225
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Natural News, State Discourses & The Canadian Arctic
Competition Trumps Co-Operation?
While Stuhl (2013) argues, cogently, that all Arctic news is old news, it is nonetheless important to
realize that as the first decade of the 21
st
century progressed, this cooperative and regional approach
to the ‗North‘ was being replaced by a more competitive vision of international relations, in which
‗national Norths‘ figured more prominently. Concentrating upon potential conflict over sea beds
and waterways, natural resources and militaries, North American media coverage, at least, while
heightened, tends to downplay the fact of significant developments in regional agreements
concerning environmental protection and search and rescue responsibilities. In 2009, for example, of
the just over 1600 articles which appeared in Canadian major dailies discussing the Arctic, roughly
two thirds were focused on science and environment or military security and geopolitics—and
roughly equal proportions. While the interplay between environment and security was a prominent
discourse, only rarely did regional cooperation find mention.
This was a break from the previous decade. The much debated shift from geopolitics of cooperation
to competition (Nicol & Heininen, 2013; Heininen, 2004) took place sometime during this period.
The result? An emerging security discourse in which the media reported: ―[t]he Arctic is under siege
as never before‖. This a CBC news report proclaimed in August 2010, reflecting what was then a
rather general consensus that not only were recent development in the Canadian Arctic becoming a
‗hot‘ issue for newsmakers, these developments were being recast in ways which played to a
burgeoning Canadian sense of national pride (CBC News, 2009)
The process of Arctic maritime boundary-making was, in the days and months to follow, recast by
the media as a litmus test for the strength of the Canadian state in an international arena. In the
media, the subtleties of maritime boundary making, international law and border disputes were
glossed, while the Arctic was presented as a new ‗frontier‘ potentially ripe for the picking. This was
an agenda which, although not unique, fit nicely into the existing contours of Canada‘s national
political landscape. For the Conservative Government led by Canadian Prime Minster Stephen
Harper, it was a chance to trumpet an aggressive Canadian nationalism aimed at an international
partner where little to no retaliation was possible. For the opposition, as personified by then New
Democratic Party leader, Jack Layton, it was an opportunity to criticize the government as being
unconcerned with Canadian sovereignty, practicing instead a type of rhetorical aggression without
teeth. As one columnist noted, ―[i]n the view of opposition … the government has responded with
little more than rhetoric to threats to Canadian sovereignty in its frozen backyard. Canada must
move quickly and make immediate, strategic investments in its Arctic‖ (Washington Post, August 6
2010).
Views From the Foreign Press
Academics too, jumped into the fray. The Arctic was mapped and positioned in terms of boundary
lines, national interests and international security. A host of scholars discussed how the scenario of
melting ice might reframe Canada‘s national interests and lead to challenges for places and spaces
previously undisputed (Huebert, 2010). The Canadian military responded from their point of view: a
2008 Canadian Parliamentary paper on Defence argued that there was a direct link between climate