Arctic Yearbook 2014
391
Trans = Transportation
Envir = Environment
Res = Rescue and search
Human = Human dimension
Man = Management and governance
Ind = Indigenous peoples
A further contrast is found between the larger or more influential states (including Norway) that
can take their role and voice in Arctic management for granted, and smaller ones (notably
Iceland and the Faroes) whose strategy papers focus largely on how to get their views heard. The
latter start by stressing their Arctic identity and stakeholdership – see above – but also voice
strong support for institutions where even the smallest can participate, and criticize fora where
they cannot. The Finnish strategy of 201049 goes particularly far in pushing the EU as a vehicle
for Nordic and European engagement. Where does the UK paper lie in this spectrum? It reflects
the novel situation of a European observer state that is ‘large’ per se (including in its economic,
military and scientific impact on the High North), but has a relatively ‘small’ foothold in formal
Arctic governance. The UK’s chosen tactics in this situation seem to be to focus mainly on
establishing stakeholdership in practical terms, while commending certain fora (the global ones,
AC Observership and NATO) where the UK is present and comfortable, but not attacking the
more exclusive groups (the five littoral states). The German document of November 2013
makes very similar choices, albeit playing up the EU role - as already noted – possibly to help
make up for Berlin’s greater geographical distance.
Balance and Strength
Like any published strategy document, the UK paper had to balance between the needs and
expectations of different audiences, as well as between the claims of different Arctic challenges.
The fact that pro-environment parliamentarians, and also the liberal media,50 found it
disappointing cannot have surprised its drafters, but was rather the price for two conscious
choices the latter appear to have made. The first was to focus on smoothly inserting the UK into
the discourse and practice of Arctic governance as defined by the eight AC states themselves.
The second was to select topics where the UK had expertise to offer and a role to play, rather
than highlighting such general and altruistic concerns – always liable to irritate certain AC
members – as the plight of indigenous peoples or the danger to Arctic wildlife. Such choices
would make sense in a