226
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Nicol
change and insecurity: ―more recently, the effects of climate change have served to add another
dimension to an already complex policy area, and once again the challenge for Canada is to adapt its
Arctic security and defence strategy to meet changing threats‖ (Mychajlyszyn, 2008). This meant an
emphasis upon a greater capacity to patrol Arctic waters and to undertake surveillance in the region.
The Canadian media and news-makers were not alone in perceiving the Arctic in this way. Some of
the Russian media reported the flag-plating event of August 2007 in a way which really spoke to the
symbolic, rather than legal significance of the event: ―a Tass reporter on board the mission support
ship said crew members cheered as Chilingarov climbed out of the submersible and was handed a
pair of slippers… ‗This may sound grandiloquent but for me this is like placing a flag on the moon,
this is really a massive scientific achievement,‘ Sergei Balyasnikov, spokesman for Russia's Arctic and
Antarctic Institute, told Reuters‖ (CNN.com, August 4 2007).
Americans too, had developed a perspective on the Arctic, and they, too, tended to adopt the ‗Arctic
siege‘ mentality. At the same time, the U.S. continued on its trajectory of ‗science and oil‘, meaning
that its interests in Arctic regions and its Arctic agenda was driven by promoting American science
as if it were a foreign policy, as well as by big oil interests in offshore Alaska, and the Canadian
Arctic (Borgerson, 2008). Still, the Washington Post, responding to the planting of a Russian flag on
the Arctic Ocean seabed in 2007, emphasized similarities between Canada and the U.S., and noted
that: ―Canada and the United States scoffed at the legal significance of the dive by a Russian mini-
sub to set the flag on the seabed Thursday. ‗This isn't the 15th century. You can't go around the
world and just plant flags‘ to claim territory, Canada‘s minister of foreign affairs, Peter MacKay, told
reporters‖ (Struck, 2010) Similarly, despite the aggressive sovereignty rhetoric issue by the current
Harper Government, as one American columnist has noted, ―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, 2010)
New Discourses
What was the result of this moment in time in terms of Canadian geopolitical discourses? It was a
striking array of themes and discourses in new combinations. Table 1 suggests some real differences
between the topics covered by newspaper in 2009 and those covered in previous decades. Most
importantly, perhaps, is the role which science and environmental stories play within all Canadian
newspapers. Clearly one third of all articles assess climate change in one way or another. But,
environmental discourses also referenced the need for military action: the rise of military,
sovereignty and security discourses recast climate change as a geopolitical and security issue. In 2009,
for example, there was little contestation concerning the role of the Canadian Government and its
military intervention in the north, naturalized by the process of climate change and its impacts on
the Arctic Ocean. The result was that by 2010, the Canadian Government revved up its concern
with military security in the Arctic. It also made a number of promises regarding military surveillance
of the North. These were focused upon expanding human and technological surveillance and
apprehension capacities and enhancing search and rescue capabilities, and shifted patrol
responsibilities from the Canadian Coast Guard to the Canadian Navy.