I have chosen the United States and Canada for my comparison. I landed on these two because they are geographically close and both part of the Arctic Council, yet Canada has much more land in the Arctic and investment in their role in the arctic in contrast to Alaska and its very oil-based relationship with the federal government.
While reading about the different Arctic and Northern policy strategies of the two nations, I began to see a significant difference in how they approach their relationship with the North. For example, one of the very first goals that Canada states in their strategy is “Canadian Arctic and northern Indigenous peoples are resilient and healthy,” whereas for the United States our first “lines of effort” in our strategy is “Advance Unites States Security Interests.” While both documents outlines plan for coordinating and supporting their indigenous peoples, amongst other values such as security/defense, it is clear that both nations have different approaches. Canada is focused on promoting a healthy indigenous population, infrastructure, economy, and environment; whereas, the United States is aiming to strengthen international cooperation, strengthening security interests, and pursuing responsible stewardship. For Canada, the north and arctic are kind of a part of a national identity, and accounts for a large portion of Canadian land and so the nation has a vested interest in the betterment of its future. These values show themselves through Canadian Arctic policy. In contrast, the United States has historically seen Alaska as the last frontier, a source of profit, and found it both in the gold rush and oil boom. It is also a valuable military vantage point in the northern hemisphere. This is how the United States sees Alaska as, something to profit/gain advantage from, and that shows itself in our Arctic policy very plainly.
Canada “Goals”
1) Canadian Arctic and northern Indigenous peoples are resilient and healthy.
2) Strengthened infrastructure that closes gaps with
other regions of Canada.
3) Strong, sustainable, diversified and inclusive local and regional economies
4) Knowledge and understanding guides decision making
5) Canadian Arctic and northern ecosystems are healthy and resilient
6) The rules-based international order in the Arctic responds effectively to new challenges and opportunities
7) The Canadian Arctic and North and its people are safe, secure and well-defended
8) Reconciliation supports self determination and nurtures mutually respectful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples
United States “Lines of Effort”
1) Advance United States Security Interests
2) Pursue Responsible Arctic Region Stewardship
3) Strengthen International Cooperation
United States “Guiding Principles”
1) Safeguard Peace and Stability
2) Make Decisions Using the Best Available Information
3) Pursue Innovative Arrangements
4) Consult and Coordinate with Alaska Natives
Sources: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587, and http://library.arcticportal.org/1894/
Perhaps another way of looking at the US government’s relationship with Alaska is placing the importance of Alaska as a security state foremost. Though oil and natural resources are certainly a big deal within Alaska’s economy, they are not as nationally important as Alaskan politicians make it seem. Some scholars argue that Alaska is foremost a security state given its important roles in WWII and the Cold War and much of the state as we know it today was developed during that time period. This rings true today in light of tensions with Russia and China. This is still a very big contrast to Canada’s approach to its Arctic region, but a bit of a different outlook on the situation in the US.
Olivia, I appreciate your identification of discrepancy between prioritizing treatment of indigenous peoples in the Arctic and the Arctic as a component of national identity.
Our reading from last lesson noted “the Arctic powers need their northern folk onside in order to be able to project and reinforce their sovereign claims in the region.” The ongoing international scrutiny over treatment of indigenous populations in Canada would put their claims on sovereignty at risk, according to that chapter. Especially given that the Arctic is a prominent component of Canadian national identity, their prioritizing indigenous treatment in their Arctic Strategy may be a play towards preserving a cohesive national identity and claims on sovereignty.
I do not bring up the last chapter to absolve the United States of de-prioritizing indigenous treatment. My guess is Alaska Native populations do not loom large enough in the collective American identity for the same dynamics to play out.