Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 113

113 Arctic Yearbook 2015 explained by Wæver: “If one’s identity is based on separateness, on being remote and alone, even a very small admixture of foreigners will be seen as problematic” (Buzan et al. 1998: 124). This logic is indeed present in the parliament debates about the anticipated future mining boom, but at the same time the expected presence of foreign workers is generally accepted as a necessary means to serve the overarching goal of increased independence (cf. FM2014/68). Conclusion Although the legal frameworks seem to dictate a clear definition of Greenland’s foreign policy competence, a ‘window of opportunity’ is, however, present as implied by the Foreign Affairs Department that points to ‘practice’ as a third regulatory factor. With inspiration from Ole Wæver’s understanding of foreign policy as based on the state’s self-image, this paper narrowed down the focus to articulations about protection of a collective identity; language, hunting rights and a special relation to nature. These analyses revealed how: 1) The debate about the status of language is used as a platform for achieving rights more equal to the states of the Nordic Council, while simultaneously being described as an indigenous minority right under the auspices of UN. 2) The sealing and whaling disputes have been articulated as threats to the national identity security where the reference to indigenous peoples rights have resulted in a higher quota on large whales, while WTO have overruled EU’s Inuit exception because it is anti-competitive