Debating the Arctic during the Ukraine Crisis – comparing Arctic state identities and media discourses in Canada and Norway

Abstract

Previous studies have argued that domestic factors, including each state's Arctic state identities, may explain why some Western states (e.g. Canada) have been more critical of Russia in the Arctic than others (e.g. Norway). The present study analyses part of the link between Arctic state identities and foreign policy by showing that these identifications affected domestic media discourses about the Arctic in Canada and Norway during the first years (2014-16) of the Crisis. Canada's territorial identification made it difficult for the newly elected Trudeau government to push for a less assertive course vis-à-vis Russia. In Norway, the strong economic discourse coloured early debates about the crisis, but after the widening of economic sanctions against Russia in the summer of 2014, territorial discourses played a more important role. The article thus illustrates that Arctic state identities shape media debates, but that the identifications themselves can change. In general, the article advocates for a comparative approach towards the analysis of Arctic state identities.

Navigating Arctic Realities: Geopolitics, Security, and Climate Change

“…Despite some similarities between the two countries, Norway's approach to security and national defence has historically been opposite to the Canadian one, because of different views of the Atlantic alliance and of the dissimilarity of their geographic locations 74 . Norway's proximity to Russia is the main determinant of Oslo's cautious, pragmatic approach 75 .…”

Becoming an Arctic Council NGO observer

“…The forum needed to adopt increased strictures in order to adapt to an increase in interest and applications during 2007 and 2008, as a result of a number of incidents signalling the changing environment in the region. These incidents included the Russian flag planting at the North Pole (U.S. Geological Survey, 2008), and the development of economic opportunities in the Arctic, such as the 2008 US Geological Survey outlining current and anticipated oil and gas reserves in the region (Burke & Rahbek-Clemmensen, 2017;Faulconbridge, 2007). As a result formal criteria were developed.…”

“…According to one Arctic state official prior to 2009 all those who applied for observer membership were accepted (Interview with Arctic state official 4, 4 October 2018). The forum needed to adopt increased strictures in order to adapt to an increase in interest and applications following 2007 and 2008, as a result of a number of incidents signaling the changing environment in the region, including the Russian flag planting at the North Pole (USGS, 2008), and economic opportunities in the Arctic, such as the 2008 US Geological Survey outlining current and anticipated oil and gas reserves in the region (Falconbridge, 2007;Burke & Rahbek-Clemmensen, 2017). As a result formal criteria were developed.…”