A new northern security - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 48

Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace International (see
Greenpeace 1987), civil organizations such as the (Nordic) Saami Council
(see Samiraddi 1990) and the first Nordic researchers became active in study-
ing environmental degradation and risks caused by the military because of
the popular concerns of the 1980s. Following this, Nordic citizens and the
Nordic countries considered themselves as stakeholders in the international
nuclear negotiations process, although, in most cases, they were, and are, out-
side the formal negotiations. In actuality, this can be interpreted to mean an
effort to redefine security from the point of view of a region.
To the northern indigenous peoples, the alternative viewpoint of compre-
hensive security has been important, first to decrease the influence, and the
dependence, of the region on non-regional actors and outside forces, including
those who often interpret the region either as a potential military arena, such
as the Thule US air and radar base (e.g. Brösted and Fægteborg 1985), or as a
reserve of natural resources, and, second, to promote sustainable development
in the region (Heininen et al . 1995). Indeed, northern indigenous peoples
have recently become concerned about, and active in addressing, both toxic
threats by the military and impacts of climate change, especially with respect
to their traditional livelihoods such as hunting. This activity has been success-
ful at pushing governments to sign the Stockholm Convention on persistent
organic pollutants (POPs). It can be taken as an interesting success story on
fruitful cooperation between northern indigenous peoples and Arctic epis-
temic community (AMAP 2002:36; Downie and Fenge 2003).
In contrast, and as a continuity of the debate, there are also counter-argu-
ments to environmental concerns that there is enough space, land and sea in
the North for both human activities, like the traditional livelihoods of the
northern indigenous peoples, as well as the testing, training and other needs
of armies and military presence. Behind this argument is the fact that armies
have brought development to northern peripheries, especially for the northern
indigenous peoples and others who live in the North, through employment,
needed services, tax revenues, flight routes and infrastructure. There are also
indigenous groups who have supported military defence and think that they
should have at least some representation in national decision-making on secu-
rity policy and defence (see Gaup 1990; Jull 1990).
Further counter-arguments might be that it is difficult, or even impos-
sible, to show any dramatic evidence of pollution that would affect the Arctic
ecosystem and that the ownership of some areas by armies has prevented
environmental degradation. Additionally, other arguments are that there are
much larger and serious sources of pollution than the military, like oil-drill-
ing, long-distance air and water pollution, traffic, heavy industry and impacts
of climate change which are both global and rapid. Finally, the environmental
effects of the military may no longer be a relevant issue in the circumpolar
North, because military presence and activities have been decreased and, cor-
respondingly, clean-up has already started to reduce their past impacts as,