The Other Sovereignties

Abstract

Since 2004, the Canadian government has been rediscovering the Arctic. The Canadian forces, absent from this region for almost two decades, are now back regularly, conducting exercises or buuding new infrastructure, whue a good deal of the equipment acquisition programs are designed to sustain military operations in the north.The north is prominent in official government discourse, as well as in policy. This discourse emphasizes three interconnected elements. First, the north is ours, a part of Canadian territory, establishing a clear distinction between us and others. Second, Canadian sou in the north is under siege, both in terms of sovereignty and security. Other Arctic powers (such as the United States and Russia), non- Arctic powers (such as China), and nonstate actors (private corporations, criminal organizations, and terrorists) are staring at the Canadian north and wul exploit any weakness in the Canadian determination to protect it. The list of threats is long and challenging for the Canadian forces. Third, the north is a land of opportunity for new development and resource exploitation, and it is the responsibility of Canadians to harvest the bounty of this territory. One of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's favourite slogans is it or lose it; a phrase he coined in 2007 in relation to Arctic sovereignty.1Many reasons could explain this sudden rush to the north in Ottawa, the first possibility being the need to manage the consequences of global warming and to face an anticipated and significant increase in human activity in a region with a great reduction in ice cover. But such motives are not inconsistent with others, such as the instrumentalization of the north for domestic political objectives. These objectives are connected to recurrent themes in Canada's national and external identity, in which the Arctic plays a prominent role. As we will see later, the vast majority of Canadians identify with this region, even if very few of them ever travel to the Arctic. The image of vast, cold, and pure spaces, as well as the presence of indigenous communities, are associated with the history and definition of Canadian national identity, especially since the last quarter of the 20th century. The polar bear and the inukchuk, rather than the beaver, are today Canada's national and international symbols. Officiai discourse reinforces this characterization of Canadian identity. It paints Canada as an Arctic power or an energy superpower with vast reserves of oil and gas in the north, and implicitly depicts the defence of sovereignty in the region as a counterweight to a deeper North American integration which might weaken or undermine Canada's national identity2 From this perspective, these discourses could be conceived as a part of a nation-building effort.Precisely because the Arctic is a part of Canadian identity, any external threat or challenge in this region could trigger an emotional reaction, as is usually the case when issues such as Canada- U S border delimitation in the Beaufort Sea or the legal status of the Northwest Passage make their way to the front pages of major Canadian newspapers. In all fairness, we must recall that this is the first time that Canadian territorial integrity has been challenged since the Alaska crisis of 1903. But even purely symbolic quarrels can prompt visceral reactions, as the reaction to the Danish challenge over tiny Hans Island has demonstrated regularly in the past.3 For this reason, security and sovereignty issues in the Canadian Arctic, usually benign in and of themselves, can be deployed as national symbols to generate a consensus or to make people rally around the flag.4It is precisely because issues of Arctic security and sovereignty have become so sensitive to Canadians that they can be exploited as the external causes par excellence for a political party searching for a popular electoral warhorse that fits an ideological agenda focused on law and order, resource exploitation, and the use of force against international delinquents. …