bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, p. 42
The Arctic: Choices for Peace & Security,
A Public Inquiry by Thomas R. Berger,
Soviet Ambassador Alexei Rodionov,
Douglas Roche and 21 Others, Edmonton:
Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd., 1989,
282 pp., $12.95.
On occasion, books written on current topics are redundant by the time they arrive on the shelf. Sadly, this is one case where the subject continues to be of major importance in the long term, but the arguments seem quite dated because of the rapid sequence of events occurring since late 1989 through 1991. Because the book is a collection of conference papers and recorded dialogue, the editors and publishers had little choice but to proceed as planned. The question one must ask, is whether the views expressed are still relevant today. The reviewer can only speculate; the real answers lie with the participants. Regardless, the book still retains value as an important window on a broad spectrum of expert opinion, albeit qualified by the time frame.
In March 1989, over fifteen hundred gathered in Edmonton, Alberta, to attend a two-day public inquiry sponsored by the True North Strong and Free Society. The subject was “The Arctic: Present and Future”. It was an ambitious undertaking, involving twenty-four speakers from five circumpolar countries, all senior in their respective fields of expertise: academic, military and government. The list included ambassadors from the Soviet Union, Finland and Canada; Norway’s Minister of Defence; the President of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference; and the Northwest Territories Government Leader. As well, there were two extremely adept moderators, Stephen Lewis and Adrienne Clarkson, and a media panel composed of Gwynne Dyer, Linda Hughes, and Ann Medina. Surprisingly, there were no representatives from Greenland, Denmark, Iceland, or Sweden. More disconcerting still was the absence of Canada’s own Minister of National Defence.
The agenda was equally impressive, covering such topics as the Arctic environment, the indigenous peoples, circumpolar cooperation, sovereignty, with particular emphasis on the issue of peace and security. As stated at the outset, the purpose of both the conference and the book was to continue the “process of enlightenment” about Arctic issues in general and to raise public support for a demilitarized and nuclear-free Arctic. In terms of the inquiry itself, this objective appears to have been accomplished. It is far more difficult to translate the intensity of the debate or the enthusiasm of the audience into black and white text. Even the excerpts from the speeches available on video tape fail to meet the reviewer’s expectations.
Certain papers merit a special mention because of their factual and historical detail on the evolving militarization of the Arctic, notably those by Donat Pharand, Willy Østreng, and Keith Greenaway. Similarly, Walter Slipchenko’s International Arctic Cooperation: A Canadian Dream or a Necessity? avoided the rhetorical and listed fact upon fact in support of his argument. Of interest for quite different reasons are the presentations by the Soviet participants, Ambassador Alexei A. Rodionov, Andrey E. Granovsky, and Yuri V. Kasmin. The opinions expressed by the Soviets made the rationale for continued Arctic defence, as presented by Canada’s Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence, appear embarrassingly dated. Equally puzzling were the comments by Captain James T. Bush, Associate Director of the Center for Disease Information, who appeared to voice views quite contradictory to official policy, and at the same time to claim that Canadians should not worry about American maritime defence strategy, since “it is a strategy; it is not a plan.” Other papers of note included Harriet Critchley’s on the question of Canadian sovereignty, Ambassador Esko Rajakoski’s Environment: the Finnish Initiative, and Mary Simon’s Inuit perspective on peace and security.
By the mid 1990s, most would have argued there need be no further discussion as to why the Arctic should be demilitarized and nuclear-free, but simply a matter of “when” and “how.” A result of the outbreak of hostilities in the Persian Gulf is that opinion appears divided: some claiming defence preparedness is crucial in all regions; others pressuring for more stringent and effective arms control throughout the world.
While it is hard to ignore the potential for war when we have recently been in the midst of one, we should not ignore a more serious battle being fought on the environmental front. Every day, there are new scientific reports confirming the alarming rate of global pollution. The Arctic, more vulnerable than other geographic areas, should be first on the agenda, yet because of its remoteness and sparse population, it is often the least of concerns to the politicians and military strategists.
The atomic test by the Soviets on Novaya Zemlya and reports of the dumping of radioactive waste are perhaps the best example. Having halted testing at the main site in Kazakhstan because of increasing public protest, the secondary site on the remote Arctic island was used for an underground test in October 1990. Leakages in past tests have caused radioactive fallout in Sweden, and now there is evidence of abnormal radiation counts in lichen and caribou in the Canadian Arctic, presumably a consequence of predominant wind patterns. More than ever, we need the unanimous support of all circumpolar nations towards creating a nuclear-free Arctic, and the only effective method of regulation is to demilitarize the entire Arctic, and to control it by the agreed surveillance of a jointly coordinated circumpolar coastguard patrol.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing contributions this volume makes is to remind us of how little power and influence society has had over the economic might of the military.
The many arguments contained in The Arctic, Choices for Peace & Security for a demilitarized, nuclear-free Arctic are still valid; and the True North Strong and Free Society should continue their mission to bring the issue to public attention. Hopefully, we can soon advance from debating the “why” and move toward serious agreement on the “how” and “when.” Activities adversely affecting the environment in the Arctic should not be allowed to continue undetected under a cloud of snow and ice.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1992) — Spring 1992 // Printemps 1992, p. 42. Read the rest of this issue →
