A Fulbrighter in Rovaniemi
This will serve as an introduction to my work here in Rovaniemi. I'm a Fulbright Fellow working at the Arctic Centre on a project comparing Finnish and American Arctic strategies with the aim to find out if there are any lessons that can possibly inform the American government going forward on its burgeoning engagement with the Arctic region.
Why Compare the Two Though?
There couldn't be much more different between the countries, the USA, a superpower with global interests, and Finland, a small country trying to navigate a place for itself between Russia, the EU, and the global economy. But, in reading the two strategies for the countries, what struck me was that though there has been increasing interest in the US towards the Arctic, it's still very much a periphery, and a secondary, if not tertiary priority for the US government. Finland on the other hand has made the Arctic a high priority for its efforts in both a domestic and foreign policy context.
Stakes for the US
The US, even now, with the chairmanship of the Arctic Council quickly approaching is still struggling to define its focus and level of priority for the Arctic. The Coast Guard's icebreaker "fleet" is small and aging, infrastructure is as sparse as the population of Alaska, and though the US has appointed a new special envoy to the Arctic Council, they have neglected to name an Ambassador to the Arctic as most others have. There is a sense that the USA is neglecting to engage in the Arctic and has come to, as Philip Steinberg puts it in a chapter on US Arctic Policy, "display the curious mix of disinterest and interest suggested in the two quotations that began this chapter: relative disinterest in the Arctic as a place in itself or as a focal point of U.S. global policy is coupled with a high level of interest in the Arctic as a region in which responses to emergent challenges and opportunities could potentially undermine the global political economic system of which the United States is a world leader." In other words, simply as a region to reinforce the ideas that make the US a superpower, so stability and sovereignty. But I think that simply cleaving to the old system is not enough to properly address issues in the Arctic, which are largely trans-boundary in nature, or to creeping world issues like climate change. A more innovative approach is needed.
Finland's Efforts
Finland, on the other hand, has spelled out an innovative strategy that puts a lot of priority, at least on paper, on the people living in the Arctic. The government has declared the country an Arctic country from top to bottom, rather than a country with an Arctic periphery. Finland, according to the 2013 strategy, wants to be an active Arctic player and establish Arctic know-how to boost its economy and living conditions. There is also a large priority placed on international cooperation. This isn't limited to the Arctic Council, and Finland actively wants to include extra-Arctic players like the EU and Asian countries to better engage the world on Arctic issues. There are, of course, still concerns about this (and all) Arctic strategy. One must ask if the environmental language is mere boilerplate when compared to the business interests. And is including the EU a particularly wise move when it seems that most Arctic states will resist such a move and strain the atmosphere of consensus? Speaking with professor Lassi Heininen too, an expert on Finnish policies in the Arctic, he expressed frustration with aspects of the strategy, such as too many differing priorities, and the knock on effects of declaring all of Finland an Arctic country. For instance, if all of Finland is Arctic, then why bother staying in Lapland to work on Arctic issues? But issues aside, I think that this innovative strategy and its implementation can give the US some ideas as it struggles to define its Arctic interests, and I will be writing about it in this space as my research progresses.
No comments:
Post a Comment