Project outline, October 2012. Short version

Norwegian Polar Politics 1870–2014 / Norsk polarpolitikk 1870–2014

  1. Relevance

This research project:

  1. – addresses the major historical processes and the importance of political culture to international relations in the Polar Regions, which is crucial for a broad and enlightened understanding of the present and the near future,
  2. – discusses how today’s problems or challenges, related to for instance geopolitics, natural resources or climate change, have been identified, conceptualised and treated – especially by Norway, but also by adjacent powers such as Russia and the United States,
  3. – investigates the developing landscape of circumpolar indigenous policies, with a special focus on Norway and Russia,
  4. – discusses recent geopolitical and institutional changes in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and especially the significance of “Arctic newcomers” to Norwegian polar policy;
  5. – aims to make a significant contribution to the historical scholarship on polar politics, both nationally and internationally.
  1. The research project

Background and status of knowledge

Since the 1990s, and particularly during the most recent decade, the Polar Regions have received intense attention from government bodies, international organizations, private companies, and scientists. The concerns of these actors range across minerals, petroleum, shipping routes, communication, surveillance and monitoring systems, climate change, marine resources, distribution of sea ice, international law, the rights and welfare of indigenous peoples, and governance. It is hardly controversial to suggest that we are witnessing profound changes in the geopolitics of the Polar Regions. It is equally evident that future developments – whatever directions they take – will be of major significance to Norway, both with regards to national policies and priorities, and to wider international relations in the Polar Regions, where Norway has significant interests.[1]

Norway’s strong engagement with the Polar Regions, which occupies an important if sometimes underappreciated role in the state’s political history, has increased during the Stoltenberg II Government. When the Government launched its “High North Strategy” on 1 December 2006, the region was officially declared Norway’s number one foreign policy priority.[2] The strategy lists a broad spectrum of policy areas relating to the nation’s northern regions. In addition to the more typical foreign policy issues, such as security and international law, it also points out “softer” policy areas such as people-to-people co-operation, climate change, and marine management. Most of the softer policy priorities build on the notion that it is fruitful and even necessary to see the (high) Arctic and Northern Scandinavia as parts of a holistic system, comparable to an ecosystem.

The strategic focus on the Arctic has gained a lot of attention, and it has perhaps overshadowed the fact that Norway also has put more efforts into its Antarctic policies in recent years. From 2005 the Norwegian Polar Institute’s (NPI) field station in Dronning Maud Land, Troll, has been operated year-round. The increase in research activities was especially evident during the last International Polar Year 2007–2008, when NPI equipped a large scientific expedition to Antarctica.[3] Norway has also submitted documentation on the extent of the continental shelf off Bouvet Island and Dronning Maud Land to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a key step to asserting sovereignty and potentially gaining control over natural resources.

Future national and international strategies for the Polar Regions will have diverse and far-reaching impacts, for Arctic residents, for the citizens of polar and near-polar states, and for the environment of the Arctic and the Antarctic. Although political action is partially reactive, responding to geopolitical shifts or other emerging challenges, policy development does not take place in a vacuum. The categories or concepts through which actors and institutions understand and grasp the political “reality”, as well as the interpretations of interests, are historically contingent, varying over time and from actor to actor. All of these premises have a distinct historical background, and shape the formulation of policy by providing the context in which strategies are devised. The investigation of this historical architecture, essential to understanding political action in the present as well as the past (stretching back into the nineteenth century), is the central focus of this project.

The existing literature on the history of Norwegian polar policy is scarce; indeed, Odd Gunnar Skagestad’s Norsk polarpolitikk (1975) remains the only dedicated work on the subject.[4] The 2004 work Norsk polarhistorie [Norwegian Polar History] touched on political dimensions in each of its three volumes – expeditions (vol. 1), science (vol. 2), and commercial activities (vol. 3) – but did not make these questions a central priority.[5]

Although the project can count only one direct forerunner (with Skagestad’s book), a number of other studies with relevance for the project has been published in recent years, for instance the six volume work Norsk utenrikspolitikks historie [The History of Norway’s Foreign Relations], Susan Barr’s study of the history of Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI), Thor B. Arlov and Torbjørn Pedersen’s studies relating to Svalbard, and Peder Roberts’s studies of Norwegian Antarctic policy.[6] Two ongoing research projects have relevance: “Geopolitics in the High North” (Geonor), funded by the Norwegian Research Council, and “Neighbourly Asymmetry: Norway and Russia 1814–2014”, which is also in part funded by the Norwegian Research Council.[7] Although both projects doubtless will bring much relevant knowledge to the fore, neither has a special attention or focus on polar politics as such. The project Norwegian Polar Politics will thus rely heavily on original research, including both archival work and political-theoretical analysis.

Theory

The project is not about only “summing up” the “stand der forschung”. Instead, the research team behind Norwegian Polar Politics 1870–2014 aims to make a significant contribution to the historical scholarship on polar politics, both nationally and internationally, by introducing cultural-analytical perspectives to a field which has long been dominated by realist theory.

The dominant tendency, both among researchers and in the media, has been to take realism’s analysis of international policy for granted: that the relationship between states is based upon an international anarchy, which takes shape through alliances and power politics. There is therefore much talk about the international anarchy, the governance system, and the international structure.This is problematic in that it reduces the significance of cultural components in international policy and assumes an unwarranted degree of uniformity across actors. Political scientist Alexander Wendt (amongst others) has denied the existence of a single anarchical culture in international relations, arguing that even if the concept of international anarchy can be salvaged, its features are historically contingent and must be located within the specific political culture(s) that prevail at a given time.[8] Wendt has identified three different “cultures of anarchy”: a Hobbesian, in which the antagonists in the international political system view one another as enemies; a Lockean, in which they view each other as rivals who can negotiate and compromise; and a Kantian, in which the parties view each other as friends who will work for a common good.[9] Wendt’s approach to International Relations (IR) does – to some extent – resemble that of the English School of IR, as both operate with a tripartite distinction, and both agree that “collective identities” are important to the academic field of IR.[10]

Our project takes this perspective as our point of departure for a detailed study of the cultural conditions that define the political architecture of Norwegian polar decision-making. Social and cultural patterns are not mere “errors” or “exceptions” bringing confusion to a world defined by realism; rather, they comprise the fabric of reality. As polar politics often has been connected with “extra-territorial” features, orhave been imprinted with (utopian) frontier rhetoric, we believe that polar policy is particularly suited for a discussion of such problems.Bearing this in mind, we also, however, acknowledge the importance of holding the cultural aspects of politics up against other aspects, such as geopolitics and distribution of power. Our goal is not to refute the geopolitical approach, which no doubt has much explanatory power, but rather to enrich it.Since the cultural approach to foreign policy and IR has been underrepresented in Norwegian historiography, this is perhaps especially topical in a Norwegian context.[11]

In order to carry out a systematic cultural-analytical perspective on the Norwegian case, four thesis statements are made concerning the internal political conditions and the international system. First, we will discuss and challenge the widely held notion that the absence of centralized authorities in the international system only affects the behaviour of states, and not their “identities” or perceptions of interests. Instead we find it fruitful to assert, following Wendt, that power and political culture interact. Second, we underline that the state itself is not homogenous. Third, we argue that consequently individual actors must be considered systematically and thoroughly. Fourth, we ask two central questions concerning conceptual history and production of polar symbols: 1) How has the production of polar symbols been entangled with both polar policy, and 2) How has the content of concepts such as “Polar Regions”, “arctic living space” or “High North policy” changed over time?

The production of conceptual descriptions is a fruitful area of investigation because these terms are political and cultural resources rather than mere words. For example, the geologist and activist Adolf Hoel used the concept of “living space” in his representations of the Arctic, at a time when territorial expansionism was a powerful current in Norwegian politics thanks to the rise of nationalist movements such as Fedrelandslaget and Nasjonal Samling. During the same period the term Arctic Oceanwas also an often-used concept, but it was mostly used in connection with other interests, especially commercial interests such as hunting, industrial development and modernisation. The concept of “the High North”, which originated in the 1970s, is also primarily a political construction rather than a geographical description (its vagueness leaves room for actors to inscribe their own definitions). The objective was perhaps rather to create a domestic consciousness of Norway as a natural Arctic actor, and to position the state internationally as an essential stakeholder in the demarcation of marine Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the management of natural resources. If that is correct, then the aim of this political “speech act” served to simultaneously define Norway’s interest in a geographic space and engender confidence on Norway’s capacity to administer it – even if the contours of the space itself remained undefined. This in turn constituted a canny political strategy for a small nation such as Norway located on the border between East and West and surrounded by more powerful states. Since 1993 the notion of the Barents Region has gained prominence, but without displacing the concept of “High North” in Norwegian polar politics.

Methods

As mentioned, the project will rely heavily on original archival research and political analysis. Our will make use of the comparative method, and thereby hold Norwegian activities up against foreign activities. In connection with the sources, the researchers will primarily use qualitative methods, where methodological and theoretical approaches from IR theory will be combined with research methods from the historical discipline. The team has already worked with some of the primary sources and identified the additional material to be consulted during the project. Agreements have been made with the Norwegian Polar Institute with regards to access to data, and a number of contacts have been established between the group and relevant government agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. It should be added that the project will not only rely on sources from Norwegian bodies, but will also draw upon sources collected in the United States, Russia, Great Britain, The European Union, South Africa, Denmark and Sweden. The political scientist Njord Wegge will also, in cooperation with partners abroad, work with sources from the EU, Japan, South Korea and China.

Project plan, management, organization and cooperation

The project is headed by professor Einar-Arne Drivenes at the University of Tromsø. He will, in cooperation with Stian Bones, also be responsible for editing the book. The manuscript will be written in Norwegian and then translated into English. It will be published in two editions, one English edition, and one Norwegian.

Workshops have already been arranged inside the project, and the project participants have agreed on a detailed outline of the book. The participants have identified the most important issues and defined – at least in outline form – the overall shape of the text. The editorial team have successfully worked along these lines in other projects, such as Norwegian Polar History (finished in 2004) and the project “Neighbourly Asymmetry: Norway and Russia 1814–2014”.[12]

The main product, the book Norwegian Polar Policy 1870–2014, will be organised in nine chapters:

Chapter 1: Norway: The rise of a polar nation

Chapter 2: Norway enters the Arctic (1870–1905)

Chapter 3: The Norwegianization of the Arctic (1905–1920)

Chapter 4: Polar expansionism (1920–1940)

Chapter 5: In the shadow of World War II (1940–1944)

Chapter 6: Bridge-building (1944–1948)

Chapter 7: Cold War competition and cooperation (1948–1975)

Chapter 8: The Polar channel (1975–1990)

Chapter 9: The state, and the state of the poles (1990–2014)

A detailed account of the book project exists in Norwegian.

1

[1] Cf. Rolf Tamnes, ‘Arctic security and Norway’, in James Kraska (ed.), Arctic security in an age of climate change, Cambridge 2011.

[2] The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) [Utenriksdepartementet]: ‘Regjeringens nordområdestrategi’, 2006; se also MFA: Report to the Storting (white paper) No. 7 (2011–2012), ‘The High North: Visions and Strategies’.

[3] Helle Goldman, ‘Polar Research evolves, and Norway and the IPY’, Polar Research, North America, 26, mar. 2007. Available at: < Date accessed: 09 Oct. 2012.

[4] Odd Gunnar Skagestad, Norsk polarpolitikk. Hovedtrekk og utviklingslinjer 1905–1974, Oslo 1975.

[5] Einar-Arne Drivenes & Harald Dag Jølle (eds.), Norsk polarhistorie, vol. I–III, Oslo 2004. The omission was sufficiently glaring to attract attention beyond the academic sphere: when the editors presented a copy of the one-volume English version of Norsk polarhistorie (Into the Ice, 2006) to Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, Støre responded with a call for historians to explicitly address polar politics in a separate volume. The results will be presented in a book published in both English and Norwegian by Universitetsforlaget.

[6]Norsk utenrikspolitikks historie, vol. I–VI, Oslo 1995–1997; Susan Barr, Norway – a consistent polar nation? Analysis of an image seen through the history of the Norwegian Polar Institute, Oslo 2010; Thor B. Arlov, Svalbards historie, Trondheim 2003; Thor B. Arlov, Den rette mann. Historien om sysselmannen på Svalbard, Trondheim 2011; Torbjørn Pedersen, ‘Conflict and order in Svalbard waters’, PhD diss. University of Tromsø 2008; Peder Roberts, The European Antarctic: science and strategy in Scandinavia and the British Empire; Roberts, Klaus Dodds, and Lize-Marié van der Watt, ‘“But why do you go there?” Norway, South Africa, and the Antarctic in the 1950s’, in Sverker Sörlin (ed.), Norden beyond borders: science, geopolitics and culture in the polar region, Ashgate, forthcoming.

[7] For more on these two projects, see

[8]The international scholarship on polar politics also provides very good examples on the significance of bringing in the cultural component. See for instance Sverker Sörlin (ed.), Norden beyond borders: science, geopolitics and culture in the polar region, Ashgate, forthcoming.

[9] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge 2010 (1999). In recent study, Hallvard Tjelmeland has applied these concepts on Norwegian history. See Hallvard Tjelmeland, ‘Border as Barrier and Bridge. The Norwegian–Soviet/Russian Border as a Political and Cultural Construction after 1945’, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte (2012:1) (forthcoming).

[10] The English School sees the state and the “society of states” as “co-constituted”. See Barry Buzan, ‘The English School: An Underexploited resource in IR’, Review of International Studies 27:3 (2001), pp. 471–488; Chris Brown, ‘World Society and the English School: An ‘International Society’ Perspective on World Society’, European Journal of International Relations 7 (2001), pp. 423–441; Andrew Linklater & Hidemi Suganami, The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, Cambridge 2006.

[11] Stian Bones, ‘I oppdemmingspolitikkens grenseland. Nord-Norge i den kalde krigen’, PhD diss. University of Tromsø 2007, pp. 17–28; Hallvard Tjelmeland, ‘Ein norsk Sonderweg i internasjonal politikk etter 1945? Ei kritisk drøfting av ristetradisjonen’, Einar Niemi & Christine Smith-Simonsen, Det hjemlige og det globale. Festskrift til Randi Rønning Balsvik, Oslo 2009.

[12]Einar-Arne Drivenes and Harald Dag Jølle were in charge of the polar project; Hallvard Tjelmeland, Kari Aga Myklebost and Stian Bones hold central positions in the Norway–Russia-project.