I chose to look at the Saami Council and the Arctic Athabaskan Council.
The Saami Council stated their core missions are to promote Sámi rights and interests in the four countries in which they live, to gain recognition for the Sámi as a nation, and to maintain the cultural rights of the Sámi in the four states. The Sámi have a very widespread population, with area spanning from Finland, Russia, Norway, and Sweden. While working with the AC, the Saami Council have a strong interest in environmental protection and sustainable development.
The Arctic Athabaskan Council was established to share the heritage of Athabaskan peoples and grow cultural understanding, and to further the international interests of Athabaskan members. One of the AACs biggest projects is centered around freshwater river systems, salmon, and Arctic biodiversity.
While reading ‘Salmon peoples of Arctic rivers’ on the AAC webpage, I couldn’t help but recognize a trend of language from the AC- an example being the statement ‘the AC has acknowledged that the use of Indigenous Knowledge is essential to a sustainable future in the Arctic.’ While I believe this statement to be correct, I can’t help but feel that the sentiment behind such generalized statements to be lightly hypocritical, or akin to putting lipstick on a pig. The AC regularly recognizes the importance of Indigenous Knowledge, yet the permanent participants are not able to vote or make decisions within the AC. I believe that the PPs should not only have a right to sit at the table and to cast influence on decisions, but also be part of the overarching decision-making process.
Hi Jensina, your comment about the Arctic Council’s stance on indigenous knowledge is harsh but true. When you think about things in the big picture of world politics, the Arctic Council is giving indigenous peoples a seat at the table which is something other international organizations still have yet to do. But when the bar is so low, praising the AC for the bare minimum is not very impactful.