Nordic Co-operation on foreign and security policy (2009) focused on:
• 13 areas of potential closer co-operation in the Nordic region, such as peace-building, air-policing and maritime monitoring, security in the High North, cyber-security, co-operation between foreign services and defence.
• Creating a military and civilian taskforce for unstable regions; a joint amphibious unit; a disaster-response unit; a coastguard-level maritime response force; joint cyber-defence systems; joint air, maritime and satellite surveillance; co-operation on Arctic governance; and a war crimes investigation unit.
• Strengthening Nordic co-operation and joint actions in cases of peace-time catastrophes as well as military threats.
• Achieving results on measures as common transport and logistics solutions for our forces in Afghanistan. Furthermore, include projects in the fields of education, training and defence equipment collaboration.

Mini NATO: According to analysts, the heightened activity of North Europe is explained by an increased interest in the Arctic and its natural resources.

The role of the United States The U.S.  has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests.  Interests include:  missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.

Some events:
• Last August the U.S. and Denmark participated for the first time in Canada’s annual Operation Nanook military exercise in the Arctic, although both fellow NATO members are involved in territorial disputes with Canada in the region.
• NATO has intensified its campaign to recruit Finland and Sweden into its ranks in recent years. Both nations supply troops for the Alliance’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, where Finland has suffered its first combat deaths since World War Two and Sweden in two centuries.
• Last year’s BALTOPS (Baltic Operations) exercise conducted with U.S., NATO and NATO partnership nations was held in Estonia and Latvia with over 3,000 troops and military hardware – including 36 ships and two submarines – from ten nations, among them Finland and Sweden.
• Finland and Sweden are the only non-NATO nations (they are Partnership for Peace members) to have joined Alliance states Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the U.S. in running the first multinational strategic airlift operation, the Heavy Airlift Wing at the Papa Air Base in Hungary used for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• Last September 50 warships and 4,000 navy personnel from the U.S., Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France and Germany participated in the two-week Northern Coasts military exercise in and off Finland’s coast, the largest war games ever staged in Finnish territorial waters.

This region of Europe has everything to gain from a closer cooperation in defense between the Nordic countries and its Baltic neighbors. There are real issues, such as Arctic security, where such cooperation will be advantageous.

This month several high-level NATO officials travelled to Lithuania for the opening of a new Energy Security Centre in the capital. The facility, which “will contribute to international initiatives with a special emphasis on cooperation with NATO,” is to graduate to the level of a NATO Centre of Excellence like the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence established in nearby Estonia in 2008.
The Baltic-Scandinavian region, especially the Arctic at its northernmost extreme, is the last spot on Earth where alleged threats from Iran, North Korea, al-Qaeda and pirates can be invoked to justify unprecedented military expansion and integration. That the latter is occurring at a breakneck pace belies NATO’s and the EU’s claims concerning the rationale for collaborating with the world’s sole military superpower both at home and throughout the world.

To read more: Click here

TONY PENIKETT  in the Globe and Mail, 26 January 2011

A new poll asked Canadians and citizens of seven other Arctic countries, “From what you know or have heard, is the Northwest Passage within Canadian waters, an international waterway or in dispute?” Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians living in the three territories and 74 per cent of Canadians living in the provinces said within our waters. A majority of respondents in the other countries – the United States, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland – said they didn’t know.

The Northwest Passage could be part of Canada’s internal waters. It could be an international strait. That debate continues, as illustrated by the results of the poll on Arctic security, which was released this week by researchers at the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation.

But would anybody argue that this is the single critical issue facing the Canadian Arctic today? Surely, it is not.

Canadians want their government to secure its sovereignty in the Arctic, and they believe there is a continuing role for the Canadian military there. A majority of Canadians agree their country “should strengthen its military presence in the North in order to protect against international threats.” At the same time, fighter jets and warships alone do not make Northerners feel secure.

An overwhelming 98 per cent said better access to high-quality health care, education and drinking water is important too. This finding illustrates a tendency to view security in the Arctic in broad terms. To many Canadians, cultural, linguistic and environmental security are as important as national security.

Eighty-one per cent of Northerners and 71 per cent of Southerners agree that “the best way to protect Canada’s interest in the Arctic is to have Canadians living there.” Some have said that Canada needs to “use it or lose it” in the Arctic, but there are enduring human communities who have been “using it” there since time immemorial. Indeed, the greatest threat of Canada “losing” its Arctic might arise not from foreign warships or bombers but from the social, climatic and economic challenges that keep those living there from fully benefiting from Canadian citizenship.

Sovereignty can be undermined by Canada’s Arctic citizens not having access to clean drinking water. It can be undermined by low educational attainment rates. It can be undermined by shrinking ice cover that leads to changes in the migratory patterns of the animals Northerners rely on to supplement their food sources. And it can be undermined by high unemployment rates that force many young Northerners to move South to find work.

The best demonstration of Canadian sovereignty would be to ensure that residents of our North are able to continue living in their communities. No less than 90 per cent of Northerners and 83 per cent of Southerners agree that “all Canadians should be able to experience the same quality of life.” By fighting housing shortages, low educational attainment and drug and alcohol abuse, Canada’s Arctic sovereignty can be greatly strengthened. We can reinforce our national relationships with the Arctic by investing in the region’s economic and social foundations, by fully implementing nation-building land-claim settlements with indigenous peoples and by investing in military hardware.

During the final speech of his tour last August, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his emphasis on the North is about nation-building. “This is the frontier. This is the place that defines our country,” he said. Our country is widely recognized as one that broadly defines its security by seeking to promote environmental, cultural and food security at home in Canada and throughout the world. This commitment should hold true in every part of the country – from sea to sea to sea.

Tony Penikett is chair of the Munk-Gordon Foundation Arctic Security Program Conference and former premier of the Yukon.

Photo courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey

Currently, Baltiysky Zavod is the Russia’s only shipyard building nuclear-powered surface ships. Thanks to construction of floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov, the yard again has lined up a unique process chain of nuclear-powered shipbuilding, adjusted connection with contracting organizations and suppliers of special equipment, selected well-qualified experts and so forth.

Considering trends to increase the role of this sea route and forthcoming decommission of all active icebreakers by 2015-2016 (except 50 Let Pobedy), building of new ships becomes increasingly urgent.

JSC Baltiysky Zavod shipyard (member of the United Industrial Corporation) is one of the Russia’s largest shipbuilding companies. It is specialized in construction of icebreakers and ice-class vessels (both nuclear-powered and diesel), heavy-tonnage vessels, and warships; produces wide range of engineering products and power-generating equipment; is a supplier of non-ferrous and steel castings.

Photo Courtesy of John E. Lester

Jill Mahoney interviewed him with some very interesting questions; nonetheless, the most salient ones emerged from the  polls concerning the Arctic security and the findings on Canadians views (See Poll).

Michael Byers: Asking people whether they support Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic is like asking if they’re happy when Canadian athletes win gold medals. It’s the ranking priority questions that provide the real insights into what Canadians think, for they ask people to choose between different priorities. We soon discover that some priorities are, well, less of a priority than others. For Northern Canadians, improved health, social and educational services dominate the top priorities (60% plus scores), the environmental, disaster relief and search-and-rescue dominate the middle priorities (38-53% scores), and increasing the military presence ranks dead last (24% score). For Southern Canadians, infrastructure, health care, education and the environment are the top Arctic priorities (58-69% scores), with disaster relief and housing in the middle (40-49% scores). An improved military presence scores just 34 percent, only one percent point above the lowest score. In short, Canadians get the new Northern reality. The principal challenges facing the Arctic are environmental (especially climate change and oil spills) and social (especially the health, housing and education needs of the Inuit and other indigenous peoples). They understand the Cold War is over, that cooperation – whether through the Arctic Council or bilaterally – is the new order of the day.

Michael Byers: Opposing Arctic sovereignty would be like opposing motherhood and maple syrup. So the opposition parties have decided to keep their heads down on this issue, rather than giving the Prime Minister more air time. Unfortunately, this denies Canadians the “market place of ideas” that is necessary for the development of good public policy. Mr. Harper gets to run with the issue, but there is no check-and-balance on the decisions he makes.

Jill Mahoney: Stephen Harper’s position on Arctic sovereignty has changed since he became Prime Minister. How would you characterize the Conservatives’ approach, both then and now?

Michael Byers: Initially, Mr. Harper’s Arctic policy was based on a “use it or lose it” approach that emphasized the acquisition of new military equipment and an antagonistic attitude towards Russia (remember the complaints about Russian bombers in international airspace). But last year, there was a marked shift towards a new emphasis on Northern development and an Arctic Foreign Policy Statement that commits Canada to supporting the Arctic Council and opening negotiations on our boundary disputes. It’s almost as if the government commissioned its own poll — similar to the one just released by the Munk School — that showed how Canadians are prioritizing human and environmental security in the North.

Michael Byers: Canada’s sovereignty is not disputed with respect to 99% of our Arctic land and water. We have only one land dispute over Hans Island, a 1.3 kilometer square rock halfway between Greenland and Ellesmere Island. And we have two maritime boundary disputes: a tiny one with Denmark (Greenland) in the Lincoln Sea; and a medium-sized one with the United States in the Beaufort Sea. As it happens, we’re negotiating with our neighbours on both those disputes now. As for northern development, it’s true that northern communities are currently dependent on fiscal transfers from the South. But this will soon change, with mining projects like the Baffinland iron ore mine at Mary River, Nunavut; the expansion of eco-tourism; and the development of the Northwest Passage into a major international shipping route – with both potential risks and benefits to communities along that waterway.

Jill Mahoney: Of the various disputes involving Canada, which has the most potential to be the most difficult?

Michael Byers: For more than two decades, Canada and the US have agreed-to-disagree over the status of the Northwest Passage. Canada argues that it constitutes internal waters subject to the full force of Canadian law; the US argues that it is an international strait open to foreign vessels without constraint. But thanks to a 1988 treaty negotiated by Brian Mulroney, the US is committed to notifying Canada whenever it wants to send an icebreaker through. The US also agrees that such voyages will not strengthen the US position on the status of the Passage. The 1988 treaty was all that was needed during the ice conditions that existed then. With thick, hard multi-year ice blocking the Passage, only powerful icebreakers could sail through. Now, climate change is changing all that, with dozens of vessels sailing through each summer. And the question therefore is: will Canada and the US be able to sit down again, re-evaluate their interests, and come to a new agreement? Unfortunately, no such meetings have taken place, because the Canadian government is terrified that even discussing the matter would somehow be seen as “selling out” on sovereignty.

Michael Byers: I can’t imagine that Canada and the US will send the Northwest Passage dispute to an international court, because that cedes control over the issue to foreign judges. Better, instead, to negotiate a compromise that benefits both countries. My preference is for Canada to invest heavily in improving the charts, navigation aids, ports of refuge, search-and-rescue and oil spill-cleanup capacity along the Northwest Passage to world class standards. Then, we invite foreign ships to use this infrastructure and thus recognize our sovereignty. This will also assure the US of our willingness to police the waterway and thus protect their interests there. In response to Peter, it’s the continuous voyages by foreign flag vessels that pose the sovereignty risk – if they do not seek Canada’s permission by registering their presence with the Coast Guard. Fortunately, all commercial vessels currently seek our permission. And again, the best way of ensuring that they continue to do so is to offer infrastructure and services that foreign shippers need.

Michael Byers: A Inuit friend of mine told her son about the title of my recent book: “Who Owns the Arctic?”. His reply, “Well, I do of course”. The Inuit have lived, hunted, fished and travelled on the ice of the Northwest Passage for thousands of years. This “historic use and occupation” is central to Canada’s sovereignty claim, which makes it all the more difficult to understand why the federal government hasn’t addressed the social, health and education crises that exist in the North. Fortunately, the Inuit aren’t waiting for Ottawa: they’re taking matters into their own hands by engaging in international diplomacy as “permanent participants” in the Arctic Council, cooperating closely with other Arctic indigenous peoples, and promoting tourism and other forms of sustainable economic development in the North.

It’s essential to remember that the only reason that we’re talking about the Arctic is because of climate change, which is melting the sea-ice at incredible speed and opening the region up to shipping. It’s important to discuss how we adapt to this reality, with investments in infrastructure, personnel and a new emphasis on cooperation with indigenous groups and foreign countries. But we must never, ever, lose sight of climate change, which if left unchecked will destroy the flora and fauna of the Arctic and uproot its peoples. It is on this issue, more than any other, where the Harper government is letting the Arctic down.

To view whole discussion click here.

The Arctic Council (1996), in place to resolve disputes, comprises 8 Nordic countries. It is a high-level venue for discussing substantial concerns (e.g. environment and native rights). Today’s most important issue on the agenda: peace and security.

According to a recent Ekos survey, 62% of Americans are willing to work to strike a deal with Canada over the disputed territory; 50% of Canadians assert its full sovereign rights over the area. The Nordic countries heavily support negotiating a compromise to Arctic territorial disputes (Canada and Russia: More support for pursuing a firm line in defending of the Arctic). See post (May 16, 2010). On the issue of an Arctic nuclear-weapons free zone: 6 of 9 constituencies were very supportive of the idea (Norway, Southern and Northern Canada, Finland and Denmark; American and Russian respondents were less enthusiastic).

Canada will become chair of the council in 2013 (Janice Gross and Thomas S. Axworthy, “The Arctic Council is the best way for Canada to resolve its territorial disputes,”  Globe and Mail, January 25, 2010).

Photo: SikuNews

WATERLOO – More than 100 years ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier became the first prime minister to focus on strengthening Canada’s sovereignty over the Arctic. Climate change is profoundly affecting the Arctic and new questions are being raised about boundaries and ownership over vast oil and gas reserves.

The past, present and future of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty is the focus of a Wilfrid Laurier University lecture “Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty: From Prime Minister Laurier to Today” featuring acclaimed authors Shelagh Grant and Michael Byers. The lecture takes place Monday, Nov. 29 at 7 p.m. in the Senate and Board Chamber at Laurier’s Waterloo campus. The event is free and open to the public.

The lecture is the first in a four-part series entitled 100 years after Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier: Canada’s Political Landscape. The series celebrates both the university’s centennial in 2011, and the centennial of the end of Laurier’s time as prime minister. He served from 1896 to 1911.

Grant, author of the recently published Polar Imperative, a History of Arctic Sovereignty in North America, will discuss the history of the Arctic and Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s role. Byers, author of Who Owns the Arctic? Understanding Sovereignty Disputes in the North, will explain the sometimes- contradictory rules governing the Arctic and the disputes that still need to be resolved.

“These Arctic issues are important on their own, but it is also significant that they were important to former prime minister Laurier,” said retired Laurier professor Frank Millerd, who helped organize the lecture.

On September 1, 1880, Britain transferred the Arctic Islands to Canada, making it the second- largest country in the world. Initially Canadians were indifferent about Arctic sovereignty. But incursions by foreign explorers and whalers, and uncertainty about Canada’s title to the Arctic islands prompted Sir Wilfrid Laurier to be the first Canadian prime minister to work at strengthening Canada’s sovereignty over the Arctic. Starting in 1897, regular expeditions to the Arctic were mounted to claim Arctic islands, and police posts were established to provide evidence of Canadian occupation of the area.

Canada is debating boundary issues with the United States and Denmark. In addition, climate change is making the North’s vast oil and gas reserves more accessible, and reduced ice cover is encouraging more freight and tourist ship voyages through the Northwest Passage. There are also questions about how to protect the rights of indigenous people as change occurs.

Independent consultant

PNND Coordinator for France

For reasons largely historical, the French presence is very important in the South Pole with different scientific bases and territories like Adelie land and Kerguelen islands. In the Arctic region, France has no territory, thus his presence is very low and only scientific (archipelago of Svalbard, with a permanent research base Jean-Corbel established in 1963). However various elements, shows that now, France is implied in the Arctic and are interested more and more, in the future political, environmental and military of this area

Seen of France, since long years, the Arctic zone appears very far and the reserved domain of the United States, Russia and Canada. However, due to the global warming and the new French position in different political and military organizations (NATO), it’s clear that France want to play a real role in the Arctic region (that’s why President Sarkozy appointed the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard as ambassador of Arctic and Antarctic zone) and will participate directly in this Arctic crisis (if it arrives) both as:

-          NATO member, France will be in the obligation (article 5, North Atlantic Treaty) to react, alongside its allies (Canada, Denmark, Norway, United States), against any military crisis: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them”.

-          Member of the EU, the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty (entered into force on 1^st December 2009) strengthens the defense and solidarity links among members of the EU (so between France and Denmark, only EU state to have Arctic territories). The treaty establishes, among Member States two new clauses: A mutual defense clause (article 42.7) in that it states “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”. The second clause is the solidarity clause (article 222) is applicable in relation to a crisis within the EU (so in Greenland[1]) if a Member State is the object of a terrorist attack, victim of a natural disasters or a man-made disaster (like an oil spill caused by tanker accidents).

-          Nuclear Weapon State: this area is strategic for the French nuclear deterrence particularly for its submarine component. The Strategic Oceanic Force, comprises four nuclear submarines, though currently only three are operational (Le Triomphant, Le Téméraire, Le Vigilant) deploying nuclear missiles and also includes six Rubis class nuclear attack submarines. The Defense ministry recognized that each year, the French submarines carry out missions in Arctic.

As regarding the French military forces that could intervene in the Arctic zone, the Ministry of Defense has give details, following a question[2] (April 27^th 2010, written parliamentary question) from MP Francois Cornut-Gentille on “French military capacities in Arctic and Antarctic”. He worried about the capacity and the means available to the French Army at a time when the two polar zones are becoming highly geostrategic places due to the global warming.

In its answer published June 22^nd 2010, the Ministry of Defense indicates that “in its White Paper on Defense and National Security (published in 2008), the Government reaffirmed the vocation of France to permanently maintain a certain level of external action necessary to ensure the defense of its interests and assume its responsibilities”. This document defines the strategy of French military action. It is based on an “arc of crisis” which goes from the Atlantic to Central Asia. The Arctic and Antarctic zones are not explicitly indicated. However, the armed forces have got the know-how and the military capacities to intervene in extreme climatic conditions (like the Polar Regions) as shown in the minister’s answer:

-          The Army has an expertise named the “Great Cold” with the 6000 soldiers of the 27^th brigade of infantry of mountains (27e BIM). It is based in Grenoble and soldiers are trained to operate in mountains and in extreme climatic conditions. This brigade regularly carries out a specific training in the areas close to the North Pole, in particular in Norway. In addition, it takes part, every two years, in the Norwegian exercise “Cold Response”, whose objectives are to include a tactical staff of 800 men operating with specific materials within the combat in Arctic zone. In addition, the High Mountain Military Academy at Chamonix has a specialized team in charge of trying out the new materials and the specific procedures in environment very cold.

-          The Air Force is accustom to conduct surveillance and reconnaissance mission in cold countries, which the temperatures are around -30 C, within the framework of its missions of the NATO. The last missions are: Iceland in 2008 and Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) in 2010 (name of the mission Air Baltic 2010). Moreover, every year, pilots carry out training courses of survival in polar conditions in Sweden, Finland and Norway.

-          Every year, the Navy realizes operational deployment of a unit of surface. Each new unit carries out a deployment in Arctic area before being allowed to be in active service (this is currently the case for the Frigate Chevalier Paul).

Thus, France currently has military capacities enabling it to intervene under the polar zones…

[2] http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q13/13-77341QE.htm

• Strategic concerns, security, safety and sovereignty in the Arctic
• Developments in transport and exploration in North America, Greenland and Russian Arctic
• The impact of climate change on potential navigation conditions
• Potential and current impact of increased activities on local communities and the environment
• Technical and logistic challenges for new projects underway
• Stakeholder discussion on current status of training for ice-going crew

Photo by: DVIDSHUB

CDPI’s  “Arctic Leadership: Collaborative Model Needed to Face Security Issues in the North” was recently presented at the Peace and Justice Studies Association Conference on October 2nd, 2010.  This report argues the importance of establishing a Department of Peace in order to deal with Arctic security questions through a new lense; that of collaborative leadership rather than militaristic threats.

To view the CDPI paper in its entirety, click here.

The Hill Times

Photo by Melissa Irwin/ITK Arctic meeting: Inuit from Canada, Alaska, Russia, and Greenland, pictured at a meeting in Nuuk last July discussing issues of sovereignty, resource development, and climate change among others. ITK’s Mary Simon says there is a risk of another Cold War developing over who owns and controls the Arctic

While most international leaders prefer to talk about cooperation in the Arctic rather than competition and confrontation, there is risk of another Cold War developing over who owns and controls the Arctic.

As the people who call the Arctic home, Inuit have no interest in returning to a Cold War mix of sterile politics, misplaced resources, and missed opportunities.

The last Cold War saw our homeland dotted from coast to coast with Distant Early Warning Sites to ensure that no country came over the North Pole and caught North America militarily unaware. When that Cold War ended those systems were scaled back, and our homeland was left dotted with the debris: abandoned military buildings and equipment; rusting oil drums; and, toxic waste sites.

Other parts of the Arctic outside Canada, such as the Kola Peninsula in Russia, have suffered even worse environmental degradation. We have spent decades working towards having our lands and waters restored to a healthy state. And that work must now be factored into the much larger threats of climate change adaptation.

History tells us that a military build-up by one Arctic state will result in the military build-up of other Arctic states. On the one hand, Arctic states speak of international cooperation and working together through peaceful means and dialogue. On the other, they are engaged in expanded military capabilities in that region.

Those following Arctic sovereignty issues recently saw Russia host an international forum dubbed, “The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue.” Yet while President Putin discussed the importance of cooperation and partnerships in the Arctic at the meeting, Russia talks tough about foreign threats and reveals its plans to increase its combat potential in the Arctic with new ships and stations.

Earlier this year Denmark released a discussion paper recommending the creation of its own dedicated Arctic military contingent. Last year, Norway set in motion the purchase of 48 F-35 fighter jets, in part, because of their Arctic patrol suitability. The United States is bolstering its Arctic capability. Canada has set in motion the purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets stating Arctic sovereignty concerns as part of its decision, and our nation’s annual military exercises in the Arctic are growing in size and scope.

Every four years, Inuit representatives from across the circumpolar world—Greenland, Alaska, Russian and Canada—meet to state a shared Inuit view on breaking global and regional events. Last summer, Inuit met in Nuuk Greenland. The very first paragraph of the Nuuk Declaration adopted at the Inuit circumpolar meeting reads: “Remembering that the respectful sharing of resources, culture, and life itself with others is a fundamental principle of being Inuit, and is the fabric that holds us together as one people across four countries….”

That is not just “feel good” political rhetoric. It is a statement of core Inuit belief and intention.

It is incumbent upon all Arctic states to work cooperatively with each other, and with Inuit, in a manner consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Law of the Sea, the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the 2009 Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty, and the 2010 Nuuk Declaration. It is only through full respect for established and emerging international law and human rights standard that we can effectively settle disagreements and disputes that arise with regard to territorial claims, the management of shared natural resources, and common environmental challenges.

Every nation state has the responsibility to defend its territorial borders. But unchecked militarization of the Arctic is neither necessary nor responsible. Nor is the rhetoric that so often is used to sell militarization at home and abroad.

I call upon the leaders of all Arctic states to remember the last Cold War. To remember the lack of trust it created, the international tension, the lost opportunities, the billions of dollars that were spent on military hardware and posturing throughout its course that could better have been spent enriching the lives of ordinary people. No reasonable person should want to return to those stressful and expensive times, especially in an era of global fiscal constraint and austerity.

Inuit seek to make their Arctic homeland a region of peace. And an enduring example and inspiration to the rest of the world of how common sense and common advantage can prevail over Cold War habits and risks.

Mary Simon is president Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

news@hilltimes.com