Neo-Colonial Security Policies in the Arctic

Surveillance cameras are employed to support state security policies. Photo: Chris Webb

Indigenous peoples have inhabited the Arctic since time immemorial, establishing rich regional cultures and governance systems long before the introduction of modern borders. The Arctic Institute’s 2022 Colonialism Series explores the colonial histories of Arctic nations and the still-evolving relationships between settler governments and Arctic Indigenous peoples in a time of renewed Arctic exploration and development.

The Arctic Institute Colonialism Series 2022

• The Arctic Institute Colonialism Series 2022: Introduction
• Neo-Colonial Security Policies in the Arctic
• Brussels Looks North: The European Union’s Latest Arctic Policy and the Potential for ‘Green’ Colonialism
• Poverty, Well-Being and Climate Change in the Arctic: a Musical Perspective
• Colonialism and Reproductive Justice in Arctic Canada: The Neglected Historical and Contemporary Analysis of Genocidal Policies on Arctic Indigeneous Reproductive Rights
• The Delicate Work still undone in the Church of Sweden’s Reconciliation Process
• Selling Stolen Land: A Reexamination of the Purchase of Alaska and its Legacy of Colonialism
• The Old Colonialisms and the New Ones: The Arctic Resource Boom as a New Wave of Settler-Colonialism
• China, Circumpolar Indigenous People and the Colonial Past of the Arctic
• Language, Identity, and Statehood: A Brief Insight into the History of the Minoritization of the Komi People
• Russia’s Colonial Legacy in the Sakha Heartland
• How to Develop Inclusive, Sustainable Urban Spaces in the European Arctic and Beyond – Insights from Kiruna
• The Arctic Institute Colonialism Series 2022: Conclusion

Often, security policies are framed as neutral decisions that are made for the benefit of the entire population. However, a history of colonialism influences those policies. For whom are security policies created? Who decides how security threats and solutions are defined and implemented? Ignoring colonial history when thinking more seriously about how states behave particularly in the Arctic – is a foolhardy approach. This brief article will look at how Arctic security policies – in the US, Canada, and Norway – rely on colonial hierarchies and power relations to reinforce a worldview that consistently puts Western needs and conceptualizations of security as primary. When these state-level security policies do not consider colonialism, they miss consequences such as the prioritization of economic and national security needs over human, the historic ignorance of climate change as a security threat, and the lack of current acknowledgement of food and societal insecurities.

Security policies across the United States, Canada, and Norway

In contrast to its allies Canada and Norway, the United States is very much a late player to the Arctic security table. Most current U.S. Arctic security policies have been published since 2019. However, the vast array of policies across all areas of their government points towards a distinct focus on national state-based security.¹⁾Congressional Research Service (2022) Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service: Washington, D.C. What they all have in common is an overarching emphasis on threats coming from Russia and China – more broadly, nation state competition. While some documents address broader trends such as climate change and how that is making the Arctic more navigable – it is discussed in the context of this competition. In Blue Arctic – the US Navy’s Strategic Blueprint (2021), for example, second paragraph of the introduction opens the document by claiming:

“In the decades ahead, rapidly melting sea ice and increasingly navigable Arctic waters – a Blue Arctic – will create new challenges and opportunities off our northern shores. Without sustained American naval presence and partnerships in the Arctic region, peace and prosperity will be increasingly challenged by Russia and China, whose interests and values differ dramatically from ours.”

Thus, in many ways, this type of Arctic security approach takes bigger questions of global geopolitical competition and focuses on the Arctic as one theater of many. What is easy to miss without considering the role that colonial thinking plays in these policies is that the American approach to the Arctic is founded on ideas of state security rather than the security of individuals. There is hardly any mention of increasing food insecurity of Americans in Alaska throughout these documents, nor do the documents touch on questions of permafrost²⁾Marlatt R (2020) The Intersection of U.S. Military Infrastructure & Alaska Permafrost Through the 21^st Century, The Arctic Institute, 27 October, https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/intersection-military-infrastructure-alaskan-permafrost-21st-century/. Accessed 1 August 2022 and infrastructure concerns. However, the United States is certainly not alone in this privileging of Western conceptions of security.

Canada takes a very different approach to Arctic security, although in some ways quite like the United States. In 2010, for example, Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy adopted a traditional sovereignty approach that focused on protecting their borders. However, after much negotiation and collaboration, the Trudeau government established the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework in 2019.³⁾Government of Canada (2019) Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, Northern Affairs, 18 November, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587. Accessed 1 August 2022 This framework takes a much different approach to security. Rather than the traditional state-based security of the United States, the framework more broadly defines security as including, for example, access to health, energy, and education, with statements such as “Canadian leadership will be advanced bilaterally and in multilateral forums in order to promote Canadian values and interests such as human and environmental security” with large portions of the document dedicated to food and energy security.

It additionally includes statements touching on the longstanding impacts of colonialism in the Arctic and climate change as a serious national security threat. However, according to commentators, the framework – while it may use the right language – doesn’t fundamentally change how Canada acts in the Arctic in terms to its security. According to Rob Huebert, for example, the Trudeau policy is “nothing new.”⁴⁾Brockman A (2019) Ottawa’s new Arctic policy has lofty goals, but few details on how to reach them, critics say, CBC News, 11 September, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/arctic-policy-framework-short-on-details-1.5278433. Accessed 1 August 2022 In similar fashion to the United States, security is thought of in this policy as something that is obtained for the state and individual security is framed through achieving economic safety rather than through prioritizing the security of Indigenous or local values and needs.

Norway has a relatively similar approach to Canada when it comes to its Arctic Policy, published in 2021.⁵⁾Government of Norway (2021) The Norwegian Government’s Arctic Policy, 26 January, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/arctic_policy/id2830120/. Accessed 1 August 2022 There is a focus on cooperation and climate change as the two main pillars through which the Norwegian government frames its security, with the document opening with the two sentences: “Norway’s Arctic policy revolves around security, stability, and interest-based international cooperation. For us, foreign and domestic policy converge in the Arctic.” Rather than looking at it through a lens of geopolitical competition, much of the policy focuses on domestic issues such as economic growth, future-oriented jobs, and the societal security of Indigenous communities such as the Sami. However, it does recognize Russia’s military buildup in the region and points to NATO as one key for maintaining security. What some Indigenous commentators note, regardless, is that in using Western ideas of security and progress, Norway may promote ideas of green colonialism.⁶⁾Normann S (2020) Green Colonialism in the Nordic context: Exploring Southern Saami representations of wind energy development. Journal of Community Psychology 49(1): 77-94 Green colonialism is defined as programs that promote ‘green’ development but that often comes at the expense of people living in areas, for example, that see massive construction of wind farms. In Norway, for example, the Sami have protested against wind farm development⁷⁾Fjellheim E M & Carl F (2020) ‘Green’ colonialism is ruining Indigenous lives in Norway, Al Jazeera, 1 August, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/8/1/green-colonialism-is-ruining-indigenous-lives-in-norway. Accessed 1 August 2022 because it not only infringes on their territory but also threatens their livelihood because it disturbs reindeer populations that they rely on for food and societal security.

What that misses

When these state-level security policies aren’t put into the broader context of colonialism, any type of analysis misses the type of consequences that such policies have on residential, particularly Indigenous, Arctic residents. For example, the U.S. and Canadian Arctic security policies have often prioritized economic and national security needs over the needs of people, putting Arctic residents at harm – making a conscious decision to put the needs of the economy over the needs of people. Residential schools across Canada and in Alaska were often rationalized by claiming that Indigenous youth would suffer from a lack of economic prosperity unless they were helped by Western society. The implication relies heavily on the idea that Western economic ideas of security were more important than the needs of Indigenous children to grow up with their cultures and families. It also had the dual impact of forcing these children to assimilate – many times violently – into Western culture.

More broadly, past security strategies from national governments have often ignored the role of climate change as a security threat. Instead, these policies have focused on national state-level security issues such as interstate conflict or transnational threats that originate from terrorism. While these decisions have been framed as neutral and the best-suited for the times, they are certainly not neutral. Patterns of thinking from colonialism, particularly the idea that humanity can and should conquer nature, has led to a way of thinking that deprioritizes the environment as a source of any security concerns. Today that is changing – with many governments addressing climate change as an existential threat in the Arctic, However, even with this acknowledgement, the only solutions that are proposed are technocratic and solely reinforce neoliberalism rather than a more ecological approach to security. Moreover, none recognize the role that colonialism itself has had in exacerbating climate change as a phenomenon.

On a local level, and where the influence of colonialism is the most insidious is how national security policies focus on questions of state, economic and in some cases climate, security but ignore local-level insecurities such as food insecurity and societal insecurity. This is notable across the U.S. security documents as there is clear evidence that climate change is having consequential impacts on Indigenous communities’ ability to find their traditional sources of food, and their ability to maintain their societal resiliency. Melting permafrost is even forcing some communities to move their entire towns inland in what is known as managed retreat.⁸⁾Gricius-Abbott G (2021) Entire Alaskan Communities are Sinking into the Ocean—And Many Can’t Move Inland, New America, 4 August, https://www.newamerica.org/future-land-housing/blog/entire-alaskan-communities-are-sinking-into-the-oceanand-many-cant-move-inland/. Accessed 1 August 2022 Choosing what to prioritize in a security document is by no means neutral, and by leaving out questions of these local-level existential security threats instead to focus on the threat of Russia and China, these policies often imply what they find important.

Thus, a history of colonialism matters when considering questions of security in the Arctic today, both in the policies that are made by states as well as the types of security that are conceptualized and prioritized. Their legacies influence how security policy is formulated, what priorities are focused on, and what populations matter. Rather than considering these policies and approaches to Arctic security as neutral, we should instead think about them within the broader historical context and acknowledge how deeply rooted they are in colonial legacies.