GREENLAND. A new government

Transcription

1 20 IWGIA THE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2014 GREENLAND Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) has, since 1979, been a self-governing country within the Danish Realm. In 2009, Greenland entered a new era with the inauguration of the new Act on Self-Government, which gave the country further self-determination within the State of Denmark. Greenland has a public government, and aims to establish a sustainable economy in order to achieve greater independence. The population numbers 57,000, of whom 50,000 are Inuit. Greenland s diverse culture includes subsistence hunting, commercial fisheries, tourism and emerging efforts to develop the oil and mining industries. Approximately 50 per cent of the national budget is subsidized by Denmark. The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), an indigenous peoples organisation (IPO) and an ECOSOC-accredited NGO, represents Inuit from Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Chukotka (Russia) and is also a permanent participant in the Arctic Council. The majority of the people of Greenland speak the Inuit language, Kalaallisut, while the second language of the country is Danish. Greenland is increasingly becoming a multicultural society, with immigrants from many parts of the world. A new government I n March 2013, Greenland elected a new government. Aleqa Hammond won the elections when her social democratic party, Siumut, gained more than 42% of the votes. Aleqa Hammond, who is the first female premier in Greenland, succeeds Kuupik Kleist of the socialist party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, who had been in power since Hammond formed a political coalition with two conservative parties, Atassut and Partii Inuit. The central political focus of the new government was to introduce a stricter royalties policy on the extractive industries and to enable mining in areas where uranium is present. Furthermore, it aimed to set up a commission on reconciliation in order to critically investigate the colonial history of the

2 THE ARCTIC 21 country. According to Aleqa Hammond, colonialism has had an impact on people s self-perception and she claims that some of the self-destructive behaviour among parts of the Greenlandic population can be explained by the colonial experience. However, in Greenland, the idea of a reconciliation commission has met

3 22 IWGIA THE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2014 with critical reactions because the new premier has not addressed the purpose and methods of the commission. Faced with this new political initiative, the Danish Premier, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, stated that Denmark had no need to engage in a process of reconciliation with Greenland. Consequently, the commission will face opposition in both Greenland and Denmark from the beginning. Extractive industries Greenland s strategic priority of attracting and underpinning the extractive industries reached a milestone in 2013 when Greenland awarded the London Mining company a 30-year licence to build and run a giant iron ore mine (the so-called Isua project 150 km from the capital of Nuuk). If investment capital can be raised, this will become one of the largest commercial projects in the history of Greenland. Apart from environmental concerns related to the proposed mine, two other issues have been discussed at great length. First, in order to make the mine economically feasible, the company needs to import thousands of foreign (primarily Chinese) workers, who will work under rules and salaries stipulated in separate legislation developed to open Greenland up to cheap labour. In the wake of this legislation, concern over social dumping has been raised, as well as the cultural problems that may emerge with such a large foreign work force. Second, the hearing process related to the Isua project was criticised by the organisation Greenland Transparency for not being open to constructive dialogue and an exchange of perspectives. Instead, the meetings were staged as information and sales-related meetings, according to the organisation. The concerns related generally to the level of public information, and the possibility of hearings on the extractive industries has been aired by a number of organisations in Greenland. The Inuit Circumpolar Council, another NGO in Greenland, for example, raised concerns over the lack of information distributed and made available to civil society with respect to oil industry activities. The authorities responded that it was unable to provide the organisations with the requested data because it contained commercially confidential information.

4 THE ARCTIC 23 Uranium and the politics of zero tolerance Since the 1990s, the Greenlandic and Danish authorities have pursued an active strategy of attracting extractive industries to Greenland in order to diversify and strengthen the economy and job opportunities. Faced with an anticipated budget deficit that is likely to grow rapidly, and an aspiration to establish a Greenlandic economy that is more independent of Danish support, the large-scale extractive industries have emerged as a viable and desirable path to pursue. Furthermore, geological surveys indicate a number of highly interesting mining possibilities, and several licenses for exploration and exploitation have been granted. As a consequence, the zero-tolerance policy on uranium that was allegedly adopted in 1988 now appears counter-productive to a number of mining activities, given that uranium is also present in many places, and is thus hindering the mining of other minerals. The Greenlandic Parliament (Inatsisartut) was divided on how to solve this predicament. While one wing supported an abandonment of the policy altogether, another argued for a raising of the bar to acceptable levels for uranium. This latter position would allow mining with uranium only as a by-product. At the autumn session of parliament, an abandonment of the zero-tolerance policy was put to the vote. With 15 in favour and 14 against, the proposal was adopted. It was one of the new government s key issues but it was followed by a heated public debate as some consider uranium to be a controversial, dangerous and environmentally harmful mineral. The Greenlandic environmental organisation, Avataq, was particularly active in the debate. Other voices claimed that uranium mining was such an important matter that it would require a referendum or, at the very least, more public debate and involvement, as argued by the civil society organisation, Greenland Transparency. The Greenlandic government emphasised that all mining activities still had to be considered on the basis of environmental and social assessments and that an abandonment of the zero-tolerance policy did not necessarily open Greenland up to all kinds of mining activities. The Greenlandic uranium initiative soon featured on the agenda of the Danish Parliament as well, given that several Danish politicians were arguing that the sale of uranium was a defence and security matter, and thus Denmark s responsibility. Furthermore, it was argued that all the regulations, responsibilities and requirements related to uranium export had to be followed by the signatory to the international agreements, treaties and conventions, which in this case was Den-

5 24 IWGIA THE INDIGENOUS WORLD 2014 mark. Several political parties in Denmark were thus hesitant to allow uranium exports from Greenland. Seen from a Greenlandic perspective, this was, among other things, interpreted as interference in Greenland s right to handle its own resources, as stipulated in the Self-government Act of While both Greenland and Denmark accepted that uranium was a mineral that required special attention and cooperation, negotiations did not result in any solutions and the parties were, by the end of 2013, very far removed from each other on the matter. Boycott of the Arctic Council The day before the Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council in Kiruna (Sweden) was due to take place, in May, the head of the Greenlandic government (Naalakkersuisut) announced a boycott of the meeting and that it would put its engagement in the Council on hold. It was an historical meeting at which new members such as China, Singapore, Japan, Italy and South Korea were given observer status, the Council adopted a Vision for the Arctic and the leadership passed from Sweden to Canada. Greenland s absence was therefore criticised by political observers and political parties outside Naalakkersuisut as it was a break with the traditional diplomacy whereby Greenland had long pursued a more accommodating stance on matters of representation, i.e. sharing a seat with Denmark and the Faroe Islands in the Arctic Council negotiations, despite not being fully in agreement with this. From the Greenlandic government s point of view (which at that time was only two months old), Greenland needed its own seat in negotiations and did not accept Sweden s decision as Chair of the Council to give only one seat to each member state. In this case, Denmark is the member state of the Arctic Council and represents all interests within the Realm of Denmark (Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands). The boycott illustrates one of the predicaments in the political set-up of the Arctic Council, the Realm of Denmark and its international commitments. It also shows that Greenland s Self-Government Act of 2009 has generated increased Greenlandic interest in representing itself at international fora and in having its own vote. Before Sweden took over the leadership in 2011, Denmark always had three chairs at the table in order to have the Realm represented adequately. Sweden s insistence on introducing a one-stateone-seat procedure was met with opposition from all parts of the Realm although only Greenland boycotted the actual meeting. The Greenlandic premier noted in

6 THE ARCTIC 25 an interview in the Greenlandic newspaper, Sermitsiaq: We believe it is of great importance for the population of Greenland and Greenlandic society that we are directly involved in the negotiations on conditions in Greenland. The work of the Arctic Council is very important to us, and we will not settle for being on the sidelines. Until then, we re putting our involvement in the Arctic Council on hold. 1 After the meeting, the Realm of Denmark entered into negotiations with the new leadership of the Council (Canada) in order to soften the formalities related to the practices of representation. According to the Naalakkersuisut, the negotiations turned out satisfactorily and, on August 19, Aleqa Hammond announced that Greenland had resumed its work and participation in the Council and that: Greenland is stronger, thanks to its boycott of the Arctic Council. However, the political opposition in Greenland found it difficult to see how Greenland s representation had been improved. The matter cannot be seen only as a domestic issue between Greenland and Denmark because the continued involvement and participation of indigenous peoples and regional governments has become vital to the credibility of the Arctic Council. Consequently, issues of representation and voting rights have come under increasing strain as more and more emphasis is placed on resource development on indigenous lands and territories. The arrangement of seats is thus not a trivial matter. Notes 1 Sermitsiaq, 14 May 2013: Frank Sejersen is a Danish anthropologist employed as an associate professor in the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies (University of Copenhagen), where he has been pursuing research into the Arctic in general, and Greenland in particular, since Frank Sejersen was appointed a member of IWGIA s Board in June 2011 and has been its chair since January 2012.