speech, once Gorbachev allows them to assist to the ICC in Greenland

and to make trans-border communication (Åtland 2008: 302-303).

Conclusion

By affecting the environment, the militarization affects the indigenous lifestyle therefore they

had to adapt but it also provide them jobs and technologies. However the bad seems to

outweigh the good.

Arctic countries have integrated the questions of indigenous peoples inside their foreign

policies for different reasons: using their knowledge, building a soft power, influence of civil

society/indigenous themselves, electoral reason or simply because indigenous people are

citizen of these countries and deserve to be protected.

Indigenous peoples organize themselves through different organization on an international

level; it will be interesting to see how these institutions will evolves in the future.

Bibliography

Åtland K 2008. Mikhail Gorbachev, The Mursmansk Initiative and the Desecuritization of

Interstate Relations in the Arctic. Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic

International Studies Association Vol 43 pp289-311.

Cameron E S 2012. Securing Indigenous politics: a critique of the vulnerability and

adaptation approach to the human dimension in the Canadian Arctic. Global Environmental

Change. Vol 22 pp103-114.

Crake S, Nuttal M 2003. The Russian North in Circumpolar Context. Polar Geography Vol 27

No 2, pp85-96.

Duyck S. 2012. Participation of Non States Actors in Arctic Environmental Governance.

Nordia Geographical Publication Vol 40 No 4, pp99-110.

Ebinger C K, Zambetakis E. The Geopolitics of Arctic melt. International Affairs Vol 85b

No6 pp1215-1232

Heininen L, Nicol N H 2007.The Importance of Northern Dimension Foreign Policies in the

Geopolitics of Circumpolar North. Geopolitics Vol 12 No 1.

Heininen L, Nicol N H 2007 Chapter 5. A New Northern Security Agenda in Jailly E B. In

Borderlands: Comparing Border Security in North America and Europe. Ottawa: University

of Ottawa Press 2007. Pp117-164

Heininen L. 2010. Chapter 8. Globalization and Security in the Circumpolar North. In

Heininen L, Southcott C. Globalization in the Circumpolar North. Fairbanks: University of

Alaska Press, pp.221-264.

Palosaari T, Möller F 2004. Arctic Europe after the Double Enlargement. Cooperation and

Conflict: Journal of The Nordic Studies Association Vol 39 No 3. pp255-281