Aboriginal Peoples and Political Change in the North Atlantic Area

AboriginalPeoples and Political Change in the North AtlanticArea PETER JULL The plight of aboriginal or native peoples is of increasing interest to the world community, even if not yet the subject of enlightened action in many countries. The misfortunes of Latin American Indians in the face of ruthless industrialization and large-scale farming have, with the help of modern communications media, shocked the European peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. However, when strong clear voices in our own time and our own country tell us we are "racist" or that our present actions are as brutal as those of the past, we are apt to shake our heads at such '~radicalism." If we cannot accept the accusations of a Harry Daniels, President of Canada's national organization representing the·Metis and non-status Indians, and hence the largest body of Canadian native people,1 or the analysis of northern development policies quietly put forward by a George Erasmus, President of the Dene Nation,2 the Indian and Metis organization in the Mackenzie Valley which has been the· leading edge of the aboriginal fight against insensitive development interests, where do we turn? It may be useful to compare our experience with that of other countries faced with similar questions and to attempt to identify common difficulties. In this process, I believe, we will discover that far from being a local aberration or an adventure of restless youth, the voices we hear are authentic expressions of universal problems and ones, therefore, which may require different solutions than may be dictated by current political fashion or by our cultural prejudices. The three countries to be discussed are Canada, Danish Greenland and Norway. These three circumpolar countries not only include a wide variety of experience, but immediately concern international relations experts studying the North Atlantic area. Indeed, it is the very Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 16, No. 2 (Ere 1981 Summer) / fact that "the native movement" has begun to impinge on the considerations of strategic studies that makes serious discussion of the questions addressed here so important.3 But these three national situations are only part of the whole circumpolar experience; examples from northern Finland or Iceland, Shetland or Alaska would equally serve the purposes of the discussion. Before examining the specific cases, it may be useful to describe a few of the most general characteristics of the political culture of the region under consideration. Three uniquely Canadian situations - northern Quebec, Nunavut and the national constitutional review process involving native people - will then be analysed. A tentative conclusion will follow an exploration of Greenland 's home rule and Norway's rapidly evolving native rights movement. General Characteristics All of the areas under discussion are "northern." Just how difficult it is to define what that means in practical terms is suggested in Louis-Edmond Hamelin's Nordicite Canadienne4 by his complex mixture of physical and cultural indices which determine degrees of "northernness" or ''nordicity.'' At its simplest, we generally understand a northern community to include a small population, living in a harsh climate and inadequately linked to the societies, services and infrastructure of the state which exercises political control over it. A second feature of our areas is that they all lie within Western liberal democracies. This has considerable significance, as the Canadian Inuit were quick to notice when defining the goals and format of the international organization (Inuit Circumpolar Conference) which they have jointly created with Alaska and Greenland Inuit.5 The possibilities for overt political expression and action are there, as presumably are opportunities for non-violent change. For this reason official appeals to "higher causes" (such as military security, territorial integrity, or the energy needs of the whole state) are inherently problematic and destabilizing insofar as they change the rules of the game and impose limitations prematurely on political processes in areas where - our third 41 point - political processes are underdeveloped and seeking expression. The third point is the heart of our story, but it need not be discussed at length here. It is sufficient to point out that because of small populations, remote locations vis-a-vis national decision centres and, indirectly, unsettled land and resources regimes, these areas do...